To receive any apologies for absence.

No apologies were received.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct and the Planning Protocol, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also asked to declare whether they have been subject to lobbying from interested parties, if they have carried out any site visits and whether they have predetermined their view on any item to be considered.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

11/0861/FUL - ORLEANS PARK SCHOOL, RICHMOND ROAD, TWICKENHAM

Councillor Chappell declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of the fact that her children attended the school. She undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of the item.

10/3717/ES191 - MOORINGS IN FRONT OF PHOENIX WHARF, EEL PIE ISLAND, TWICKENHAM

Councillor Naylor declared that he had already formed a view and was pre-determined on this application. He undertook to withdraw from the Committee for the duration of the item.

10/3006/FUL - HAMPTON COURT PALACE, HAMPTON COURT ROAD

Councillor Nicholson declared that she had already formed a view and was pre-determined on this application. She undertook to withdraw from the Committee for the duration of the item.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 26 May 2011 ATTACHED.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 May 2011 were agreed as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

Reports of the Development Control Manager attached – see list below.

The recommendations contained in the attached reports are those of the officers and are not binding upon the Committee.

The Chairman will confirm the order in which the attached reports are to be heard at the start of the meeting. Members are asked to note that there may be an adjournment of the meeting for a period of approximately 10 minutes starting at a convenient time from 8.30pm.

Change of use from D1 to D1/D2 use to enable the community use of sports facilities as a Sports Centre, including the stationing of a temporary building for admin/office use for a temporary period of three years and permanent lighting columns in the main car park at Orleans Park School.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Having declared a prejudicial interest, Councillor Chappell withdrew from the room for the duration of this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the report and made the following amendments:

·         The applicant has indicated that the use is not intended to commence until the 1^st September 2011, as such condition NS09 is amended to read as follows:

Temporary use

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, this permission shall be for a limited period of 3 years, commencing on the 1^st September 2011 and expiring on the 31^st August 2014 when the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued.

REASON: In order to assess the impact of the development upon the area and the amenity of surrounding occupies and accord with the terms of the application

·         NS01 – include the design of hoods for the lighting columns

·         NS04 – Include ‘or Sundays’ at the end of the condition

·         Add the following informative.  “The applicants are advised when considering condition NS07, this should include details of numbers of people using the MUGA and Astroturf, levels of supervision, activities that will utilise the MUGA and Astroturf; and how the centre will adapt its services / activities when there are other events, for example, Parents and Governors meetings at the school; School open days and rugby at Twickenham Stadium.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Holley, a local resident and Mr Hogan, the school’s Premises Manager.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Sinclair, the Council’s Head of Sport and Fitness (who was acting as the applicant).

The Committee considered the information received and points raised by speakers. In particular, the following points were discussed:

(i) A noise survey had been carried out for the site which concluded that the proposals would not increase noise by a significant amount in relation to existing ambient noise levels. The survey had been carried out between the hours of 2pm and 9pm.

(ii) The school would be able to extend its hours of operation or intensify its uses in a manner similar to that being proposed, without needing to obtain planning permission.  However, the current scheme would still be assessed on its own merits.

(iii) Light hoods would be used to reduce any potential glare to nearby properties. It was noted that street lights were already located in Lebanon Park and Richmond Road. Condition NS01 meant that the applicant was required to submit details of lighting to the local authority.

(iv) Concerns about parking and traffic congestion could be addressed via a Green Travel Plan. The framework of the plan could be in place before the community use became effective to reduce the level of potential harm caused by any increase in traffic levels. The plan could then be adapted after three months, once community consultation had taken place and once it had been fully assessed.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8a

Use of site in front of Phoenix Wharf for the mooring of a houseboat.

Officer’s recommendation:  Members are invited to decide

whether the original recommendation be agreed

(REFUSAL)

Having declared that he had pre-determined his view on this application, Councillor Naylor withdrew from the Committee for the duration of this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and explained that it had been deferred from a previous meeting in order that the Committee could benefit from legal advice in relation to the consideration of an S191 application and to consider further information submitted by the applicant.

The Development Control Officer reported the receipt (via the addendum) of further information provided on behalf of the applicant since the publication of the agenda:

Statutory Declaration from Vince Locatelli – summarised as follows:

• Moved houseboat from Eel Pie Island to Swan Island to clear Phoenix Wharf frontage for the delivery of several portacabins.  Whilst there maintenance was carried out on the boat. 
• Moved the boat, with Mr Harrison living on it, which he continued to do until he moved into the manager’s flat above the slipway in mid-2006, back to Phoenix Wharf several weeks later.
• In 1986 a friend, John Dawson, moved to the wharf with his Dutch Barge, Seven Belles.  He continued to live there on his boat for the next 4-5 years.  Mr Locatelli remembered that very soon after Mr Dawson moved with his barge, a big luxi motor moored up to the Wharf (described as a houseboat as it bore all the usual signs).  The barge occupied the mooring until after Mr Harrison purchased Phoenix Wharf when it moved to the adjoining land. Mr Locatelli now knows that this barge is Lodestar.
• Mr Locatelli’s son purchased a barge in 2002.  This barge had been built as an office workshop and then stripped of its superstructure and used as a workboat for about 5 years.  Remembers that Mr Harrison had said he was going to build a purpose-made houseboat for his son.  Mr Harrison subsequently bought the hull.
• Mr Harrison’s son arrived to live at Phoenix Wharf in the autumn of 2003 at which time the remembers difficulties of Blaine accessing Liquid Sky which they were both living on.
• During 2003-2006 whilst building the superstructure of GB Vision designed purpose built access and landings to the structure the design of which enables the detachment of GB Vision from its mooring by simply undoing six bolts after which the houseboat can be floated away.  The whole process takes 15-20 minutes. 
• Early 2006 GB Vision moved from slipway and Liquid Sky moved across the mouth of Boatyard Slipway.  GB Vision stayed there until the enforcement notice was served a few months later.
• When protacabins were removed from site, the contents of the Mystery Jets practice portacabin was moved to the lower deck of GB Vision and the site office contents onto the upper deck.  Blaine Harrison used the lower deck for his own accommodation except when touring.  Supplied an Elson chemical toilet for his use prior to GB Vision being towed to Syds Quay.
• GB Vision moved to Syds Quay in 2006 and Liquid Sky moved into the vacant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8b

Redevelopment of the Victoria and St. John’s Club to provide replacement ground floor club accommodation for billiards and recreation and 8 no.1 bed. Flats on first and second floors following demolition of existing building.

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL (had an appeal not been lodged

on the grounds of non-determination)

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made the following amendment to the report:

·         Where the report refers to ‘Residential Design Standards’, amend to read ‘Residential Development Standards’

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Hunter, the agent and from Mr Driver, the applicant.

The Committee considered the information received and points raised by speakers. The Committee discussed the following points:

(i) The Committee welcomed the provision of sports facilities and did not object to the redevelopment of the site in principle. However, it was felt that a higher standard of design was desirable in order to adequately replace a building of townscape merit and to complement the surrounding area (as the site was adjacent to Lawn Crescent conservation area).

(ii) Though there was an established use at the site with associated parking requirements, the Committee were concerned that the proposal would increase parking and congestion issues in the vicinity of the site. It was noted that travel plans were not normally requested by the local authority for residential developments.

(iii) Members were concerned that the number and size of flats to be included in the scheme represented an overdevelopment of the site and that the proposal could have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties.

(iv) It was noted that the Council’s residential development standards expected one bedroom flats to have external amenities, which were not provided for within the proposals. The Environmental Health Officer had also raised concerns about the lack of ventilation in some of the proposed bathrooms and kitchens.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application would have been REFUSED, for the reasons set out in the officer’s report, had the application not been appealed against for non-determination.

