Decision details

APPLICATION NO. B2017/77814 - Henderson Hospital, 2 Homeland Drive, Sutton, SM2 5LT

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No


The Committee considered a report on the above application for erection of mixed use development comprising the erection of a two storey doctors surgery (D1) with 25 parking spaces, refuse store and cycle parking and the erection of a terrace of three 4-bedroom houses (C3) with associated landscaping, three off street parking spaces and three visitor parking spaces with access off Hardegray Close.


The application had been de-delegated by Councillor David Hicks.


Following the presentation by Iain Williams, Senior Planning Officer, Members requested clarification on:

  • The recommendation - which was confirmed as correct with regards to the mention of affordable housing and delegated authority to the Strategic Director. The wording ‘should they wish’ (in relation to the delegated authority) was requested to be removed from any final resolution agreed which the Head of Planning agreed to at the meeting for this and future recommendations.
  • Restrictive covenants - confirmed not to be a consideration in the remit of the planning committee.
  • An extant planning scheme on the same site, as granted in 2013.
  • Evidence of journeys on foot and other means of transport to the site given the distance of the access from Brighton Road.


Peter Mattey (Belmont and South Cheam Residents Association), Carol Page and Mark Powell, objectors, as well as Councillor Neil Garratt, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant replied.


The principal issues raised by the objectors were:-


  • Parking obstruction on the access road to the site.
  • A lighting scheme with a 6m pole into the rear of 9 Hardegray Close. Requesting a condition that it be turned off when the site is not open.
  • Overspill of parking into the local area and requested that parking controls be changed in the vicinity.
  • Lack of community transport and impact on patients travelling to the practice.
  • The inappropriate location of the surgery.
  • The negative impact on the amenity of local residents and the danger, particularly to children, of parking near the site.

The Head of Development Management and Strategic Planning apologised for the errors in the reports on Henderson Hospital it was noted that these were minor and did not prevent Planning Committee coming to a sound decision on the application.


Councillor Tim Crowley was given a first formal warning by the Chair for inappropriate and disorderly conduct. 


The legal representative reminded Members of the orderly conduct required in debate and that matters relating to the conduct or capability of a Council employee, or of employees collectively, should not be raised at meetings held in public.


The principal issues raised by Councillor Neil Garratt, ward councillor, were:-


  • Lack of public transport in the area and the ‘unpleasant’ walk to the site from the bus stop. Improved street lighting, taking into account the local tree canopy, and the placing of benches, were considered potential improvements.
  • A lack of affordable housing requirement in the application and any precedent that may be set.
  • The impact on residents in Hardegray Close, and the area, caused by overspill parking in particular.
  • The inappropriate location of the proposed site for patients and the lack of patient transport provision required.


The principal issues responded to by the applicant/agent were:-


  • The contribution to housing needs and health and wellbeing of the local community.
  • That following discussions: a barrier to the GP car park, additional planting and allocation of visitor parking spaces had been included in the proposal.
  • An improved location in the centre of the catchment area meeting demographic and population demands, with fewer traffic movements.
  • That no objections had been received from statutory consultees.
  • The deficiencies of the current surgery location in South Sutton.
  • That surveys had shown many patients walk to the surgery in its present location.
  • The positive response received from patient engagement.


The applicant/agent replied that the access road area could be included in the parking management plan and the lighting potentially put under condition. The viability of a community transport scheme under the application however, was rejected. 


It was confirmed that GPs are obliged to provide a home visit for those patients who are unable to make the journey. A commitment was made by the applicant/agent to discuss the potential of a volunteer transport system with the local patient participation group. Reference was also made by Members to services provided by Sutton Community Transport.


In debate, Members considered:

  • Comparisons to the extant planning permission on the site.
  • The viability of community transport provision and availability of public transport in the area. Andy Webber, Head of Development Management and Strategic Planning, advised that any obligation relating to such provision would unlikely pass the relevant legal tests.
  • The need for a GP surgery in the area.
  • The level of response to a patient engagement exercise.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission, with removal of “should they wish” from the recommendation, and conditions added with regard to parking management, lighting hours, and limit of use to a surgery in class D1, was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:


The following Members requested that their reasons for voting against be recorded in the minutes:

  • Councillor Tim Crowley - for reasons relating to the extant planning permission, and that the covenant should cover community transport and be included in the present application.
  • Councillor Peter Geiringer - for reasons relating to the absence of community transport provision.


RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted for application No. B2017/77814 subject to (a) Completion of a s.106 legal agreement to be completed by midday on 30 June 2019, or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by the Strategic  Director of Housing, Planning and Regeneration, after which time the resolution to grant will be rescinded. Should a completed S106 legal agreement not be forthcoming by the date and time specified above the Planning Committee also agree to give delegated authority to officers, to refuse permission on the basis that the proposal would fail to provide an adequate contribution in lieu of affordable housing on site.; and (b) the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the planning portal, including conditions related to parking management, lighting hours, and limit of use to a surgery in class D1.


Publication date: 24/06/2019

Date of decision: 05/06/2019

Decided at meeting: 05/06/2019 - Planning Committee

Accompanying Documents: