Councillors and committees

Agenda, decisions and minutes

You can view the individual reports for this meeting by selecting the headings from the numbered list of items at the bottom of this page. Alternatively you can view the entire agenda by selecting 'Agenda Reports Pack' below.

Watch key Council meetings here

Venue: Dysart School, 190 Ewell Road, Surbiton

Contact: James Geach tel 020 8547 5062  e-mail:  james.geach@kingston.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

Presentation: Crowdfunding in Kingston

Before the meeting started the Committee were given a presentation on crowd funding by Denise Parry, Senior Partnerships and Project Officer. The Committee were informed of the different crowdfunding models that are available to the Council and the new crowd funding pilot that is currently being undertaken. The Council has opted to use the ‘all or nothing’ model and thus far £25,000 of contributions have been allocated to local crowd funding initiatives.

 

As the pilot continues the Council is offering to make financial contributions of up to £3,000 (or 75% of the project’s financial target) to crowdfunding schemes subject to the following criteria:

 

·         Contributions are only available for constituted community groups/organisations.

·         Projects must meet at least one RBK Community Outcome.

·         An application form must be completed and submitted.

·         Projects must use the ‘all or nothing’ model.

·         Projects must be live and have reached at least 15% of their funding target before they are funded by the Council.

 

More information about the Council’s Crowdfunding pilot can be found at www.kingston.gov.uk/crowdfunding

 

 

 

85.

Question Time

A period of no more than 30 minutes for questions on issues unrelated to items on the agenda.

Minutes:

No questions were submitted.

86.

Petitions

To receive any petitions.

Minutes:

Mr Russell Longley submitted a petition to the Committee, containing 33 signatures, that calls on the Council to improve the road safety and local environment of 5 – 9 St Mary’s Road by aligning the vehicle restrictions outside these properties with those in the surrounding streets.

 

The Committee thanked Mr Longley for bringing this issue to its attention and asked officers to consider what action could be undertaken to address the concerns raised.

87.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received form Councillors Richard Hudson, Sushila Abraham, Mike Head, Andy Johnson-Creek and Hilary Gander.

88.

Declarations of interest

Members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests and any other non-pecuniary interests (personal interests) relevant to items on the agenda.

Minutes:

No interests were declared.

89.

Minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2017.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2017 were confirmed as a correct record.

90.

Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 481 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

 

Resolved that the following applications are permitted or refused as indicated.

90a

3 Oakhill Road, Surbiton, KT6 6Eh (17/16478)

Decision:

The planning application was refused. The full decision will be published within the minutes of the meeting. Please note that planning applications are not subject to the Community Call in Procedure Rules.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a planning application for the erection of a 4 bedroom house on the land to the rear of 3 Oakhill Road.

 

Speakers on the application

 

Objectors

Applicant

Ms Rowan Anderson

 

Mr Fraser Truscott

Mr Ian Woodward-Court

 

In their consideration of the report and the recommendation to permit the Committee noted the objections to the scheme that had been raised by the Surbiton Conservation Area Advisory Committee (CACC). It is the CACC’s view that the scheme would result in the overdevelopment of the site and an unacceptable loss of garden space whilst having an adverse effect on existing trees and these concerns were echoed by Members. 

 

It was moved to permit the application, as recommended in the report, and the motion fell.

Voting:

Those for: Councillors Chris Hayes, Diane White and Liz Green.

Those against: Councillors Ian George, Malcolm Self and John Ayles.

Abstained: Councillor Yogan Yoganathan.

With the vote tied Councillor Malcolm Self used the Chair’s casting vote to vote against the motion and the motion fell.

 

Refuse

 

Reasons for refusal

 

1.    The proposed development by virtue of its design, scale and height would fail to preserve the special character and appearance of the conservation area and would therefore harm the conservation area, albeit less than substantial harm, and that harm is not outweighed by any public benefits and as such the proposal is contrary to s72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation) Act 1990 and Policy DM13 of the Core Strategy.

 

2.    The proposal by virtue of its height would create an undue sense of enclosure to the residents of the Georgian terrace and such is contrary to Policy DM10 of the Core Strategy and Supplementary Planning Guidance.

 

3.    The proposal, by virtue of its size and layout, would represent an overdevelopment of the site that would be out of character with the surrounding area and therefore it would fail to preserve and enhance the conservation area and therefore it is contrary to s72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation) Act 1990 and Policy DM13 of the Core Strategy.

    

Voting:

Those for: Councillors Ian George, Malcolm Self and John Ayles

Those against: Councillors Chris Hayes, Diane White and Liz Green.

Abstained: Councillor Yogan Yoganathan.

With the vote tied Councillor Malcolm Self used the Chair’s casting vote to vote for the motion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90b

4 (Oak Lodge) Oakhill Grove, Surbiton, KT6 6DS (17/16482)

Decision:

The planning application was permitted. The full decision will be published within the minutes of the meeting. Please note that planning applications are not subject to the Community Call in Procedure Rules.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a planning application for the erection of 5x five bedroom two-storey (with roof accommodation) dwellings comprising two semi-detached and three terraced properties as well as associated car parking and landscaping following the demolition of the existing house and garage.

 

Speakers on the application

 

Objectors

Applicant

Mr Sebastien Rubens

Mr Brian Staff

 

Mr Mark Bentley

 

Permit subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement that prohibits the future occupants of the development proposed from applying for permits for the area’s Controlled Parking Zone.

