Venue: Civic Offices, St Nicholas Way, Sutton, SM1 1EA
Contact: Peter Snow
The Minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2007 were approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.
FORMER TEXACO GARAGE, 31-33 POUND STREET, CARSHALTON
(a) Application No. C2006/56849/FUL
The Committee considered a report on the above application for the demolition of the petrol filling station, store and rear extension of 33 Pound Street, and the erection of a part two-storey part three-storey building with roof accommodation, comprising three one-bedroom and nine two-bedroom self-contained flats; the refurbishment, erection of a two-storey rear/side extension and conversion of 33 Pound Street to form two two-bedroom self-contained flats; and provision of 14 car and bicycle spaces, refuse store and vehicular access onto Carshalton Park Road.
A member expressed concern about the design of the windows for 33 Pound Street and it was explained that the design could be dealt with as a reserved matter.
Mrs Jean Knight, an objector on behalf of the Carshalton Society, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33, and Mr Simon Grainger replied on behalf of the applicant.
The issue of the width of the pavement in Pound Street at its junction with Carshalton Park Road was raised, and officers explained that the applicant had been reluctant to alter the front building line and the Council could not insist on the pavement being widened because it was not relevant to the proposed scheme as the traffic generated would not be sufficient to warrant it being a requirement. The Council’s highways engineer did not have any objection to the application. The minimum width of the pavement was 1.7 metres. Mr Grainger pointed out that the proposal would result in a marginal increase in its width at the junction and that the applicant would also now enter into a ‘section 106’ agreement in respect of highways improvements.
Members asked that, if permission were granted, the Council’s heritage officers be permitted to enter No. 33 Pound Street to record the building before any work was undertaken.
Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. C2006/56849/FUL, subject to (a) the written conclusion of a ‘section 106’ agreement within a period of six months from the date of this decision, or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by the Executive Head of Planning, Transportation and Highways, after which time the decision to grant planning permission will be rescinded; and (b) to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes, including additional conditions requiring (i) the design of the windows at No. 33 Pound Street to be approved by the local planning authority and (ii) to access being granted to No. 33 Pound Street to record the building before any work is undertaken.
(b) Application No. C2006/56850/CON
The Committee considered a report on the above application for the demolition of the petrol filling station, store and rear extension of 33 Pound Street in connection with proposed redevelopment in a conservation area.
Resolved: That conservation area planning consent be granted in respect of application No. C2006/56850/CON for the demolition of the buildings, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.
THE BUTTERCHURN PUBLIC HOUSE, ERSKINE ROAD, SUTTON - APPLICATION NO. C2006/57019/FUL
Report of the Executive Head of Planning, Transportation and Highways
The Committee considered a report on the above application for the provision of an electrically operated awning, wall mounted heaters and lights to provide a covered area for customer use. Subsequent to the report a further objection had been sent to members regarding the environmental affects of the proposed heaters and three further letters of objection had been received from residents in Florian Avenue and Orchard Way. The Erskine Road and Benhill Village Residents’ Association had drawn attention to the impact of the proposal on an adjacent willow tree.
Officers explained that the willow tree referred to above was not presently the subject of a tree preservation order but that they believed it could be worthy of protection. The proposal, if implemented, would have only a slight impact on the tree, but would not harm it or reduce its amenity value.
In response to questions, officers explained that the Authority did not have any specific policies regarding outdoor heaters and members drew attention to policies in the Unitary Development Plan regarding environmental protection and the use of natural resources. Officers confirmed that a condition could be added requiring the proposed awning to be retracted when not in use, to reduce the attraction for anti-social behaviour, but that it would be difficult to enforce and it was believed that the awning would not have a significant impact on the street scene.
Mrs Jill Whitehead, an objector on behalf of the Erskine Road and Benhill Village Residents’ Association, and Councillors Hamish Pollock and Paul Scully, ward councillors, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33.
Members referred to the likely increased use of the outside sitting area all year round if the awning were erected and heaters provided. Reference was made to the affect of increased light pollution on nearby residents and to policy PNR7 regarding noise-generating development. They believed that the increased noise and disturbance would be detrimental to adjoining residents and that the proposed heaters would not be an efficient use of energy.
Resolved: That planning permission for application No. C2006/57019/FUL be refused for the reasons set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.
Councillor Janet Lowne abstained.
9:00 pm the meeting adjourned.
4 HORSE SHOE GREEN, SUTTON - APPLICATION NO. B2006/56842/HHA
Report of the Executive Head of Planning, Transportation and Highways
The Committee considered a report on the above retrospective application for a detached building at the rear.
Officers reported that, subsequent to the publication of the report, the applicant had submitted letters from the neighbours on each side of his property confirming that they did not have any objection to the proposal, and proposed that if permission were granted a further condition be added requiring the submission of a planting scheme in respect of the rear of the building. The Chair also suggested a condition regarding the method of rain water collection.
The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Cliff Carter.
In response to questions officers confirmed that the building only required consent because the site was in a conservation area and that the use had to be ancillary to the use of the house at 4 Horse Shoe Green. The Sutton Garden Suburb Conservation Area had been established primarily because of the layout of the fronts of the properties, however a negative impact in any part of a property could be a material consideration.
Mrs D Pike and Mrs Frankie Hastings, objectors, and Councillor Cliff Carter, ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33, and the applicant, Mr William Murray, replied.
In response to questions Mrs Pike said that there was no noise from the building at present, but that there had been in the past. Mr Murray confirmed that the proposed gymnasium use referred only to the occasional use of weights. He acknowledged that he lived in a conservation area, and explained that the building replaced dilapidated buildings that had been on the same site for more than 25 years and had been of a similar height. Mr Murray indicated a willingness to accept conditions regarding the method of water collection and the provision of sound proofing and planting.
Members felt that the scale and design of the building would impact on the visual amenity of adjoining properties, and that the size and materials used were unsympathetic to the conservation area.
Resolved: (i) That planning permission for application No. B2006/56842/HHA be refused for the reasons set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.
(ii) That enforcement action be taken to secure the removal of the building that is the subject of application No. B2006/56842/HHA on the grounds that it is detrimental to the visual amenity of adjoining properties, and fails to respect the character and identity of the conservation area.