Agenda and minutes

Venue: Civic Offices, St Nicholas Way, Sutton, SM1 1EA

Contact: Peter Snow 

Items
No. Item

116.

MINUTES

of the meeting held on 17 January 2007 (ENCLOSURE).(to follow)

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2007 were approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.

117.

GARDEN LAND REAR OF 50-64 SENGA ROAD, HACKBRIDGE - APPLICATION NO. C2006/56688/FUL

Report of the Executive Head of Planning, Transportation and Highways (ENCLOSURE).

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of seven four-bedroom and six three-bedroom affordable terraced houses with roof accommodation in three blocks, the provision of 20 car parking spaces and the formation of an access onto Culvers Avenue.  Attention was drawn to a previous similar application, granted on appeal, which provided for access from Senga Road.

 

It was reported that subsequent to the publication of the report the Environment Agency had requested four additional conditions regarding drainage.

 

The application had been de-delegated by Councillors John Drage and Colin Stears. 

 

Mrs Vera Colburn and Mr Morris Tijou, objectors, and Councillors John Drage and Sue Stears, ward councillors, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33, and Mr Roger Tullett replied on behalf of the applicant.

 

In response to questions Mrs Colburn referred to congestion caused by traffic using Culvers Avenue to access the nearby primary school and Mr Tijou sought assurances regarding damage to his brick built garden wall.

 

Members expressed concern regarding the risk of flooding in the area and Councillor Sue Stears confirmed that she could not remember an occasion of flooding in the past but that it had been a consideration in respect of other developments.

 

In response to a question, the applicant’s representative explained that they had notified the residents of the 70 properties nearest to the site of the proposed change in the access, but confirmed that that had not included any properties in Culvers Avenue.

 

Members expressed concern about traffic congestion in the area of the nearby primary school, but it was acknowledged that similar problems existed in the vicinity of all schools.  In response to questions the applicant’s representative explained that car parking spaces would be allocated on the basis of one for each household and the rest by ballot, and was confident that they would be sufficient, but not all members shared that confidence.  It was acknowledged that the car parking provision was below the level required by the Sutton Unitary Development Plan, which was a consequence of the planning inspectorate disregarding the Council’s policies in reaching the earlier appeal decision.

 

Members also expressed concern about the effect of increased traffic on a nearby bridge and the volume of construction traffic visiting the site.  They noted that, whilst they could not impose conditions regarding issues outside the site, if permission were to be granted a construction method statement could be required.

 

The Chair said that the Committee effectively had to decide between the present application, which provided access from Culvers Avenue, and the scheme granted on appeal, which provided access from Senga Road.  Both would create urgently needed affordable housing, but on balance the present application would probably be less detrimental.

 

            Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. C2006/56688/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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

118.

BLUE CEDARS, THE DRIVE, CHEAM - APPLICATION NO. A2006/56888/FUL

Report of the Executive Head of Planning, Transportation and Highways (ENCLOSURE).

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the demolition of the dwelling and the erection of a part one part two storey four-bedroom house incorporating a double garage, and the provision of boundary gates and pillars up to 2.2 metres in height (amendment to previously approved application No. A2006/55427/FUL).

 

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Eleanor Pinfold.

 

Mr John Diggins, an objector, and Councillor Eleanor Pinfold, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33, and Mr David King replied on behalf of the applicant.

 

Members drew attention to an implied use for business purposes in the application and officers explained the position regarding the use of domestic properties for business use.  Mr Diggins suggested that there may have been some misunderstanding of the application because of the need for the building to include provisions required by virtue of the Disability Discrimination Act and the submission of an expansive design access statement.

 

It was emphasised that members only needed to consider the amendments to the previously approved application.

 

In response to a question regarding possible overlooking from Blue Cedars to the existing adjoining property, Councillor Eleanor Pinfold drew attention to the difference in the ground levels of the two properties and expressed an opinion that Blue Cedars would be dominant.  It was acknowledged that the current proposal sought to create greater differences than before between Blue Cedars and Hazel Court.

 

In response to questions Mr David King confirmed that the installation of solar power and ‘grey’ water schemes was being considered.  Officers believed that it would be inequitable to require such proposals to be submitted at this stage for an individual property.

