To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Burford who was substituted by Councillor Allen.

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.

1/2047/FUL - GARAGES ADJ TO RAILWAY COTTAGE, WHITE HART LANE, BARNES

Councillor Stockley declared that she had raised the issue of planning policy in this area as a Ward Concern at Council on 13 December 2011. She declared that she had not formed a prior view on the application nor had she received any correspondence on the application.

Councillor Linnette declared that he had carried out a site visit to this application site.

11/3377HOT - 2 CARTWRIGHT WAY, BARNES

Councillor Linnette declared that he had carried out a site visit to this application site.

11/2563/COU - 39 CROWN ROAD, TWICKENHAM

Councillor Naylor declared that he was acquainted with a tenant on Crown Road, Twickenham; but that he had not spoken about this site with the tenant.                                                                             

Committee Members declared that they were familiar with this application site.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 19 December 2011 ATTACHED.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 22 December 2011 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2011 were agreed as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 December 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.

Demolition of garages and erection of a 8 residential units comprising 2 x 3 bed houses, 3 x 2 bed houses, 1 x 1 bed flat, 1 x 2 bed flat and 1 x 3 bed flat with amenity space and off street car parking.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION, subject to the

completion of a section 106 legal agreement

The Development Control Officer provided an introduction to the item and reported that there had been no late amendments to the report.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Foss, a neighbour not adjoining the site; Mr Jones, a local resident; and Ms Ogden, an adjoining neighbour to the site.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Baker, the architect; and from Mr Villars, the agent.

The Committee considered the information provided by the report and the officer, and the points raised by speakers. Discussion focused on issues of parking, design, effect on street scene and neighbour amenity, and whether adequate financial contributions were proposed.

It was recognised that parking was a concern for local residents, who felt that the application could exacerbate existing problems in the area. However, it was noted that the applicant’s parking assessment, which had been verified by the Council’s Highways Officer, had indicated that the effect on street parking would be acceptable. It was also noted that proposed condition DV43B restricted the allocation of new parking permits.

The Committee discussed the proposed Planning Obligation Strategy. It was noted that an Affordable Housing Contribution was not being provided and that the Council’s adopted policy DM HO 6 required that this be sought for developments of this size.

Members discussed the siting and visual amenity of the proposal. Concern was raised over the scale and massing, and in relation to the contemporary design, which was seen as being incongruous with the nearby properties on neighbouring streets, including First and Second Avenues. It was noted that the distance between the proposal and no. 67 First Avenue would be less than 20 metres, which was contrary to the Council’s policy on overlooking, and could represent a loss of privacy.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)  The proposal fails to make any provision for affordable housing in association   with the development. It would therefore be contrary to policy CP15 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Core Strategy adopted April 2009 and policy DM HO 6 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Development Management Plan, adopted 1 November 2011.

ii) The proposed development, by reason of its scale and proximity to  neighbouring properties, would result in an overbearing impact and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties, in particular no.67 First Avenue; and  crowding and congestion of the street scene, resulting in harm to the visual amenities of the area. It would therefore be contrary to policy CP7 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Core Strategy adopted April 2009, policies DM DC 1 and DM DC 5 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Development Management Plan, adopted 1 November 2011, and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Documents: ‘Small and Medium Housing Sites’ and ‘Design Quality’, both adopted February 2006.

iii) The proposed development, by reason of its design, would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51a

Loft conversion incorporating rear dormer and front velux windows.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

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

·         One further letter on behalf of a neighbouring occupier, reiterating objections on grounds that proposed development will be incongruous, extremely prominent and that new dormers and rooflights bear little relationship to windows below.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Davies and Mr Stoddard who were nearby neighbours (Mr Stoddard also representing a residents’ association).

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Ladas, the applicant.

The Committee considered the information provided and the points raised by speakers. Members discussed the concerns of nearby residents and considered the appearance of the dormer windows within the setting of Heidegger Crescent. It was noted that there was no direct window to window overlooking and that the proposal complied with the Council’s policy DM DC 5 in relation to effect on light. However, Members considered that the scale and siting of the dormer windows were intrusive and overbearing; incongruous with the street scene and detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

The rear dormer windows, by reason of their size and positioning, represent an intrusive and overbearing form of development that has a detrimental impact on the street scene and an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CP7 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Core Strategy adopted April 2009, policy DM DC 1 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Development Management Plan adopted 1 November 2011 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: ‘Design Guidelines for House Extensions and External Alterations’ adopted September 2002.

2. That ENFORCEMENT ACTION be agreed in respect of the rear dormer windows. That the period of compliance be 6 months.

3. That COURT ACTION be agreed in the event of non-compliance with the Enforcement Action.

Change of use of retail unit from a charity shop/office/Drop-in Centre to A1(bakery)/A3 (café) use.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer presented the item and reported that the applicant was not present due to the fact that she had not received the Committee letter. An email had been received from the applicant confirming that she was content that the application be heard at this meeting.

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Gale, a neighbour adjoining the application site.

The Committee considered the information received and the points raised by the speaker. Members discussed the conditions that were proposed within the report: whether these were reasonable and whether they would mitigate any potential harm such as noise pollution and cooking odours. It was discussed whether the proposed Sunday opening hours were appropriate and general consensus deemed that the 9am opening was suitable to the nature of the business. The Committee considered that the change of use proposed was acceptable, and that any potential harm had been adequately addressed.

It was RESOLVED:

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