Agenda and minutes

Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 21 October 2010 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meeting of 21 October 2010 were agreed as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

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

07/3167/DD10 – TEDDINGTON SECONDARY SCHOOL, BROOM ROAD, HAMPTON WICK

Councillor Arbour declared a prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of being the Cabinet Member for Performance (this being a Council application). He undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of this item following his representation.

Councillor Elengorn declared a prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of having been a governor for the school up until very recently. He undertook to withdraw the Committee and from the room for the duration of this item.

Councillor Mathias declared a prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of living in close proximity to the application site. She undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of this item following her representation.

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 Chair 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.

Demolition of existing garages and erection of a new single storey house.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION subject to the

completion of a legal agreement

to secure membership of the car club.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following additions and corrections to the report:

·         Add condition DV44 – Code for sustainable homes

·         Add to condition LT01 – A-Q

·         Add condition:  Prior to the commencement of development, a trial dig by hand along the side of No. 48 Berwyn Road (from the front to the rear of the house hereby approved) shall be carried out to determine what roots, if any, are present.  The results shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, along with foundation design.  If tree roots greater than 25mm are present, then a pile and elevated ground beam will be necessary.  REASON:  To protect neighbouring landscape.

Corrections in report:

Para 27, second line – remove (not)

Para. 29, third line – replace (three) with (two)

Additional policies:  The Development Management Plan has now been adopted for development control purposes, however, has limited weight given this has not been subject to the full consultation or Inspectors Inquiry.   A number of policies are relevant to this case, namely DM H02, DM H03, DM H04, DM TP8, DM DC1 and DM DC4.  The introduction of these policies has been considered during the assessment of this case, and do not alter the recommendation:

• Whilst the scheme does not meet the parking standards, given the site location, condition securing car club membership, ability to park on the road, modest shortfall, this will not prejudice the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety.
• The design is considered to be of an acceptable standard, does not harm character of road frontage, and by reason of its modest height, does not unduly compromise the openness of the site.
• Whilst it is acknowledged the scheme will result in the loss of green cover, the trees do not warrant a preservation order, and with safeguarding conditions and mitigation landscaping, no objection is raised. 
• Ecological surveys have been conducted which demonstrate, with conditions, the development will not unduly compromise the biodiversity of the site.
• Suitable residential amenity space has been provided
• Given the site has been unused for sometime, this not being linked to a residential property, the presence of existing buildings on the site, acceptable landscape and neighbourly impact, and similar impact on streetscene compared to existing, the scheme will not result in an unacceptable loss of backland.

Representations were heard from Ms Cassley-Sharon, Mr Davenport and Mr Malpas who were neighbours of the site and spoke against the application.

A representation was heard from Mr Mather, the agent, who spoke for the application.

It was RESOLVED:

1.                    that the officer recommendation for permission be NOT approved,

2.                    that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

The development, by reason of its siting, design, form, built coverage, amount of hard standing and subsequent loss of and harm to landscaping (on and off site), would represent a visually intrusive and cramped form of overdevelopment, to the detriment of the site, pattern of development,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33a

Construction of a single storey house.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following additions to the report:

Additional condition NS03:  The gate on the wall hereby approved shall open inwards only, and thereafter be maintained as such.  REASON:  To ensure the development does not prejudice highway and pedestrian safety.

Additional informative NI01:  The applicants are advised that the removal of the wall would require consideration area consent, and is not likely to be favourably considered.

Additional policies:  The Development Management Plan has now been adopted for development control purposes, however, has limited weight given this has not been subject to the full consultation or Inspectors Inquiry.   A number of policies are relevant to this case, namely DM H02, DM H03, DM H04, DM TP8, DM DC1 and DM DC4.  The introduction of these policies has been considered during the assessment of this case, and do not alter the recommendation:

• Whilst the scheme does not meet the parking standards, given the site locations and with a condition restricting car parking permits and car club membership, this will not prejudice the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety.
• The design is considered to be of high standard and not harm character of road frontage
• The trees on the site should not impose a constraint on development, and is acceptable on landscape terms, subject to landscaping conditions.
• Suitable residential amenity space has been provided
• Given the site has been unused for sometime, not directly linked to No. 9 Sion road, the previous approval on the site, acceptable landscape and neighbourly impact, and its siting on the road frontage the scheme will not result in an unacceptable loss of backland.

A representation was heard from Mrs Cranswick, a neighbour adjoining the site, who spoke against the application.

A representation was heard from Mr Warner, the agent, who spoke for the application.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Conversion of single family dwelling house to 2 no. self contained flats (1 x 2 bed, 1 x studio), erection of a single storey extension, outbuilding to rear of the property used for storage in connection with the studio flat and reinstatement of the existing roof.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no late representations or changes to the report.

A representation was heard from Mrs McCarthy, an adjoining neighbour, who spoke against the application.

A representation was heard from Mr Tanna, the applicant, who spoke for the application.

