Calendar of meetings

Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held 17 July 2003 attached

The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 17 July 2003 be received and approved and the Chairman be authorised to sign them.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

(24J)            03/1102/FUL            WALDEGRAVE SCHOOL, FIFTH CROSS ROAD, TWICKENHAM

            Councillor Hollis declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of being a governor at Waldegrave School, and left the room during the consideration of this item.

            Councillor Quantrill declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest by virtue of the proximity of his house to the Waldegrave School.

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 determine the order in which the attached reports are to be heard at the start of the meeting. Members are asked to note that there will be an adjournment of the meeting for a period of approximately 10 minutes starting at a convenient time between 9.00 and 9.30pm.

Retention of boundary fencing.

Officer's recommendation: REFUSAL

(1)   The recommendation be NOT adopted.

(2)   Planning permission be GRANTED no conditions.

(3)   Enforcement action be NOT approved as it was felt that the development did not prejudice the amenity of neighbouring residents nor the appearance of the metropolitan open land and local area to such an extent as to warrant such measures.

[The Committee heard representations from Mr Warner.]

Mixed use development to provide A1/A2/A3, B1 office and C3 residential use.

Officer's recommendation: PERMISSION

The application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report submitted.

[The Development Control Manager reported the receipt of late correspondence. One letter had been received from the residents of 10 Howgate Road, objecting on the grounds of loss of light to an ante-room.

The Development Control Manager amended the report as follows:

p.6, fifth paragraph, sentence beginning In view of the level of replacement B1 use proposed, it is considered that this and the B1 use : delete second B1 and replace with A3 .

The Development Control Manager added the following non-standard condition:

NS01 The façades to Nos. 39 and 41 Sheen Lane shall at no time be demolished, partly removed or otherwise altered as part of the development hereby approved.

REASON: To safeguard the appearance and character of these buildings of townscape merit and the visual amenities of the street scene and nearby conservation areas.]

Erection of a single storey, two classroom extension and link corridor attached to front elevation of existing school. New bin store and fence/gates to courtyard (COUNCIL APPLICATION).

Officer's recommendation: PERMISSION

The application be approved subject to the condition and informatives set out in the report submitted.

Proposed erection of metal post railing fencing to front boundary of Kingston Lane (No. 178, 182, 184).

Officer's recommendation: PERMISSION

The application be approved subject to the informatives set out in the report submitted.

Retention of chimney flue.

Officer's recommendation: PERMISSION

(1)   The recommendation be NOT adopted.

(2)   The application be REFUSED for the following reason:

The development, by reason of its design and appearance, is out of keeping with the streetscene and detrimental to the visual amenity of neighbouring residents. The proposal is hence contrary to policies ENV 19 and 24 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 1996 and policies BLT 11 and 16 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan: First Review. 

(3)   ENFORCEMENT ACTION be instigated to require the removal of the chimney flue erected on the roof of the side extension.  The period of compliance is 56 days.   The reason for serving the notice is:

The development, by reason of its design and appearance, is out of keeping with the streetscene and detrimental to the visual amenity of neighbouring residents. The proposal is hence contrary to policies ENV 19 and 24 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 1996 and policies BLT 11 and 16 of the emerging Unitary Development Plan: First Review. 

(4)   COURT ACTION in the event of non-compliance with the enforcement notice.

[The Development Control Manager reported the receipt of late correspondence. Three letters had been received, objecting on the grounds that the construction of the chimney was irregular, that the industrial design looked out of place, and that the structure caused a loss of visual amenity to all the street's residents. The objectors supported enforcement action.]

Alterations to GRP shroud around O₂ telecommunications transmission equipment on main roof. Slight relocation of one O₂ antenna onto a new pole.

Officer's recommendation: PERMISSION

(1)   The recommendation be NOT adopted.

(2)   The application be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposed development by reason of its size, design, materials and prominent siting would be detrimental to the appearance and character of the Conservation Areas, and have a detrimental effect on the appearance and character of the existing building.

[The Development Control Manager reported the receipt of late correspondence. Two late letters of had been received, objecting on the grounds of inaccuracies in previous drawings of the screening, and points already raised in the report relating to aesthetics and health issues.

The Committee heard representations from Mr Leach and Mr Watts.]

Retention of temporary classroom unit for one year (COUNCIL APPLICATION).

Officer's recommendation: DECISION WHETHER TO GRANT TEMPORARY PLANNING PERMISSION

(1)   The recommendation be NOT adopted.

