Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Peter Snow 

Items
No. Item

835.

MINUTES

of the meeting held on 12 September 2007 (ENCLOSURE).(to follow)

Minutes:

Members noted that the report referred to in Minute 767/07 had indicated that if planning permission were granted it should be subject to the conclusion of a ‘section 106’ agreement.

 

A poll vote to amend the decision in Minute 767/07 was held in accordance with Standing Order 33.4, when there voted:

 

To amend the

decision (9)            Councillors Richard Butt, Cliff Carter, Ian Chapman, Peter Geiringer, Brendan Hudson, John Leach, Janet Lowne, Simon Wales and Graham Whitham.

 

Accordingly, the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2007 were approved as a correct record, subject to the insertion of the following words after the words ‘subject to’ in the resolution to Minute 767/07, and signed by the Chair:-

 

            ‘(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Head of Planning, Transportation and Highways, after which time the decision to grant planning permission will be rescinded; and (b) to’.

836.

26 HEATH DRIVE, SUTTON - APPLICATION NO. B2007/57913/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 part one, part two storey rear extension and a single storey front extension.

 

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

 

Officers proposed an additional condition restricting the use to ancillary accommodation.

 

In response to questions officers reported that the size of the rear garden was estimated to be between 300m2 and 400m2, and between 15.5 and 18 metres in length.  The extension would not lead to any increase in the width of the building.  The floor area of the original building was not known.  Officers acknowledged that the proposed extension was large, but believed that the amenity of adjoining properties could be protected.

 

A statement submitted by Councillor David Pickles, a ward councillor, was read by the Chair.  Mr Mark Randall, an objector, and Councillor Pamela Picknett, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33.

 

The principal issues raised by Councillor Pickles were:-

  • The proposed extension was too large
  • The proposed extension would create a larger overhang than needed
  • There would be a loss of privacy and possibly loss of light
  • The property was almost twice its original size and the proposed extension would add to the bulk

 

The principal issues raised by Mr Randall were:-

  • The proposed extension was contrary to policies in the Unitary Development Plan
  • The impact of the proposed upper level on adjoining properties
  • The view from the rear would appear as a terrace of properties
  • Impact on visual amenity
  • The proposed extension would break the pattern of alignment
  • The proposed extension would appear larger to the properties at the rear which were at a lower level
  • There would be a loss of light to adjoining properties.
  • The height of the extension would be as high as the house
  • The proposed extension was not acceptable to the owners of adjoining properties
  • The reasons for refusal of an earlier application were still valid

 

In response to questions Mr Randall confirmed that only a minor extension was proposed at the front of the property; and clarified that Nos. 24 and 28 Heath Drive would be overlooked, that there would be a significant shadow over those properties, that approximately 20% of the rear garden would be lost, and that the first floor element of the proposed extension would have a significant impact on both adjoining properties and those at the rear in Bassett Close.

 

The principal issues raised by Councillor Picknett were:-

  • The proposed extension would be visually more dominant to properties in Bassett Close because of the fall in the land
  • The width of the proposed extension and its encroachment on the rear garden would be overwhelming
  • Windows in the proposed extension would overlook adjoining properties
  • There would be a loss of sunlight and overshadowing to Nos. 24 and 28 Heath Drive
  • The proposed extension would create a property out of character with surrounding properties
  • The proposed extension would cause a loss of outlook and visual amenity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 836.

837.

ELMWOOD NURSERY, CARSHALTON COLLEGE, NIGHTINGALE ROAD, CARSHALTON - APPLICATION NO. C2007/58156/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 conservatory to provide additional nursery accommodation.

 

A poll vote was held in accordance with Standing Order 33.4, when there voted:

 

To grant (9)            Councillors Richard Butt, Cliff Carter, Ian Chapman, Peter Geiringer, Brendan Hudson, John Leach, Janet Lowne, Simon Wales and Graham Whitham

 

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. C2007/58156/FUL, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

838.

LAND REAR OF 39-41 CARLTON CRESCENT, SUTTON - APPLICATION NO. A2007/57681/FUL

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

Minutes:

Further to Minute 720/07, the Committee considered a report on the above retrospective application to continue to use the site for access purposes in association with vehicle parking and plant/machinery storage on adjoining land; and on the site visit on 12 September 2007.

 

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Christopher Dunlop.

 

In response to questions officers confirmed that the Council’s highways engineer had said that there was no obstruction to visibility for traffic ingressing or egressing the access to or from Abbotts Road, and that in his opinion the proposed use did not affect highway safety.

 

Mrs Diane Brush and Mrs Harris, objectors, and Councillors Christopher Dunlop and Roger Roberts, ward councillors, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33, and the applicant, Mr Tony McVea, replied.

 

The principal issues raised by Mrs Brush were:-

  • The site was a dirt track
  • The heavy lorries had damaged drains in the access site
  • There would be a loss of wildlife habitat
  • Lorries using the access would block the pedestrian crossing and hold up traffic in Abbotts Road

 

In response to questions Mrs Brush said that she thought the pedestrian crossing was too close to the access and dangerous, that trailers on the lorries overlapped the crossing when they were turning into the access, and that lorries had to cross to the ‘wrong’ side of the road to enter the access.  Lorries used the access at various times during the day.

 

The principal issues raised by Mrs Harris were:-

  • Over intensification of use
  • Loss of garden land
  • Breach of planning enforcement notices
  • Noise and dirt
  • The use was detrimental to amenity
  • The access was on a busy junction
  • The track had been intended only for private use
  • There was an alternative hard surface access from Church Hill Road
  • Maintenance of the alleyway

 

In response to questions officers drew attention to the enforcement notice issued to the previous owner in 1996 and confirmed that at present there was no breach of that enforcement notice.  Mrs Harris said that a maximum of two 7.5 ton lorries were to be parked on the site, but that there were often three or four parked there.

 

The principal issues raised by Mr McVea were:-

  • He had never been informed of damage to the drains
  • Two new lorries were parked at the site and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency had permitted him to also park two old un-licensed lorries pending their sale
  • There were always two employees in each lorry and the passenger could direct the driver when manoeuvring
  • Lorries with a trailer could access the alleyway from Abbotts Road without any problem

 

In response to questions Mr McVea said that gates had been erected across the alleyway by the residents, but that they were never locked.  He had a right of way to cross and re-cross the land.  He denied that there was rubbish in the yard, but confirmed that lorries were parked on the northern most part of the land, and that the land also contained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 838.

839.

STANLEY PARK INFANTS' SCHOOL, STANLEY PARK ROAD, CARSHALTON - APPLICATION NO.C2007/58218/3FR

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 front and side extension to provide a children’s centre, involving the re-alignment of an existing footpath.

 

A poll vote was held in accordance with Standing Order 33.4, when there voted:

 

To grant (9)            Councillors Richard Butt, Cliff Carter, Ian Chapman, Peter Geiringer, Brendan Hudson, John Leach, Janet Lowne, Simon Wales and Graham Whitham

 

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. C2007/58218/3FR, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

Appendix