9 Station Approach (formerly Ma Cuisine) ref 16/3159/FUL and 16/3160/ADV, 16/4483/FUL and 18/2162/ES191
A section 191 application has finally been submitted by the applicant (ref 18/2162/ES191) to establish use of the premises as Class A3 – a restaurant. We do not contest use for this purpose but have drawn attention to comments we and others have made on the building applications, the enforcement action taken to date for unauthorised building work,the environmental health investigations over the ventilation system, including for the wood burning stove, and the assurances given by the applicant to the Licensing Committee on intended use of the premises, particularly the side alley not previously used for dinning.
We welcomed clarification of the opening hours to be restricted to Monday-Saturday 09.00-23.00 and Sunday 09.00-22.30 and asked, particularly in view of the history of non-compliance by this applicant, that clear conditions be imposed to (a) specify, with a plan of the floor area, the area for dinning to exclude the side alley and the roof and for the side alley to be kept clear as a fire exit; (b) to exclude external loud speakers and remove those already placed on the front of the listed building without permission, and (c) to require the ventilation to be fully compliant, noting that there are suggestions that wood burning stoves may in future be banned in the interest of improving air quality.
We also noted that strict conditions were justified given that, before occupation by Antipodea, buildings immediately to the rear of the property, less than 2 metres away, had changed use from office to residential use.
We have been chasing what is happening to this application submitted after work was underway. Richmond Council have said they are expecting to receive very soon a section 191 application to establish use of the entire site as A3. It is likely that the application will then be considered at the Council’s Planning Committee.
We have for some time been discussing with Richmond Council’s environmental health department and with the new general manager at Antipodea the acrid smoke coming from the chimney for the new wood burning stove at Antipodea. The stove appears to be compliant but the fuels used are a problem. We have asked the restaurant to ensure wood is stored in a dry area and to consider using Woodsure fuels as described in this leaflet: Woodsure_Leaflet_DEFRA. The proximity of the chimney to residential accommodation is a particular concern.
We have commented on wood burning stoves as a part of our response to Richmond Council’s consultation on its Air Quality Action Plan.
New drawings have been submitted for this application which are still not correct, omitting changes to the front facade where loud speakers, additional lighting and heating units have been placed. We have asked for their removal.
Proposals for timber slatted screening of the ventilation system have been added. We have asked that if the ventilation is approved in this location, the height of the screening should be checked by the Council to confirm it would provide adequate screening whilst not affecting the light for adjacent properties. We have also asked the planning department to confirm that the ventilation system meets all the requirements for correct design given that work to comply with noise and smell restrictions has been required by the Environmental Health Department and to consider whether the system should in any event be placed elsewhere within the property. We have asked that conditions are imposed on the times when the system is in use, particularly to stop any further night time noise for neighbouring residential properties.
We have pointed out that the drawings do not show seating which has been placed in the side alley and which has not been approved by the Licensing Committee after the owner told the Committee they were not pursuing an application for seating in this area. We have alerted the Licensing Department who contacted the owner again. We have asked that in addition to the comments we have already made on this application, conditions should be placed on the use of the side area, with no permission for seating because of the impact on neighbouring residential properties from additional noise and smells. We have asked that the side alley be specified for use as a fire exit only and that this use is confirmed with the Licensing Committee.
We have again commented on the need for adequate waste disposal and asked for conditions to be placed on the times when refuse is collected so that noise for neighbouring residential property is controlled, particularly at night.
The applications for changes to the facade (16/3159/FUL and 16/3160/ADV) with illuminated lighting have been approved with restrictions placed on the brightness of the lighting.We await a further application with a correct representation of the work carried out without permission to the facade.
Richmond Council’s enforcement team have notified the owner’s that they need to submit an application for the new ventilation system installed on the roof without permission. The Environmental Health Department have also made a site visit and required improvements to the system which is adversely affecting neighbouring residential properties with excess noise as well as smells.
The owners have also installed, without permission, loud speakers for piped music at the front of the building to the outside seating area as well as external heaters and additional lighting, none of which have been included in the planning application.Richmond Council are following this up.
We have submitted an objection to this retrospective planning applications which still does not accurately reflect the work undertaken without permission nor explain how issues such as waste disposal will be handled or have regard to how the changes will impact residential neighbours less than 2 metres away as well as nearby Sheltered Housing. We have asked for conditions and restrictions to be placed on opening hours, use of the roof space, use of the newly enclosed side alley and the rear access. We have also asked that the health of the mature tree be monitored as it appears that the building work may have damaged its health, affecting views from neighbouring residential properties, and we have asked for the reinstatement of the Victorian chimney pots at the rear of the building.
A retrospective planning application has finally been submitted for the work already undertaken without the required permission. (ref 16/4483/FUL). We will be submitting comments shortly taking account of the decision to be made on the Licensing application also being considered by Richmond Council.The applications for the facade and advertising have also been amended by the applicant.
We have been in contact with local residents and with Richmond Council’s licensing, planning and enforcement departments over the extensive work undertaken to the interior of this property and the roof without the necessary planning permission. The enforcement team have notified the owner that a planning application is required. We have also asked for confirmation that restrictions on opening times required of the previous occupant will apply to the new owner and that those shown in the current Licensing application, to be considered on Tuesday, will not be the hours of operation.
We have commented on this application for a new restaurant, Brew (now named Antipodea), to change the facade of this building and include illuminated lighting.
We noted that a drawing showing that an additional 44 covers were proposed with toilet facilities and a roof deck at first floor level had been removed from the first set of plans posted on line. We asked Richmond Council to clarify the position and they told us that they had contacted the agent who confirmed that no first floor extension is proposed. Our comments record that should this development have been included in the plans, the Kew Society would have objected because of the impact on neighbouring residential properties.
On the plans as submitted, we have asked for restrictions on the hours when the new signage can be illuminated so that this is not intrusive for neighbouring residential properties. We are also not clear that there are effective arrangements for waste disposal and these should be assessed before approval.
We have welcomed the reinstatement of historical aspects of the façade. We also welcomed the enforcement action which the Council have told us they have taken over works to the rear of the property, including the insertion of steels within the existing rear addition. Though Richmond Council have confirmed that this work does not appear to be related to an extension or other alterations that require planning permission, we are pleased that the Council has written to the owners to ask for confirmation of their intentions and to let them know that any further works undertaken will be at the owner’s risk and may be liable to enforcement action.
We hope the owners will engage more constructively with the community on their plans.