The Planning Committee met to discuss a number of planning applications, including proposed amendments to a previously approved application for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Twickenham Riverside site. After hearing from speakers and discussing the issues, the committee voted to approve the application, including an additional informative encouraging the applicant to explore the potential for affordable rented homes to be 'social rent'.

Here's a breakdown of the key topics discussed:

Twickenham Riverside Development - King Street and Water Lane

The committee considered an application for a variation of condition NS101A relating to approved drawings for application 21/2758/FUL, concerning land at 1, 1A, 1B and 1C King Street; 2-4 Water Lane, and other land on the embankment in Twickenham. The proposal sought to allow for amendments in design, layout, and landscaping. The committee voted to approve the application.

Lucy Thatcher, Applications Manager (Richmond), introduced the item, noting a clarification in the addendum that the far southern end of the Wharf Lane building was slightly higher than 21 metres if taken from road level, but officers had assessed it against the mid-rise building policy rather than the tall building policy in the newly adopted Local Plan due to site circumstances.

Key changes to the original plan included:

• Alterations to the boat store design
• Minor changes to elevations on the Water Lane buildings
• An increase in height of the Water Lane building by 190mm
• Changes to fenestration design size and number
• Material changes to balconies, railings, and coping

Chris Bannister, an architect at Hopkins Architects, spoke in favour of the application, explaining the changes were needed to meet new building regulations concerning fire, energy, overheating and toilets. He said that there had been some value engineering in the changes, but that the main reason for the application was regulatory changes since the original application was approved three years ago.

Councillor Andrée Frieze, Leader of the Opposition, asked about changes to regulations regarding carbon energy. Mr Bannister admitted he was struggling to remember the specific reason why the mandatory requirement could not be achieved, but said that they were achieving over the 70 required points overall, but not in one specific section.

Councillor Richard Baker asked about changes to window levels, and Mr Bannister explained that in Water Lane on the second floor level, the amount of glazing had been reduced to meet new regulations regarding overheating.

Councillor Jonathan Cardy, Chair of the Planning Committee, asked about energy efficiency and whether solar tubes had been considered as a possible solution for units with insufficient light in kitchens. Mr Bannister said it was difficult to do that in a multi-storey building without going through someone else's property.

Councillor Baker asked about changes to materials on the outside of the buildings, and whether anything had been done about concerns about noise. Mr Bannister said that triple glazing was now being used in all the flats, which would improve acoustic performance.

Councillor Suzette Nicholson asked about changing regulations for toilets. Mr Bannister said the size requirements had changed, and they had to redesign the public toilets in Wharf Lane, which resulted in a loss of one or two toilets.

Councillor Stephen O'Shea spoke as an interested ward councillor, reiterating the importance of the development for the Twickenham Riverside area and the borough as a whole. He supported the idea of value engineering, but raised concerns about the replacement of granite sets on Water Lane with alternative material, the housing mix, ceiling height, loss of balconies, and light and window size.

Ms Thatcher responded to the points raised, explaining that the applicants had been honest about the reasons for the changes, and that the output was acceptable against policy. She also addressed the issue of noise, referring to paragraph 8.120 onwards in the report, and the series of conditions that had been imposed to mitigate any potential impact. She said that the brilliant excellence for the development was reliant on getting the mandatory ENAE 01 score, and that this building was only doing two of the commercial units designed to cool, and therefore they could only consider the fabric of the building rather than all those other aspects. She also said that the last application was assessed against the 2013 building regs, and this one was against the 2021 regs, so there were higher benchmarks.

In response to a question from Councillor Cardy, Ms Thatcher clarified that the 18th century wall that had been discovered, not a 19th century wall as had been previously stated.

Councillor Baker asked about compatibility with chewing gum removal machines when talking about granite sets and alternatives. Ms Thatcher said that when they get the samples in, it won't just be urban design they consult, it will also be the highway officers to ensure that they're happy with it.

Councillor Frieze raised the timing of the application and the detailed design stage, and Ms Thatcher read out the applicant's response, which said that they were pursuing a high standard of energy efficiency, but that the buildings are low density, which means they necessarily have a poorer form factor than the higher density buildings.

Councillor Cardy asked about the loss of balconies and whether those flats have some alternative location for drying clothes. Ms Thatcher said that those ones are duplex.

Councillor Frieze asked about the size of the trees that were supposed to be planted on the site. Ms Thatcher said that the tree officers would have already considered the size of those, but also that they need to make sure it's sustainable for the location that's actually in and the soil pits it's in.

Councillor Frieze asked about social rents and London affordable, and Ms Thatcher said that discussions were still taking place and that they could put an informative on it.

Councillor Richard Pyne said that the changes were relatively minor and seemed to be driven by building regulations, and that there were no grounds for being other than supportive of what's being put forward.

Councillor Cardy said that he liked the idea that some of the delivery and movements from this taking place by boat rather than by road, and that the other changes seemed to be relatively innocuous.

Councillor Frieze added that she was minded to support it as well.

The committee then voted to approve the application, including the informative about social housing.