Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 2 December 2010 TO FOLLOW.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 2 December 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.

10/2136/ADV – 76-84 Kew Road, Richmond

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

10/2226/FUL – Orleans Park School, Richmond Road, Twickenham

Councillor Coombs declared a prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of the fact that he owned shares in the site developer’s company.

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.

Removal of existing footbridge structures and adjustment of existing canopies.  The erection of a podium over the railway lines and a new bridge structure providing access from the existing station building to the station platforms.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

subject to the completion

of a Section 106 Agreement

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the following late correspondence and amendments to the officer’s report:

Late Correspondence

·        Local residents - late letters from 60 addresses received objecting to the proposal on the same grounds reported under the Public and other representations section in the report.  15 of these letters are from residents that have already written in.

·        One later letter received requesting that the widening of the bend in the road where Marys Terrace meets Beauchamp Road be permanent and that Marys Terrace is widened.  Concern is also raised to the swept path diagram in relation to a car parking space within the garage court and the restrictions on the road in relation to scaffolding to the Travelodge and possible damage to vehicles parked on Marys Terrace.

·        London Fire Brigade - late letter confirming that the revised arrangement on Marys Terrace (temporarily widening the bend in the road)  would be significantly more acceptable to  that previously proposed (no access from Railway Approach during possession periods).

·        Teddington Society and the Windsor Line Passengers’ Association - One late letter received from Brian Holder on both organisations behalf which includes an objection to:

-          The failure of Solum/NR to submit a planning application for the new station platform and track layout prior to the submission of the planning application for the podium;

-          The podium, if its foundations or superstructure would in any way prevent the installation of four through tracks (i.e. one more than at present).

-          An e-mail received from Cllr Naylor with an attachment showing drawings of the existing station site and that with the development above the proposed podium.

Changes to Officer Report

·        Para 15: omit “(although it now understood that such work is on hold)”.  - At the time of writing the addendum, it is now understood to the best of the Council’s knowledge that the platform lengthening works will proceed as planned during 2011.

·        Para 38 Amendments: 2 further changes:

·        Elevations adjusted to incorporate the Travel Lodge Hotel development  at the adjacent Regal House site

·        Gantry stairs to platforms shown at least 2.5m from platform edge – railway carriages annotated on drawing

·        Para 41 reworded as follows:  Revised Heads of Terms (HoTs) - Replace HoT 2 (Underpass) with the following:  “As part of the podium works, not to carry out any works that would prejudice the possibility of the underpass being brought into public use in the future.

·        Para 47 b) Add HoT 5 (Construction Related Matters) b) delete #the removal of the wall and the widening of the bend# and insert at beginning #prior to the first possession period (17 September 2011) and for the duration of the possession period thereafter, to remove the wall and widen the bend#

·        Para 63 reworded as follows: the proposal would not prejudice the underpass link from the station to the Sorting Office and the applicants have committed to this as set out in the Heads of Terms.

Additional/Amended Conditions

Amended Condition

BD11  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42a

Installation of 1 fascia sign and 1 projecting sign.

Officer’s recommendation:  A SPLIT DECISION is recommended:

·         Approval of fascia sign

·         Refusal of projecting sign

The Development Control Officer introduced the item.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Roe (the Agent).

The Committee also heard a representation from Councillor Harborne who spoke as an interested councillor.

·         The Committee was satisfied that the adaptations to the building’s facade would be sympathetic and complement the building’s character.

It was RESOLVED:

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

(ii)               That the application for the projecting sign be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Installation of plant equipment and fenced compound.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Roe (the Agent).

·         The Committee considered the visual impact of the units enclosure to neighbouring properties and to the streetscene. It was noted that the enclosure would be hard to see from street level. 

·         Members expressed concern about the audible impact of the units on neighbouring properties. They established that the noise generated would be between 5-10db. This would not be deemed unacceptable.

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

The scheme proposes the following works:

• Installation of fascia and projecting signs at no. 76-84
• Security doors and partitions to shop at no. 82-84
• Lighting installation to the three shops at no. 76-84 
• New glazed, hardwood timber sliding doors between No. 80, and no. 78-76
• New protective floor surfacing over the existing tiles at no. 82-84 and No. 78-76 Kew road; and
• New plant and close boarded oak stained timber fence to enclosure the rear plant area.

