Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Naylor who was substituted by Councillor O’Malley.

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.

Councillor Linnette declared that he had carried out site visits for all agenda items.

10/0425/EN/UCU - RIVER THAMES VISITOR CENTRE, RIVERSIDE, RICHMOND

Councillor Chappell declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of the fact that she knew the premises owner (Mr Edwards) as he had stood as Vice-Chair of the Twickenham Conservative Association of which she was a member. She declared that she had not discussed the application with Mr Edwards nor formed a prior view.

Councillor Bouchier declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of the fact that she knew Mr Edwards; she was a former member of the Richmond Environmental Information Centre [whose office was registered at the premises]; she also lived within the vicinity of the premises site, but was not a near neighbour. She declared that she had not discussed the application nor formed a prior view.

Councillor O’Malley declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of the fact that he knew one of the registered speakers, Ms Wenman, but had not discussed the application with her nor formed a prior view.

Councillor Harrison declared that he had pre-determined his view on this item and undertook to withdraw from the Committee for the duration of the item, as he knew Mr Edwards and had previously discussed the matter.

It was noted and reported via the addendum that other Committee Members had received correspondence in relation to this item from Mr Edwards but had not discussed the matter with him.

11/0455/FUL - ST MARYS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE SPORTS GROUND, BROOM ROAD, TEDDINGTON

Councillor Jaeger declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of the fact that she was a member of the university’s Estates Committee. She undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of this item.

Councillor Roberts declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of the fact that he was an alumnus of the university. He declared that he had not formed a view on the item.

11/2568/VRC - PETERSHAM VILLAGE HALL, BUTE AVENUE, PETERSHAM

Councillors Bouchier, Harrison and Miller declared personal interests in this item by virtue of being acquainted with the applicant, the Reverend Canon Tim Marwood. They declared that they had not discussed the application with him nor formed a prior view.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 22 September 2011. ATTACHED

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 September 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.

Enforcement Matter - Use and Development at the River Thames Visitor Centre, Riverside, Richmond TW10 6UJ:

1. Development comprising the provision of toilets on a second floating pontoon attached to the primary mooring pontoon for the River Thames Visitor Centre; and

2. Use of the Information Centre not in accordance with conditions attached to planning approval 05/3452/FUL.

Officer’s recommendation:  1. That a new enforcement notice

be served in relation to the floating toilet.

2. That prosecution action be authorised

in relation to non compliance with the upheld enforcement notice

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

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and explained the background of the cases. She drew the Committee’s attention to the addendum which reported the following correspondence from the applicant and the following officer response:

Response from Barry Edwards regarding the Committee Report: a detailed response was provided and this was circulated to all Members of the Planning Committee.  The main purpose of his report was to highlight errors, misleading information and to indicate that the recommendation to take further action was flawed. The report goes into some detail in connection with the mooring of a toilet pontoon (Matter 1), the mix of uses and how these were considered to be the same as previously permitted uses (Matter 2) and point by point comments on the detail of the report.

In terms of the main points raised in this report, Officers provided the following information:

·         “Most if not all of the matters of substance raised in this rebuttal had already been examined in detail during a three day Public Inquiry.   This was presided over by an independent planning Inspector and full opportunity was given to all parties who were represented by barristers. This ensured a very careful assessment of the issues to be undertaken and the Inspector’s decision can be relied upon as the best informed analysis of the activities and development at RTVC.

·         Matter 1: The appeal decision has been circulated to Members and the toilet pontoon is considered in paragraphs 7 – 17.  Whilst the enforcement notice was quashed for technical reasons this was not because it was argued that planning permission was not required as is suggested by Mr Edwards. The inspector clearly sets out his conclusion in paragraph 14; “Whether the 2006 permission only authorised what was in place at the time, or what was shown on the plans, the second pontoon has therefore been placed beyond the area permitted for any such structure and I find so as a matter of fact.”  In paragraph 18 of the appeal decision the Inspector states that the decision to quash the notice does not amount to a grant of planning permission.

·         Matter 2: Mr Edwards maintains that the Inspector did not adequately consider the level of catering that was lawful in 2006 and his conclusions that the level of catering was flawed.  Considerable evidence was provided on this issue to the Inquiry. Following assessment of this evidence including Mr Edwards’ own statements that all of the usable space at the RTVC is available for the catering operation and 95% of visitors come aboard to make use of that facility (paragraph 39) the Inspector concluded that “I find that the use for the sale of food and drink as an activity far exceeded the authorised use.”