Construction of new car park exit onto Hampton Court Road. Proposed new vehicular exit from existing main visitor upper car park through new proposed opening in internal garden wall and existing Vrow Walk Gateway, across Vrow pedestrian walk (with left turn out onto Hampton Court Road).

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

Having declared that she had pre-determined her view on this application, Councillor Nicholson withdrew from the Committee for the duration of this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported that there had been a request made by an objector for the application to be deferred for personal circumstances. The Committee considered this request but noted that, as with previous applications, it was not normal practice to defer items based on availability of speakers, and that Committee Members were aware of the objections which had been raised in relation to the scheme.

The Development Control Officer (via the addendum) made the following amendments to the report:

·         Under Paragraph 8 ‘Public and other representations’ add:

-          Email received outlining correspondence between objector and Council’s Highways Department

·         Omit first sentence of Paragraph 9 and replace with:

‘The proposal would result in the loss of 7 parking spaces within the existing car park, but the Engineer has not raised an objection to this element of the proposal.’

·         Paragraph 16 – remove the second ‘not’ from second line so that it reads ‘English Heritage do not consider that the proposal would have an unduly adverse….’

·         Omit 73.23F from list of approved drawings under condition DV48

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Cross, the applicant’s Consultant Traffic Engineer and Mr Phillips, the Surveyor of the Fabric.

The Committee considered the information provided and noted the following points:

(i) English Heritage considered that the scheme was acceptable and Scheduled Monument Consent had been granted. It was noted that the wall which would be partly demolished was a nineteenth century construction.

(ii) The scheme did not provide for an increase in parking provision. Though it was noted that objectors had raised concerns about the effect on traffic in the vicinity of the roundabout, Members felt that the subsequent benefits in terms of increased safety for pedestrians visiting the Palace via Trophy Way and the heritage benefits of reducing vehicular in this area would be sufficient to warrant an approval.  It was noted that the proposed conditions would also address some of the traffic concerns.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Use of former estate agents as a taxi office.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made the following amendments to the report (via the addendum):

·         Insert DM TC 2 into ‘Main development plan policies’

·         Under Paragraph 6 ‘Public and other representations’ add:

‘Objection received from Councillor Arbour on the following grounds: 1) Loss of A2 use will diminish the vitality of the High Street. 2) The proposed conditions are unenforceable.’

‘Additional objection from Mr Drayson of the Hampton Wick Association expanding on previous objections.’

·         Replace Condition NS02 with:

‘The use hereby approved (operation as mini-cab booking office) and associated activities including (but not limited to) any use of premises by drivers/deliveries /loading /unloading /servicing /or parking or manoeuvring of vehicles by staff and/or visitors shall not be carried out on the premises at any time outside of 0700 to 2300 Monday to Sundays.

REASON: To safeguard the amenities of nearby occupiers and the area generally.’

·         Add following informative:

‘NI01 – For the avoidance of doubt, you are advised that this temporary permission is for the use of the premises as a booking office for a mini-cab firm and for no other use.’

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Gibbons, an adjoining neighbour, and from Mr Payne, who spoke on behalf of Hampton Wick Residents Association.

Councillor Mathias spoke as an interested Councillor.

The Committee considered the information provided and points raised by speakers. The following points were discussed in particular:

(i) A minicab booking office could be deemed acceptable at this location as the high street had been identified as a centre where a mix of uses were appropriate and where a range of uses had existed in the past. It was not envisaged that the character and appearance of the high street would be significantly altered as no changes to the shop front were being proposed.

(ii) As a taxi-rank would not be provided the taxis were expected to park flexibly in the local area, in accordance with local highway/traffic restrictions. Members acknowledged concerns that the proposal may have a negative impact on local parking and general amenity but given that the use was specifically stated as being appropriate in town centre locations, it would be difficult to justify a refusal on these grounds.. It was also acknowledged that it was not relevant to the planning process to consider the impact of illegal parking which could be enforced against.

