Meetings, Agenda and Minutes

Councillors Geoff Austin, David Cunningham and Chrissie Hitchcock declared an interest in the urgent items 3-5 Penrhyn Road as they were all members of Development Control Committee which would determine these items.

Cllr Tim Dennen declared an interest in item A1 11/12503 Land adjoining 24-26 Dinton Road and 219 Park Road as he is a Trustee of the Dinton’s Field Community Trust.

A summary of the reasons for granting permission and of any relevant development plan policies and proposals is included in the report of the Interim Head of Planning on each application where permission is recommended.  Permitted applications are subject to the conditions, informatives and other requirements set out in the report together with any other details on late responses to consultations or comments received since the agenda was printed, revised drawings circulated at the meeting and amended recommendations, additional conditions and informatives set out below.

Applications refused are for the reasons set out in the report by the Interim Head of Planning and any amended reasons are set out below.

Under the arrangements for speaking on planning applications objectors and applicants spoke on the following applications:

Land adjoining 24-26 Dinton Road and 219 Park Road

Mr Simon Glover spoke as an objector to the proposal. Mr Simon Hoare spoke on behalf of the applicant.

92a King’s Road, Kingston upon Thames, KT2 5HT

Mr Alan Livermore and Mr Chris Bull spoke as objectors to the proposal. Mr David Alobi spoke on behalf of the applicant.

RESOLVED that the following planning applications be permitted, deferred or refused as indicated.

Erection of 6 x 2 storey houses with rooms in roof and basement (2 detached and 4 semi detached).  Partial demolition and refurbishment of 219 Park Road to provide access. 

In considering the report and recommendations to permit, members were of the view that there might be potential drainage problems arising from run off and questioned the appropriateness of basement accommodation.  Attention was drawn to para 16 of the Planning Policy Guidance 17 (Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation) which refers to potential erosion of open space by developments.  Proposals for fire engine access were questioned together with the need for internal sprinkler systems in some of the developments to support fire prevention.

Councillor Chrissie Hitchcock proposed a motion, seconded by Councillor Penny Shelton that a site visit be arranged prior to determination by this committee.  The Motion was passed.

DEFER

Retention of existing two storey building with accommodation in the roofspace to provide 5 x 2 bedroom flats, being a variation to planning permission 09/12002, including the removal of 3 side and 2 rear dormers and replacing with 3 side and 2 rear velux windows; together with details of landscaping, lifetime homes and sustainability. 

PERMIT

Display of 2 x internally illuminated freestanding advertising display panels (1 x 96 sheet panel and 1 x 48 sheet panel) fronting Wheatfield Way, being a variation to advertising consent reference 10/12641 and 10/12640. 

PERMIT

PLANNING CONSULTATION 3-5 PENRHYN ROAD, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT1 2BT – STUDENT ACCOMMODATION

a)             PLANNING APPLICATION CONSULTATION               Appendix B(1)

b)             CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT CONSULTATION  Appendix B(2)

PLANNING CONSULTATION (11/12668/FUL): 3-5 PENRHYN ROAD KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT1 2BT

PLANNING CONSULTATION (11/12674/CAC): 3-5 PENRHYN ROAD KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT1 2BT

These two items are being considered by the Development Control Committee on 14 December 2-11.  The Kingston Town Planning Sub Committee was requested to provide comments to Development Control.

RESOLVED that the following comments be passed to Development Control Committee.

It was noted that the proposal for student accommodation appeared to take account of the University’s preference for cluster accommodation and there had been a dialogue between the developer and the University.  The University have stated that they did not wish to comment on the application.  As the site was so close to the University and at some distance from either Surbiton or Kingston stations it was hoped that the development would provide accommodation mainly for local students.  Members were in favour of development of the empty office sites which had been unused for some time.