·         The onus of proof lies with the appellant and the argument that the level of catering is lawful because the level  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32a

Change of use of the ground floor level of the building from a vacant retail unit (Use Class A1: Shops) to an Estate Agents (Use Class A2: Financial & Professional Services).

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

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

·         E-mail from Councillor Stockley expressing concern that the applicants had approached local residents to discuss their representations on the application.

·         E-mail from Councillor Martin objecting on grounds that there are sufficient estate agents in Barnes High Street already.

·         Representation from a previous objector raising a query on whether a fair rent is being asked in the marketing exercise and whether this is a reason for continued vacancy of the unit.

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mrs Boyd, a local resident.

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

A representation was heard from Councillor Stockley who spoke as an interested Councillor.

The Committee considered the information provided in the report and by officers, and the points raised by speakers. The Committee discussed the details that had been provided in respect of the marketing of the premises as an A1 unit and the rent that was being sought. Members discussed the importance of retaining A1 use in the centre of Barnes in light of the Council’s policy TC5 and emerging policy DMTC3. 

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposed change of use would, by reason of the loss of shopping floor space in a key shopping frontage, be detrimental to the retail activity of Church Road and, in the absence of sufficient reason for an exception to be made, is therefore contrary to policies TC5 of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Unitary Development Plan: First Review 2005 and policy DM TC 3 of the emerging Local Development Framework Development Management Plan.

Erection of two residential units, comprising one five-bed dwelling-house with basement and a one-bedroom flat; alterations to boundary treatment.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

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

Addition to ‘Public and other representations’ on page 24 as a letter had been received from 46 Kings Road noting the following:

·         Grateful that applicant consulted them on proposals and took into account their views, in particular by moving the basement further away from boundary with No.46 Kings Road; content with new wall proposed for boundary; specifically asked that the trees along the boundary be removed and strongly support their removal.  The letter also asks that no building be allowed at a later stage above the sub-basement.

Condition NS04 and paragraph 43 clarified and amended: parking permit restriction to apply to new flat only and to secure Car Club Membership for both new units of accommodation.

Additional condition (Construction Method Statement): 

·         No development shall take place, including any works of 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 provide for:

i) Size and routing of construction vehicles and holding areas for these on site;

ii) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

iii) The loading and unloading of plant and materials;

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

v) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding;

vi) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;

vii) A scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction work;

viii).Construction contractors must be members of the Considerate Contractors Scheme.

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

The Committee discussed the information received from the officers and speaker. Though mindful of the need to assess the application on its merits and against the adopted and emerging policies, Members discussed the similarities of the present application to the extant permission granted in February 2010. In light of the emerging policies, concerns were raised over whether the development would reflect the character of the street scene; however, it was noted that the proposed design was very similar to that of the extant permission and would have a similar appearance in the street scene to the development which had already been granted permission. 

It was RESOLVED:

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

Installation of 8 flood lighting columns to the existing all weather pitch.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

Having declared a prejudicial interest in this application, Councillor Jaeger withdrew from the room for the duration of the item.

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

·         Page 35 Insert the following under Public and Other Representations:

‘LBRUT Sports & Fitness: Strongly support the proposal.  LBRUT Sports & Fitness operate 4 floodlit artificial turf pitches across the Borough.  At peak times, i.e. winter evenings 6-10pm, we are fully booked and we have waiting lists for bookings that we cannot provide for.  There is therefore demonstrable need for more facilities of this type. In particular, the facility will be used by St Mary’s College student teams and by Teddington Hockey Club, who have an overall membership of 500, 350 of whom are juniors.  So use will be by responsible, organised groups which will ensure that there is respect for neighbouring properties.

LBRUT Sports & Fitness have been involved in the Working Group for this project and have therefore had significant input on design and future management of this facility.  The lighting system selected is one that will cause minimum impact in terms of lighting disturbance to neighbouring properties. In summary, this proposal will make a significant impact in catering for unfulfilled demand for sport in the Borough and will assist with Council objectives in terms of increasing participation in junior and adult sport.’

