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.

Councillors Gibbons, Burford, Miller and Allen declared that they were acquainted with a speaker for 12/3874/ADV but that they had not spoken with them on this matter nor had they formed a prior view. In addition Councillor Burford declared that he had carried out a site visit and had received an email regarding this application but had not formed a prior view. Councillor Chappell declared that she had previously heard licensing submissions regarding the application site for 12/3874/ADV but she had not formed a prior view on this application.

Councillor Gibbons declared that he was acquainted with a speaker for 12/2353/FUL but that he had not spoken with them on this matter nor had he formed a prior view.

Councillor Gibbons declared that being a member of the Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign he had pre-determined his view for applications 13/0679/FUL, 13/0680/FUL and 13/0957/DEMPN. He undertook to leave the Committee for the duration of the item.

Councillor O’Malley declared that as a Governor for St Richard Reynolds Catholic College there could be a perception of bias for applications 13/0679/FUL, 13/0680/FUL and 13/0957/DEMPN. He undertook to leave the Committee for the duration of the item.

Councillor Chappell declared that she had spoken as an Interested Councillor on other applications for the site of applications 13/0679/FUL, 13/0680/FUL and 13/0957/DEMPN but that she had not formed a prior view on these applications.

Councillor Morris declared that she had already pre-determined her view for application 13/0301/FUL. She undertook to leave the Committee for the duration of the item.

Councillor Chappell declared that there could be a perception of bias due to her involvement with previous applications on the site of 10/3780/DD04. She undertook to leave the Committee for the duration of the item.

Councillor Gibbons declared that he lived close to the application site for 13/0859/HOT. He undertook to leave the room for the duration of this item.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 4 April 2013 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 April 2013 were agreed 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.

Erection of external signage comprising one externally illuminated and one non – illuminated fascia signs and one double-sided externally illuminated projecting sign.

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION

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

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Butlin, a local resident.

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

The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Head 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 the light emissions from the proposed sign and agreed that light emissions were only acceptable during the hours of operation of the store. The Committee considered that pre-application negotiations had resulted in a sign that was a good compromise for all parties.

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:

• The sign should only be illuminated inside store opening hours and a timer should be installed to automatically turn off the external illuminations when the store is closed.

Extension of existing property to provide four self contained flats, 1 retail shop on ground floor plus amenity space, cycle refuse storage area to the rear.

Officer’s Recommendation: REFUSAL

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

The Committee heard representations against the application from Ms Smith, Mr Crowley and Ms Raja, local residents.

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

The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Elloy 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 the design and size of the proposed scheme and the relationship with the Princes Road building line and agreed that the scheme had not overcome the problems of previous applications to this site in relation to those elements.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer’s report and the additional following reason:

• By reason of the proposed bulk, mass and roof design of the rear element and the rear dormer and the proposed projection beyond the Princes Road building line on this spacious junction, the proposed development would be an intrusive element in the street scene, being prominently visible from Princes Road and out of character with the locality. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy CP7 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Core Strategy and DM DC1 of the adopted Richmond upon Thames Development Management Plan and Supplementary Planning Documents ‘Design Quality’ and ‘Small and Medium Housing Sites’.

Proposed new opening to south elevation of Block B and new openings to Block C. New air vent grilles on Block C.

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION

[Having declared that he had pre-determined his view on this item, Councillor Gibbons left the Committee for this item.]

[To avoid the perception of bias on this item, Councillor O’Malley left the Committee for this item.]

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

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Jones, Ms Goodman and Ms Davies, neighbours not adjoining the site.

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from Mr Olutayo and Mr Burke.

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

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

Members recognised that the site had established unrestricted D1 usage and the doors were permissible under permitted development. Therefore the Committee limited their consideration to the proposed grille. Some Members felt that further consultation should have taken place on the proposals and should be encouraged for future applications on the site. However the consensus view was that there was not sufficient harm in the proposal to warrant refusal. Members agreed that external lighting should be used for security lighting purposes only.

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 condition and informative:

• Condition
  That external lighting be installed and used for security lighting purposes only
  REASON: To protect neighbour amenity.

