Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Thursday, 18 August 2011 7:00 pm

Venue: Salon, York House, Richmond Road, Twickenham

Contact: Jessica Vine, Democratic Services Officer, 020 8891 7078, Email: jessica.vine@richmond.gov.uk  To register to speak at Planning Committee call 08456 122 660 or visit http://www.richmond.gov.uk/speaking_at_planning_committee.htm

Items
No. Item

17.

APOLOGIES

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

No apologies were received.

18.

DECLARATIONS

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.

Minutes:

11/0880/FUL - 558 HANWORTH ROAD, WHITTON & 11/0876/FUL - 560 HANWORTH ROAD, WHITTON

 

Councillor Coombs declared that as the ward councillor he had offered residents advice on the current enforcement case at the same site but that he had not discussed the planning applications 11/0880/FUL or 11/0876/FUL, nor had he formed a prior view on these applications.

 

11/1300/FUL - 125 SHEEN LANE, EAST SHEEN

 

Councillor Morris declared that she had pre-determined her view on this application and undertook to withdraw from the Committee for the duration of this item.

19.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 242 KB

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 28 July 2011. ATTACHED

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 July 2011 were agreed as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

20.

APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMISSION; LISTED BUILDING CONSENT; AND ENFORCEMENT OF PLANNING CONTROL

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.

20a

10/2914/VRC - PETERSHAM NURSERIES, PETERSHAM ROAD, RICHMOND (Direct Planning Ltd on behalf of Petersham Nurseries) pdf icon PDF 330 KB

Variation of condition U27544 NS04 of planning permission granted on 29 July 2009 (08/4312/FUL) for the continuation of planning permission granted 11 December 2007 (07/1235/FUL), to allow permanent mixed use as garden centre (Class A1) and café/restaurant (Class A3); namely, to include opening between 19.00 to 23.00 hours on Thursday, Friday and Saturday every week.

 

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting.

20b

11/0880/HOT - 558 HANWORTH ROAD, WHITTON (Mr Sidhu) pdf icon PDF 198 KB

Demolition of existing storage rooms. New detached storage room to be used in connection with the first floor flat at 558 Hanworth Road.

 

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Minutes:

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and explained that the current enforcement case at the same site did not form a part of the application before the Committee. The following amendments and clarifications were made to the report:

 

·         The site lies within Heathfield Ward, not South Twickenham.

·         The householder reference (HOT) to be replaced with the FUL suffix

·         The description ‘demolition of existing storage rooms’ to be removed from the proposal details

 

The Development Control Officer reported the receipt of the following via the addendum:

 

·         Further letter from 71 Conway Road seeking clarification on why the existing building has not been demolished yet.

 

·         Amended application form received 16th August 2011 removing reference to ‘demolition of existing storage rooms’, amended description.  

 

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Parmer who was an adjoining neighbour.

 

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

 

(i) It was not within the remit of the Planning Committee to consider the issue of land ownership which was a legal matter rather than a Development Control matter. It was also necessary to consider the application before the Committee which was separate to the existing enforcement case at the same site.

 

(ii) Though the Committee members were mindful of the need to consider the application before them, it was noted that if the property had not been divided into flats then planning permission would not normally be needed for such an outbuilding.

 

(iii) The proposed outbuilding would be located in the rear garden and it was not considered to cause a significant level of visual harm at this location to warrant refusal. Concerns about the visual aspects of the proposal could be addressed via the inclusion of conditions relating to materials and landscaping.

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

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

 

Additional Conditions

1. BD12 – Details – materials to be approved: The external surfaces of the building(s) (including fenestration) and, where applicable, all areas of hard surfacing shall not be constructed other than in materials details/samples of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality.

 

2. LT09 – Hard and Soft Landscaping required -  No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and in any event prior to the occupation of any part of the development.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality and to preserve and enhance nature conservation interests

 

Additional Informative – With regard to condition BD12, the applicant is advised that should the submitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20b

20c

11/0876/FUL - 560 HANWORTH ROAD, WHITTON (Mr Sidhu) pdf icon PDF 196 KB

Demolition of existing storage rooms. New detached storage room to be used in connection with the flats at 560 and 560a Hanworth Road.

 

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Minutes:

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

 

·         The site lies within Heathfield Ward, not South Twickenham.

