Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

No apologies were received.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct and the Planning Protocol, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also asked to declare whether they have been subject to lobbying from interested parties, if they have carried out any site visits and whether they have predetermined their view on any item to be considered.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

11/2906/FUL - HARRODIAN SCHOOL, LONSDALE ROAD, BARNES Councillor Mathias declared that a relative of hers had previously attended this school, but was no longer in attendance. She declared that she had not formed a prior view on the application.

Site visits

Councillor Head declared that she had carried out site visits for applications 12/2906/FUL and 12/2048/HOT.

Councillor Gibbons declared that he had carried out site visits for applications 12/2003/FUL,12/2906/FUL and 12/2048/HOT.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 16 August 2012 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 August 2012 were received and approved as a correct record of proceedings.

Reports of the Development Control Manager attached – see list below.

The recommendations contained in the attached reports are those of the officers and are not binding upon the Committee.

The Chairman will confirm the order in which the attached reports are to be heard at the start of the meeting. Members are asked to note that there may be an adjournment of the meeting for a period of approximately 10 minutes starting at a convenient time from 8.30pm.

Single storey side extension.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Spottiswoode and from Mr Varnava, who were neighbours not adjoining the site.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Dimock, on behalf of the applicant, and from Mr Stefani, the architect.

The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Williams who spoke as an Interested Councillor.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

The Committee discussed materials to be used. The proposed materials were deemed to be acceptable providing that the applicant complied with existing condition NS01.

Though mindful of the need to reach a decision on the application before them, the Committee noted that the scale of the application was not very different to that which would be accepted as permitted development. The Committee did not perceive that the application would harm the street scene and Members were content that the Conservation Area setting was not compromised.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Erection of a footbridge to facilitate the crossing of the railway and provision of new / relocated CCTV.

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Collis, a local resident, and from Mr Ingle, a neighbour adjoining the site.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Elson, on behalf of Network Rail, the applicant.

The Committee heard representations from Councillor Speak and Councillor Harborne who spoke as Interested Councillors.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

The Committee was aware of the physical constraints of the site and was mindful of the need to reach a decision based on the application before it. The Committee was concerned about the safety of the general public at the level crossing and felt that the application represented a benefit to the wider community. The design of the proposal was discussed and most Members felt that although it was asymmetrical this was not harmful enough to prohibit the introduction of a bridge at this location.

Members were concerned about the impact on residential amenity for the properties at 2 and 4 Manor Park. However, it was felt that the benefit to the wider community outweighed the impact on these properties, so long as mitigating conditions could be introduced. It was recognised that the panels on the south elevation had been introduced as a screen to protect the privacy of Manor Park residents; however, this screen was seen to be of an overbearing nature due to its height. Members considered that if the screen height was lowered the impact on these properties would become more acceptable. This would also address design issues. Members recommended that the panels to be lowered to 2 metres in height above the adjacent stair tread / landing; however, this should be subject to a 14 day consultation period with the residents at 2 and 4 Manor Park: If these residents wished for the height to be different to that stated above, then this could be negotiated via the Development Control Manager in consultation with the Chairman.  

Subject to additional conditions the Committee Members felt that the potential benefit of the proposed bridge outweighed the potential harm.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That the application be APPROVED, subject to the below conditions and informatives, for the following reason:

REASON: The benefits in pedestrian and highways safety outweigh the potential harm to immediate neighbours and visual harm, subject to conditions.

Conditions:

Construction Method Statement

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a construction method statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for:

i) size and routing of construction vehicles and holding areas for these on site;

ii) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

iii) the loading and unloading of plant and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30b

Erection of a sports hall with associated facilities; and replacement of concrete wall and pedestrian gate on the Verdun Road boundary with brick boundary wall with railing and pedestrian gate.

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard representations against the application from Ms Boyd, and Mr Mackworth-Praed, who were representing residents’ associations, and from

Mrs Escarcelle-Rees, who was an adjoining neighbour.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Sir Alford Houston-Boswall, the applicant, and from Mr Warner, the agent.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

The Committee considered the proposal in light of its location on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). Committee members were concerned about the principle of building on designated MOL and a green chain, and were also concerned about the impact of the proposal on biodiversity, trees and the amenities of neighbouring residents in the Mere’s Estate flats. Furthermore, the Committee agreed with the officer’s assessment of the proposed building as having a detrimental impact on the green and open character of this part of the street scene, the adjacent MOL and Thames Policy  Area, and the visual amenities of the surrounding area. Members did not consider that the circumstances were exceptional enough to justify a departure from MOL policy, or outweigh the other harm identified in the officer’s report.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons as set out in the officer’s report.

Development of an all weather playing field.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Lewis, Mr Harker and Mr Campbell, who were nearby neighbours.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Boddington, representing the applicant.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

The Committee debated whether the proposal would increase light and noise disturbance in the vicinity of the application site. It was deemed that it would be unreasonable to impose an acoustic fence as a condition and that this would have had an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. It was acknowledged that the land already had an established use for sports recreation, even if it was currently used on an infrequent basis. The Committee felt that the benefits of the proposal outweighed the harm, providing that mitigating conditions were met, in particular in relation to the use of lighting at the application site.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum, and the following additional condition:

The development hereby approved shall not be floodlit at any time.

REASON: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties.

Lower ground, ground and first floor rear extension, lower ground side extension, new windows, external alterations, front boundary treatment and hard and soft landscaping.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no amendments to the report.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Arthur, the agent.

The Committee considered points raised by the speaker and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

The Committee considered that the proposed extensions were in keeping with the existing property and were of a discreet enough nature not to cause harm to the street scene.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

To raise front parapet and flank wall to garage, replace rear ground floor balcony terrace deck, balustrade and staircase, change stucco colour scheme to light cream with white highlighting and other minor alterations.

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard a representation from Mrs Bellamy, the applicant, and from Mr MacCullagh, the agent.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

The Committee discussed the details of the proposed design and how the alterations would impact on the listed building and the conservation area. The design of the alterations was seen to be incongruous in the setting. The Committee agreed with the officer’s assessment of the negative impact of these design proposals as set out in the report.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That application 12/2048/HOT be REFUSED for the reason as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

1. That application 12/2049/LBC be REFUSED for the reason as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.