Erection of part single, part two storey Extension with part mansard roof to provide 13 additional bedrooms and landscaping

Officer recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following additional information received or amended since the publication of the agenda:

• A letter was received from Councillor Burford, requested a deferral of the application, by virtue of a number of residents having expressed concern about inadequate notification of the Committee meeting. If this were not possible, Councillor Burford asked that the application be refused on the grounds of inadequate parking provision.

• A letter was received from The Kew Society, objected on grounds of overdevelopment of the site, harm to the character of the area and a substantial increase in parking and traffic problems in an already congested location. They argued that the development would increase the accommodation by 50% whilst reducing parking by 50% and that the Travel Plan was unworkable.

• A letter was received from the Kew Residents Association objected on grounds of inadequate parking provision, in particular the loss of existing parking and the lack of provision for the additional demand created by the proposed additional hotel accommodation, and the consequential impact on traffic congestion and highways safety.

• A letter was received from a neighbouring occupier, which was mistakenly omitted from the representations set out in the Committee report. A summary of the letter is set out below, although most of the points have been raised by other objectors and are addressed in the Committee report:

·        Loss of an amenity:     The garden would be inaccessible, completely hemmed in by the two (2000 and proposed) extension blocks and the fence.  The garden would also be in complete shade throughout even the summer months apart from very early morning sun.

·        Overlooking/loss of privacy:   The proposed block would mean that a number of houses on Gloucester Road including mine would be severely overlooked at both ground floor and first floor level by this commercial development.

·        Visual amenity:  The proposed design is of yet another design which does not maintain or enhance the gabled Victorian architecture of the Conservation area, nor matches the original block.  The design has little relief and has a more 'dominant' elevation than the Gloucester Rd terraces.

·        Adequacy of parking/loading/turning:   Gloucester Road is one of the narrowest roads in Kew. We have reached a point where we cannot take an increased load through the addition of visitors to an additional 14 rooms (45 rooms in a residential conservation area!) and suggested (by Youngs) additional 15 staff.  I will point out here that nobody travels to the hotel by public transport.  Although the hotel is on a bus route, customers with luggage (predominately business from the Brentford Heathrow corridor), do not use buses.

·        Traffic Generation:  As previously stated all the visitors to the hotel come by car; they do not use the bus. The council's UDP discourages developments which will attract additional traffic onto the south-circular which this development will certainly do. 

·        Noise and disturbance resulting from use:  Extending the hotel would only increase the level of noise and disturbance. 

·        Loss of Trees: A number of trees would be lost if the development went ahead. Although these trees did not have preservation orders they were protected under the conservation area status.

·        Effect on listed building and conservation area: The expansion constituted an overdevelopment which did not enhance or maintain the character of the conservation area. The proposed extension looks to be of a low quality box with mansard style roof.

·        Layout and density of building:  If this block was built it would mean that around 78% of the site would be covered in buildings.

·        Design, appearance and materials:  Totally inappropriate for the conservation area.

·        Road Access: The pedestrian access at the back may well be used to provide closer access to rooms in the proposed block which would attract more traffic into Gloucester Road and Cumberland Road.

·        Policy EMP 9 actually argues against the development. The hotel was not in a commercial centre, rather a residential area, was not served by usable public transport and paid no regard to residential amenity and environmental impact.

·        The development did not enhance the conservation area. The letter [residents received] claimed that the proposed extension was modest in scale, size and massing. It was in fact a block design which if any bigger would completely dwarf the Victorian cottages in Gloucester Road and Cambridge Road.

·         Eight further representations from local residents were received which reiterated previous objections on grounds of:

Impact of development of this and neighbouring sites on residential amenity;

Impact on parking, loading and servicing;

Impact on conservation area;

Impact on visual amenity and loss of trees;

Loss of open space.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Dixon, Mr Narey and Mr Steidl.

The Committee heard a representation for the application from Mr Hayward, agent for the applicant.

The Committee discussed the information in the report, addendum and points raised by speakers; in particular they referred to the following:

(i)      The impact on the area of the proposed development in terms of traffic and parking issues.  It was noted by the committee that the area already had high levels of on street parking.  The proposed development would increase hotel bedrooms and reduce parking which was likely to impact further on the street parking facilities.  The final number of parking spaces would fall short of the council’s parking standards. It was noted that the Travel Plan proposed by Youngs was comprehensive and included penalties for non-compliance.  The Transport Officer informed the committee that a similar plan at a another development had achieved a 12% reduction in visitors by car in a year, this scheme aimed for a 22% reduction over 5 years which officers had felt was achievable.

(ii)    The impact on the appearance of the conservation area from the proposed development.  The Committee, whist having due regard to the report and the fact that the proposed development would be screened when looking across Kew Green to the main façade of the BTM, discussed the visual impact to other views and the fact that these visual impacts  also affected the conservation area.

(iii)     The loss of trees at the proposed development site was a concern for the committee; however they noted that the Arboricultural Officer considered a number of the trees to be at the end of their natural lives.  The development did not call for the felling of trees on the Cambridge Road frontage as a necessity to secure space for the new buildings.

(iv)  The committee discussed whether the development was a backland development as it was on land that belonged to the pub.  It was not considered to meet the requirements to be described as such.

(v)    The impact on neighbours of overlooking and loss of privacy from the proposed development.  The committee noted that provision was made to obscure glaze those windows where distance to residential properties was less than 20m but felt that those properties just over that distance on Gloucester Road might also require protection from overlooking.

(vi)  It was considered by the committee that the open space currently provided on the proposed development site was a valuable amenity to local residents and was intrinsic to the character of the conservation area.

It was RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

• The proposal fails to provide sufficient off-street parking spaces in accordance with the Council’s parking standards for the amount of development on the site and would result in unacceptable additional pressure on existing on-street parking facilities. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies TRN 2 and TRN 4 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan – First Review adopted March 2005 and policies DM TP 2 and DM TP 8 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Development Management Plan (consultation version).
  
  
• The proposal would result in the loss of open space at the rear of the existing buildings which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of the Kew Green Conservation Area and result in a loss of amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential buildings. The proposal would be contrary to policies BLT 2, BLT 11 and BLT 16 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan – First Review adopted March 2005, policy CP7 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Core Strategy adopted April 2009 and policies DM HD 1, DM HO 2, DM DC 1 and DM DC 5 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Development Management Plan (consultation version).