Erection of a three storey plus basement development of 5 no. one bedroom units.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION (subject to conditions and informatives in the report and the completion of a Section 106 securing monies in accordance with the Planning Obligation Strategy, restriction of parking permits and membership of a car club) 

The Development Control Officer presented the report and in addition reported the receipt of the late correspondence from Mrs Finzi and detailed the main points to the committee.  Printed copies of the e-mail were also tabled in order that Councillors had sight of it in full.

The Development Control Officer also reported the receipt of the following correspondence since the report had been published:

Email from Zac Goldsmith MP:

·         Highlights residents concerns and previous reasons for refusal

·         Asks that the continuing concern of residents are give the required weight

·         Asks the council to thoroughly examine whether the previous reasons for rejection have been adequately addressed

·         Loss of visual amenity, over development, impact on access to highways

·         This application must be judged by the same standards

·         Prior concerns must be taken into account

·         Crucial that residents feel this is a transparent, fair and open process.

Emails from Cllr Fleming:

·         Impact on resins in Retreat Road

·         Request neighbours get view of photographs

Mr Cobb (7 emails):

·         Unneighbourly, impact on visual amenity, loss of light

·         Lack of contributions towards infrastructure

·         Density, size, height

·         Unsuitability of site and impacts n conservation area

·         Requests previous officer attends the Planning Committee

·         Previous reason fro refusal should be taken into account and not overcome previous reasons for refusal

·         Delay to view report on website

·         Lack of consultation with neighbours

·         Request for photographs.

1 email from 4 Water Lane:

Best proposal that I have seen from this site, please to see suggestions have been considered, and compliments industrial aesthetic of the warehouses.  However, proposal still presents major problems for residents of the Retreat – very close to the wall, height, bulk, size

1 email from 30 Swan Court received very late and tabled at the meeting, objecting to the proposals and summarised for the committee verbally by the Development Officer. 

The Committee heard representations form Mr Cobb, Mr Collins, Mr Graham, Mr McKenzie and Mr Roberts.

The Committee RESOLVED:

1.                  That the recommendation of the Planning Officer be NOT adopted

2.                  That the application be refused for the following reasons:

• The proposal, by reason of the height, size, bulk and siting of the development, would result in an un-neighbourly visually intrusive and overbearing development, to the windows of habitable rooms to two flats on the second and third floors of 27-34 Retreat Road, to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of the flats. It would thereby be contrary to policies HSG11, BLT11 and BLT16 of the adopted Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan: First Review 2005; policy CP7 of the Adopted Core Strategy; and adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Small and Medium Housing Sites 2006’

• The proposal, by virtue of its siting, layout, design would result in substandard residential accommodation, whereby the units would experience unacceptable outlook and light.  The scheme is thereby contrary to policies BLT11, BLT15, HSG11, HSG18 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan: Review 2005, Policy CP7 and CP14 of the Approved Core Strategy 2009, Supplementary Planning Document ‘Residential Standards’ and PPS 3 Housing

• By reason of the absence of a legal obligation securing, a contribution towards the Planning Obligations Strategy commensurate with the scale of development; membership for all future occupiers to a car club; and restriction on future occupiers from applying for car parking permits; the proposal would represent an unacceptable form of development that would:

• 1.  Place undue pressure on the local infrastructure
• 2.  Prejudice the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety;

The scheme is thereby contrary to policies TRN2, TRN4, HSG11, HSG19 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan; policies CP5, CP16, CP18 of the Adopted Core Strategy; and Supplementary Planning Documents ‘Planning Obligation Strategy’ and ‘Car club Strategy’.