·         Para. 5, should read ‘…first floor flat at 560 Hanworth Road’ not 558

·         The description ‘demolition of existing storage rooms’ to be removed from the proposal details

 

The following items had been received by the Development Control Officer:

 

·         Further letter from 71 Conway Road seeking clarification on why the existing building has not been demolished yet.

 

·         Amended application form received 16th August 2011 removing reference to ‘demolition of existing storage rooms, amended description.  

 

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Soriano and Mrs Duignan who were adjoining neighbours.

 

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

 

(i) Members noted the concerns of the neighbours regarding the unauthorised storage room at the same site but were mindful that they needed to reach a decision on the application before them which was separate to the existing enforcement case.

 

(ii) Other properties in Hanworth Road and Conway Road had mixed styles of outbuildings constructed in the back gardens. Many properties in this area were houses rather than flats and therefore could erect outbuildings such as sheds without requiring planning permission.

 

(iii) It was not unusual for outbuildings to be connected to the electricity mains to allow for functions ancillary to the household. Hence it could be deemed unreasonable to impose a condition restricting the use of electricity or other utilities in the outbuilding.

 

(iv) It was noted that if in future any outbuilding were to be converted to a separate dwelling this would require planning permission and would need to comply with the Council’s planning policies. In addition the permission proposed included a condition stating that the outbuilding should only be used for storage purposes.

 

(v) It was noted that, as recommended by the Development Control Officer, a condition could be included to require submission of details about the materials to be used. This could in part address concerns about the visual aspect of the development and ensure that the texture and colour of the materials complemented the surrounding buildings. A condition on landscaping would also address the visual concerns about the proposal.

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

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

 

Additional Conditions

1. BD12 – Details – materials to be approved: The external surfaces of the building(s) (including fenestration) and, where applicable, all areas of hard surfacing shall not be constructed other than in materials details/samples of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality.

 

2. LT09 – Hard and Soft Landscaping required - No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20c

20d

11/0151/HOT - 27 WATERMILL ROAD, HAM (Mr Jacques Van Der Merwe) pdf icon PDF 126 KB

Retention of single storey side and rear extension as built.

 

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

 

Minutes:

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of the following correspondence:

 

Further e-mail from objector, complaining of inadequate notice of Committee meeting and reiterating previous objections as summarised below:

·         The design of the roof is unsightly and of poor design;

·         The drawings do not accurately show what has been built, in particular the projecting rooflight.

 

No representations were heard.

 

The Committee considered the information provided. The Committee were mindful of the concern of the neighbouring resident that the rooflight would cause light pollution and noise intrusion. It was noted that these concerns could be addressed to an extent via the inclusion of conditions requiring that the rooflights were fixed shut and obscure glazed. The Committee members considered the application before them in relation to application reference 09/2986/HOT which had been granted permission in January 2010. It was viewed that the changes made to the proposals in height and design were not significantly harmful to justify refusing the current application.

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

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

 

·         NS01 the roof lights hereby approved shall at no time be openable & shall only be fitted with obscure glazing, details of which shall have first been submitted to & be approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority & the development should adhere to these details at all times. Reason: to protect the amenities of the neighbouring property. 

 

20e

11/1300/FUL - 125 SHEEN LANE, EAST SHEEN (Mrs I Hepworth) pdf icon PDF 150 KB

L-shape rear dormer roof extension with rooflights to front elevation to create new flat at roof level.

 

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

Minutes:

 Having declared that she had pre-determined her view on this application, Councillor Morris withdrew from the Committee.

 

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

 

·         For clarity and the avoidance of doubt, the recommended reasons for refusal are:

 

1. “The roof extension, by reason of its bulk, design and prominent position, would result in an intrusive and overbearing form of development detrimental to the amenities of residents of 127 Sheen Lane and to the character and appearance of the host property and the Sheen Lane Conservation Area of which it forms part. It would therefore be contrary to policies BLT 2, BLT 11, BLT 13 and BLT 16 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan - First Review Adopted March 2005, policy CP7 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy adopted April 2009, policies DM DC 1, DM HD1 and DM DC 5 of the Council’s Development Management Plan (post Examination in Public version) and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance: 'House Extensions and External Alterations' adopted September 2002.”

 

2. “The proposed new residential unit would, by reason of its floorspace and layout, result in an unsatisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupiers and has failed to demonstrate how the proposal would meet the aims and objectives of the Councils sustainability policies. It would therefore be contrary to policy HSG 13 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan - First Review Adopted March 2005, policies CP1 and CP2 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy adopted April 2009, polices DM HO 4, DM SD 1 and DM SD 2 of the Development Management Plan (post Examination in Public version) and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document: 'Residential Development Standards' adopted March 2010.”

