To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Miller who was substituted by Councillor Roberts.

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.

11/3709/FUL AND 11/3710/CAC – SION COURT, SION ROAD, TWICKENHAM

Councillor Chappell declared that she had pre-determined the application above and would be speaking as an interested Councillor.  As such she would leave the table for the duration of the item.

11/3603/FUL – CARRINGTON LODGE, SHEEN ROAD AND BEVERLY LODGE, PARADISE ROAD, RIGHMOND

Councillor Fleming declared that she had pre-determined the application above and would be speaking as an interested Councillor.  As such she would leave the table for the duration of the item.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 12 January 2012 ATTACHED.

The Minutes of the 12 January 2012 were declared as a true record 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.

11/3709/FUL - Demolition of an existing dwelling and garage blocks, erection of 4 no. new dwellings and associated landscaping. New balcony and cycle store.

11/3710/CAC - Demolition of an existing dwelling and garage blocks, erection of 4 no. new dwellings and associated landscaping.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION and

Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED

The Development Control Officer briefly introduced the application to the Committee and reported the following late amendments to the report and additional representations received:

Amended Recommendation –

At end of paragraph 47 -

I therefore recommend PERMISSION subject to legal agreement to secure –

• Lifetime car club membership for the units of accommodation within the development

and the following conditions and informatives:

Additional Condition -

Before the development hereby permitted begins a Parking Management Scheme for Sion Court shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority and be put in place, and retained as such, to ensure that no more than 2 of the new units of accommodation shall be entitled to obtain a permit to park within the curtilage of Sion Court.

REASON: To ensure that the development does not generate an increased demand for on-site car parking to the detriment of the amenity of the existing residents and to accord with the Councils car parking policy and standards.

Additional Non-Standard Informative –

The applicant is advised that when submitting the details pursuant to Condition LT09 that details of signage for the one-way system are included and that consideration is given to swapping parking spaces 20 and 16 around to facilitate easier access to the disabled parking spaces and the cycle store.

Additional correspondence received –

Email received from Matthew Cronwright-Brown

• submitting a copy of the ground floor plan relating to planning permission 10/3537/HOT for a single storey extension at 19 Lebanon Park.
• Providing a link to Croydon Council’s web site and a document entitled ‘Lambeth Transport Residential Parking Survey Methodology’  (copies available)

Email received from Lebanon and Sion Courts Residents Association attaching a parking survey undertaken 30th January – 1st February 2012 at 11.00-11.15pm each night.  A summary of the document is provided below as the Residents Association will bring hard copy of the document –

·         All vehicles within the Sion Court estate were counted. Over the three nights the number parked in the Back Driveway ranged from 19 to 21 and in the very narrow Front Driveway from 7 to 8. Taking into account the 11 permits held by Sion Court residents for on-street parking, it is clear that the ratio of vehicles (40) to flats (36) already exceeds 1:1.

·         To obtain an estimate of parking capacity in local roads, a comparison was made between the number of spaces available in the designated parking areas and the number of cars parked outside those areas on yellow lines (*).The roads covered were Sion Road, Ferry Road, Little Ferry Road and Lebanon Park up to the point, just over 200m from Sion Court, where the road forks, with one branch going into a cul-de-sac and one down to the river.

·         In contrast to the figure for parking capacity of 15% in the one-night survey in June 2011, quoted in the Application, the average for the three nights in this survey was -1%, since on balance more cars were parked on yellow lines than there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55a

Reconfigure and alter existing formal and informal car park to set out 25 car parking spaces.  Demolish and relocate an electricity sub-station.  Demolish, relocate and reconstruct external, garden and refuse bin stores. Alterations to the retaining wall.

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL

The Development Control Officer briefly introduced the application to the Committee and reported the following late amendments to the report:

·         Report contains arithmetical inaccuracies regarding the grassed area – The area of the existing lawn is 125m2 (51mw north / west side of Ginkgo tree, and 74m2 in U shape around clothes drying area.  The retained grassed area is not 44m2, but 64m2.