(iii) Members noted the concerns of the speakers about possible noise and disturbance in relation to the proposal. It was advised that it would be unreasonable to assume that the proposal would increase levels of noise and anti social behaviour in the area without strong evidence. The temporary nature of the permission meant that the impact of the change of use on neighbour amenity could be evaluated and addressed after one year if necessary. It was also noted that a condition restricted the use of the premises, with the operation ceasing after 11pm.

(iv) It was noted that it would not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8e

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of pair of two storey four bed semi detached houses with associated parking.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and via the addendum made the following amendments to the report:

·         Under Paragraph 3 ‘Public and other representations’ add:

‘Additional letter of objection from no.9 Scotts Drive:

-          increased traffic and congestion disrupting access to Scotts Drive;

-          request re-assurance that contractors would not block the road; and

-          it would be preferable to only build one dwelling as opposed to two.’

·         Paragraph 12. Add:

‘There is a bedroom window in the flank of the main part of no.4, but given that the new building would be approx 5m away from this window, and that this room also receives light and outlook from a window in the rear elevation, it is not considered that it would have an unduly adverse impact on the amenity of that room.’

·         Paragraph 13 final line should read

‘this would be 4m approx from the side boundaries and 5m approx from the nearest flank walls and so would not be unreasonably overbearing’

·         Additional Conditions:

DV15 Obscure Glazing/Fixed Shut (insert ‘first floor windows in eastern and western elevations’)

NS03 – Prior to the commencement of the development on site, details (including form and position) of the renewable energy equipment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. REASON: In the interest of sustainable construction, to accord with the aims and objectives of the Council’s Sustainable Construction Checklist SPD and to protect the visual amenity of the area.

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Bell, an adjoining neighbour.

The Committee considered information received and points raised by the speaker. It was noted:

(i) Though the proposal could affect the level of light to the side flank bedroom window of the adjoining neighbour (4 Carlisle Road) this was not the only window to the room, with an additional window in the rear elevation of that property providing light and outlook.

(ii) The proposal would increase the bulk and mass of the property but this increase was not deemed great enough to represent demonstrable harm and would be in keeping with the scale of the surrounding properties.

(iii) Members acknowledged the concerns of neighbours in relation to the size and location of the new tree, and requested that an informative be added to encourage discussion before the application to discharge the landscaping conditions was submitted.

(iv) As the property was not located within a Conservation Area it would be unreasonable to impose strict conditions on the materials to be used. However proposed condition BD05 required materials to be approved and condition DV02A required details of the boundary wall to be submitted.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and subject to the following additional informative:

Informative: In relation to the landscaping condition (LT09), the tree (at the front of the property) should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8f

Erection of a single storey, timber framed and open fronted shed and installation of ‘amphitheatre’ seating and artificial grass surface.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made the following amendments to the report:

·         Add condition U40930 - Arboricultural Impact Assessment:  No development / construction shall take place other than in accordance with BS 5837:2005 Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact assessment, Tree Constraints Plan, Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan, dated 3rd 2011.  REASON:  To ensure the development does not prejudice the health of trees.

·         Para. 13 refers to 15m from the rear wall of No. 23 Floyer Close.  This should be replaced with 7m

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mrs Woodward, a Parent-Governor.

The Committee considered the information provided via the report and the speaker. It was clarified that in relation to an objection on the grounds of noise disturbance, there would be no change of use involved in the application and that only the visual alterations were likely to impact on neighbouring properties. The Committee considered that there was no significant demonstrable harm in the application.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and the additional condition reported to the Committee.

Retention of broadband cabinet – PCP 054.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control officer informed the Committee that there were no changes to make to the report. No representations were heard.

The Committee considered the information provided and found that there was no significant demonstrable harm in the proposal.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the condition and informative set out in the officer’s report.