 

·         The applicants have submitted a number of photographs of the rear of the site to illustrate the context.

 

·         Fourteen statements of support for the proposals have been received, thirteen of them also repeated in e-mail form.

 

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from the applicants, Mrs Hepworth and Mr Hepworth.

 

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

 

(i) Policies DM HO 4; DM SD 1; DM SD 2; DM DC 1; DM HD1 and DM DC 5 of the Council’s Development Management Plan should now be given considerable weight by the Committee as they had been submitted to public examination and reviewed by the Inspectorate.

 

(ii) Despite the suggestion made by the applicants that the new flat could be used solely by family members the Committee must consider the application before it which was for a self-contained new dwelling. As such the flat did not meet the Council’s planning policies on accommodation standards as there was an unreasonably low level of amenity space provided.

 

(iii) There was concern that the size of the extension would be visually intrusive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20e

20f

TELECOMMUNICATION CABINETS x 31 (BT Openreach) pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Siting of 31`telecommunication cabinets (please refer to report for full details).

 

Officer’s recommendation (for all applications):  NO OBJECTION

 

Minutes:

The Development Control Officer introduced the report which related to 31 telecommunication cabinet applications. The Committee was requested to consider each individual application before it and decide whether to raise an objection. If no objection was raised the cabinet would have deemed consent. 

 

Via the addendum, the following amendments and additions to the report were made:

 

11/2280/TEL, Spring Grove Road, side of 72 Kings Road, Richmond

One letter of objection received raising the following points:

·         Wall is damaged

·         Alternative locations available

 

11/2277/TEL, Outside Peldon Court, Richmond

The site location plan on the Planning Committee papers was incorrect.  The presenting officer could correct this when the applications were heard.

 

11/2276/TEL, Peldon Court Side Of 169 Sheen Road, Richmond

One resident had sent in four letters of objection raising the following points:

·         Cabinet is adjacent to 169A and 169 Sheen Road

·         Lack of neighbour notification

·         Have to be more appropriate locations

·         Proximity to home – attracts rubbish

·         Appearance messy and ugly

·         Lack of room for maintenance of no. 169A Sheen Road

·         Cannot attend Committee, so request objections bought to Committee’s attention

Cllr Fleming had written to object and raise concern over maintenance of the adjacent wall.

 

11/2410/TEL, Strafford Road Side of 31 Richmond Road, Twickenham

One letter of objection received raising the following points:

·         Restrict new disabled access

·         Security

·         Prevent maintenance of the adjacent garden wall and impact on foundations

 

11/2310/TEL, Rosslyn Road, rear of 12 St Margarets Road, Twickenham

One letter of objection received raising the following points:

·         Impact on streetscene

·         Should be located with other cabinets in Riverdale Road

·         Security risk

·         Obstructs view when leaving garages

 

11/2284/TEL, side of 4 Lion Gate Gardens, Richmond

·         A further photomontage has been submitted to clarify location of cabinet. 

·         The site location plan on the Planning Committee papers is incorrect.  The presenting officer could correct this when the applications are heard.

·         A further email was received from the speaker concerned over the inaccuracy with the drawing on the Committee Papers

 

11/2267/TEL, Blue Anchor Alley Side of 86 Kew Road, Richmond

·         Thames Water recommends the following informative be attached to any planning permission: There is a Thames Water main crossing the development site which may/will need to be diverted at the Developer's cost, or necessitate amendments to the proposed development design so that the aforementioned main can be retained. Unrestricted access must be available at all times for maintenance and repair. Please contact Thames Water Developer Services, Contact Centre on Telephone No: 0845 850 2777 for further information.

·         A further photomontage has been submitted to clarify location of cabinet. 

 

11/2352/TEL, Stanmore Road Outside, 168 Kew Road, Richmond

One letter of objection received raising the following points:

·         Planning history

·         Obtrusively and arbitrary positioned

 

11/2350/TEL, Outside 5 Spring Terrace, Paradise Road, Richmond

Three letters of objection from one resident raising the following points:

·         Problems with maintenance and condition of the adjacent wall

·         Condition should be imposed – cabinet may not be installed until the repair or rebuild of this wall by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20f

 

Updated: 4 April 2014