Agenda and minutes

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 whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

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.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

11/1716/FUL - 16 ELLERMAN AVENUE, WHITTON

Councillor Coombs declared that he had predetermined his view on this item and would be speaking as an interested Councillor. He undertook to withdraw from the Committee for the duration of the item.

11/2430/FUL - TWICKENHAM RFU STADIUM, RUGBY ROAD, TWICKENHAM

Councillor Naylor declared that he had recently held a meeting with an officer of the RFU on a separate matter and had not discussed the application nor formed a prior view.

11/2852/HOT - 33 LAWN CRESCENT, RICHMOND

Councillor Burford declared that he had predetermined his view on this item and had entered into correspondence with the applicant and the objector. He undertook to withdraw from the Committee for the duration of the item.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 13 October 2011 ATTACHED.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2011 were agreed as a correct record of proceedings 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.

Single storey mansard style roof extension to provide 8 residential units to existing office building with the provision of stair access cores and associated site works;  3 storey extension for staircases, sustainability technologies and elevational changes to ground and first floor to facilitate the internal sub-division of the offices. (Amended plans (revised parking layout) and description.)

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION, subject to the completion

of a Section 106 legal agreement.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and informed the Committee of the following amendments to the report:

Update to paragraphs 45 - 47 (Planning Obligations Strategy):

·         The Transport and Public Realm contributions as set out on page 24 of the report will be combined and used towards upgrading the existing street lighting in the area between the development and the A316 in order to improve personal and road safety.

·         The specific details and final cost of this project are still to be confirmed but the applicant has agreed to the contribution, subject to the final costings being agreed.  The contribution the developer has agreed to pay will not exceed the combined Transport and Public Realm Contributions, however, if the costs turn out to be less than the combined total, he shall not be expected to pay in excess of the final costs of implementing the scheme.

Amendment / update to paragraph 50:

·         The Transport and Public Realm contributions combined.

·         Appropriate wording included in the legal agreement to the effect that the applicant’s contribution towards the upgrading of the street lighting (see above) will not exceed the combined Transport and Public Realm contributions and that if the overall cost is less than the combined total, the applicant shall not be expected to contribute in excess of the final costs of implementing the scheme.

Add ‘large scale details of PV panels’ to condition NS02.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Bowen and Ms Bowen, who were non-adjoining neighbours to the site.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Brookes, the architect; Mr Canaparo, the transport consultant and from Mr Warner, the agent.

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

The Committee considered the information provided and points raised by speakers. The Committee discussed the implications of the proposals for the traffic conditions in the surrounding area, in light of residents’ concerns about on-street parking and free flow of traffic. It was noted that the scheme would not meet maximum parking standards.

The Committee considered whether the proposal would meet the requirements of the Mortlake Road Supplementary Planning Guidance. Members considered whether the scale and bulk of the proposed development would be intrusive and whether it would be harmful to the setting of the nearby buildings of townscape merit. It was debated whether the applicant had significantly improved the scheme to overcome the reasons for refusal for the previous application 09/3055/FUL (which had been similar).

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.  By reason of the scheme’s failure to meet the maximum parking standards, and the existing on-street parking and congestion situation in the locality, the development would materially add to the local traffic and parking conditions, to the detriment of the free flow of traffic, highway and pedestrian safety, and convenience of local residents.  The scheme would thereby be contrary to policies CP5 of the Core Strategy and DM TP8  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36a

Erection of new four bed bungalow adjacent to 16 Ellerman Avenue and the provision of a new vehicular crossover to existing property no.16.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Having declared that he had predetermined his view, Councillor Coombs withdrew from the Committee for this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following amendments via the addendum:

·         New Site Location Plan received on 02.11.2011, which supersedes the Site Location Plan received on 26.05.2011, that incorrectly shows two sites outlined in red; 16 and 33 Ellerman Avenue.

·         New condition: The building hereby approved shall not be occupied until off-street parking space and access thereto has been provided in accordance with drawing number 16EA/ND/P01 Rev. C received on 13.10.2011.  REASON: To ensure the provision of satisfactory parking arrangements at the development.

·         Page 8 - under Standard conditions (DV48 Approved drawings) – Site Location Plan received on “26.05.2011” to be replaced with “02.11.2011”.

The Development Control Officer reported the receipt of the following correspondence:

·         Four additional letters of objection have been received as a result of the re-consultation period that expired on 28.10.2011.  The letters are from no.s 1 Sheringham Avenue, 2 Sheringham Avenue (x2) and 37 Ellerman Avenue. The reasons for objecting are as follows:

1.      Insufficient off street parking provision for existing and proposed properties (nos. 16 and 16a);

2.      Not in keeping with the streetscene;

3.      Garden in-filling;

4.      Increased housing density;

5.      Loss of privacy;

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Emmerson, the applicant.

