The Planning Committee of Richmond upon Thames Council met on Wednesday 26 November 2014 to consider several applications for development permission. The meeting's agenda included discussions on a significant residential development at HMP Latchmere House, a change of use application in Teddington, and variations to existing planning permissions for residential properties in Teddington and Richmond.

Applications for Development Permission, Listed Building Consent, and Enforcement of Planning Control

The committee was scheduled to review reports concerning applications for development permission, listed building consent, and the enforcement of planning control. The recommendations within these reports were those of the officers and were not binding on the committee.

HMP Latchmere House, Church Road, Ham

Two cross-boundary applications concerning the former HMP Latchmere House site in Ham were scheduled for discussion.

• 14/0450/FUL: This application proposed the demolition of existing buildings, excluding Latchmere House itself, and the construction of 58 residential units within the Richmond borough. This included 51 new build units and the conversion and extension of Latchmere House to create 7 apartments. The proposal also included a new vehicular access from Latchmere Lane. This scheme, which was also part of a larger development across the boundary into the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, aimed to provide a total of 89 residential units. The officer's recommendation was for refusal. A key concern was the applicant's viability information, which was considered to have overstated build costs by at least £2 million. This surplus, it was argued, could have been used to increase the level of on-site affordable housing, contrary to policy. Additionally, the proposed new access road through an area of green space was deemed harmful to the character and appearance of the area and conservation area.

• 14/0451/FUL: This application, also a cross-boundary proposal, focused on the demolition of existing buildings (excluding Latchmere House) and the provision of 42 residential units within Richmond. This comprised 35 new build units and the conversion and extension of Latchmere House for 7 apartments. In total, across both boroughs, this scheme proposed 73 residential units. The officer's recommendation was for refusal. Similar to the other application, concerns were raised regarding the applicant's viability assessment, with officers believing build costs were overstated by at least £2 million. This, combined with a proposed financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing, suggested that the development could have provided a greater level of on-site affordable housing, contrary to policy.

205 Waldegrave Road, Teddington

The committee was to consider an application for the change of use of a vacant retail shop to a minicab office or private car hire business. The officer's recommendation was for refusal. The property is located on a Key Shopping Frontage, and it was not considered that the proposed use would enhance the vitality and viability of the shopping area. Concerns were also raised about potential parking congestion and late-night noise and disturbance to nearby residents.

7-9 St Marks Road, Teddington

An application to vary approved drawing numbers for a previously approved development was scheduled. The original permission was for the demolition of two semi-detached houses and the erection of a pair of semi-detached homes. The current application sought to alter the first-floor windows to inward-opening double doors with sidelights and Juliet balconies, featuring an obscure glazed balustrade. The officer's recommendation was for permission. It was considered that the proposed alterations would not result in an unreasonable level of overlooking or loss of privacy to neighbouring properties, nor would they prejudice the appearance of the dwellings.

Dolphin House, Ormond Road, Richmond

A variation of condition application was to be discussed concerning Dolphin House. The proposal sought to allow for an increased height of a rear extension, a retrospective application following a breach of planning control. The original permission had been granted for a contemporary rear extension. The officer's recommendation was for permission. While acknowledging the increase in height, it was considered that the alteration did not result in demonstrable harm that would warrant refusal, particularly given the rear location and limited public views. The proposal was deemed to have a neutral impact on the setting of adjacent listed buildings and the Richmond Hill Conservation Area.