Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Naylor who was substituted by Councillor Palmer.

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.

11/2092/HOT - 47 STANLEY ROAD, EAST SHEEN

Councillor Morris declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of her assisting the objector, Mrs Cartland, in relation to the application.  She undertook to withdraw from the Committee and the meeting room for the duration of the item.

11/1677/FUL – AMIDA CLUB, STAINES ROAD, TWICKENHAM

Councillor Linnette declared that he had been lobbied by objectors regarding this application but had entered no correspondence on the details of the application nor formed a view on the decision.

11/1178/FUL – FIELD HOUSE, 72 OLDFIELD ROAD, HAMPTON

Councillors Mathias, Morris and Palmer declared personal, non-prejudicial interests in the above item, during the meeting, by virtue of having acquaintance with an objector via the local Conservative network.

Councillor Linnette declared that he had conducted SITE VISITS to application sites 11/1178/FUL, 11/1677/FUL, 11/2073/FUL AND 10/3251/FUL.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 01 September 2011: ATTACHED.

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 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.

Change of use of ground floor of building from Class B1(a) offices to Class A1 retail for use as a retail foodstore; and change of use of first floor from Class B1(a) offices to a mix of ancillary Class A1 retail use and Class B1(a) use. Installation of new shopfronts and other associated alterations.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the report and briefly described the proposal.  He drew the attention of the Committee to the addendum and reported the following amendments and additions to the report since it had been published:

(i)      Page 11, Paragraph 7 amend ‘and 1000 to 1600 Sundays’ to read ‘and for a maximum of 6 hours between 1000 to 1800 on Sundays’

(ii)    Page 12, Paragraph 12; 1 additional support comment received.

(iii)   Page 13, 1 additional request from occupant/owner of no.22 Percy Road to be consulted on the proposal and requesting details of the application be posted (request received this week).

(iv)  Page 22, Condition 48 Remove ‘AD007 REV 05’ and insert ‘AD007 Rev 06 received by the Council on 19 July 2011’

(v)    Page 22, Add additional condition to read: ‘No external ducting, extraction or air conditioning equipment shall be installed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the visual appearance of the area and the amenities of nearby residents.

(vi)  Page 24, Condition NS07 amend ‘and 1000 to 1600 Sundays’ to read ‘and for a maximum of 6 hours between 1000 to 1800 on Sundays, Bank Holidays and Public Holidays.’

(vii) Page 24, Condition NS08 amend ‘or after 4pm’ to read ‘or after 6pm’.

(viii)           Page 24, Add additional Informative to read ‘NI04: In respect of the discharge of condition NS09 details of a scheme for the installation (and retention) of electric vehicle charging points should be included with any details submitted to the Council’.

[As this application was classified as a ‘major application’ according to the LBRuT criteria the Chairman had discretion to alter the speaking rules as required]

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mrs Brown, Mr Brown and Mr Hainsworth.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mrs Sim, Mr Garrett, Mr Soones and Mr Dean.

In addition responses to Councillor questions were allowed from pre-registered speakers Mr Abbott and Mr Foxall.

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

The Committee considered the information received, the points raised by speakers and the additional information referred to in the addendum.

In particular the committee discussed the following points:

(i)      The safety of children at the local school, in particular the possibility of a safety survey being conducted should the application be granted permission and the store open.

(ii)    That the store would have a Green Travel Plan to encourage staff to walk or take public transport to work.

(iii)   That the time required for marketing could be reduced owing to the comprehensive methods employed.

(iv)  Committee members clarified the size of lorries and the number and times of delivery with officers.

(v)    The reasonableness of speaker requests for an access road to be funded by the applicant.

(vi)  On questioning, the Development Control Officer reminded the Committee that the advice from central government and emerging policies was that competition and choice should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28a

The erection of an outdoor swimming pool, clubroom extension and associated plant room.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the report and briefly described the proposal.  He drew the attention of the Committee to the addendum and reported the following amendments and additions to the report since it had been published:

Amendments to the Report:

Replace para 20 as follows:

• The application site is not designated as Green Belt Land in either the Unitary Development Plan: First Review 2005 or the Development Management Plan 2011 which is due to be adopted on 1 November 2011.   The land is however designated Green Belt Land under the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938.