 

Members noted that the increase in the size of the proposed dwelling was minimal, and reflected a change in the shape of the rear extension, but they were wary of similar incremental increases.

 

Officers explained that, had the original application been implemented, the amendments to the dwelling now sought would constitute permitted development.

 

            Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. A2006/56888/FUL, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

 

Councillors Terry Faulds, Tony Shields and Paul Scully abstained.

119.

HAZEL COURT, THE DRIVE, CHEAM - APPLICATION NO. A2006/56889/FUL

Report of the Executive Head of Planning, Transportation and Highways (ENCLOSURE).

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the demolition of the dwelling and the erection of a part one part two storey four-bedroom house incorporating a double garage and the provision of boundary gates and pillars up to 2.390 metres in height (amendment to previously approved application No. A2006/55426/FUL).

 

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Eleanor Pinfold.

 

Mr John Diggins, an objector and Councillor Eleanor Pinfold, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33, and Mr David King replied on behalf of the applicant.

 

It was emphasised that members only needed to consider the amendments to the previously approved application.

 

It was acknowledged that the current proposal sought to create greater differences than before between Hazel Court and Blue Cedars.

 

Mr David King explained that the rear extension had been introduced to avoid an otherwise flat elevation.  In response to questions he confirmed that the installation of solar power and ‘grey’ water schemes was being considered.  Officers believed that it would be inequitable to require such proposals to be submitted at this stage for an individual property.

 

Members noted that the increase in the size of the proposed dwelling was minimal, but they were wary of similar incremental increases.  It was also noted that the incorporation of pedestrian gates within the entrance gates did not reflect other gated properties in The Drive.

 

Officers explained that, had the original application been implemented, the amendments to the dwelling now sought would constitute permitted development.

 

            Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. A2006/56889/FUL, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

 

Councillors Terry Faulds, Tony Shields and Paul Scully abstained.

120.

39 WOODBURY DRIVE, SUTTON - APPLICATION NO. B2006/56668/HHA

Report of the Executive Head of Planning, Transportation and Highways (ENCLOSURE).

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a two storey rear extension and a two storey extension to each side elevation, a porch canopy and the provision of two dormer windows at the rear.

 

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Peter Geiringer.

 

One member expressed surprise at the density of the proposal and referred to traffic concerns, but understood why the application was recommended by officers.

 

Mr Cliff Haynes, an objector, and Councillor Peter Geiringer, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33.

 

In response to questions Mr Haynes stated that his adjoining property had the same number of bedrooms as were proposed in the application.  He explained that the application property did not impact on his own property at present but that the proposal would increase the size of the application property considerably and it would extend two feet beyond the back of his property.

 

In response to questions about other extended properties in Woodbury Drive and the avoidance of creating a ‘terrace affect’, officers reminded members of policy BE15 of the Sutton Unitary Development Plan, which included a statement that the Authority would resist extensions that would close the gap between adjoining properties.  It was pointed out, however, that many properties in Woodbury Drive already had smaller gaps between them than the policy required and the Authority had to take account of what existed in the area.  In any event, because the application site was on a corner the submitted drawings gave a false impression of the extent to which the proposed extensions would impinge on the neighbouring properties.  It was estimated that there would be a one metre gap between the proposed flank extensions and the boundary on each side.

 

One member did express some concern as to how the proposal would respect and complement the size and style of the original property, as required by policy BE15.

 

The Chair said that the proposed increase in the size of the property would be quite dramatic, but that the result would not create a precedent or be dissimilar to adjoining properties, and he could not agree that it would impinge on them to the extent suggested.  The gap between the property and the adjoining properties would not be closed when viewed from the street and there would not be any overlooking of No. 37 Woodbury Drive.

 

            Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. B2006/56668/HHA, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

 

Councillors Paul Scully and Graham Whitham dissented.  Councillors Terry Faulds and Tony Shields abstained.

 

Councillor Paddy Kane declared a personal interest because he knew the objector as an officer of the Council.

121.

29-31 SHERWOOD PARK ROAD, SUTTON - APPLICATION NO. B2006/56755/ARM

Report of the Executive Head of Planning, Transportation and Highways (ENCLOSURE).