 

Voting:

Those for: Councillors Chris Hayes, Ian George, John Ayles, Diane White, Yogan Yoganthan and Liz Green.

Abstained: Councillor Malcolm Self.

91.

Mayfair Close Traffic Management Order - Objection to proposed at anytime waiting restrictions. pdf icon PDF 140 KB

To consider an objection raised to the proposals in a Traffic Management Order (TMO) number (KingMap0002) to introduce “At Any Time” waiting restrictions (double yellow lines) on Mayfair Close, at the bend near the garages and as shown in Annex 1.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved that:

 

1.    the objection received in response to the Mayfair Close TMO, as set out in paragraph 7 of the report, is noted;

 

2.    the objection is set aside in order to allow officers to proceed with the implementation of the TMO; and

 

3.    that the TMO should not be implemented until consideration has been given to the introduction of a further section of ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions, that run the whole length of Mayfair Close on both sides of the road, and the subsequent TMO process for this new scheme has been completed.  

Minutes:

The Committee considered an objection raised to the proposals set out within a Traffic management Order (TMO) to introduce ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions (double yellow lines) on Mayfair Close as shown in Annex 1 of the report.

 

Residents have raised concerns with the Council regarding difficulty in accessing the garage at the rear of Mayfair Close, especially when cars are parked on both sides of the carriageway at the bend. Having studied the site Officers were concerned that the parking behaviours on the close could create access issues for emergency service vehicles. A request to assess the accessibility situation in Mayfair Close was made to the Fire Brigade who subsequently attended the site and confirmed that, at the time of their assessment, there were no access issues as vehicles were not parked on both sides the road. However on subsequent site visits attended by both Officers and Members, it has been established that parking does occur on both sides of the carriageway.

 

Mayfair Close is curved at its south-eastern end so any parking in the vicinity of 19 or 20 Mayfair Close will not only create an access issue for any large vehicle, such as emergency vehicles, but it will also restrict the forward visibility of drivers at this end of the road. In order to address these concerns it was proposed by Officers to introduce ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions (double yellow lines) at this bend as shown in Annex 1 of the report and the TMO in question was subsequently published on 4 August 2017.

 

One objection was received to the TMO. This objection is set out in full within the report but the objector’s main points can be summarised as:

 

·         The proposed scheme is unnecessary, and a waste of Council resources, as no one parks on this bend.

 

·         The majority of Mayfair Close’s residents have no concerns about the existing parking arrangements/ restrictions.

 

·         The Fire Brigade have not raised any concerns about the existing layout.

 

·         The parking pressures that exist in the Close are caused by long term parking by commuters, customers of a nearby garage and holiday makers taking the bus to Heathrow. They are not caused by the absence of double yellow lines on this bend. The Council’s resources would be better used tackling these issues.

 

A number of local residents addressed the Committee on this issue. One local resident, whose residence is situated on this bend, welcomed the proposals as parking often occurs on this bend and it restricts residents’ access. Two local residents spoke against the scheme, in their experience, cars rarely park on the bend because it is impractical to do so. It was the view of these residents that the scheme proposed is unnecessary and thus a poor use of Council resources. Although there are problems with parking in the Close, it was the view of the objectors to the TMO, that the proposed scheme will fail to address these problems. It was the objectors’ view that the majority of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

92.

Southwood Drive - objection to double yellow lines pdf icon PDF 108 KB

To consider an objection raised to the proposals in a Traffic Management Order (TMO) to extend the existing double yellow lines on the southern corner of the junction of Southwood Drive and Oakdene Drive.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved that consideration of the TMO be deferred in order to allow a wider scheme to be considered as part of next year’s Local Implementation Plan proposals.   

Minutes:

The Committee considered an objection raised to the proposals set out within a Traffic Management Order (TMO) to extend the existing double yellow lines on the southern corner of the junction of Southwood Drive and Oakdene Drive.

 

Residents have raised concerns with the Council about the difficulties buses encounter driving on Southwood Drive, between numbers 69 and 71, when cars are parked on both sides of the road. The width of the road at this section is 5.7-5.8 metres which is often not wide enough to allow a bus to pass when cars are parked on both sides. This has been confirmed by the bus route operators who have reported that delays have been caused by the need for their drivers to locate car owners as cars often need to be moved in order to allow the buses to continue their routes. In order to address these issues, and in order to ensure that emergency service vehicles are provided access at all times, it was proposed by Officers to introduce ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions (double yellow lines) on Southwood Drive as shown in Annex 1 of the report.

 

In their consideration of the report it was the view of the majority of the Committee that a fuller scheme should be considered for inclusion as part of next year’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP) proposals as such a scheme could mitigate these issues whilst preserving parking through the creation of inset bays.  As a wider scheme would likely render the proposed waiting restrictions redundant, and in order to prevent any unnecessary expenditure, it was the Committee’s view that the introduction of restrictions should be reconsidered next year alongside the consideration of a wider LIP proposal.

 

Resolved that consideration of the TMO be deferred in order to allow a wider scheme to be considered as part of next year’s Local Implementation Plan proposals.

 

Voting:

Those for: Councillors Chris Hayes, Ian George, Malcolm Self, John Ayles, Diane White, and Yogan Yoganathan.

Abstained: Councillor Liz Green.

93.

Urgent Items Authorised by the Chair

To consider any urgent items authorised by the Chair.

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.