Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

No apologies for absence 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 the nature of the interest.

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.

Councillor Stockley declared a pecuniary interest in application 12/3821/COU by virtue of the connection between 2 Barnes High Street and the Richmond Park and Kingston Conservative Association from which Councillor Stockley received no direct financial contributions but some material resources for her election campaign. She undertook to leave the table and speak as a member of the public and to leave the room for the duration of the views and decision stage of the item.

Councillor Speak declared a pecuniary interest in application 12/3821/COU by virtue of the connection between 2 Barnes High Street and the Richmond Park and Kingston Conservative Association from which Councillor Speak received no direct financial contributions but some material resources for his election campaign. He undertook to leave the room for the duration of the item.

Councillor Linnette declared a pecuniary interest in application 12/3821/COU by virtue of the connection between 2 Barnes High Street and the Richmond Park and Kingston Conservative Association from which Councillor Linnette received no direct financial contributions but some material resources for his election campaign. He also declared that he was acquainted with the applicant and that he was a trustee of the Property Company that owned 2 Barnes High Street. He undertook to leave the room for the duration of the item.

Councillor Chappell declared that she had already pre-determined her view for application 12/3598/HOT. She undertook to leave the Committee for the duration of this item and would speak as an Interested Councillor.

Councillor Coombs declared that he had already pre-determined his view for application 12/3285/FUL. He undertook to leave the Committee for the duration of the item and would speak as an Interested Councillor.

Councillor Jaeger declared that she had already pre-determined his view for application 12/3285/FUL. She undertook to leave the Committee for the duration of the item.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 20 December 2012 attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 December 2012 were approved as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

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.

Retrospective application for ground floor change of use from Class A1 (retail) to Class A2 (financial and professional services).

Officer’s Recommendation: REFUSAL

[Having declared a pecuniary interest, Councillor Linnette and Councillor Speak left the room for the duration of this item.]

[Having declared a pecuniary interest, Councillor Stockley spoke as a member of the public and left the room for the views and decision stage of this item.]

[Councillor Mathias was not present for this item.]

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below]. A further amendment was made at the meeting: that the change of use approved 3 March 2006 was granted and implemented but subsequently relinquished.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Mindel, a local resident’s association representative, from Gemma Stockley, a Councillor who was speaking as a local resident and from Ms Robinson, the Barnes Town Centre Coordinator.

The Committee heard representations in favour of the application from Mr Underhill, Mrs Underhill, local residents, and from Mr Kelly, the applicant.

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

The Committee considered the current provision of units with A2 use and the individual circumstances of this application for change of use. Members also discussed the recent history of the application site. Some Members felt that the applicant could occupy two units on separate sites. However, the consensus view was that the circumstances of this application were sufficiently different to other Estate Agents and A2 uses to justify granting personal permission.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED for the following reason:

• As the exceptional personal circumstances of the case were sufficient to justify a departure from the policy.

That approval be subject to the following condition:

This permission shall enure for the benefit of Mr Donovan Kelly trading as Winkworth only and for only such period of time as he may be occupying the premises and the adjacent premises at no.2 Barnes High Street and the permission shall not enure for the benefit of the land nor of any other persons.

REASON: The exceptional personal circumstances of the case are considered to be sufficient to justify the grant of permission but an unrestricted Class A2 use would harm the retail character and function of Barnes High Street.

Erection of barn to house livestock and fencing of grazing area to facilitate use of part of the school as Grey Court School Farm.

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION subject to referral

to the National Planning Casework Unit

[Councillor Mathias was not present for this item.]

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 Akerster and Mr Mallinckrodt, neighbours adjoining the site.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Jackson, a consultant on behalf of the applicant, Ms Bailey, Headteacher at Grey Court School and Mr Robinson, a pupil at Grey Court School.

The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Jones 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 the site of the barn and associated facilities such as grazing fields and whether the location chosen would be un-neighbourly. Members felt that when compared to the noise of the playing fields currently occupying the site, the farm animals would not cause un-neighbourly disturbance.

Members discussed the location of the manure store. It was felt that consideration could be given to relocating this facility.

