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 the nature of the interest.

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.

Councillor Chappell declared that in relation to application 12/0127/FUL, she had received emails from objectors on this matter and a phone call from the applicant but that she had not commented nor formed a prior view on the application.

Councillor Speak declared that he had predetermined his view on application 12/2748/HOT. He undertook to withdraw from the Committee for this item and would speak as an interested Councillor. He further clarified that whilst he also lived on Fitzwilliam Avenue he was not a near neighbour to the application site and did not have a pecuniary interest in the matter.

Councillor Harborne declared that whilst she was a ward Councillor application 12/2748/HOT she had not formed a prior view on this application.

Councillor Mathias declared that whilst she was a ward Councillor application 11/3189/FUL she had not formed a prior view on this application.

Councillors Nicholson, Mathias and Head declared that they had carried out site visits for application 11/3189/FUL.

Councillors Nicholson and Head declared that they had carried out site visits for applications12/0127/FUL, 12/0855/VRC and 12/1667/FUL.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 01 November 2012  -attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 01 November 2012 were approved 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 vacant public house and erection of four three-bedroom houses.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION subject to the

completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mrs Teresa Moreno and from Mrs Abigail Bunney who were neighbours adjoining the site.

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

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members discussed the change of use from a public house to residential dwellings. Given that sufficient marketing had been submitted as evidence, it was accepted that the site was no longer viable under its authorised use. Some Members were concerned about the loss of the existing building but it was heard that this was not a listed building, building of townscape merit or a conservation area that afforded any protection from demolition.

Members considered the impact of the dwellings on the street scene and neighbouring amenities. Members felt that the proposal adequately complemented the street scene. Some concern was raised over the impact of the dwellings on the amenities of neighbouring properties. However, the majority view was that the proposal would be acceptable given the implementation of safeguarding conditions. In particular Members were concerned to provide adequate screening to properties on Middle Lane via the landscaping condition and to limit overlooking via a condition relating to obscure glazing on rear windows.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a section 106 legal agreement; subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum; and subject to the following additional condition and informative:

Condition

The proposed second floor windows in the north east/rear elevation of the buildings annotated 49A and 49B on drawing no. 300312/04E hereby approved shall at no time be openable or glazed, otherwise than in obscured glass, below a minimum height of 1.75 metres (5'7") above the relevant floor level.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

Informative

The applicant is advised in respect of condition LT09 that a degree of soft landscaping should be concentrated in the proposed garden to the north east of the application site, particularly along the site boundary with 23 Middle Lane.

Erection of 1 bedroom detached house.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Hall, an adjoining neighbour, and from Mr Smith, whose mother was an adjoining neighbour.

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

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members discussed the merits of the application in comparison to the perceived harm. It was recognised that there was a housing need in the borough but the majority of Members felt that the design and siting of the proposal was not acceptable and did not justify contradicting the policies DMHO3 and DMDC1 which had been adopted since the previous application was approved. Most Members did not accept the loss of the garden space and felt that the proposal represented harm.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposal, by virtue of its back garden siting, scale and design, would be harmful to the character of this backland setting and out-of-keeping with the general surroundings.  It is therefore contrary to policies DMHO3 and DMDC1 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Development Management Plan 2011.

Application to vary condition 2 (development to be carried out in accordance with approved plans) of planning permission 07/3041/FUL allowed on appeal 09/12/2010. Amendments to side staircase designs, render to rear and removal of ground floor rear windows.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

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

The Committee considered points raised by the speaker and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members considered the proposal in comparison to the original application approved for this site. Members felt that the proposed changes were an improvement and would not present an unacceptable harm to neighbour amenity.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Demolition of vacant outbuilding and erection of a timber plant enclosure within rear courtyard associated with existing ground floor retail.

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 Mainwaring, the agent.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members noted that the use of the site had previously been approved and considered the building and demolition work proposed. Members noted that in relation to the proposed plant enclosure robust noise mitigating conditions were included within the recommendation. Members felt that with the proposed mitigating conditions the application was acceptable.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Retention of part single/part two-storey building with additional accommodation in the roof. This comprises a ground B1 office and six one-bedroom flats plus provision of a refuse and cycle store. Regularise amendments to the scheme during the course of construction. (Amendments proposed to the ‘as built' development: alterations to the position and finish of the first floor rear elevation and roof and provision of trellis).

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Heaps and Mr Davis who were neighbours not adjoining the site, and from Ms Barry, an adjoining neighbour.

