On 2nd March 2006, the Richmond Council Planning Committee Meeting gave ‘conditional permission’ for the proposed wine bar in the basement formerly occupied by Phelps.
The meeting was held before a completely full room. After speakers for both sides, councillor questions and planning’s advice, the application was conditionally approved by a 5-3 vote, with local councillors Cllr Hambidge supporting and Cllrs Lamb and Trigg (Twickenham Riverside) against. The ‘conditions’ are that; a Travel Plan is agreed, Air Conditioning plans are approved, only a 2am New Year’s license is given and only ‘personal permission’ is given.
Personal Permission, meaning that planning permission is only given to one of the principles of the wine bar and if they leave the venture for any reason, the new owner would have to get another planning approval, is considered a protection against the sale or change of the venue into something else, but also a potentially tough limit to the applicants, making it harder for them to raise money.
Meeting Detail
After some initial introductions and hearing some amendments to the Planning Officers Report and some guidance, three people spoke in support of the Wine Bar and three people against. Additionally, St Margarets Councillor David Porter submitted a letter requesting ‘refusal’ as did the Richmond Council Leader, Councillor Tony Arbour.
The arguments against the wine bar focused around the following issues: noise from the operation of the wine bar, noise from customers leaving late in the evening, traffic issues, parking issues, the sheer size and number of covers and a general concern that it would be un-neighborly. Arguments for the wine bar were that it was run by locals – for local people, that most customers would come by bus, train or walking, that they wanted to be part of the local community, work with local traders and be an oasis for men and especially women who didn’t want to have to use pubs and restaurants to socialise.
The Planning Officer, Mr. Tankard then took the councillors through the detail of planning policy relating to the points raised in the discussion;
- Need No need for applicant to prove need, so refusal must prove how permission would cause demonstrable harm.
- Neighbourly The current A1 usage could allow anyone to use the Mews with no restrictions; however, in converting to A4, the council could restrict the Mews substantially.
- Safe Guard Site Look at Tesco or Superdrug, as they were already A1, the council could no put conditions on their use.
- Neighbourhood Amenities The second application attempted to address all concerns of the Broadway residents by moving the entrance and protecting the Mews.
- Noise & Noise Breakout Site is ideal for protecting local residents.
- Covers General this is addressed by the fire regulations, not in planning.
- Air Filters & Conditioners In principle the plan was good, just needed to be sited better, it was normal and acceptable that it was removed and submitted separately.
- Traffic & Parking Basically parking is horrible in the area and this is ideally located by a main line rail station and bus stop, can’t do much better. Can restrict the use of coaches with a Travel Plan.
- Refuse Storage The applicants plan was fine, just would be made a formal requirment.
Next, the Councillors discussed the comments and then reviewed their respective positions. This led to a recommendation of some ‘conditions’ after which there was a vote, 5-3 in favour.
Detail of the Voting
For
- Cllr Richard Hollis – Cons. West Twick (Chair)
- Cllr Virginia Morris – Cons. East Sheen (Dep.Chair)
- Cllr Hilary Dance – Cons. Whitton
- Cllr Brian Miller – Lib Dem. Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside
- Cllr Annie Hambidge – Cons. Our local councillor
Against
- Cllr Stephen Knight – Lib Dem. Teddington
- Cllr David Trigg – Lib Dem. Twickenham Riverside
- Cllr Simon Lamb – Cons. Our local councillor
Conditions
The conditions are as follows:
- Transit Plan This needs to be agreed before full permission is granted. Councillors would like to make sure that coaches are not driving around the one way system.
- Hours of Access to Mews Again, Councillors want to revisit the operational hours of the Mews to minimise noise.
- Air Conditioning/Filtering Plan Councillors want to make sure that the plans for the plants on the roof top minimise sound.
- Personal Planning Permission Councillors insist that the A4 planning should not pass to another, less neighbourly owner.
- 2am New Year’s Licence Council felt strongly that 2am was late enough, a 24 hour license was unnecessary.