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

The Committee considered the information provided and points raised by speakers. The Committee discussed the categorisation of the proposed development. It was heard that the development, being at the side of the property, was not to be considered under the Council’s backland development policy and should not be judged as such.  The Committee considered the context of the development and whether it would complement the street scene. It was noted that the existing street scene was not completely uniform in character. In relation to parking it was noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on availability of spaces in the vicinity. 

It was RESOLVED:

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

Erection of temporary seating and staging structures to permit up to 5 concerts at Twickenham Stadium within the calendar year 2012 only.Concerts to be staged on weekends and bank holidays only.

(Appendix A attached)

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION, subject to the completion

of a Section 106 legal agreement

The Development Control Officer introduced the report and made the following amendments via the addendum:

Amend Para 36 to delete the following Heads of Terms:

·         Contributions towards the CPZ for maintenance of old/missing signage throughout zone R (including LB Hounslow), maintenance of lining (parking bays and yellow lines etc) and textual changes to the Traffic Management Orders.

·         Funding towards improved signage on the A316 eastbound for vehicles wishing to access the Rosebine Terrace car park

And insert:

·         The RFU has agreed to pay the Council’s full costs incurred relating to Transport Management in the area on an event day. These costs will be based on an open-book arrangement with payment made within 28 days of date of invoice by the Council.

·         £50, 000 towards CCTV cameras at Mogden Lane/Whitton Dene. £25,000 to be paid after the 4^th concert, £25,000 after the 5^th

·         Amend Condition NS07 - No stage or other temporary structures, required in connection with concerts shall be erected more than five days in advance of a concert, and all such structures shall be removed from the site within three days following a concert (setting-up and dismantling days) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

·         Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and the locality in general.

No representations were heard on this item.

The Committee considered the information received. Members discussed whether the additional concerts would have a negative impact on any planned events for 2012 such as the Olympics and the Queen’s Jubilee celebrations. It was heard that the local authority could work with the RFU to ensure that concerts did not effect the organisation of other events in the borough. In relation to the provision of facilities, such as toilets, on concert days, it was noted that the RFU had an established management plan for concerts. The Committee considered the temporary nature of the application and the proposed safeguarding conditions which were deemed to be sufficiently comprehensive.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Demolition of existing car-port, garage, and external WC to create new 3-dwelling 2-storey residential scheme with car-stacker, including part-excavation to create sunken lower ground floor.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION, subject to the completion

of a Section 106 legal agreement.

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

·         Environment Agency initially objected, but following receipt of additional information, now have no objection.

·         Further representation from neighbour expressing concern about structural, maintenance and noise issues relating to the proposed car stacker, and requesting imposition of a condition to mitigate the impact.

A letter of objection was tabled at the meeting from an adjoining neighbour who was no longer able to attend the meeting. The following points of objection were raised:

·         The car stacker is to replace the two owned spaces and not to provide parking for the new flats. There would be 3 new 2 bedroom flats, therefore likely to be minimum 6 extra people - no parking provided.

·         New design is likely to result in more rather than less residents thereby is still 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 Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Sheppard, an adjoining neighbour.

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

The Committee considered the information provided and points raised by speakers. The Committee discussed the concerns of neighbours over flooding. It was heard that the Environment Agency had raised no objection to the proposal on flood risk grounds. The Committee discussed whether the previous issues of overdevelopment and over-intensification of the site had been addressed with the current proposal. It was noted that the reduction in the number of units in comparison to application 10/3452/FUL had addressed the issues of lack of amenity space for occupiers and size of units but it was felt that the proposal still represented an overdevelopment of the site that was detrimental to neighbouring properties.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

The provision of three residential units on the site represents an overdevelopment and overintensive 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 DM DC 5 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Development Management Plan adopted 1 November 2011and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Residential Development Standards’ adopted March 2010.

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of pair of two storey five bed semi detached houses with associated parking (revisions to approved application 11/1106/FUL).

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

The Committee heard a joint representation against the application from Mrs Bell and from Mr D’Angibau, who were nearby neighbours.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Watton, the agent.

The Committee considered the information provided and points raised by speakers. Though mindful of the need to reach a decision on the application before them, Members discussed the proposal in comparison the application 11/1106/FUL which had been granted permission in June 2011. The Committee considered that there would not be negative effect on the street scene. The larger footprint of the property and the impact on neighbouring properties was considered. Whilst Members were mindful of the concerns of neighbours it was felt that the amended proposal did not result in harm that was significant enough to warrant refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Construction of partial basement, construction of ground level extension to rear side return, construction of two new dormer windows, amendment of existing flush roof window and roof intersection detail.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Cox and Ms Pattinson, who were adjoining neighbours.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Kramer, the applicant, and from Mr Long, the architect.