·         The scheme proposes a new grass / soft planting area between bin store and external stores

·         The ground is already dominated by hard paving, and the reduction in grass area is marginal.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Appleyard, Mr Hossein-Mardi and Mr Hall.

The Committee heard representations from Councillors Fleming and O’Malley who spoke as interested Councillors.

Having regard for the information in the report, provided by the officer on the evening and the points raised by speakers, the committee discussed the following salient themes:

• Protection of tree
  • The committee was in agreement that the tree should be protected and surrounded by appropriate landscaping.
• Garden and resident amenity
  • The Committee did not consider that smaller areas of grassing would replace the loss of the one larger amenity area.
  • The Committee recognised that the drying area may not be well used but that there was still an amenity value in the space for residents.
• Sub-Station siting
  • The Committee considered resident concerns regarding the siting of the sub station.  Uncertainty surrounded the arguments concerning health but the committee considered that resident concerns could be better addressed while still increasing parking facilities.

It was RESOLVED:

1.                  That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report and the following additional informatives:

·         The applicants are advised to speak to Miss Thatcher, Team Leader for Central Area, prior to any re-submission.

·         The applicants are advised that if they consider a re-submission, to resit the sub-station away from residential properties.

New four bedroom dwelling house in the side garden area of an existing house.

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL

The Development Control Officer briefly introduced the application to the Committee and reported the following representations received after the publication of the agenda:

• As residents who have lodged an on-line objection to the above planning application we are encouraged to note that you recommend
  refusal.
  However, we are very surprised to read your comments about parking in
  Nightingale Road and strongly disagree that no issues exist. At the
  request of Transport for London, residents in the section of
  Nightingale Road between Hanworth & Acacia Roads served by the 111 bus
  route, were consulted in November 2011 about a proposal to install
  double yellow lines in part of the road. 25 out of the 26 houses
  involved objected strongly to the proposal and the matter remains with
  the Transport Planning Committee.  Our local councillors have been
  fully involved, as has the Principal Traffic Engineer, Lisa Fenn.
  Highway safety is a serious issue in this road & especially on the
  corner of Acacia & Nightingale Roads. 
  We request that this be considered as a further representation in
  endorsing our objection to the development.
• Councillor Samuel also sent comments commending the officer recommendation but seeking consideration of parking problems in the area.  The representation was printed in full in the addendum to the agenda.

The Committee heard a representation from Mr Harker against the application.

The Committee heard a representation from Mr Forsyth in support of the application.

Having regard for the information in the report, provided by the officer on the evening and the points raised by speakers, the committee discussed the following salient themes:

Design

• The design was acknowledged as contemporary and interesting but the committee considered that it was out of keeping with the other properties in the area.

Overlooking

• The balcony included in the plans was considered to be overly intrusive and harmful to neighbours.

Car parking

·         Members were satisfied that one space for the new dwelling would be adequate as on street parking was not saturated.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Retrospective application for amendments to previously approved planning permission 09/3419/HOT: change in size and shape of dormer window; increase to the width and overall height of the outbuilding and installation of sliding patio doors to east elevation; installation of a canopy to the south and east elevation above the garage and patio door. External changes to the building are under consideration only.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer briefly introduced the application to the Committee and reported that no late representations had been received or amendments made to the report since publication.

No representations were made.

The Committee expressed concern about the future use of the building but were assured that any change to that would need planning permission.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Single- and two-storey side and rear extensions.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer briefly introduced the application to the Committee and reported the following late amendment to the report:

• Drawing no.809.40, entitled ‘Site Photographs’, received from applicants, illustrating views of the application site from the street. This drawing is included in the bundle of application drawings.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Andrews, Agent, and Mr Locherer, Applicant.

Having regard for the information in the report, provided by the officer on the evening and the points raised by speakers, the committee discussed the following salient themes:

Loss of light

• The committee considered the results of the loss of light tests and that these had been found to be not sufficiently harmful to neighbours to recommend refusal.

Fenestration and design features

• The Committee considered the materials and fenestration included in the application and considered it to be in keeping with the other buildings in the area.

It was RESOLVED:

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