Officer’s recommendation:  Listed Building Consent

be GRANTED

The Development Control Officer introduced the item.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Roe (the Agent).

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

Demolition of rear extension to Claridge House and garages. Construction of new retail unit, first floor and second floor offices (2 units), first floor and second floor residences (5 units), plant space ancillary to retail unit. Removal of existing vehicle crossover, provision of new pedestrian access.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION, subject to the

completion of a Section 106 Agreement;

Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED

This item was deferred prior to the meeting. It would be heard at the meeting on 6 January 2011.

Erection of a pair of family houses.

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

The Development Control Officer introduced the item.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Grylls (the Applicant).

It was RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED due only to insufficient amenity space for homes of that size, as set out below:

The proposed development would constitute an overdevelopment of the site in that it would provide homes capable of containing three bedrooms but would fail to meet the appropriate parking and amenity space standards for homes of that size.  The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies DM HO4 and TP8 of the Draft Development Plan Document (DPD) as well as the supplementary planning guidance document ‘Residential Design Standards’

Improvements to the school through the combination of a new two storey science block extension and the remodelling of the design and technology teaching spaces and AEN teaching rooms.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

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

·        Neighbour reiterates strong objection to scheme on the issues laid out in the report. Appalling & uncomplimentary architecture; significant unneighbourly impact on houses opposite; already significant traffic problems, particularly during construction phase; need for tree planting which has not happened previously.

      Para 27; second line; delete ‘24’ & insert ‘22’

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Arnes (the Architect) and Ms Nunn (the Head Teacher).

The Committee evaluated the design characteristics of the development. They considered the colour of the supporting columns and the soffit which could be either red or blue.  The Committee established that the development would complement the existing building and would not adversely affect the streetscene.

The Committee noted the benefit of extra teaching space which the development would provide.

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

Creation of a new two-storey extension to the north facade of the existing school building incorporating four new classrooms, (improved 14-19 Diploma facility), office, plant room and staircase. In addition to the extension there will also be some refurbishment/remodelling alterations internally.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Having declared a prejudicial interest Councillor Coombs withdrew from the room for the duration of this item.

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

·        Para 18; first line; delete ’19 & 20’; insert ’16 & 17’

·         Para 21; ‘…species have been found on that part of the site the subject of the application, it is nevertheless proposed to carry out ecological enhancements of the site including bird & bat boxes. A 5 year management plan is proposed. These initiatives are to be encouraged & conditions are recommended accordingly’.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Cummins (the architect) and Ms Longhurst (the head teacher).

·         The Committee was keen to ensure that a suitable tree would be planted to soften the view from Richmond Road.

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

Amalgamation and expansion of two existing three form entry schools, Stanley Infants School and Stanley Juniors School, to form a new combined four form entry Primary School, with the addition of two new features: an Autistic Spectrum Unit and a Children’s Centre to includes new build accommodation and reconfigured existing areas.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

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

·         Additional plan received adding 20 cycle stands to the proposal

·         page 85; Condition DV48; add ‘..& drawing 602 [cycle/scooter provision] received 13 December 2010’

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Ms Butler (the building development manager), Mr Braddick (the architect) Janet Hilton (the head teacher) and Councillor Elloy (a School Governor).

·         The Committee considered theextra traffic that the site could generate. They accepted that efforts had been made to mitigate the impact of this through on site car parking and Travel Plan initiatives. The Committee agreed that traffic would need to be monitored through the planning conditions.

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

10/2312/FUL: Erection of single storey east side extension to existing school library, single storey west side extension to existing design and technology classrooms and single storey rear extension, lift shaft addition and internal alterations to Cardinal Newman House with decking.

Officer’s recommendation:PERMISSION

10/2313/LBC  - Internal alterations, addition of lift shaft and erection of single storey rear extension to grade 2 listed building (Cardinal Newman House), ground level decking and erection of single storey west side extension to main school building.

Officer’s recommendation: Referral to the Department for

Communities and Local Government for decision

The Development Control Officer introduced the item.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Arnes (the Architect) and Ms Bailey (the Head teacher).

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives setout in the officer’s report and the following amendment to condition U35808:

·         Insert on second line ‘…nature conservation including tree planting shall be submitted….’