Agenda and minutes

Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 20 January 2010 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meetings held on 20 January 2011 were agreed as correct records of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

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

09/0965/FUL & 09/0966/CAC - 48B FRIARS STILE ROAD, RICHMOND

Councillor Fleming declared that she had already formed a view and was predetermined on this application. She reported that she would be speaking as an interested Councillor and undertook to withdraw from the Committee for the duration of this item.

10/2817/FUL - LAND AND GARAGES ON THE EAST SIDE, CAMBRIDGE ROAD

Councillor Linnette reported he had been approached by the applicant, but declined to discuss their application with them.

10/3178/FUL - 53-55 HIGH STREET, WHITTON

Councillor Jaeger declared that she had already formed a view and was predetermined on this application. She reported that she would be speaking as an interested Councillor and undertook to withdraw from the Committee for the duration of this item.

10/2464/FUL - ST MARY MAGDALEN PRIMARY SCHOOL, WORPLE STREET

Councillor Fleming declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a a Cabinet Member and left the room for the duration of the item.

Councillor Morris declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a a Cabinet Member and left the room for the duration of the item.

10/1914/FUL - CHASE BRIDGE SCHOOL, KNELLER ROAD, WHITTON

Councillor Fleming declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a a Cabinet Member and left the room for the duration of the item.

Councillor Morris declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a a Cabinet Member and left the room for the duration of the item.

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.

The recreation, by the use of hard and soft landscaping, of the currently derelict part of the old swimming pool site to form public open space.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

·         Additional condition:

“NS05 Pool drainage and replacement fill:

Prior to the commencement of the landscaping works, details of the existing pool drainage system and proposed replacement compactable fill shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall be carried out as part of the development hereby approved. REASON: To accord with the terms of the application and to protect future users of the site and the area in general.”

The Development Control Officer reported eight additional representations (five in support of the scheme and three general observations reiterating points raised by other residents, which were recorded in the report). A number of points were raised that did not relate specifically to the current proposal, such as suggesting other potential future uses of the site.

The committee heard representations against the application from Mr Barry Edwards and Mr Ian Tyson, who were local residents.

The committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Tony Shoebridge (a local resident), Mr Martin Stearman (the agent) and Mr Ron Chappell (the applicant).

Councillor Naylor spoke as an interested councillor.

The Development Control Officer reported at the meeting that the Council was the owner of this site and that the application before the committee did not commit the Council to progress any of the application’s content although it was open to the applicant to seek planning permission.  The barefoot consultation process was still under consideration which needed to be borne in mind. It was noted that the application had been subject to delays due to the number of changes to the proposal and to enable discussion to take place with the applicant. The committee heard concerns about the proposal not complying with policy T1 in the Unitary Development Plan because it did not attract visitors to Twickenham and the original plan had been diluted.  It was noted that T1 mentioned possible temporary uses for the site and the current “Sunshine Café” and play ground were examples of this.  A temporary permission could last for five years and this would address any concerns about prejudicing any future development of the site.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and the additional condition and informative below:

Condition: The use hereby approved and any associated work shall be stopped and/or be removed five years from the date of this permission.

Reason: an unrestricted permission may prejudice the long planning objectives of Proposal T1 for the area.

Informative: The applicant is advised that demolition of any structures on the application site may require Conservation Area Consent [demolition within a conservation area] and you are advised to provide details of those elements to be removed to the Local Planning Authority before carrying out any such work.

Construction of 2 x 3 bed houses; four 1bed apartments; one A1 (retail) unit together with on site car parking; improvements to existing apartment block; demolition of existing boundary wall to Station Rd. (revised application to 07/3492/FUL).

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL

(& REFUSAL of Conservation Area Consent)

The Development Control Officer reported that additional information had been received from the applicant in respect of the requirement to meet the 20% reduction in CO2 emissions via renewable energies. It was subsequently advised by the Development Control Officer that this information was still considered to be insufficient and in any case had been submitted too late to enable consultation with the Council’s Sustainability Officer

The committee heard representations against the application from Mr Nicholas Baily and Mr Roland Giddy, who were neighbours adjoining the site.

Councillor Janet Langhorne and Councillor Gareth Roberts spoke as interested councillors.

There was some concern over the impact of the forecourt parking and the subsequent loss of trees/garden space and landscaping.  Councillor Morris felt this could also be added as a reason for refusal.

It was RESOLVED that the application and conservation area consent be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report, and the following additional reason:

“The proposed forecourt parking area to the front of the existing building by reason of the removal of the existing garden, trees and vegetation, would represent an inappropriate and visually harmful development that would detract from the character and appearance of the site and streetscene and so would be contrary to Policy BLT 11 and BLT 28 of the Adopted London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan (2005); Policy CP 7 of the Approved Core Strategy 2009; and Policies DM DC 1, DM DC 4 and DM TP 9 of the Development Management Development Plan Document Publication Version (2010).”