Comments
Thank you for your fair and accurate report on the proceedings re this Planning Application. I hope people will appreciate the Applicants presented their case very well and had it been refused by Committee the Applicant, using his right to Appeal would have been successful.
As discussed, there were no grounds under Planning Law for REFUSAL & the Council would have been responsible for costs.
There were objections but there were also many who favoured the idea of 'a little sophistication coming to St Margarets' instead of them having to travel elsewhere.
I certainly feel there are many females in the area who will feel encouraged by this less male dominated style of 'drinking hole' which hopefully will contribute to wider social networking .
It will be in everyone's interest for it to be successful and with least inconvenience for those in the immediate vicinity .
As I believed when Tesco invaded the area ' the market will decide '.
I wish the owners 'Good Luck'
Councillor Annie Hambidge Ward Cllr. St Margarets & North Twickenham
Cllr Annie Hambidge on 2006-03-04 07:21:09 +0000Further to Annie's comments.
As one of main opposers to the application I would like to particularly thank our other local councillors, Simon Lamb and David Porter for their support. Councillor Lamb asked the applicants and others all the right questions at the meeting. I'm sure the minutes of the meeting will fairly reflect the answers given to those questions and the response of the councillors and the planning officer.
Many thanks to the 561 people who registered their objection in one way or another, including Vincent Cable and Tony Arbour the council leader.
We look forward to returning to York House as and when the planning committee meet to discuss the applied conditions before giving final approval. And whatever the outcome there have to be winners and loosers if you want to enjoy the benefits of living in a democracy.
Harry Jacobs. Broadway Avenue
Harry Jacobs on 2006-03-04 09:17:47 +0000Many people feel that the problem with this wine bar is that it is just too big. At 450 square metres it is bigger than Richmond swimming pool. Situated as it is under Tesco it is also in what has become a traffic blackspot.
Hundreds of people signed a petition to this effect.
But as Harry says we live in a democracy and the council will make the decision they feel is right for the community, in accordance with planning laws.
Jane Pettersson on 2006-03-04 12:08:26 +0000I think it's pretty depressing that one of Cllr Hambridge's main criteria for voting in favour of the wine bar should be potential cost exposure for the council! It seems that her views are entirely sympathetic with those of the owner of the planned wine bar and not with the overwhelming majority of local people who didn't want it.
I attended the planning meeting and Cllr Hambridge's questions and comments never once reflected the concerns of local people who will be impacted by the wine bar. Indeed when another councillor, Simon Lamb, voiced his concern over the noise that will be caused by people after leaving the wine bar, Cllr Hambridge said that sound-proofing would take care of this. This was sadly consistent with her general lack of understanding of the situation.
Since the meeting, I have spoken with dozens of residents who leave within the immediate catchment area of the wine bar and none are in favour. The ones who spoke out in favour at the planning meeting (including the main director) all live at least half a mile away so won't be effected by the environmental impact. Cllr Hambridge, please represent the views of local people - those who elected you - and please don't tell me what is in my interests. This wine bar isn't.
Richard on 2006-03-06 15:04:17 +0000I read with great interest Councillor Annie Hambridge's views on the St Margarets wine bar and hope I can count on her support for a little business venture of my own. I plan to set up a small stall selling recreational drugs to the local children on their way to school. Please encourage your offspring to use my services as it will avoid the need for them to travel out of the immediate area and its popularity will, according to the councillor, make it legitimate. If my venture proves successful I will consider widening my clientele to include all those local women who feel too threatened to enter any of the 'St Margarets drinking holes'. I am not sure if it will supply the sophistication Councillor Hambridge feels St Margarets so badly needs....you decide.
charlie on 2006-03-10 17:30:14 +0000The people of St.Margarets have spoken at the ballot box and Councillor Annie Hambidge is no more.. where can she drown her sorrows? There's no wine bar and the watering holes of St.Margarets are like the streets of Basra, my heart bleeds!!!
Ryan on 2006-05-05 10:33:59 +0000