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

The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Naylor who spoke as an interested Councillor.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members discussed at length the history of the site, previous applications, and the current proposal before them. Members were concerned about the effect of the development on neighbouring properties, in particular the impact of 1.7m of the building overhanging No. 134 and the properties to the east. It was considered that this part of the development had an overbearing impact and was incompatible with local character and nearby properties. The harm caused by this was considered unacceptable and Members felt that the proposal would be contrary to adopted policies DMDC1 and DMDC5.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposed development, by reason of its siting, scale, bulk, proportions and form in relation to the adjacent properties to the side (east) would represent a visually intrusive and overbearing form of development to the detriment of the amenities of nearby residents. The scheme would thereby be contrary to policies CP7 of the Core Strategy, DM DC1 and DC5 of the Development Management Planand SPD ‘Residential Development Standards’.

Amendments to garden house approved under application 11/2171/HOT, namely provision of a semi-basement, access steps and alteration to position of windows.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below]. A further additional amendment and condition was reported as follows:

·        Amendment to description to clarify that the garden house in questions was to be used for purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling house.

·        Condition: That the garden house be used only for purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and not for independent self contained use. Reason: to preserve the amenity enjoyed by the occupants of adjacent properties and that the building would not provide suitable standards of accommodation for self contained use.

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

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Blackwell, a consultant on behalf of the applicant.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members discussed the current application in relation to that which had previously been granted permission for this site. In relation to internal alterations some Members were concerned about the addition of a basement and the resulting low ceiling heights and internal head room. It was noted that there were no minimum room specifications related to ancillary outbuildings. Some Members were concerned about flooding, however it was recognised that the building was in a low flood risk area and that the Environment Agency had not raised any concern about the application.

Members considered the design and appearance of the building. It was felt that the alterations to the building from the original approval had created a disjointed appearance which was harmful to the visual amenity of surrounding properties. In particular the location of the door and windows were seen to be incongruous.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

The retention of the outbuilding, by reason of its poor design and the variation from the initial approval, results in a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the locality and the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the neighbouring properties.  The proposed retention of the outbuilding is thereby contrary to policy CP7 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames’s Core Strategy and policies DM DC1 and DM DC5 of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Development Management Plan. 

Retention of 3 condenser units including one on the side elevation to be enclosed by brick and timber.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].  An additional drawing number required to be added to condition DV48 was verbally reported to Members.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Ms Daviter, Mr Paveley, and Mr Melia, who were neighbours to the site.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Maniar, the agent, and Mr Banham-Magraw, the applicant.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

The Committee was mindful of the concerns of the residents of Warwick Road in relation to the unit on the side elevation. Members discussed concerns about this unit’s impact on the visual amenity of the street scene, highway safety and noise disturbance. However, Members balanced this against the commercial requirements of the established business. Members debated whether the harm in the side elevation unit warranted refusing the application. Majority consensus was that with a suitable and robust noise condition the application was acceptable overall. Members were keen to ensure that this noise condition be implemented as soon as possible to mitigate the harm caused to residents.

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 and informative:

Condition

NS02 - The use of the condenser units on the side elevation of the building shall only continue once a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority which demonstrates that noise emissions from the condenser units to which the application refers complies with the following noise criteria and shall thereafter be implemented and retained as approved.

The cumulative measured or calculated rating  level of noise emitted  from the refrigeration plant  to which the application refers , shall be equal to  the  existing background noise level  or 5dB(A) below if there is a particular tonal or discrete component to the noise, at all times that the mechanical system etc operates. The measured or calculated noise levels shall be determined at the boundary of the nearest ground floor noise sensitive premises or 1 meter form the facade of the nearest first floor (or higher) noise sensitive premises, and in accordance to the latest British Standard 4142; An alternative position for assessment  /measurement may be used to allow ease of access, this must be shown on a map and noise propagation calculations  detailed to show how the design criteria is achieved.

In addition the noise from the condenser units  must achieve the “good to reasonable standard” for internal noise levels detailed in Table 5 of BS 8233 ‘Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings CofP’.– Summary of Recommended Guidance from BS8233 for bedrooms and living rooms

Erection of a single storey side extension with flat roof and increase in height of boundary wall.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

Having declared that he had predetermined his view on this application Councillor Speak withdrew from the Committee.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

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

The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Speak, who spoke as an interested Councillor.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members considered the application in light of it being in a conservation area and close to Kew Gardens, a world heritage site. Members felt that there was not significant harm in the proposed single storey extension to warrant refusal as this did not have a significant impact on the street scene. However, Members were concerned that the increase in height in the wall did have an overbearing and harmful effect on the street scene; and that it caused harm to the visual amenity of the conservation area. It was considered that if the applicant could remove the wall aspect from the application this would be an acceptable application. Members anticipated that if the wall was not heightened there would be ample landscaping to the side of the property to provide screening to the extension.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be DELEGATED to the Development Control Manager for final decision, subject to the following recommendations:

1. If the applicant withdraws the wall element of the application then the application should be granted permission under delegated powers, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

2. If the applicant does not withdraw the wall element of the application then the application should be refused under delegated powers, due to the harmful effect of the wall on the streetscene.