Demolition of existing car-port, garage and external WC to create new 4-dwelling 2-storey residential scheme with car-stacker, including part-excavation to create sunken lower ground floor.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of the following correspondence and amendments to the report:

• Amend condition U39485 - Decision drawings:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents, where applicable: 123/001,  123/012, 123/015 and 123/016 received on 26 November 2010, 123/014 received on 17 February 2011, 123/009A and 123/012A received on 14 March 2011 and 123/010B and 123/011B received on 7 April 2011.

REASON: To accord with the terms of the application, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

• E-mail from Zac Goldsmith MP supporting concerns raised by a constituent regarding density, loss of light, privacy and loss of outlook. Concerned also about the proposed car-stacker, which could cause congestion problems and may fail to preserve the character of the conservation area.

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Ms Ladkin.

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

The Committee considered the information received and points made by speakers. They noted the following points in particular:

·         Concern was expressed regarding possible noise disturbance from the car stacker and child safety. The Committee also noted that the car stacker would not be installed for use by residents of 176-182 Castelnau.

·         Some of the proposed units fell below the Council’s minimum standards for size.

·         Some of the properties’ gardens fell below the Council’s minimum standard of 5m², with the smallest being 4m².

·         The Committee was concerned that the development would be partially located below the ground floor which could put the property at risk of flooding.

·         The Committee was concerned that a residential use of the site would cause a loss of amenity to neighbouring residents by reason of noise and increased activity.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons:

·         Units 3 and 4 of the proposed development would be deficient in outdoor amenity space for the proposed occupiers. The proposals would therefore be contrary to policies BLT 11 and HSG 18 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan – First Review adopted March 2005, policy DM HO 4 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Development Management Plan (as agreed for consultation 25 October-6 December 2010) and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Residential Development Standards’ adopted March 2010.

·         Units 1, 2 and 4 of the proposed development do not meet the Council’s minimum living space standards. The proposals would therefore be contrary to policies BLT 11 and HSG 18 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan – First Review adopted March 2005, policy DM HO 4 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Development Management Plan (as agreed for consultation 25 October-6 December 2010) and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Residential Development Standards’ adopted March 2010.

·         The provision of four residential units on the site represents an overdevelopment and over intensive use of the site which would result in an unacceptable detriment to the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers by reason of an increase in activity, noise and general disturbance. The proposals would therefore be contrary to policy BLT 16 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan – First Review adopted March 2005 and policy DM DC 5 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Development Management Plan (as agreed for consultation 25 October-6 December 2010) and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Residential Development Standards’ adopted March 2010.