Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 10th May, 2017 7.30 pm

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

Contact: Committee Services  Tel: 020 8770 4990 | Email:  committeeservices@sutton.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

170.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Minutes:

No apologies of absence were received.

171.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 154 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of previous meetings.

To Follow.

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED: that the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 March 2017 be approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.

172.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Minutes:

8. APPLICATION NO. A2017/76343 30A Cheyham Way, Cheam, SM2 7HX.

Councillor Graham Whitham, Non Pecuniary, the speaker on behalf of the residents for this item had signed his Councillor nomination form so he advised that he would leave the room whilst the application was considered and not partake in this item.

 

8. APPLICATION NO. A2017/76343 30A Cheyham Way, Cheam, SM2 7HX.

Councillor Kevin Burke, Non Pecuniary, knew people who lived in or near to Cheyham Way, however confirmed he could approach the item with an open mind.

 

8. APPLICATION NO. A2017/76343 30A Cheyham Way, Cheam, SM2 7HX.

Councillor Samantha Bourne, Non Pecuniary, knew people who lived in or near to Cheyham Way, however confirmed she could approach the item with an open mind.

 

8. APPLICATION NO. A2017/76343 30A Cheyham Way, Cheam, SM2 7HX.

Councillor Tony Shields, Non Pecuniary, knew people who lived in or near to Cheyham Way, however confirmed he could approach the item with an open mind.

 

173.

APPLICATION NO.C2016/76025 Carshalton High School For Girls, West Street, Carshalton SM5 2QX pdf icon PDF 146 KB

Report of the Executive Head of Economic Development, Planning and Sustainability.Variation of condition 2 of planning approval C2015/71157 (submission of revised arboricultural report in relation to loss of trees).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

           The Committee considered the report for agenda item 4 regarding a variation of condition 2 of planning approval C2015/71157 (submission of revised arboricultural report in relation to loss of trees).

 

           Following questions from members, officers confirmed that 3 of the trees on the site had extensive decay present with a high risk for spreading to the healthier trees and the row of trees falling, so it was considered that retention was not possible. It was also confirmed that it would take up to 50 years before replacement trees could provide the same visual barrier and that the existing trees were thought to have 15 - 20 years life left in them.

 

           John Freeman, an objector and resident in Coulsdon Avenue, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31. Paul Allen, Head of Technical Services of Landscape Planning Group Ltd, and and Paul Harding, Chair of Governors at the school, replied on behalf of the applicant

 

          The principal issues raised by the objector were:

 

  • First assessment concluded that Poplar trees were not of the best quality but did add to the  landscape and amenity value and that report did not recommend removal of the trees
  • Noted that work started to remove the trees at beginning of March and these ones were not decayed.
  • He pointed out trees had been removed in the past and this had no negative effect on remaining trees.
  • Some trees were already pruned to 10 metres in height.
  • All current trees could be replaced by new poplars
  • He asked for alternatives to be considered rather than removing the trees.

 

          The principal issues raised on behalf of the applicant were:

 

  • The school's sole concern was for the safety of students and local users of the site.
  • Trees T11 and T15 were damaged and could fall down.
  • The most recent tree condition report identified that tree 17 in particular had deteriorated and was felled due to the danger posed.
  • As soon as you take out one tree the others become dangerous and can lose limbs they grow fast at the top and can split and blow over.
  • Life expectancy of the trees was relatively short.
  • His recommendation was to replace with native mix of trees in their place.

 

           Councillors asked about the previous report and how quickly the trees generally decay, as well as how long it would take for the visual amenity of the trees to be replaced by the new tree strategy. Paul Allen advised that in some previous inspections he could not see the root crown of the tree so for the latest report he had asked for brambles at the base to be removed and it was at that point he noticed the decay. He also advised that he believed it would take 5-10 years for the new trees to replace the old barrier. Councillor Shields asked if there was room on site to grow an additional line of trees before cutting down the healthy trees and the tree specialist advised that this doesn't usually work,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 173.

174.

APPLICATION NO. TPO 2016/05a - Burdon Park, 34 Manor Road and 27 Burdon Lane pdf icon PDF 90 KB

Report of the Executive Head of Economic Development, Planning and Sustainability.To confirm the provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 2016/05a protecting fifteen trees on land belonging to the above properties.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application to confirm the provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 2016/05a protecting fifteen trees on land belonging to the above properties.

 

Paul Lincoln, a supporter, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and Councillor Mary Burstow, a Ward Councillor, spoke in support. The principal issues raised were:

 

  • Local resident engagement had shown universal support the application.
  • The value of amenity, character and appearance of the area.
  • These were well established trees in the area, providing support to wildlife.
  • The potential development had not been approved and he believed that the outlined planning permission was not relevant.

 

The principal issues raised by Councillor Mary Burstow were:

 

  • She estimated that the Oak tree pictured in the report would be 100-150 years old.
  • The trees played a significant part in contributing to the character of the area.
  • The intention of the previous landowner, who gifted the land to Abbeyfield, was to retain the trees
  • The trees were in excellent condition and formed part of Cheam’s heritage.

 

Following questions from members, officers confirmed the history of planning permission at the site.