A) Demolition of roof coverings above yard area, conversion and extension of existing buildings to four offices (B1), together with the five new houses with associated site works. B) Conservation Area Consent for demolition of roof coverings and other works.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION,

subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement

and Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED

Councillor Fleming declared that she had already formed a view and was predetermined on this application. She reported that she would be speaking as an interested councillor and undertook to withdraw from the committee for the duration of this item.

The Development Control Officer made the following amendments to the report:

·         Add “doors” into condition BD04

·         In the “Public and other representations” section insert the following:

“Additional Representations:

Various emails with Ms Kate Harkness in respect of several issues detailing concerns in respect of land ownership, site contamination, disabled access, hours of operation of the offices uses and inaccurate drawings;

Email from Mr D Hill of 3 Marlborough Road re-iterating previous concerns re overdevelopment;

Email from Mr Finn of 1 Marlborough Road re-iterating previous objection re overbearing and overdevelopment;

Additional letter from J Lloyd-Jones of 48a Friars Stile Road re-iterating objections in respect of intense use of the site, narrow accessway and vehicular access, associated noise and disturbance, refuse facilities, compensation in respect of the servicing of no.48a and the construction management condition;

Additional objection from Mr Paul Nelson of 8a Marlborough Road re-iterating previous objections re highways, volume of traffic and parking;

Additional objection from Professor Mitchison of no.14 Marlborough Road re-iterating previous objections in respect of the impact on trees and traffic congestion;

Additional letters of objection from Mr G Payne re-iterating previous concerns in respect of: a) certification and b) inaccurate/misleading description of the existing use which is actually as garages; prejudice in that previous applications at 56 Foxton Mews parking etc had to be provided and the size of that development was limited by the existing small coach house; excessive footfall due to the office provision; lack of disabled access; overlooking into the proposed houses from passersby; the development is a fire trap; increased congestion; other applications in the area were refused on the grounds of lack of parking; questioned whether offices are viable in the area; other offices available in the area; anomalies in the applications in respect of daylighting and sunlighting, building heights, trees could not be grown on contaminated site, asbestos, light pollution on site previously blacked out, plans are incorrect in terms of the heights of the south side roof; too many apertures proposed resulting in overlooking and insufficient light being provided; right of way issues due to the change in the form of development on the site; disabled access is limited for instance in times of emergency; lack of wheelchair accessible housing; officer has failed to respond to points in terms of other applications, certificate b issues and internal consultee responses; geographical features such as the underground wells have not been considered; roof height transparency – additional detailed drawings should be provided; lack of transparency in terms of demolition with other alternative schemes that would retain the existing form being preferable; and concerns of neighbours have not been taken seriously. Copies of these two letters will be circulated to the planning committee.

Additional letter of objection from N Brown of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51c

Demolition of existing single storey garage building and part-demolition of existing 2-storey coach-house garage building. Erection of basement and two-storey house with courtyard garden. Demolition of brick boundary wall to Cambridge Road and erection of a replacement wall.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Councillor Linnette reported he had been approached by the applicant, but declined to discuss their application with them.

The Development Control Officer stated that this application should also include 10/2818/CAC, for the demolition of the existing buildings.

The Development Control Officer made the following amendments to the report:

·         Amend the recommendation to read:

“I therefore recommend that the application for planning permission should be APPROVED, subject to conditions and informatives, and the application for conservation area consent should be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions and informatives:

Conditions:

AT05 - Commencement of works within 3 years

LB02 - Retention of buildings until development commences

Informatives:

IE05B - Noise control building sites

IH06D - Damage to public highway

U51722 - Relevant policies (as report)

U51724 - Summary reasons for granting CAC:

The proposal has been considered in the light of the Development Plan, comments from statutory consultees and third parties (where relevant). It has been concluded that there is not a demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding conservation area consent. The demolition of the existing building and their replacement by the building for which planning permission has been granted concurrently would preserve the character and appearance of the Kew Green conservation Area.

U51725 -   Drawing numbers”

·         Add the following condition to planning permission:

“U37536 - Construction method statement:

‘No development shall take place, including demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall be provide for:

i)   the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

ii)  the loading and unloading of plant and materials;

iii)the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

iv)the erection and maintenance of security hoardings;

v)  measures to control the emission of dirt and dust during construction;

vi)a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction work.”

Construction contractors must be members of the Considerate Contractors Scheme.

Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety and to safeguard neighbouring amenity.’ ”

The Development Control Officer recorded that after this report had been drafted, a further site visit was undertaken, during which it was noted that thick vegetation on the site of the old church, adjacent to the application site, had been removed. Investigation of the cleared area revealed an access to the side of the old church, which allowed an inspection of the flank of the building. Three windows and a pair of doors were discovered at lower ground level, which faced on to the boundary wall of the application site, upon which the impact of the development had not been assessed. Officers had now undertaken an assessment of the impact of the development on these windows, using the BRE methodology, and concluded that the loss of daylight to the worst affected window passed the BRE test.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51d

Demolition of all existing buildings including the car showroom with residential flats above and the erection of a three-storey building with class A1 retail use on the ground floor and 4 no. 1 bed and 5 no. 2 bed flats on the first and second floors. 

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

Councillor Jaeger declared that she had already formed a view and was predetermined on this application. She reported that she would be speaking as an interested councillor and undertook to withdraw from the committee for the duration of this item.

The Development Control Officer reported that the following additional representations had been received:

·         Two letters from Mr and Mrs Pannett of 37 Cypress Avenue withdrawing their objections to the proposed development for the following reasons:

1.      The developer had agreed to higher walls and additional tree screening on the Cypress Road part of the site;

2.      The officer’s report stated that the balconies to the flats were not big enough to accommodate seating, etc, although requested that if the balconies were increased in size, their objections should be reinstated.

·         Seven additional letters of support were received, which stated:

1.                  The development would encourage further investment in the town centre;

2.                  The number of empty retail premises along the High Street was significant and a premium retailer would help raise the standard and increase footfall in the High Street;

3.                  The supermarket would not affect independent local shops and any additional competition it would bring to Tesco was welcomed;

4.                  A number of Whitton residents said they would walk to Sainsbury’s instead of driving to the Hampton store;

5.                  The flats would provide an excellent opportunity for first time buyers;

6.                  The design was modern and attractive and it would be a landmark building;

7.                  The proposal fitted neatly with the council’s own criteria listed in its own proposals for giving the High Street an uplift late last year;

8.                  The Art Deco inspiration perfectly reflected other buildings in the High Street.

The Development Control Officer reported that a public exhibition had been held on 29 January.2011, whereby 557 signatures of support had been collected in a petition titled ‘Will You Support A New Sainsburys In Whitton?’.

The Development Control Officer reported that an e-mail from the Agent had been received on 25 January.2011 which confirmed the client’s final position as:

1.                  The public open space monies of £33,029.90 was agreed.

2.                  The Traffic Management Order contribution for the loading bay at £5,000 was agreed.

3.                  The provision of a service management plan by planning condition was agreed.

4.                  The provision of the re-sited and enlarged loading bay and other alterations was presumably covered by the £5,000 contribution which, if applicable, was agreed.

5.                  Via a s278 agreement, there would be a contribution to, undertake to upgrade the side alleyway including repaving, lighting, CCTV and planting.

6.                  The financial contribution of £7,000 towards repaving, planting, street lighting and street furniture in front of the site was agreed.

7.                  The provision of 6 cycle racks to the front of the store should form part of the s106/s278 agreements as this would involve off-site highway works.

8.                  That a lifetime car club membership was agreed.

9.                  That a roof garden could be offered to the Planning Committee to address the external amenity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51e

Amendment to previous approval 10/1530/FUL for demolition of existing garage and erection of pair of semi detached houses with associated car parking and to include greater rearward projection and design changes as well as extension to No. 135.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer tabled further comments made by the adjoining neighbour of the site.

The Development Control Officer amended the report as follows:

·         In respect of 10/2777/FUL the recommendation was amended to read “Had an appeal not been lodged I would have recommended PERMISSION subject to the following conditions and informatives:”

·         Amend condition DV48 to read “Approved drawings - 0910: P: 32, 33, and 34 received on 22nd September 2010, 0910:P:31A received on 20^th January 2011.”

The committee heard objections from Mr Dion Stewart, a neighbour adjoining the site.

The committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Neil Davies (consultant) and Mr Malcom Watton (agent).

The committee felt that the changes to the approved scheme were of a reasonable size and form, and given that previous schemes had been granted permission for buildings of a similar bulk and mass there were no reasonable grounds for refusal. The aesthetic changes to the elevational treatment were considered to be acceptable.

It was RESOLVED that in respect of application 10/2780/FUL the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

It was RESOLVED that in respect of application 10/2777/FUL, had an appeal not been lodged, the application would have been APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Erection of new extract duct arrangement from kitchens on south side elevation altering existing ductwork and erection of fence surrounding ducts.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

and Listed Building Consent be GRANTED

The Development Control Officer amended the report as follows:

Add to the end of para. 14:  The surrounding area is mixed in nature with the nearest residential properties sited opposite or some distance to the south in Blade House.  Given the appropriate siting of the extract duct, its modest scale and suitable screening, and commercial nature of building, the scheme is not considered to be unduly visually intrusive to nearby residential properties.