The Committee considered the information provided and points raised by speakers. The Committee debated whether the proposed glass extension added to or detracted from the building, given its status as a Building of Townscape Merit. It was noted that the Supplementary Planning Guidance allowed for contrasting solutions and the use of differing materials in this context. In relation to the proposed partial basement it was noted that the Environment Agency had raised no objection. The scale of the dormer windows and roof-light was discussed and found to be acceptable overall.

It was RESOLVED:

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

1. Variation of condition U39699 (Decision Drawings) of planning approval 10/3034/FUL to include extensions at ground, first and second floor level on east side of building, revisions to cycle parking, car parking and refuse storage facilities, elevational alterations, extended terrace and external staircase to west elevation and internal alterations.

2. Removal of condition U39690 (Obscure glazing) of planning approval 10/3034/FUL to allow the installation of clear glazed windows within the east elevation.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Ms Fisher, an adjoining neighbour.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Young, the architect and from Mr Goulding, the applicant.

The Committee considered the information provided and points raised by speakers. The Committee was satisfied that landscaping conditions would safeguard the biodiversity of the site and provide screening for neighbouring properties. It was noted that it would not be possible to introduce further landscaping at the eastern side of the property due to the existence of a badger set. It was considered that the variation of conditions would not cause considerable detriment and that it would not be reasonable to insist on obscure glazing in the east elevation as the distance from the nearest property would be in excess of 20 metres.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Single storey side and rear extension.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

Having declared that he had predetermined his view, Councillor Burford withdrew from the Committee for this item.

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

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mrs Lines, an adjoining neighbour.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Dodd, the applicant.

The Committee considered the information provided and points raised by speakers. Members discussed whether the proposed extension would impact on the street scene given the context of the conservation area. The height of the boundry wall and the extension’s distance from the wall was considered. In terms of impact on the light of neighbouring properties it was considered that there would be no overriding difference. Members felt that the application did not represent such harm as to warrant refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Installation of openreach broadband cabinet PCP008.

Officer’s recommendation:  NO OBJECTION

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

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Paice, on behalf of BT Openreach, the applicant.

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

The Committee considered the information provided by the report and the speakers. The Committee discussed the setting of the broadband cabinet within the context of the conservation area and the boundary wall of 13 Sandycoombe Road. Some Members raised concern over whether the cabinet represented a security issue for this property or detracted from the appearance of the wall. However, it was acknowledged that the height of the cabinet could be viewed as modest and the location was acceptable in comparison to previous options.

It was RESOLVED:

That NO OBJECTION be raised to the application, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Erection of two storey side and rear extensions.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made the following addition to the report via the addendum:

·         Additional condition: That the damaged chimney be repaired as part of the development hereby approved and in accordance with the approved drawings. Reason: To safeguard the character of this Building of Townscape Merit and the visual amenity of the street scene.

No representations were heard.

The Committee considered the information provided in the report and the additional condition. Members did not perceive any demonstrable harm in the application that would warrant a refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Temporary change of use from office (B1) to children’s day nursery (D1) for up to 54 children. Addition of sustainability technologies, cycle and refuse storage.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the report and made the following amendments via the addendum:

·         Condition NS03:  b.  replace ‘accommodated’ with ‘enrolled’

·         Add condition:  This permission shall enure for the benefit of Ms Raj Mehat only and for only such period of time as they may be occupying the premises and the permission shall not enure for the benefit of the land nor of any other person (s). REASON: Same as NS07

·         Add condition – Children’s activities associated with the nursery school shall not take place anywhere on site other than inside Grosvenor House.  REASON:  to ensure the use does not prejudice neighbouring amenity or the locality.

·         Amend DV46A – BREEAM rating ‘very good’ - The development hereby approved shall achieve BREEAM Rating 'very good' in accordance with the requirements of the BREEAM Guide (or such national measure of sustainability for design that replaces that scheme).  The Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing 21 days in advance of the commencement of use date.  Within 6 months of the commencement of use a Post Construction Review Certificate certifying that the Rating Level stated above has been achieved shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. 

REASON: In the interests of promoting sustainable forms of developments and to meet the terms of the application.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Panesar, the agent.

The Committee considered the information provided and the points made by the speaker. Members did not perceive any demonstrable harm in the application that would warrant a refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

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