 

A poll vote on the officer's’ recommendation to approve the provisional TPO. 2016/05a was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

 

 

To grant: (10)     Councillors Samantha Bourne, Muhammad Sadiq, Hamish Pollock, Jason Reynolds,  Kevin Burke, Margaret Court, Vincent Galligan, Patrick McManus, Graham Whitham, Tony Shields

 

Resolved: That confirmation of the provisional TPO be approved for TPO. 2016/05a, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

 

175.

APPLICATION NO.TPO 2016/07 Garden land, 7 Dalmeny Road, 96-96a and 98a-100 Kingsmead Avenue pdf icon PDF 113 KB

Report of the Executive Head of Economic Development, Planning and Sustainability.To confirm the provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 2016/07 protecting five trees on land belonging to the above properties.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application to confirm the provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO)2016/07 protecting five trees on land belonging to the above properties. Committee were advised that residents had noticed nesting birds and had requested the TPO.

 

Following questions from members, the tree officer advised that there had previously been a ditch on site but it had been filled in by some previous owners, and that if there was a water course present, it would be more than the tree blocking the ditch. She went on to confirm that there could be a way of servicing the ditch if in due course it was necessary, that trees help flood alleviation, and that the access track was 14 feet wide, meaning a car could still pass through.

 

Councillor Richard Broadbent, Ward Councillor, spoke in support under Standing Order 31. The principal issues raised were:

 

  • He felt that the grounds of objection had been overcome.
  • He pointed to page 31, paragraph 4.4 which highlighted that the protection of trees was in accordance with the aspirations of the council, that 5.3 indicated that the proposal was acceptable, 5.5 that the trees were visible and in 5.9  that the objections were from owners who would be selling their gardens for this development and therefore had a vested interest in their land being sold.
  • In respect of right of access he believed no access had been used for some time
  • In respect of flooding, in his view, presence of trees would not in itself cause flooding and concerns would not out way public benefit of the trees.

 

A poll vote on the officer's’ recommendation to approve  the provisional TPO. 2016/07

was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

 

To grant: (10)     Councillors Samantha Bourne, Muhammad Sadiq, Hamish Pollock, Jason Reynolds,  Kevin Burke, Margaret Court, Vincent Galligan, Patrick McManus, Graham Whitham, Tony Shields.

 

Resolved: That confirmation of the provisional TPO  2016/07, be approved subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

 

176.

APPLICATION NO. A2017/76343 30A Cheyham Way, Cheam, SM2 7HX pdf icon PDF 175 KB

Report of the Executive Head of Economic Development, Planning and Sustainability.Demolition of the bungalow, erection of four new semi detached 3-bedroom dwellings with associated parking, hard and soft landscaping, garden sheds and refuse stores.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered reports for agenda items 8 regarding demolition of the bungalow, erection of four new semi detached 3-bedroom dwellings with associated parking, hard and soft landscaping, garden sheds and refuse stores.

 

The officer confirmed that since the report was published no objection had been received from the Environment agency and that a further objection had been received from 32 Cheyham Way. Following questions from members, the Highways Officer confirmed that the parking space layout, size, and access was compliant with requirements and another officer advised that it was intended that residents would keep their waste bins in their back gardens until collection day but will use communal store to present waste for collection. Councillors raised concerns about the safety of blind corners and the fact that there would be no front gardens separating the front door and the highway.

 

Andrew Barnett, an objector, addressed the committee under standing order 31 and the applicant's agent replied.

 

 

Mr Barnett advised that he was representing over 100 objectors. The key points raised were:

  • Excessive density would result in overcrowding on site.
  • Unsympathetic character and design, not in keeping with surrounding area, and overbuilding on a scale so far unseen anywhere else in South Cheam.
  • Insufficient off street parking
  • Loss of amenity
  • Building line already set back and only 6.5 metres at the front and 7 metres garden depth at the back. Epsom and Ewell Planning department had commented that there would be crowding on the site, and that the gardens were insufficient in size, which was not mentioned in the report.
  • Unacceptable overlooking of neighbouring properties.
  • Bin store for 3 commercial containers would be used at all times, not just on collection days.

 

The principal issues raised by Councillor Ramsay on behalf of Ward Councillors were:

  • Unsympathetic character and design
  • No soft landscaping and no garages
  • Plans showed nose-to-tail parking spaces but she did not believe vehicles would park in the spaces due to size and layout, resulting in increased on- street parking.
  • Bins would be openly visible to existing houses

 

The principal issues raised by the applicant's agent Scott Lawrie were:

 

  • He felt that some information shared from the residents’ association was not correct, in particular the density which was 38/39 dwellings per hectare.
  • He had tabulated all concerns raised and gone through them in detail to ensure the proposal is within London Borough of Sutton policy.
  • In respect of the character and design this is in keeping with nearby two and three story properties rather than the existing bungalow and that the proposal is to use similar materials that are used in the local area.
  • Regarding concerns raised on safety of driving layout he advised that  in his view driving will be safe as he termed this a “Home Zone”
  • He confirmed off street parking spaces are over minimum spaces and sizes required, and pointed out that the proposal  also included disabled parking.
  • He confirmed the refuse bins will come out from behind houses on bin day only.
  • They  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.

177.

ANY URGENT BUSINESS,

brought forward at the direction of the Chair, who has approved the reason for the urgency.

 

 

 

Minutes:

There was no urgent business.