• The land at Twickenham and Fulwell golf courses is held under "The Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act, 1938. An Act to make provision for the preservation from industrial or building development of areas of land in and around the administrative county of London." Under this Act owners are required to request permission from the Secretary of State to build on or dispose of this land. This requirement is separate from and in addition to any requirements for planning permission; an advisory informative (NI02) is to be attached to this decision. Most of this land is protected in the Local Development Framework by its designation as Metropolitan Open Land under Policy DMOS2, it is not covered in the LDF by any planning policy green belt designation in the terms described by PPG2.”

Additional informative

• NI02     The applicant is advised that under The Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act, 1938, you are required to obtain separate permission from the Secretary of State for this proposed development.

In addition the Development Control Officer referred to the following late representation received.

Late Letters

Additional comments have been received from an objector who has identified a need to amend para 20 of the officer report so that it clarifies the fact that the land is designated Green Belt under the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act.  In support of this observation, the following excerpts from the Examiners Report on the Development Management Plan are highlighted which considered the fact that PPG2 does not cover the issue of 1938 Act Green Belt Land:

“The 2000 UDP Examination did not have the benefit of an important expression of government policy in the form of a letter from Bob Neill MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State with responsibility for planning at the Department for Communities and Local Government, of 14th March 2011, to the local MP. This letter refers to the case raised by the representors and was presented in evidence to this Examination. In it the Minister refers to this 1938 Act land and states:

“I understand the argument that it would be clearer if all land which has Green Belt status was identifiable in local development frameworks, so as to encourage consistency of treatment. It is though up to local authorities to decide what land to designate as green belt in their local plans.”

The letter from the Minister  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28b

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of pair of two storey five bed semi detached houses with associated parking (revisions to approved application 11/1106/FUL).

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

This item was WITHDRAWN prior to the meeting owing to the submission of inaccurate drawings and would be heard at a future meeting of the Committee. 

Ground floor extension to form new kitchen and bathroom, replacement of windows and front door, and new roof light to rear elevation roof.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

Having declared a prejudicial interest Councillor Morris withdrew from the Committee and the meeting room for the duration of this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the report and briefly described the proposal.  He drew the attention of the Committee to one late representation received since the report had been published:

Ø      Late representation from a neighbour objecting on grounds that proposed extension severely impacts on light to the ground floor of no.49 and causes distress to neighbouring residents

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mrs Cartland.

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

The Committee considered the information received, the points raised by speakers and the additional information referred to in the addendum.

In particular the committee discussed the following points:

(i)      The claims by the objector that a ‘right to light’ test was not conducted.  Officers confirmed that the council’s standard light test had been conducted and the application was found to comply with the standards set.

(ii)    That other houses on the street having similar extensions would be noted, however it would not constitute a precedent, as each case should be judged on its individual merits. 

(iii)   That the applicant could build a higher extension under permitted development rights.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Extension of hull and superstructure of existing houseboat. Steel hull to be welded on and extended no more than 7 m. No addition to width.

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

The Development Control Officer introduced the report and briefly described the proposal.  He drew the attention of the Committee to a correction to the report made since the report had been published:

Ø      In description of proposal delete ‘No addition to width’ and insert ‘re-siting of houseboat’

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Lancaster

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Loxton and Mr Walker.

The Committee considered the information received, the points raised by speakers and the additional information referred to in the addendum.  In particular they referred to the following:

(i)      The positioning of the boat should the application be permitted and the gap between it and neighbouring boats.

(ii)    Concern was expressed that doors on the application could be used to exit on to a terrace.  The Committee noted that the doors could be conditioned as non-opening should permission be granted to preclude the use of the roof as a terrace.

(iii)   The intended use for the extension was not for B&B accommodation

(iv)  The potential impact of the application on views of Taggs island.

(v)    It was accepted that there would be no substantial ecological impact from the application.

(vi)  Metropolitan Open Land policy. was in particular applicable to the consideration of this application

(vii)That the proposed extension would not result in the  the largest Houseboat at Taggs Island..

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Erection of two storey side and rear extensions.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

This item was WITHDRAWN prior to the meeting owing to the submission of inaccurate drawings and would be heard at a future meeting of the Committee.