Members discussed visits from members of the public to the farm and how often these should take place.

It was RESOLVED:

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

U56985 (Details of manure store)

Notwithstanding what is shown on the submitted drawings, the proposed manure store shall not be provided except in accordance with detailed plans showing its location and elevations to show its appearance which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure the character and appearance of the area is maintained and the amenities of neighbouring occupiers protected.

(U56996 (Farm Management Plan)

The school farm hereby permitted shall not be operated except in accordance with a Farm Management Plan, details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the use commences, the Plan to include details of the species and number of animals to be accommodated, the hours of operation, the numbers of visits by schools and other organisations, the number of days the farm is to be open to members of the public, a complaints and comments procedure, to provide a forum for neighbouring residents to discuss and resolve with the School issues arising from the Farm, and the number of staff to be employed.

REASON: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and the area generally.

The details submitted pursuant to these conditions to be subject of consultation with neighbouring residents.

Change of Use of Unit 2 from Use Class B1/B8 (office/storage and distribution) to B1/B2/B8 to incorporate a car servicing and MOT centre.

Officer’s Recommendation: APPROVAL

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached.] and verbally added the following condition:

No car servicing, works to vehicles, or MOT testing shall occur at the site, other than inside unit 2 of Teddington Business Park.  REASON:  To protect the amenities of nearby businesses and residents.

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Cope and Mr Corsie, neighbours adjoining the site.

The Committee heard a representation in favour of the proposal from Mr Allen, the applicant.

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

Members discussed a condition  regarding the roller shutters, however it was decided that this would not be enforceable.

Members discussed the character of the business park and the potential impact the application could have. In particular the Committee considered the amount of vehicles that would access the facility. Some members felt that there would be a harmful impact to the character of the business park. However the consensus view was that there would not be substantial harm caused by the change of use.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Demolish and rebuild two storey extension with rear single storey lean-to extension.

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION subject to

the conditions and informatives

[Having declared that she had pre-determined her view on this item, Councillor Chappell left the Committee for this item and spoke as an Interested Councillor.]

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

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Wright, the applicant.

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

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

Whilst Members were sympathetic to the circumstances of the neighbours in the adjoining property, Members found the scheme would not unduly harm the amenities of adjacent residents. It was noted that issues regarding parking, deliveries, dust and pollution could be addressed by the construction method statement.

It was RESOLVED:

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

Temporary change of use and erection of temporary seating and stage structures to permit up to 5 concerts to be staged at Twickenham Stadium during 2013 only, concerts to be staged on weekends and Bank Holidays only.

Officer’s Recommendation: PERMISSION subject to

conditions and completion

of a Section 106 Agreement

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

There were no speakers.

The Committee discussed issues surrounding transport, street cleaning and noise pollution. It was noted that all these issues had been addressed in detail in the Heads of Terms.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report, and the completion of a section 106 legal agreement.

Extension and roof alterations to accommodate three new residential units.

Officer’s Recommendation: APPROVAL subject to a Section

106 legal agreement securing

contributions towards affordable

housing and education

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

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Ms Gregory, a neighbour adjoining the site.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Ward, the architect and Mr Barber, the applicant.

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

Members discussed the design of the application and its impact on the conservation area. Some Members felt that the design did not enhance the conservation area due to the bulk of the mansard feature. However, the consensus view was that there was not substantial harm in the application to warrant refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report, and the completion of a section 106 legal agreement securing contributions towards affordable housing and education.

Partial retention of a wooden fence with proposed trellis located above an existing brick wall.

Officer’s Recommendation: REFUSAL

[Having declared that she had pre-determined her view on this item, Councillor Jaeger left the room for the duration of this item.]

[Having declared that he had pre-determined his view on this item, Councillor Coombs left the Committee for this item and spoke as an Interested Councillor.]

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

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

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

Whilst mindful of the need to consider the application before them, Members noted that a similar application at the same site could better show off the landmark building it was surrounding. Members agreed with the conclusion of the officer’s report, however they felt that six months was a more reasonable period for compliance.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer’s report with an amended period of compliance of six months.