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.

10/3034/FUL - 6 MONROE DRIVE, EAST SHEEN

Councillor Morris declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of the fact she knew one of the speakers.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 14 April 2011 (attached) and 28 April 2011 (to follow).

The minutes of the meetings held on 14 April 2011 were agreed as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them subject to the removal of Councillor Elengorn’s name from the list of attendees at the site visit to Teddington School (minute 69).

The minutes of the meetings held on 28 April 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.

The application is to regularise the use of the site for Class A1 (retail) purposes.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

• Mortlake with East Sheen Society consider that despite the pedestrian walkway across the site, there would still be too much conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. They suggest that customer parking be prevented on the forecourt. They consider that the proposal will add to parking congestion in side streets. They are in agreement that the accesses require kerb installation and strengthening.

·         Para. 7. The number of letters received objecting at the Amendment           stage is 24.  These letters from nearby residents refer to previous points of objection and additional reasons: the proposal would extend opening hours, Portman Avenue would become ‘rat run’ and would             have to introduce traffic calming, management of waste and rubbish,   pedestrian walkway and ‘banksman’ directing traffic unsafe, will attract passing car trade, potential further extensions at the site, unclear as to who the occupiers would be.

·         2 letters of support state that because of recent shop unit vacancies, approval would help re-generate this part of URRW,  Would not be detrimental to local traders, increased competition offers more choice, local parking and traffic problems are a separate matter which should be addressed separately with TfL, TfL should not have designated parking slots on URRW into loading bays, considers only 10% of store’s staff would require parking, suggest restriction on further

         extension of built area.

• p.27, Informative IL12 should be condition DV48.  Drawing JLK0592-02 received 20 November 2009 should read JLK0592-01.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Bennett-Coles, Mr Bjorses, Ms Gill and Mr Kebble.

Representations in support of the application were heard from Mr Little, Ms Miles and Mr Swift.

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

The Committee considered the information received and noted the following points in particular:

·               The Committee noted that the Core Strategy (8.2.2.5) stated there was limited public car parking within East Sheen and it may have been appropriate for additional public car parking to be brought forward as part of the scheme.

·               The Committee noted that TfL had raised no objections to the increased traffic the site would produce. However, members compared this to a previous planning application for a retail site which had also received no objections from TfL and had lead to congestion on Upper Richmond Road. There was also the potential that 11 meter service vehicles could cause queuing during delivery times.

·               Introducing a condition to restrict the retail floor space would have allowed the business to open outside of restricted Sunday hours (10-4 or 11-5).

·               The option of the site becoming mixed use was considered. This would allow the frontage to be used for retail (A1) and a proportion of the site used for business use (B1).

·               Concern was expressed for pedestrian and traffic safety along Upper Richmond Road West in particular in relation to traffic turning right along the road.

It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79a

Demolition of existing five bed house and erection of one three storey five bedroom house and one two storey one bedroom house.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

·        Letter of representation in respect of revised scheme from a neighbour adjoining the site, objecting on grounds that there would still be eight windows overlooking their property, that the development is out of character with the locality, where the predominant pattern is houses of two storeys with pitched roofs and reiterating previous objections relating to siting, scale, bulk and design, which the amended scheme does not address.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Ms Fisher, Mr Hill, and Mr Monier-Williams.

The Committee heard representations in support the application from Ms Featherstone and Ms Milroy.

The Committee considered the information received and noted the following points in particular:

·         There was concern that relocating the swimming pool could affect the amenity of neighbouring properties due to overlooking and noise. The Committee noted that most trees on the site would be retained, which could provide some screening and help reduce noise.

·         An area at the northern side of the development would encroach upon land identified as future OLTI in the emerging Development Action Plan. 

·         The Committee considered the applicants justification for demolishing the existing site in line with the policy HSG 2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

·         Although the property was not within a conservation area the Committee noted it bordered on a building of townscape merit and a conservation area was in close proximity. The Committee questioned whether the proposed development would dominate or detract from the mixed character of the area.

·         The applicant had acquired the land at 4 Monroe Drive with the intention of maintaining the welfare of the badger’s sett located on site.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report, and the following additional conditions:

·     To provide an acoustic barrier for the swimming pool, details of which are to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority,

·     Relocate the bin storage area and submit details for approval by the Local Planning Authority,

·     Details of plant noise and mitigation measures to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Demolition of existing car-port, garage and external WC to create new 4-dwelling 2-storey residential scheme with car-stacker, including part-excavation to create sunken lower ground floor.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

• Amend condition U39485 - Decision drawings:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents, where applicable: 123/001,  123/012, 123/015 and 123/016 received on 26 November 2010, 123/014 received on 17 February 2011, 123/009A and 123/012A received on 14 March 2011 and 123/010B and 123/011B received on 7 April 2011.

REASON: To accord with the terms of the application, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

• E-mail from Zac Goldsmith MP supporting concerns raised by a constituent regarding density, loss of light, privacy and loss of outlook. Concerned also about the proposed car-stacker, which could cause congestion problems and may fail to preserve the character of the conservation area.

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Ms Ladkin.

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

The Committee considered the information received and points made by speakers. They noted the following points in particular:

·         Concern was expressed regarding possible noise disturbance from the car stacker and child safety. The Committee also noted that the car stacker would not be installed for use by residents of 176-182 Castelnau.

·         Some of the proposed units fell below the Council’s minimum standards for size.

·         Some of the properties’ gardens fell below the Council’s minimum standard of 5m², with the smallest being 4m².

·         The Committee was concerned that the development would be partially located below the ground floor which could put the property at risk of flooding.

·         The Committee was concerned that a residential use of the site would cause a loss of amenity to neighbouring residents by reason of noise and increased activity.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED, for the following reasons:

·         Units 3 and 4 of the proposed development would be deficient in outdoor amenity space for the proposed occupiers. The proposals would therefore be contrary to policies BLT 11 and HSG 18 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan – First Review adopted March 2005, policy DM HO 4 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Development Management Plan (as agreed for consultation 25 October-6 December 2010) and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Residential Development Standards’ adopted March 2010.

·         Units 1, 2 and 4 of the proposed development do not meet the Council’s minimum living space standards. The proposals would therefore be contrary to policies BLT 11 and HSG 18 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Unitary Development Plan – First Review adopted March 2005, policy DM HO 4 of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Development Management Plan (as agreed for consultation 25 October-6 December 2010) and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: ‘Residential Development Standards’ adopted March 2010.

·         The provision of four residential units on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79c

Proposed single storey rear and side extension

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item.

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Hartnup.

The Committee considered the information received and points made by speakers. They noted the following points in particular:

·         The Committee noted that under permitted development rights the applicant could build an extension of up to 3m high which was .4m less than what they had applied for. It was not felt that the additional 4m of height would mitigate a significant loss of light to the neighbouring property.

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

Erection of a single storey self contained residential unit ancillary to main dwellinghouse.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

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

• Additional condition. LT01 – Location of trees on and adjacent site

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Pratt.

The Committee considered the information received and points made the speaker. They noted the following points in particular:

·         The Committee noted that the development backed on to Collis Primary School. Between the development and the separating fence there was a row of large beech trees which would continue to provide screening.

·         In order to make the development a separate address the applicant would need to apply for planning permission.

It was RESOLVED:

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