The Planning Committee of Richmond upon Thames Council met on Wednesday 13 January 2016, deciding on several planning applications. The committee approved applications for 17-18 Aquarius on Eel Pie Island, The Cottage on Eel Pie Island Riverside, and 1 Latimer Road in Teddington. However, an application for 15 Aquarius on Eel Pie Island was refused, and an application for Mortlake Business Centre was also refused.

Mortlake Business Centre, 20 Mortlake High Street, Mortlake

The committee refused an application for prior approval at Mortlake Business Centre, located at 20 Mortlake High Street, Mortlake. The refusal was based on the grounds that the development would result in a net loss of parking. This, combined with the site's low Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL)¹, was deemed likely to cause an increase in parking stress and congestion in the area. Local resident Timothy Kaye had urged the committee to refuse the application, citing concerns about its detrimental impact on the local economy and increased parking stress. Councillor Avon, an interested councillor, also questioned the transport data and argued for refusal due to the site's poor PTAL rating and congested location. Officers confirmed that the application could only be assessed on transport and highways impact, contamination risk, and flood risk, and that generic transport data had been used. While the current parking standards did not require additional parking, the proposed scheme exceeded them. The committee agreed to allocate parking spaces to specific units.

17-18 Aquarius, Eel Pie Island, Twickenham

An application for development at 17-18 Aquarius, Eel Pie Island, Twickenham was approved. Local residents Mark Gunning, Jack Betteridge, and Delia Holman objected to the scheme, arguing it would negatively impact a site worthy of designation as Buildings of Townscape Merit. However, architect and local resident David Hopwood, local resident Bruce Lyons, and consultant Christian Leigh spoke in favour of the application. Officers noted that previous planning inspectors had found no adverse impact on the conservation area, and planning permission had previously been granted for the redevelopment of numbers 7, 9, 10, and 12 Eel Pie Island as a single application. While some councillors expressed concerns about residential amenity, local infrastructure, and potential overdevelopment, others felt the approval would create consistency in building lines and heights.

15 Aquarius, Eel Pie Island, Twickenham

The committee refused an application for a second-floor extension at 15 Aquarius, Eel Pie Island, Twickenham. The refusal was based on the grounds that the extension, due to its height, bulk, mass, design, and relationship with the existing terrace, would be out of character and scale, and detrimental to the character and appearance of the terrace. This was considered to conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)² and Local Plan policies. Local residents Clare Morrisroe (on behalf of Markus Hohl) and Tim Holman opposed the scheme, stating it would compromise the site's architectural integrity and harm residents' amenity. Emma Cremin and consultant Christian Leigh spoke in support of the application. Councillors expressed concerns about the imbalance the scheme would create, its potential for intensive development, and its harmful impact on Metropolitan Open Land, the Conservation Area, and riverside views. The officer recommendation for approval fell, and the application was subsequently refused.

The Cottage, Eel Pie Island, Twickenham Riverside

An application for development at The Cottage, Eel Pie Island, Twickenham Riverside was approved, subject to an informative regarding the provision of life-saving equipment.

1 Latimer Road, Teddington

The committee approved an application for 1 Latimer Road, Teddington. The approval was subject to an informative regarding materials, specifically the brickwork, being in keeping and sympathetic with the prevalent material on Latimer Road. Agent Neil Davis urged the committee to approve the application. While minded to approve, councillors expressed concerns about parking, lack of amenity space, and the choice of materials.