10/1437/FUL

·         Replace condition NS01 with:

“Within 28 days of this decision:

• A timescale for the implementation of the extract duct hereby approved; and…

• Details of the colour and finish of the duct and timeframe as to when this finish shall be implemented…

…Shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall only be implemented in accordance with the approved timescales and details, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON:  To preserve the character, appearance and setting of the listed building.”

Condition NS03:  Replace ‘condensing unit’ with ‘extract duct’

·         Amend NS02:  Delete, “within 28 days of the date of this decision”, with, “Before the plant to which the application refer is used”

·                     Add informative “NI03: The applicants are advised, and to inform condition NS04, that the approved extract duct should be implemented within 56 days of the date of this decision.”

·                     Add informative:  The applicants are advised that notwithstanding what is shown on the drawings, this approval solely relates to the extract duct and the new fencing as shown on the approved drawings, and no internal alterations.

The Development Control Officer advised Members of the correspondence / photographs / plans received from the Richmond Society.

10/1438/LBC

Within 28 days of this decision:

·         A timescale for the implementation of the extract duct hereby approved…

·         Details of the colour and finish of the duct and timeframe as to when this finish shall be implemented…

…Shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall only be implemented in accordance with the approved timescales and details, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  REASON:  To preserve the character, appearance and setting of the listed building.

Add informative NI01:   The applicants are advised, and to inform condition NS01, that the approved extract duct should be implemented within 56 days of the date of this decision.

The committee heard objections from Mr Derek Robinson, a residents’ association representative.

The committee had reservations about whether the extraction duct would have a detrimental impact on the listed building, although they felt it was not great enough to refuse this application.  They also felt that it was a minor addition to the fence, above what had already been approved.

It was RESOLVED:

(i) that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

(ii) that Listed Building Consent be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Erection of 2 new classrooms.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Councillor Fleming declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a Cabinet Member and undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of the item.

Councillor Morris declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a Cabinet Member and undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of the item.

The Development Control Officer reported that a neighbour had withdrawn their objection after receiving further information from the school.  A letter from the Council’s Deputy Head of Commissioning, Delivery & Service Improvement, which explained the reasons for the proposal

The Development Control Officer added the following condition to the report:

·         “NS02 The solar panels shall be installed as part of the development hereby approved in accordance with details to be submitted & approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: to comply with sustainability policies of the Local Planning Authority & the terms of the application.”

The committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr John Sharp (architect) and Ms Helen Frostick (Headteacher).

There was some concern from members of the committee over the impact this development would have on the Mortlake Conservation Area, although they felt this was not great enough to warrant a refusal.

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

Change from a Two Form Entry (2FE) to a Three Form Entry (3FE) primary school involving extensions and renovation of existing facilities.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Councillor Fleming declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a Cabinet Member and undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of the item.

Councillor Morris declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a Cabinet Member and undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of the item.

The Development Control Officer made the following amendments to the report:

·         Paragraph 41, add “A soil vapour survey in the areas of both existing and proposed buildings has been submitted. The site has been demonstrated as being suitable for use”

·         Delete condition “DV29D (Potentially Contaminated Sites)” as this had been addressed above

·         Condition NS07, add “Details of compensatory flood storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in order to demonstrate that 12.95 cubic metres of storage will be created between 9.64 and 9.84 m above Ordnance Datum (AOD) in an area adjacent to the existing floodplain”

·         Add condition “NS08 No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. REASON: To protect groundwater quality in the major/principal aquifer.”

·         Add informative “N102- Separate Ecological Method Statements relating to bats and water voles should be submitted in relation to condition”

·         Add informative “NS06 (Ecological Method Statement)”

·         Condition N103, in order to discharge condition NS07, the design needed to consider the following:

“The site investigation has detected materials with highly elevated PAH/EPH concentrations. Such areas would not be suitable for drainage design using infiltration to ground. Groundwater is fairly shallow, any method using infiltration to ground needs to ensure that there is enough stand-off to the water table to maintain an unsaturated zone.”

The committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr David Arnold (architect), Ms Kelly Aldridge (agent) and Mr Andrew King (Headteacher).

The committee felt that the design was acceptable, given the varied context of surrounding buildings. The committee also felt that travel was of paramount consideration given the high volume of cars attracted to the site and thus effort must be made to reduce it via the school’s travel plan.

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