(2)   The application be REFUSED for the following reason:

NS01 The building by reason of its prominent location and appearance is obtrusive in the streetscene, detrimental to the visual amenities thereof and to the amenities of nearby occupiers. Evidence has not been submitted to justify its retention, and it is thereby contrary to policies ENV 19, 24, HEP 9 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and BLT 11, 16, CCE 8 of the Unitary Development Plan First Review.

(3)   ENFORCEMENT ACTION be approved to remove the building. Period of compliance being 56 days.

(4)   COURT ACTION in the event of non-compliance with the Enforcement Action.

[The Development Control Manager reported the receipt of late correspondence. An e-mail and four letters had been received objecting on the grounds of the ugly and dominating nature of the temporary classroom, the time taken to determine the application, and the lack of playground space for the school.

The Committee heard representations from Mr Duggan and Mr Pinto.]

Demolition of pool building (plant/changing rooms and entrance space), hard and soft landscaping of resultant footprint. Partial clearing of pool-side lido to form park and children's play area secured by fencing. Steps from lower to upper area. Short term scheme pending future development, envisaged five year duration (COUNCIL APPLICATION).

Officer's recommendation: CONSIDER WHETHER TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report submitted and subject to no adverse direction from the Secretary of State.

[The Development Control Manager clarified that this application referred to an L-shaped part of the site stretching from Wharf Lane along the front of The Embankment, and not the entire hatched area as shown on the map included in the report.

The Development Control Manager reported the receipt of late correspondence. Two letters had been received objecting on the following grounds:

• Proposed fences are unattractive and spoil the view to the river
• Lack of river-related uses proposed
• The derelict pool building is a habitat for wildlife, in particular bats and slow worms
• The area is subject to tidal flooding
• Accessibility problems for wheelchair users
• Asbestos in pool building

A report from the applicant's consultant outlining a wildlife study had been received. It was found that there was no evidence of reptile activity or bat roosting/foraging. The underground cavities were not considered warm enough for bat hibernation, but other areas were. It was suggested that demolition should either not be carried out during the bat hibernation period of November to March, or that a further bat hibernation survey be carried out. It was also recommended that bat boxes be installed in the trees on The Embankment.

The Development Control Manager reported the views of the GLA biodiversity officer, who feels that this is a fair assessment of the site, which contains a range of animal habitats and some plants that are rare in London. However, it is not significant enough to be considered a nature conservation site. The GLA officer recommended that ideally the carrying out of a winter hibernation study would be the best way forward.

The Development Control Manager amended the report as follows:

p.32: Standard condition LP01A amended to read LP02. Delete Building and works'     and '31 July 2008'.

Standard informative IL12 delete drawing number 102/P4. Add drawing number 102/P5 received 25 July 2003.

The Development Control Manager added the following standard condition:

BD11 That any buttressing on the retaining wall shall not be constructed otherwise than in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such details to specify the design and external finished thereof.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed development is in keeping with the existing buildings and does not prejudice the appearance of the locality.

The Committee added the following non-standard informatives:

NI02 - The applicant is strongly recommended to either reopen the public toilets at the corner of Water Lane or introduce such a facility in the children's playground.

Not eventually agreed to but members asked for the following:

Third parties to be consulted over the detail of the fencing to be provided

The Committee heard representations from Mr Betteridge, Mr Chappell (on behalf of Mr Elmes), Mr Double, Ms Hewitt, Mr McKevitt, Mr Searon-Brown, Mr Stearman, Mr Vye and Mr Walters.]

Total demolition of pool changing and plant rooms with the exception of retaining wall at rear ground floor (COUNCIL APPLICATION).

Officer's recommendation: ADVISE NO OBJECTION

The Planning Committee to advise the Secretary of State that it has no objections to the demolition of the former baths site, but recommends that a condition be imposed to prevent demolition until a contract is in place to ensure the planning permission is ready to be implemented.

Erection of single storey extensions to existing sports hall to form new dance studio, office and enlarged entrance lobby (COUNCIL APPLICATION).

Officer's recommendation: PERMISSION

The application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report submitted.

[Councillor Hollis declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of being a governor at Waldegrave School, and left the room during the consideration of this item.

Councillor Quantrill declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest by virtue of the proximity of his house to the Waldegrave School.]

Erection of single storey rear extension.

Officer's recommendation: PERMISSION

The application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report submitted.