Issue - meetings

Ward

Riverside and Laleham

Proposal

The erection of a new boundary wall and gate at the western boundary.

Officer recommendation

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Councillor M. Gibson had declared a pecuniary interest and left the meeting at this point.

Description:

The erection of a new boundary wall and gate at the western boundary.

Additional Information:

The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that:

The Council had received one further letter of representation which raised the following concerns:

Planning Officers had previously stated that the current garage was in the same location as the original garage which was incorrect.

The proposal impacts parking at a property opposite the site and would restrict access to a garage granted planning permission under the reference 19/01392/HOU.

The garage has narrowed the roadway and granting permission for the wall and gates would endorse the encroachment.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Mr Marks spoke against the proposed application raising the following key points:

·         The garage has not been built on the position of the original garage

·         Encroachment on to the private road

·         The new position of the garage has caused narrowing of the road and caused difficulties for owners of the Thames Side houses in respect of parking and access to their properties.

·         Planning permission has previously been granted for the objector to build a new garage at his property, 77 Thames Side; if the new garage is allowed to remain at 18 Riverside Close, along with the proposed gates, post and fencing, it will not be possible to access the approved garage at 77 Thames Side.

·         Granting planning permission will create further encroachment

Councillor D. Saliagopoulos spoke against the proposed application raising the following key points:

·         She agreed with all the points raised by Mr Marks

·         Vehicular access would become very tight if the permission was granted

·         She felt that many of the local residents were against the application

·         This area suffered flooding in 2014

Councillor T. Harman spoke against the proposed application raising the following key point:

·         The proposed wall and gates will not positively contribute to the street scene

·         There would be reduced room for car manoeuvres into the property

·         The application compromises the integrity of the access road

·         Encroachment onto other properties

·         Negative impact on neighbourhood

A motion to approve the planning application was proposed by Councillor R. Smith-Ainsley and seconded by Councillor H. Harvey and was agreed by the Committee.

Debate:

None of the Members indicated that they wished to speak on this application.

Decision:

The application was approved.

Ward

Riverside and Laleham

Proposal

The erection of a new boundary wall and gate at the western boundary.

Officer recommendation

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Description:

The erection of a new boundary wall and gate at the western boundary.

Additional Information:

The Senior Planning Officer provided the following updates:

The Council had received an additional letter of representation which objected to item 5 and item 6. 

The letter raised concerns over access to a future garage granted under planning permission 19/01392/HOU and damage to parked cars (Officer note: damage to cars is not a planning matter).

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Mr. Marks spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

·         Impacts on ability to use his property as previously

·         The wall is not in the same position, it has come forward

·         Plans encroach on areas which were not previously built on and narrow the road

·         Area outside 77 Thameside boundary fence is part of the title of the property and should allow 2 cars to park without obstruction

·         Very difficult to access the garage if cars are parked on verge opposite

·         Possible damage to cars parked on road if granted

·         Garage has been moved forward from original position

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Harman spoke as Ward Councillor against the proposed development raising the following key points:

·         Incorrect points have been made by the Officer in the report

·         The wall and gate are unacceptable, and not in keeping with the character of the area

·         Private highway has been encroached

·         Independent vehicle tracking plan refutes that access to the garage will be possible

·         Formal pavement exists

·         Negative impact on access for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles is considered severe

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

•          Development looks reasonable

•          Proposal replaces something similar

•          Concern over emergency vehicles being able to gain access

•          Trespass concerns over vehicles using other residents’ land

•          Concerns that a vehicle cannot enter the site

•          Concerns over exact location of the proposed wall and the gate

It was proposed and seconded and the Committee agreed to defer the application to enable the officer to visit the site again and remeasure the wall.

Decision:

The application was deferred to enable the dimensions of the wall (in terms of setting out) to be checked on site.

Councillor Gibson rejoined the meeting at this point.