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.

11/3680/FUL and 11/3681/CAC - 9-19 PARADISE ROAD, RICHMOND

Councillor Naylor declared that he had recently met with representatives of Travelodge (the applicants) on a separate matter but that he had not discussed this application nor formed a prior view.

11/3321/FUL - THE LENSBURY CLUB, BROOM ROAD, TEDDINGTON

Councillor Mathias declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of the fact that she was a member of the Lensbury Club. She undertook to leave the room for the duration of this item.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 2 February 2012 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2012 were agreed as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them, subject to the following addition:

Page 3 (11/3709/FUL and 11/3710/CAC) under paragraph ‘Architecture and design’ insert:

o        “The design was acknowledged as contemporary but the Committee considered that it was out of keeping with the other properties in the area.”

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.

11/3680/FUL - Demolition of the existing building and the erection of part ground, part 3 storey development to provide a 78 bed hotel (2018.01 sqm), with cycle and refuse facilities.

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL

11/3681/CAC - Demolition of the existing building and the erection of a 78 bed hotel (2018.01 sqm).

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL

Councillor Mathias was not present for this item.

Councillor Naylor declared that he had carried out a site visit to the application site.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of the following further correspondence (via the addendum):

23 further representations raising the following summarised objections to the proposal –

• Too large and bulky for the area, overdevelopment of site
• Question whether this is the correct location for a hotel of this size.
• Do not need any more hotels.
• Exacerbate existing parking problems in surrounding streets.
• Increase in traffic congestion.
• Adverse impact upon highway safety
• Ridiculous to expect all guests to arrive by public transport.
• Travelodge is designed for business people to arrive in the evening and leave early morning.
• Inadequate staff parking.
• Should be a dedicated area for deliveries.  Local residents should not be expected to suffer delays and congestion for what is the responsibility of the hotel.
• Increase in noise and disturbance.
• Impact upon property prices
• Out of character within Conservation Area.
• Proposal is in close proximity to and overlooks the Grade II* listed Church  - the two would create an unhappy juxtaposition.
• Architect’s impression of the building highlights how poor the design is and how faceless the building will look in reality.
• Endorse issues raised by Richmond Society
• Affordable flats a better solution
• Hotel with ground floor bedroom windows on the pavement line will need to protect residents from prying eyes and may need to use mirrored glass in the same way as the existing building – this would be unacceptable aesthetically.
• Agents have highlighted several Travelodges having no parking – the majority are in close proximity to mainline stations and are used by people who need to catch early morning trains and they have no need for on-site parking.

Email received from Richmond Residents’ Group enclosing a document showing a fire engine being unable to get past parked cars going down Halford Road on 5^th Feb, a delivery van stuck going up Halford Road on 12^th Feb and enclosing an extract from the architect’s drawing showing close proximity between Hotel Guests and pedestrians in the street.

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

·        Number of representations as stated in report to read 194.

·        With reference to paragraph 56, the contribution sought in this case would amount to £ 3,465 which would contribute towards the upgrading of the footpath in the vicinity of the site.  However, in the absence of a signed legal agreement to this effect a further reason for refusal is necessary –

Reason for refusal: Without an appropriate contribution towards public realm improvements within the vicinity of the application site, the proposal would be contrary to the aims and objectives of the adopted Planning Obligations Strategy June 2005 and Policy CP16 of the Core Strategy 2009.

·        In ‘Summary of Applications’ and ‘Conclusion’ (para 59) under 11/3680/FUL add ‘siting’ after ‘its’ in the first sentence.

The Committee heard representations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59a

Refurbishment of existing restaurant and associated decking area, replacement of existing golf course with a rugby pitch and associated re-levelling, relocation of three grass tennis pitches and the provision of three clay tennis courts.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

Having declared a prejudicial interest, Councillor Mathias withdrew from the room for this item.

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

The application was presented by the Development Control Officer, who advised the Committee of the following amendment to the report:

• In Non Standard Condition NS01: after “teams that are not” insert “members of the Club”.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr McLaren, an adjoining neighbour, and from Mr Mann, a local resident and club member.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Gabbe, the agent.

The Committee considered the information received and points raised by speakers. The Committee was satisfied that ecological matters were safeguarded by conditions. It was mindful of concerns about noise and light disturbance at the club as raised by one of the nearby residents, but there was no evidence to suggest that the proposal would exacerbate these issues. Furthermore, these issues could be addressed via Licensing or Environmental Health regulations.

The Committee also considered the objections raised to the loss of the golf course, but it was noted that there was no planning policy distinction between different open space recreational uses, thus the Committee could not direct which sports facilities were provided at the club.

The Committee considered that the design of the new bar/restaurant extension was acceptable and in keeping with the existing property. In relation to the relocation of the tennis courts, the Committee considered this appropriate, providing that adequate conditions were imposed to guard against surface flooding.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Condition BD11 – insert: “and tennis court surface”

Change of use of property from B1 office use to D1 educational use.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no amendments to the report.

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

The Committee considered the information provided and points raised by the speaker. It was noted that change of use from B1 to D1 was not normally permitted by the Council’s planning policy, but that the applicant had submitted comprehensive evidence that the current use was not economically viable at this time.  The Committee discussed imposing temporary consent but this was seen as being overly restrictive given the investment required for the creation of an educational facility. The age range of the school was clarified. The Committee concluded that given the context of the application site and the small scale of the proposed school, the application was acceptable and provided a positive solution to a vacant site.

It was RESOLVED:

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

11/2562/VRC - Application to vary conditions U39908 and U40036 of planning permission 10/3085/FUL to allow an increased sales area within the existing store (as extended) – application ‘a’.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION, subject to the

completion of a Section 106 Agreement

11/2565/FUL -  Amendments to store car park, new landscaping, new shopfront, canopy, and minor extension to provide a cafe – application ‘b’.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following amendments:

·        11/2565/FUL – remove PK06 and add condition PK06 to 11/2562/VRC

·        11/2565/FUL – add an Arboricultural Method Statement condition for the pocket park

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

The Development Control officer introduced the case, briefed the Committee of the history of the site, and the differences between the current applications and those recently approved.  The Committee considered the information provided and points raised by the speaker.  It was noted that pedestrian access would be improved to the site and that lighting was not expected to affect residential amenity with the safeguarding condition. The Committee believed that the proposals would not cause harm that would warrant refusing the applications.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That application 11/2562/VRC be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

2. That application 11/2565/FUL be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and as reported at the meeting.