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the approval of details of the design and external appearance of 13 two-bedroom self-contained flats in a three storey building, together with bicycle and refuse facilities, 12 car parking spaces accessed from Western Road and one car parking space accessed from Sherwood Park Road, pursuant to condition No. 1 of planning application No. B2006/56072/OUT.

 

It was explained, in response to a question, that because of the refusal of earlier applications and concerns about the height and shape of any building on the site, there had been consultations with officers and particularly the Council’s urban design consultant.  It was also reported that the roofing material would be a synthetic composite.  The elevation finishes would include partly render and partly timber cladding, and be subject to a condition.

 

Mrs Valerie Roberts, an objector, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33, and Mr Brian Madge replied on behalf of the applicant.

 

In response to questions, Mr Madge explained that because the site lay between traditional housing at one end and modern flats at the other end the applicant had been uncertain how to proceed with the design, and after discussions with the Council’s officers had been encouraged to pursue a contemporary design.  The corner of the building would be approximately one metre from the footway, as agreed at the outline planning stage, which was a greater distance than the corner of the existing building.  Maintenance of the wood cladding, if needed, would not be a major task and modern preservatives would ensure its durability.

 

Views were expressed on the design, in particular that the wood cladding would not be in keeping with other properties in the area.  The Chair explained that any such views were personal and suggested that the proposed design was reasonable.

 

            Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. B2006/56755/ARM, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

 

Councillor Tony Shields dissented.  Councillors Paul Scully and Graham Whitham abstained.

122.

186 HIGH STREET, SUTTON - APPLICATION NO. B2006/56822/FUL

Report of the Executive Head of Planning, Transportation and Highways (ENCLOSURE).

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a three storey rear extension to provide a retail outlet fronting Manor Place, with one one-bedroom and two two-bedroom maisonettes on the first and second floors, together with refuse and bicycle stores.

 

Officers explained that the shortfall in amenity space referred to in the report should read five square metres and not 20 square metres.  The application had been referred to the Committee because the proposed ‘section 106’ agreement provided for changes in the line of the footway and the replacement of street trees.

 

Ms Deboarah Tarrant, an objector, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33.

 

In response to questions, Ms Tarrant reported that some tarmac had lifted in the area of the street trees but suggested that it could also have been damaged by heavy lorries and widening the footway would make that more likely in future.  There was presently insufficient car parking in the area.

 

In response to questions, officers reported that the Council’s arboricultural officer had recommended the removal of the street trees, leaving their roots in place, and the planting of replacement trees; which resolved the reason for the withdrawal of a previous application.  The footway would be widened at the applicant’s expense.

 

Some members expressed concern that the old tree roots remaining in the ground could result in damage to property over time but assumed that had been taken into account.

 

Councillor Janet Lowne addressed the meeting as a ward councillor.

 

The Chair believed that the only uncertainty regarding the application was the concern surrounding the affect, if any, of the old tree roots that would remain in the ground.

 

            Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. B2006/56822/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; (b) the inclusion in the ‘section 106’ agreement of an additional clause requiring an investigation by the applicant into the effect of leaving the old tree roots in the ground; and (c) to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

 

Councillors Tony Shields, Paul Scully and Graham Whitham dissented.

123.

14 THE BROADWAY, CHEAM - APPLICATION NO. A2006/56676/FUL

Report of the Executive Head of Planning, Transportation and Highways (ENCLOSURE).

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a single storey rear extension, the installation of an extract duct at rear, and use of the premises as a coffee shop between the hours of 07:00 and 17:30 and as a restaurant and hot food takeaway between the hours of 17:30 and midnight.

 

It was reported that, subsequent to the publication of the report, a further letter had been received from Cheam Chamber of Trade and Commerce repeating their previously expressed objection to the use of retail premises for a restaurant and the affect of the proposal on Cheam village as a retail centre.

 

Ms Joanna Chu, one of the applicants, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33.  In response to questions Ms Chu confirmed that the premises would operate as a restaurant in the evening and provide a take-away food service.

 

            Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. A2006/56676/FUL, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

 

Councillor Graham Whitham abstained.

Appendix