It was RESOLVED:

1.      that the officer’s recommendation for permission be NOT adopted

2.      that the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposal would fail to comply with the Council's minimum floor space standards and would therefore provide cramped and unsatisfactory living accommodation for the future intended users thereof.  The proposal is hence contrary to policies HSG13 and HSG14 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan: First Review 2005, policy CP14 of the adopted Core Strategy 2009, policies DM HO 1 and DM HO 3 of the emerging Development Management Development Plan Document 2010 and Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Standards.

Provision of details pursuant to conditions:

U18976  -    Contaminated land;

U18998  -    Vehicular access (onto Broom Road);

U18995  -    Signage/Traffic Calming (access between MUGA & school);

U18991  -    Transport/traffic scheme (access onto Trowlock Way from Broom Road recreation ground car park);

U18963  -    Details of back shields/cowls to light columns

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following amendments to the report, and late submissions:

• The following paragraphs did not print fully and are reproduced in full below:

‘6. The Environment Agency was consulted with regard to possible pollution of ground water during excavation & building works &, following the receipt of more information direct from the applicant’s consultant, confirm the site poses a low risk to pollution to controlled waters & is now able to recommend the discharge of the appropriate condition.

28. It should be noted that the required back shields relate only to those 4 no. light columns which back onto Melbourne Road. This is because it was recognised by the Planning Committee that these would be the most affected properties, all others being sufficiently far away to not be harmed materially by the relocated lighting.

35. It should be noted that the assessment of light spillage/glare has an element of subjective judgement about it. The conclusion of the applicant’s lighting team is that the levels of light etc are necessary for the pitch to be safely used & have been based on a very sensitive location to try to provide the best solution for this site. Your officers have expended much time & energy seeking an acceptable solution to an acknowledged highly sensitive situation. Some advantage has been achieved with the existing conditions on the planning permission which remain in force & that coupled with the proposed shields should provide a development which achieves necessary light levels for users of the pitch without material harm to neighbours.'

·         Letter from resident objecting to light pollution & noise

·         Email from resident enclosing photograph of lighting from floodlights

The committee heard representations from Martin Blaiklock and Mrs Jean Mackey who were neighbours adjoining the site and spoke against the application. Councillor Mathias spoke as a resident against the application. Having declared a prejudicial interest she then withdrew from the room for the remainder of the item.

Councillor Arbour spoke as an interested Councillor. Having declared a prejudicial interest he then withdrew from the room for the remainder of the item.

Representations were heard from Mark Ridler [lighting consultant] & Darren Jacob on behalf of the applicant.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED for the following reasons:

·         To assess the situation once the proposed back shields have been erected

·         The Committee to visit once the above have been installed

·         To receive a specification regarding existing & proposed light levels at the boundary of the site

·         For further consultation with residents

The Planning Committee asked officers to make representations to the appropriate Department to stop the use of the lights after 21.00 until the matter has been resolved through the Planning process.

Redevelopment of Barn Elms Playing Fields, including the demolition of the main pavilion and groundsman's mess, new build pavilion, new car parking, refurbishment of tennis courts, pitch improvements, and widening of the existing vehicular site entrance. There is no change of use.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

(subject to referral to the Mayor of London)

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

·            Delete condition DV40a- Travel Plan & U35074- Travel Surveys

·            Insert under U35074 the following:

Pre-development staff and customer/visitor travel surveys shall be undertaken, to include the peak winter season, in accordance with a survey methodology to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority/TfL prior to it being carried out. Within 6 months of the use commencing, a new travel plan based on the results of the survey shall be submitted with clear objectives, targets, actions and timeframes to manage the transport needs of staff and customer / visitors to the development, to minimise car usage and to achieve a shift to alternative transport modes including arrangements for the downward management of the informal parking area.

Following approval by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with TfL, the nominated Travel Plan coordinator, shall then implement these actions to secure the objectives and targets within the approved plan. The travel plan (including surveys) shall be annually revised and a written review of the travel plan submitted and approved by Council by the anniversary of its first approval and yearly thereafter. At the third anniversary, the travel plan (including surveys) shall be re-written, and resubmitted for further approval by the Council.  This review and re-write cycle shall continue every three years and any approved revision shall be implemented within three months of the date of approval.

REASON: In order to comply with the objectives of national and local Planning Policies (within the Council's Unitary Development Plan) which promote sustainable development with particular regard to transport.

Representations were heard from Mr Essex, a consultant on behalf of the applicant, and Mr Sinclair, the applicant, both speaking for the application.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report; subject to referral to the Mayor of London and that the following be noted:

·         That a decision on the colour of the brick be delegated to the planning officer

Provision of details pursuant to conditions  - DV29C Potentially Contaminated Sites; U31180 Location of trees - adjacent development sites; LT15 Site Supervision

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

• Insert informative ‘IC03 Part discharge of condition

This submission only partially complies with the terms of Condition DV29C of planning permission 10/0080/FUL and details of the following matters remain to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:- survey of playing field to check the quality of the topsoil. This information should be submitted & be approved before occupation of the buildings approved under this planning permission.

No representations were heard.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.