Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 20th July, 2016 7.30 pm

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

Contact: Aimee Wittams-Smith, Senior Business Support Officer (Democratic)  Tel: 020 8770 4171 | Email:  aimee.wittams-smith@sutton.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

21.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillors Margaret Court, Vincent Galligan, Kevin Burke, and Tony Shields. Councillor Mary Burstow attended as a substitute.

22.

MINUTES

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2016.

To follow.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the previous meeting were to follow for approval at the next meeting of Planning Committee on 17 August 2016.

23.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

24.

Order of Items

Minutes:

The Chair, Councillor Sam Bourne, announced that items 8 and 9 would be brought forward to the beginning of the agenda, that item 7 would be brought forward to follow item 4, and that item 10 would be removed from the agenda. As such, the order of items was as follows in the minutes below.

25.

APPLICATION NO. D2016/74366/FUL - Wilsons School, Mollison Drive, Wallington pdf icon PDF 153 KB

Erection of a canopy shelter at rear.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a canopy shelter at the rear of the school.

 

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

 

To grant (7)    Councillors Samantha Bourne, Muhammad Sadiq, Jason Reynolds, Mary Burstow, Graham Whitham, Hamish Pollock and Patrick McManus

 

Against (0)

 

Abstained (0)

 

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. D2016/74366/FUL, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

 

26.

APPLICATION NO. A2016/74450/3FR - Dorchester Primary School pdf icon PDF 150 KB

Erection of canopy and 2m high fence and gate.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a canopy and 2m high fence and gate.

 

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

 

To grant (7)    Councillors Samantha Bourne, Muhammad Sadiq, Jason Reynolds, Mary Burstow, Graham Whitham, Hamish Pollock and Patrick McManus

 

Against (0)

 

Abstained (0)

 

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. A2016/74450/3FR, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

 

27.

APPLICATION NO. C2016/73625/OUT - Felnex pdf icon PDF 300 KB

Variation of condition 3 (Phasing Plan), 18 (Mitigation), 24 (Heating/Energy) and 44 (Drawing Numbers) (minor material amendment application) of previously approved Outline application no. C2014/68760/OUT to determine access and layout for up to 725 dwellings, a food store with a net sales area up to 2564 square metres, 948 square metres of additional retail floor space within Class A1, 6100 square metres of office and workshop space within Class B1(a), (b) and (c), 7740 square metres of assisted living accommodation (Class C2), 565 square metres of health facility and 98 square metres as a community room together with energy centre, open space, children's play space, landscaping, car parking and access roads.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for Variation of condition 3 (Phasing Plan), 18 (Mitigation), 24 (Heating/Energy) and 44 (Drawing Numbers) (minor material amendment application) of previously approved Outline application no. C2014/68760/OUT.

 

Nicola Watkins, Lysanne Horrox and Helena Barrowclough, objectors, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant replied.

The principal issues raised by Nicola Watkins were:-

 

·      The number of units allocated to assisted living would be doubled, and she felt that this was for profit

·      Terraced homes would be opposite flats, which would be unpleasant and effect the privacy and light

·      Increased assisted living units could mean more drivers than the alternative care home, which would affect traffic and parking on the site.

·      The loss of Hackbridge Square and the bus terminal

·      The scale and density would affect the local infrastructure

 

The principal issues raised by Lysanne Horrox were:-

 

·     The already existing cottages opposite the site had been constantly affected by development noise, traffic, etc since 2010.

·     She would like the developers to consider a later start time than that already allowed under council policy for building.

 

The principal issues raised by Helena Barrowclough were:-

·      She did not know whether a Building Research Establishment Assessment had been carried out on the application

·      6 out of the 12 cottages get their light from their living room window and any building over 3 stories would affect the sunlight they received.

·      The footprint appeared to have increased from the previous application.

·      There were too many assisted living homes being built to the same specification in the area, and this change would affect parking and traffic in the area.

The principal issues raised by Steve Mellor, Head of Planning at Barratt Homes (representing the applicant) were:-

·      The changes were required to change the site development from that which valued a superstore first, to one which was inclusive of a supermarket, GP surgery, Assisted Living units and the community.

·      A lot of the objectors’ issues will be covered by another application.

·      The Assisted Living units still fell, under planning legislation, under the same usage (C2).

·      The application at hand was not to change the access, building heights, Section 106 provisions but was to cover the necessary changes for the aims of the development.

Officers highlighted that a lot of the issues raised were not relevant to this application, and that the details would be considered by the Committee at a later date. Officers also undertook to ensure that Committee reports for future applications will address all of the concerns raised by the objectors. Councillors asked questions about whether Barratt Homes had consulted with local residents prior to the application and established that both parties would be open to a residents’ liaison group being set up for improved communication throughout the process.

 

A motion was raised to vote with the officers’ recommendation to grant permission, subject to the insertion of a clause within the legal agreement that a residents’ liaison group be set up. A vote was held in accordance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

28.

APPLICATION NO. C2016/74370/FUL - Redevelopment of 1-18 Green Wrythe Crescent and 239-249 Green Wrythe Lane pdf icon PDF 189 KB

Reduction in parking to 44 spaces form 46 - Variation of condition 10 of planning approval C2015/72477/FUL for: Minor amendments to road alignment, footways and parking, changes to house type 2 and turning head (variation of Conditions 9 (road alignment), 10 (parking provision) and 17 (drawings) of previously approved application C2012/66460/3FR).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for a reduction in parking to 44 spaces form 46 – Variation of condition 10 of planning approval C2015/72477/FUL.

