9 Station Approach (formerly Ma Cuisine) ref 16/3159/FUL and 16/3160/ADV and 16/4483/FUL
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.