·         Additional late email from resident of no.9 Kingston Road advising that they have reached an agreement with St Marys for the installation of black out blinds.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Tucker, the architect; Mr Reid Smith, the applicant and from Mr Malthouse, of Teddington Hockey Club.

The Committee considered the information provided and points raised by speakers. Members noted that that the applicant had worked with neighbouring residents to seek agreement on the use and location of the flood lighting columns and that the use of cowls would be secured by the proposed conditions. It was also noted that the 300 lux level lighting was only proposed to be used when necessary, for example for hockey matches and practice. Members were mindful of the importance of consulting residents where necessary during the initial implementation of the scheme.

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 informative:

·         Informative: The views of residents should be sought where appropriate, i.e. should submitted details/measures differ from those indicated within and as part of the submission of the application.

Application to remove condition U34617 (Temporary Permission) to enable existing occupier to continue in occupation; and to amend condition U34618 (Hours of Operation) to exclude Sunday use for class D2.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

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

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Davis, a neighbour not adjoining the site.

The Committee heard a representation is support of the application from Canon Marwood, the applicant.

The Committee considered the information provided in the report and the points raised by speakers. The Committee discussed the current and projected hours of operation of the fitness centre and the implications of removing the temporary consent condition. It was noted that the speaker had raised concern about the effect on traffic in Bute Avenue but that since the fitness centre had been operating the level of resident concern about this issue appeared to have lessened. It was also noted that the permission was personal to the applicant. As the application was for the removal and variation of conditions it was not possible to impose new conditions.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Single storey rear extension to the existing house with return to the garden entrance.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Councillor Bouchier was not present for this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no amendments to the report. No representations were heard.

The Committee considered the information provided by the report and the officer. Members did not perceive any demonstrable harm in the application that would warrant a refusal. It was noted that a neighbour had raised concerns about potential disturbance during the construction period but that this was not a planning matter and could be addressed via separate means.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Demolition of existing dwelling with the exception of front facade which is to be retained. Construction of new extended dwelling at basement, ground and first floor levels incorporating retained facade; external air source heat pumps housed in a below ground acoustic enclosure.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION and

Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED

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

English Heritage comments: Application 11/0464/CAC should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of the Council’s own specialist conservation advice.

Additional letter from Quorum Associates dated 29^th September 2011, structural engineer for the applicant stating:-

·         Remaining roof structure to the front left hand side of the building is rotten and unfit for purpose

·         Contactor has been instructed to replace the damaged timber elements with new construction. The defective rafters, hips, ridges and other elements have been left in place enabling them to be removed at a later date.

·         The requirement to remove the original roof for structural reasons has not changed during the course of construction on site

·         In order to maintain the construction programme, they have constructed the raised floor structure in such a way so as to be able to remove the masonry southern gable wall once a decision has been issued. The timber floor is connected to the masonry with a timber wall plate which is bolted to the masonry with threaded stud and chemical bolts. When the wall is demolished the floor will be propped internally and the bolts will be removed. This method was chosen as the floor restrains the wall in the short term but can be easily disconnected when the new wall is constructed. They have avoided loading the wall with the heavy partitions in the short term until the wall’s future is determined thus avoiding further destabilisation.

·         The current construction has not altered the condition of the gable wall which still needs to be replaced for the structural reasons set out in the application.

Additional e-mail from Quorum Associates dated 12^th October stating:

·         The above comments in connection with the ‘rafters, hips, ridges and other elements’ was intended to be a general statement that confirmed that the members would stay in place so far as they could ‘in a practical sense’, prior to planning permission being granted. The main problems with the roof lay at the junction of the rafters and the ridge member which was acknowledged by the Local Authority and Quorum to be in a very poor condition. For this reason the member had to be removed in its entirety at this stage. 

Letter received from the occupiers of 20 Fife Road re-iterating original objection and making the following additional points:

·         Developer has continued to work on site over last few months

·         The new external walls of the development have been erected and tied into the flank wall which has been re-pointed and therefore there is no justification for demolition of the southern flank wall. Wall has stood since originally built and has remained in good condition, notwithstanding the construction being undertaken on site.

·         Ridge beam was replaced on the 28^th September 2011 without consent

·         New rear dormer had been attached to ‘rotten wood’

·         No need for the Council  to consent to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32g