Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Tuesday, 20th June, 2017 7.30 pm, MOVED

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

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

Items
No. Item

14.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Whitham, Galligan and Pollock.


Councillors Burstow and Zuchowska attended as substitutes for Councillors Galligan and Pollock.

15.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 152 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 May 2017.

 

To follow

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 May 2017 were approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.

16.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Minutes:

4. APPLICATION NO. D2016/75493 - 16 Harcourt Road, Wallington, SM6 8AZ.

Councillor Muhammad Sadiq, Non Pecuniary, proposal is in his ward, but he hasn’t spoken to residents regarding the application and will keep an open mind.

 

6. APPLICATION NO. B2017/76784 - 10 Salisbury Avenue, Cheam, SM1 2DQ.

Councillor Kevin Burke, Non Pecuniary, the proposal is in his ward, had no dealings with residents on matter and will keep an open mind.

 

17.

APPLICATION NO. D2016/75493 - 16 Harcourt Road, Wallington, SM6 8AZ pdf icon PDF 131 KB

Erection of a part one, part two storey side extension, erection of a studio/games room outbuilding at rear, provision of a hard-standing at front, formation of a vehicular access onto Harcourt Road, and erection of a front boundary wall and gates up to a maximum height of 1.5 metres.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a part one, part two storey side extension, erection of a studio/games room outbuilding at rear, provision of a hard-standing at front, formation of a vehicular access onto Harcourt Road, and erection of a front boundary wall and gates up to a maximum height of 1.5 metres.

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Joyce Melican.

 

Members asked for specifications of the height of the extension and the gap between neighbouring properties.

Members raised concerns regarding potential use of the studio as a separate dwelling and loss of light to the neighbouring property. Katy Johnson, Deputy Planning Manager, confirmed conditions are set that the studio is to be used for ancillary purposes only and an application would have to come back to the committee for use as a separate dwelling. The Deputy Planning Manager said there was no detrimental harm in terms of loss of light

 

Objectors Paul Reed and Alan Carroll, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant replied.

 

The principal issues raised by Paul Reed and Alan Carroll were:-

  • Hedges would need to be removed
  • Gaps between properties are a feature of the street scene and the proposal will close the gap, which is noncompliant with SPD4
  • Potential of future use as dwelling
  • The Proposal is overbearing in size and would be overdevelopment of the site
  • Will restrict light to neighbouring property

 

Andy Webber, Head of Planning, clarified that imposing conditions on the studio use meant enforcement action can be taken should the conditions be broken.

 

Members asked how the proposal compared to the current street scene. The Objectors responded that the proposal would be significantly bigger than a similar development on the street and no other properties had extended of the side proposed.

 

The Chair asked for clarification on whether the flat roof extension could be used as balcony. The Deputy Planning Manager confirmed there was a condition to prevent this.


Dr Abbas Ghazanfar the applicant replied. The principal issues raised by Dr Abbas Ghazanfar were:-

  • There was no intention to use the studio for living purposes and was happy to accept conditions
  • The roof of the extension is a glass roof and will not impact on the light of the neighbour
  • No intention for any use of a balcony

 

Members asked why the studio required a toilet and shower, and why an extension couldn't be done into the garden. The applicant responded that the toilet and shower was required for religious reasons and the garden space was needed for recreation.

 

At debate members commented that the proposal conformed with the street scene and the applicant confirmed it was not to be used as a residence. Other members commented that proposal would create a terracing effect, was overdevelopment of the site and would affect light to the neighbouring property.

 

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

18.

APPLICATION NO. D2017/76681 - Julian House, 61 Ross Road, Wallington, SM6 8QP pdf icon PDF 191 KB

Demolition of garages and erection of four storey building comprising five 1-bed and one 2-bed self contained flats, Formation of new vehicular access, 7 parking spaces & provision of cycle and refuse stores.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for demolition of garages and erection of four storey building comprising five 1-bed and one 2-bed self-contained flats, Formation of new vehicular access, 7 parking spaces & provision of cycle and refuse stores.

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Jayne McCoy.

 

Members queried how many garages were being lost and what the history was behind their demolition. The Deputy Planning Manager confirmed that 24 garages were being lost and they had not been used for 10 years.

 

Members asked for clarification on traffic surveys, building height and loss of trees. Don Anyiam, Principal Engineer, explained that a highway survey was not required for the proposal. The Deputy Planning Manager confirmed that a few trees would be lost but there will also be additional planting.

Mark Bowman and Tracy Killick objectors, and Councillor Jayne McCoy, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant replied.