 

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

 

To grant (7)    Councillors Samantha Bourne, Muhammad Sadiq, Jason Reynolds, Mary Burstow, Graham Whitham, Hamish Pollock and Patrick McManus

 

Against (0)

 

Abstained (0)

 

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. C2016/74370/FUL, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

29.

APPLICATION NO. A2016/74333/FUL - Land Rear of 45 to 47 Hilbert Road, North Cheam pdf icon PDF 295 KB

Erection of a detached 4 bedroomed house with two car parking spaces and access onto Wrayfield Road.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a detached 4 bedroomed house with two car parking spaces and access onto Wrayfield Road. The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Richard Broadbent.

Ray Whitthread, an objector, and Councillor Broadbent, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant’s agent, Ashton Paul-Smythe replied.

The principal issues raised by Ray Whitthread were:-

·      The development would obliterate the views of the park for surrounding properties and replace it with a view of a brick wall

·      The road was already dangerous and the development would add to the dangers due to increased traffic, reduced on-street parking spaces, and cars reversing out from the driveway.

·      Lots of pedestrians, including school children, used the area to access the park.

The principal issues raised by Councillor Broadbent were:-

·      Access to and from the parking area on the development would be on a “blind bend” by a park entrance causing considerable damage to road safety.

·      He felt that the application should be refused under planning policy DM2 (protecting the neighbouring amenity or DM30 (inappropriate back garden development).

·      The park next to the proposed development was Metropolitan Open Land.

·      The applicant had already fenced the site off and cut down trees in preparation for the development, so the Committee would be unable to consider the loss of trees.

 

The principal issues raised by Ashton Paul-Smythe were:-

·      The applicant has listened to objections and has made amendments to the application based on them, however some elements of the objections were subjective

·      The loss of garden land was not significant, all properties would still have ample garden land

·      The overlooking properties were more than (23?) metres away.

·      The applicant would agree for the parking area to include space for turning to avoid reversing from the driveway.

·      The applicant would also be happy to agree to some traffic calming measures to improve road safety in the area.

 

Committee members discussed the implications of the policies referred to by Councillor Broadbent and the problems with road safety on that particular elbow of the road. It was decided that as traffic calming measures could not be quantified at this stage, they would not be able to ask the applicant to agree to any.

 

A motion was raised and seconded to approve the application subject to an amendment to condition 6 to include how the front drive will be laid out showing a turning point (so that vehicles can ingress and egress in forward gear) and also that the drive be constructed in permeable material to prevent flooding. A poll vote was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

 

To grant (6)     Councillors Muhammad Sadiq, Jason Reynolds, Mary Burstow, Graham Whitham, Hamish Pollock and Patrick McManus

Against (1)       Councillor Samantha Bourne

 

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. A2016/74333/FUL, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

30.

APPLICATION NO. B2016/74271/FUL - 83 Langley Park Road, Sutton pdf icon PDF 209 KB

Erection of a two storey rear extension and a part one, part two-storey side/rear extension, increase in roof height and conversion of loftspace with Juilette balcony to create three 1-bedroom and three 2-bedroom self-contained flats, provision of cycle and refuse storage, six car parking spaces, and alterations to existing vehicular access (amendment to previously approved application: B2015/73174/FUL).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a two storey rear extension and a part one, part two-storey side/rear extension, increase in roof height and conversion of loft space with Juliette balcony to create three 1-bedroom and three 2-bedroom self-contained flats, provision of cycle and refuse storage, six car parking spaces, and alterations to existing vehicular access (amendment to previously approved application: B2015/73174/FUL).

 

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Trish Fivey.

 

Dr Rosemary Hill, an objector, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant’s agent, Mr Paul Smith, replied.

 

The principal issues raised by Dr Rosemary Hill were:-

·         The application was framed as an amendment to a previous application but actually included a lot of changes to the original, particularly the way that the development would look given the character of the surrounding area

·         Loss of light, with reference to the Building Research Establishment’s advice on daylight and sunlight.

 

The principal issues raised by Paul Smith were:-

·         The development would have no implication on the surrounding street scene

·         He felt that the application was modest, as it was for a 2.5m increase to the extension and a raising of the roof. Amendments that he felt were minor considering the development that was already approved.

·         The extension would not be visible from any public vantage

·         A consultant had been asked to check Dr Hill’s loss of light concerns through a light survey, which showed that the increased height of the building would not adversely affect neighbouring properties

 

Councillors discussed the loss of the three peaks to the roof, and the Juliette balcony, which some committee members felt was significantly out of line with the character of the area. They also discussed the bulk of the extension.

 

As the result of a vote, it was evident that a majority of Committee members were minded to refuse the application, as such a motion was proposed by Councillor Sam Bourne, and seconded by Councillor Jason Reynolds, to refuse permission on the grounds that the application would significantly affect the character of the area.

 

A poll vote was held on the above motion, in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

 

For (2)            Councillors Samantha Bourne, Muhammad Sadiq, Jason Reynolds, Mary Burstow and Patrick McManus

 

Against (5)     Councillors Hamish Pollock and Graham Whitham

 

 

Resolved: That planning permission be refused for application No. B2016/74271/FUL.

31.

ANY URGENT BUSINESS,

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

 

 

 

Appendix to the Minutes pdf icon PDF 285 KB