Councillors' Attendance Statistics
11/3709/FUL AND 11/3710/CAC - SION COURT, SION ROAD, TWICKENHAM (Cedar River Developments)
11/3709/FUL - Demolition of an existing dwelling and garage blocks, erection of 4 no. new dwellings and associated landscaping. New balcony and cycle store.
11/3710/CAC - Demolition of an existing dwelling and garage blocks, erection of 4 no. new dwellings and associated landscaping.
Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION and
Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED
The Development Control Officer briefly introduced the application to the Committee and reported the following late amendments to the report and additional representations received:
Amended Recommendation –
At end of paragraph 47 -
I therefore recommend PERMISSION subject to legal agreement to secure –
- Lifetime car club membership for the units of accommodation within the development
and the following conditions and informatives:
Additional Condition -
Before the development hereby permitted begins a Parking Management Scheme for Sion Court shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority and be put in place, and retained as such, to ensure that no more than 2 of the new units of accommodation shall be entitled to obtain a permit to park within the curtilage of Sion Court.
REASON: To ensure that the development does not generate an increased demand for on-site car parking to the detriment of the amenity of the existing residents and to accord with the Councils car parking policy and standards.
Additional Non-Standard Informative –
The applicant is advised that when submitting the details pursuant to Condition LT09 that details of signage for the one-way system are included and that consideration is given to swapping parking spaces 20 and 16 around to facilitate easier access to the disabled parking spaces and the cycle store.
Additional correspondence received –
Email received from Matthew Cronwright-Brown
- submitting a copy of the ground floor plan relating to planning permission 10/3537/HOT for a single storey extension at 19 Lebanon Park.
- Providing a link to Croydon Council’s web site and a document entitled ‘Lambeth Transport Residential Parking Survey Methodology’ (copies available)
Email received from Lebanon and Sion Courts Residents Association attaching a parking survey undertaken 30th January – 1st February 2012 at 11.00-11.15pm each night. A summary of the document is provided below as the Residents Association will bring hard copy of the document –
· All vehicles within the Sion Court estate were counted. Over the three nights the number parked in the Back Driveway ranged from 19 to 21 and in the very narrow Front Driveway from 7 to 8. Taking into account the 11 permits held by Sion Court residents for on-street parking, it is clear that the ratio of vehicles (40) to flats (36) already exceeds 1:1.
· To obtain an estimate of parking capacity in local roads, a comparison was made between the number of spaces available in the designated parking areas and the number of cars parked outside those areas on yellow lines (*).The roads covered were Sion Road, Ferry Road, Little Ferry Road and Lebanon Park up to the point, just over 200m from Sion Court, where the road forks, with one branch going into a cul-de-sac and one down to the river.
· In contrast to the figure for parking capacity of 15% in the one-night survey in June 2011, quoted in the Application, the average for the three nights in this survey was -1%, since on balance more cars were parked on yellow lines than there were available designated spaces.
· Detailed figures are given in the table on the attachment.
The Committee heard representations from Mr Kingston, Mr Cronwright-Brown, and Mr Hutchings who spoke against the application.
The Committee heard a representation from Mr Measures, the agent, in support of the application.
The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Chappell, who spoke as an interested councillor.
Having regard for the information in the report, provided by the officer on the evening and the points raised by speakers, the committee discussed the following salient themes:
o The legitimacy of the methodology employed in undertaking the parking survey was questioned. Members felt that a one day snapshot, was not sufficient to establish trends for an area.
o The committee lacked confidence in the long term effectiveness of conditions imposing parking restrictions on site.
· Loss of Garden
o The Committee regretted the loss of garden and the impact that would have on the amenity of current residents. The Committee heard that the garden was well utilised by residents.
· Architecture and design
o The Committee considered the design and age of Sion Court and considered it to be a building worthy of protection and of value to the locality.
o The appropriateness of wooden cladding included in the application design.
o That the application site was within a conservation area.
o The design was acknowledged as contemporary but the Committee considered that it was out of keeping with the other properties in the area.
It was RESOLVED:
That application 11/3709/FUL be
2. That application 11/3709/FUL be REFUSED for the following reasons:
(a) The development, by reason of its siting, design, form, materials and the loss of valuable grassed garden land through the developments siting and the re-provision of the on-site car parking would represent a visually intrusive, incongruous, inappropriate and unneighbourly form of backland over development that would detract from the character, appearance and setting of Sion Court and the conservation area in general and the amenity value of residents of Sion Court. The scheme is thereby contrary to policy CP7 of the Core Strategy, policies DM HD1, DM HO1, DM HO3, DM DC1 and DM DC5 of the Development Management Plan, and Supplementary Planning Documents ‘Design Quality’, ‘Small and Medium Housing Sites’ and ‘Residential Development Standards’.
(b) On the basis of the evidence submitted and
insufficient on-site parking, the Local Planning Authority is not
satisfied that the scheme would not prejudice local parking
conditions, to the detriment of the free flow of traffic, and
highway and pedestrian safety and amenities of nearby
residents. The development is thereby
contrary to policy CP5 of the Core Strategy, and policies DM HO3,
DM TP2 and DM TP8 of the Development Management Plan.
That application 11/3710/CAC be NOT
That application 11/3710/CAC be refusedfor the following
In the absence of an acceptable redevelopment proposal, the demolition of the existing garages and building on the site would be inappropriate, premature and result in an untidy open site that will detract from the character, appearance and setting of Twickenham Riverside conservation area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy DM HD1 of the Adopted Development Management Plan and CP7 of the Core Strategy.