Members requested that local residents be consulted on the future detailed drawing application for the acoustic fence.

Proposed installation of canopy to south elevation - Block B.

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION

[Having declared that he had pre-determined his view on this item, Councillor Gibbons left the Committee for this item.]

[To avoid the perception of bias on this item, Councillor O’Malley left the Committee for this item.]

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

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Jones, Ms Goodman and Ms Davies, neighbours not adjoining the site.

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from Mr Olutayo and Mr Burke.

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

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

Members recognised that the site had established unrestricted D1 usage. Therefore the Committee limited their consideration to the proposed canopy. Some Members felt that further consultation should have taken place on the proposals and should be encouraged for future applications on the site. However the consensus view was that there was not sufficient harm in the proposal to warrant refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Proposed Demolition Of ‘Blocks D, E, F, G and H’.

Officer’s Recommendation: THAT PRIOR APPROVAL

BE GRANTED

[Having declared that he had pre-determined his view on this item, Councillor Gibbons left the Committee for this item.]

[To avoid the perception of bias on this item, Councillor O’Malley left the Committee for this item.]

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

There were no speakers.

The Committee considered information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members recognised that the site had established unrestricted D1 usage and therefore limited their consideration to the method statement and any restoration required as a result of the demolition work. The Committee did not perceive that there was substantial harm in the application to warrant refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

That the Committee instructs the Development Control Manager to grant prior approval subject to the receipt of a satisfactory Arboricultural Method Statement.

The erection of a pair of two storey dwellings with accommodation in the roof space.

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION subject to a

S106 legal agreement

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

There were no speakers.

The Committee considered the information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

The Committee considered the impact of parking in the locality of the proposed development. Members discussed the design of the proposals and the impact on the character of the local area, particularly at the rear of the property and how visible to the public view this aspect would be. The consensus view was that the design did not harm the character of the area nor did the development have a substantial adverse effect on parking.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report, and the completion of a section 106 legal agreement.

Construction of a 3 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.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Lianos, the Architect.

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

The Committee felt that the application represented an improvement to the character of the area by replacing the car park. The Committee did not perceive that there was substantial harm in the application to warrant refusal.

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 completion of a section 106 legal agreement.

Creation of basement, guest annex and reconstruction of the existing garage.

Officer’s Recommendation: 12/4051/HOT –PERMISSION

12/4052/CAC – PERMISSION

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

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Ms Bontempo, a neighbour adjoining the site.

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

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

Members recognised that the council did not have an in principle objection to basements and since the Environment Agency did not raise any concerns in relation to this application the Committee limited their consideration to the visual impact of the development. The Committee felt that the basement had been sensitively designed and the scheme was an improvement on the previous application that was granted permission on this site. However Members were keen to ensure that the construction was carried out in a sensitive manner appropriate to the conservation area. Members discussed the impact of the proposal on the holly tree.

It was RESOLVED:

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

• Condition Details of Foundations – Piling etc: “…shall give details of the intended method of constructing the foundations, including method and equipment for piling (which shall not include any percussive piling)…”
• Condition Construction Method Statement: “The Statement shall provide for … method and equipment for piling…”

Redevelopment of Hampton Square to create an enlarged public open space including new areas of hard and soft landscaping, water feature and play space.

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION

[Having declared that she had pre-determined her view on this item, Councillor Morris left the Committee for this item.]

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

Mr Wikeley, a Consultant on behalf of the applicant, was in attendance to answer questions from the Committee.

The Committee considered information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

The Committee did not perceive that there was substantial harm in the application to warrant refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Discharge of details pursuant to conditions U37847 - NS01 (Details - Materials - canopy roofing, canopy overhang, canopy soffit and footbridge steel work colours) of planning permission 10/3780/FUL

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION

[To avoid the perception of bias, Councillor Chappell left the Committee for this item.]

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

There were no speakers.

The Committee considered the information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

The Committee did not perceive that there was substantial harm in the application to warrant refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED.

Removal of garage and erection of a single storey side and rear extension.

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION

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

There were no speakers.

The Committee considered the information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

The Committee did not perceive that there was substantial harm in the application to warrant refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

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