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.

In relation to application 12/3222/FUL Councillor Speak declared that he was currently a patient at this surgery but that he had not predetermined his view on this application.

Committee Members declared that they had carried out site visits for application 12/1001/FUL.

Councillor Head declared that she had carried out site visits for applications 13/0072/COU, 12/3325/FUL and 12/3283/FUL.

Councillor Linnette declared that he had carried out a site visit for application 13/0072/COU.

Councillor O’Malley declared that as ward Councillor he was familiar with the sites for applications 13/0072/COU, 12/3222/FUL and 12/3816/OUT.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 14 March 2013 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 March 2013 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.

12/1002/CAC: Demolition of existing buildings.

12/1001/FUL: Demolition of existing offices, retail units and two flats. Construction of a new ground - 4 storey development to provide 2 new retail units; 92 bedroom hotel with ancillary restaurant; associated car parking (including 21 for retail, 19 for hotel);  alterations to site entrance, landscaping, bus lay-by, and associated works.

Officer’s recommendation: 12/1002/CAC: PERMISSION

12/1001/FUL: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 published addendum. A further additional amendment was reported at the meeting:

·        Add condition relating to anomalies at roof level.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Elliott, a residents’ association representative; Ms Bonfanti, a local resident; Ms Elliott-Romer, a residents’ association representative; and from Mr Edmunds, a neighbour adjoining the site.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Franklin, the architect, Mr Coley, the applicant, and from Mr Wilson, the highways consultant.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Councillor Chappell and Councillor Naylor who both spoke as Interested Councillors.

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

Some Members were concerned about the impact of the proposal on the nearby highways: in particular noting the concerns of residents about congestion, servicing and parking issues. However, the majority consensus was that there was not sufficient evidence to refuse the application on highways grounds given that the Council’s Highways Officers and Transport for London had raised no objection, and that the proposal included safeguarding conditions and a section 106 agreement in relation to parking and public transport. 

Members discussed the impact of the proposal on Richmond Road street scene and in particular in relation to the adjacent listed building (Old Ryde House). Whilst recognising that the proposal made attempts to reflect the design and colour of the listed building, Members felt that the design and scale actually detracted from the listed building and diminished its setting. Most Members considered that whilst the current building at this site was not of particular aesthetic merit, the height, bulk, scale and forward projection of the proposal would not enhance the Richmond Road conservation area and would have an overbearing effect on the streetscene. 

Members were also concerned that the proposed loss of street trees at this location would harm the conservation area and street scene. In addition the location of the trolley park and the recycling facilities was seen to increase clutter and cause harm.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That application 12/1001/FUL be REFUSED for the following reasons:

(i)      The development, by reason of its siting, forward projection, height, bulk, scale, design and finish would represent a visually intrusive and overbearing form of development that would harm the character, appearance and setting of the site, streetscene, adjacent listed building and conservation area in general.  The scheme would thereby be contrary to policies CP7 and CP8 of the Core Strategy; policies DM TC2, HD1, HD2, HD3 and DC1 of the Development Management Plan; and the National Planning Policy Framework.

(ii)    The development, by reason of the loss of the street trees, siting of the trolley park, and the more prominent location for the recycling facilities would result in street clutter and have a detrimental impact on the quality of the streetscene and pedestrian  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82a

Change of use from Class A1 to Class A3 café/coffee shop.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the published addendum.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Foot and Mr Wright who were local residents.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report. Members also noted the written concerns raised by objectors to the proposal. However, the Committee felt that the change of use was acceptable in this location and that the proposed opening hours were suitable. It was noted that any future intensification of A3 use such as an installation of a commercial extraction system could require a separate planning application and would be subject to Environmental Health safeguards. Given the conditions set out in the officer’s report Members deemed the application to be acceptable.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Variation ofcondition U19022 (boundary treatment) attached to application ref. 07/4050/FUL to consider the proposed details of the boundary treatment (timber fence and access gates) post occupation of the development approved.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported that since the agenda had been published a further letter of representation had been received, raising concerns about the height of the fence and the change in levels between the properties.

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

The Committee considered the points raised by the speaker and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report. Members noted the comments of the Planning Inspector about the suitability of the fence at this location and were satisfied that the proposal provided a suitable noise buffer. The design and scale of the access gates were also deemed to be acceptable.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the condition and informatives set out in the officer’s report. 

Change of use of existing B1 (Office) use to D1 (Medical Centre) use incorporating the removal of external staircase to the rear. 

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the published addendum.

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

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

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

Members discussed issues of access and parking for the proposed surgery. It was explained why two gates were required and why only two parking spaces were necessary for the surgery. Members were satisfied that the location was sustainable in terms of transport and that the safeguarding conditions would mitigate any impact on neighbouring properties. The change of use to a medical centre was welcomed as beneficial to the vicinity.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a new 4 bedroom dwelling with mezzanine, rear dormer window, integral carers flat, attached garage to front and linked therapy / play room to the rear.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the published addendum.

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

The Committee considered points raised by the speaker and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report. Members discussed the design and scale of the proposed development: these were considered to be acceptable in the location. It was noted that a construction method statement would be submitted and that this would address concerns of the RAFA and other objectors.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum. 

Construction of a 3-bedroom single storey family dwelling house to the rear of 12-36 Vincam Close.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION, subject to the

completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement

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

No representations were heard.

The Committee considered information provided by officers in conjunction with the report. Members discussed the current site use and did not object to the creation of a dwelling at this location as it was noted that the site did not provide natural habitat of particular merit. The design and scale of the proposal were also found to be acceptable by most Members, whilst the sustainability features were welcomed.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Outline application for a new detached building and single storey extension to provide a new sixth form (from 2014) and additional form entry to school (from 2013). 

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the published addendum.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Burke, the Headteacher of the school.

The Committee considered points raised by the speaker and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report. Members discussed the provision of a sixth form at the site and debated whether there was a current need for additional educational provision at this age range. It was accepted that additional educational facilities would be beneficial to the community and justified the loss of metropolitan open land. It was noted that issues surrounding parking and congestion could be met by conditions. The school was also encouraged to liaise with local primary schools in developing its travel plan.  Whilst noting the objection from Sports England, Members were satisfied that the proposed site was not of particular merit to sports provision due to unevenness. Given safeguarding conditions, the outline application was deemed to be acceptable.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum, and subject to no adverse direction from the GLA or the National Planning Casework Unit.