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.

11/0116/FUL - THE WHITE COTTAGE, COLSTON ROAD, EAST SHEEN

Councillor Morris declared that as ward councillor she knew the objector speaking on this item but that she had not formed a prior view on the application.

Councillor Palmer declared that she knew the architect in her capacity as a primary school governor but she had not discussed the application with him nor formed a prior view.

11/3844/COU - 110 NORTH ROAD, KEW

Councillor Linnette declared that he had met one of the applicants in the past but had not discussed this application nor formed a prior view.

07/1208/FUL - CAR PARK, HOLLY ROAD, TWICKENHAM

Councillor Chappell declared that she had held meetings with the organisers of the Farmers’ Market in the past but she had not discussed this application nor formed a prior view.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 16 February 2012 - ATTACHED.

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 16 February 2012 were approved as a correct 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.

Retrospective alterations to  the building elevations (subsequent to approved scheme 07/3368/FUL for erection of 2.5 storey development comprising 4 x 3 bedroom cottages, 4 x 1 bedroom apartments and 1 x 2 bedroom apartment).

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

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

·         Condition DV48 (Approved drawings) to be amended: drawing 2007-162/253 rev A should be 2007-162/253 rev B, received 15 July 2011.

The Development Control Officer reported the receipt of the following correspondence:

·         E-mail from applicant enclosing drawings to demonstrate that the ridge height of the building is as approved and that the increased dimension in the overall height of the building is accounted for by an increased depth at basement level. Officers are satisfied that this is correct.

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

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Brookes, the architect, and from Mr Rich-Jones, the applicant.

The Committee considered the information received and points raised by speakers. Members considered the difference between the scheme as approved under application 07/3368/FUL and as proposed in the current application. It was felt that these proposals would adequately address the harm caused by the unauthorised elements of the construction in situ; and would mitigate the impact of the development on neighbouring properties, providing that a landscaping condition be included.

It was RESOLVED:

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

“(A) Notwithstanding what is shown on the submitted drawings, full details of additional soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, such details to  include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) and shall specify the quantity, density, size, species, position and the proposed time or programme of planting of all shrubs, hedges, grasses etc, together with an indication of how they integrate with the proposal in the long term with regard to their mature size and anticipated routine maintenance, these details to include the front and rear of the development, in particular the proposed climbing plants at the rear.

(B) All tree/plant/shrub planting included within the approved specification shall be carried out in accordance with that specification and in accordance with BS 3936:1986 (parts 1, 1992, Nursery Stock, Specification for trees and shrubs, and 4, 1984, Specification for forest trees); BS 4043: 1989, Transplanting root-balled trees; and BS 4428:1989, Code of practice for general landscape operations (excluding hard surfaces).

(C)  All soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and in any event within six months of the date of this permission.

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

The Committee instructed that the neighbouring occupiers in Sheen Gate Gardens to the rear should be consulted on any submission of details pursuant to this condition.

Change of use from a shop/store and residential to children’s day nursery.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

No representations were heard.

Members considered the information which had been provided in the report and presented by the officer. It was recognised that lack of parking provision was a concern but it was felt that this was not of sufficient harm to warrant refusal. The application was deemed to bring considerable benefits to the locality.

It was RESOLVED:

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

The conversion of existing covered entrance to habitable space.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer provided and introduction to the item. There were no amendments to the report.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Falbo, a residents’ association representative, and from Mr Skelton, a neighbour not adjoining the site.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mrs Biagioni, the applicant.

The Committee considered the information provided and the points raised by speakers. Members noted that although the issue of covenants had been raised by objectors this was not a material consideration. The Committee discussed parking and noted that the parking survey had found adequate spaces existed in the area; the proposal would also retain a private parking space at the property.

Members discussed the perceived effect of the proposals on the street scene of College Close. It was noted that the use of complementary materials could be secured via conditions, but some concern was raised over the impact of the design on the uniformity of the street scene. It was felt that the infilling of the car port space would create an imbalance in the symmetry of the street scene and would mean the building did not connect with the surrounding properties.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

·         The proposed development, by reason of its siting and design, would create a lack of symmetry in the principal façade of this terraced block and fails to connect with, and contribute to, the uniform appearance of surrounding buildings, and does not respect the character of the streetscene.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policy DM DC 1 of the Development Management Plan 2011.

Retrospective application for amendments to original approved plans ref. 10/0492/HOT to allow 1) variation of roof extension height to 20cm below ridge line, and 2) raised height of single storey extension by up to approximately 60cm. 

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported that the following correspondence had been received:

·         E-mail from applicant enclosing dimensioned drawings to show that the increase in height of the front ridge (in relation to the permitted scheme) is 24cm, rather than 40cm as indicated in paragraph 6 (page 24) of the report. Officers are satisfied that this information is correct.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Lewis, an adjoining neighbour, and from Mr Weston, a neighbour not adjoining the site.

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

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and the information provided. Members noted the concerns of neighbours about the extension being overbearing and about loss of light; however, it was considered that the difference between the previously approved application 10/0492/HOT and the current application was not significant enough to create sufficient harm to warrant a refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Renewal of planning permission 02/0067/FUL for the continued use for a weekly farmers market on a Saturday, trading hours 9am to 1pm with set up from 7.30am.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

Five additional letters of support:

·         Location offers ideal access both for those travelling by public transport and by car, with ample and very convenient parking.

·         Market is well managed, excellent layout, good diversity of products

·         Considerable positive contribution to Twickenham local community, amenity and retail environment

·         Visitor spend

·         Most users of the market visit other shops in the locality and partly as a result we still retain a butcher, baker and fishmonger

·         Traders in the market have been stable for many years with seasonable variations and a fair number of very long participants, who have a keen eye for local demand and provide reliably high quality and sustainable produce.

·         Only drawback is lack of space on home international or similar event days

No representations were heard.

The Committee considered the renewal of the temporary consent. A cycle provision condition was discussed but it was noted that this would not be reasonable to impose given it did not form part of the original consent. The Committee considered that the application did not represent harm to the vicinity and provided a welcome amenity for the town centre, and residents across the borough.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Siting of telecommunication cabinet (PCP12).

Officer’s recommendation:  NO OBJECTION

The Development Control Officer presented the item; there were no amendments to the report and no speakers were heard.

The Committee noted that there was not a high level of objection to the proposed location and considered that there was not sufficient harm in the proposal to warrant raising an objection.

It was RESOLVED:

That NO OBJECTION be raised to the application,subject to the condition and informatives set out in the officer’s report.