The principal issues raised by Mark Bowman and Tracy Killick were:-

  • Proposal doesn’t fit in with the street scene
  • Loss of light and privacy for neighbours
  • Light and noise pollution from security and car park
  • Increased parking issues

 

Members queried the number of parking spaces and the bin store capacity. The Deputy Planning Manager confirmed there were 7 parking spaces for 6 flats and planning permission was already granted for the building of a new bin store.


The principal issues raised by Councillor Jayne McCoy were:-

  • Wider impact on all residents on Ross Road due to increased parking
  • A2dominion building on a site which should have been parking for Julian House
  • Many residents have complained to ward councillors about the parking in the area the level of traffic
  • A2dominion should open up the site for its original function as a parking site

 

Members asked what condition other garages in the area were in and what contact the Ward Councillor had made with A2dominion regarding the garages. The Ward Councillor responded that the other were garages were in a similar condition of disrepair and communication with A2dominion was difficult.


Steve Coggins, Regional (South) Development Director for A2Dominion, the applicant replied. The principal issues raised by Steve Coggins were:-

  • The garages were closed due to anti-social behaviour and have been closed for 10 years
  • Rents charged on garages didn’t not cover repairs and restoration costs
  • The proposal is a good use of the site and meets Council and planning policy standards
  • The Officer’s report deals with all the objections raised


Members asked whether the garages could be turned into car park spaces for residents of Julian House. The applicant explained that to do so would still come at a cost and anti-social behaviour could continue in a car park

 

At debate members commented that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the residents in Ross Road and Julian House, lead to increased parking issues and overintesifiy the site.

 

Councillor Tony Shields motioned that the application be refused on the grounds of:

19.

ORDER OF ITEMS

Minutes:

The Chair announced that item 7 would be deferred to the next planning committee on 5 July 2017.

20.

APPLICATION NO. B2017/76784 - 10 Salisbury Avenue, Cheam, SM1 2DQ pdf icon PDF 174 KB

Erection of a single storey rear extension, creation of a first floor terrace with balustrade and privacy screen at rear, alteration to existing roofline and provision of a dormer extension at rear and conversion to provide two 2 -bedroomed flat and a studio flat. Provision of 3 car parking spaces and alteration to existing vehicular access.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for erection of a single storey rear extension, creation of a first floor terrace with balustrade and privacy screen at rear, alteration to existing roofline and provision of a dormer extension at rear and conversion to provide two 2 -bedroomed flat and a studio flat. Provision of 3 car parking spaces and alteration to existing vehicular access.


The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Wendy Mathys.

Members asked for specifications of the entranceway, roof terrace and party walls.


Keith Garner and Donald Morrison objectors, and Councillor Wendy Mathys, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant replied.

The principal issues raised by Keith Garner and Donald Morrison were:-

  • There would be harm to character of the area, street scene and conservation area
  • Proposed parking and refuse will not work
  • Extension is overbearing
  • Roof terrace will impact neighbours privacy
  • Contradicts the Sutton Local Plan

 

The Head of Planning explained that the officer’s report took account of the nearby conservation area and the Local Plan was draft and not yet adopted as policy.

 

Members raised concerns regarding the refuse provisions and the impact of multiple occupancy.


The principal issues raised by Councillor Mathys were:-

  • The front exterior changes would go against the spirit of the conservation area
  • Effect on neighbouring properties to allow large rear extension would affect privacy, light and sun of existing gardens
  • As a local family home it would be protected by the local plan
  • Not adequate on-site parking for all flats
  • Not adequate space for bin storage

 

Angela Craggs the applicant replied. The principal issues raised by Angela Craggs were:-

  • As many original features as possible will be retained
  • Officer concluded that there are no highway objections - in line with Sutton policy Standards
  • There are 4 options for bin storage which create sufficient space
  • The Hip to gable extension is discrete and here are similar extensions on the road
  • Design of proposal is acceptable and will not affect street scene
  • Follows existing building line.


Members asked for clarification on the privacy screening parking spaces. The applicant responded that an opaque screen to prevent easy overlooking of the neighbours at 1.8m would be installed and the parking spaces will be clearly allocated.

 

Concerns were raised by members regarding parking and whether bicycles would be able to pass parked cars.

 

At debate members commented that the proposal would have the demeanour of a low block of flats and the balcony and noise would be a concern.

 

The Chair motioned for the application to be deferred on the grounds that more clarification was needed on the parking, waste management, and the balcony and bicycle storage.

 

Councillor Jason Reynolds seconded the motion.


A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to defer the application, when there voted

To defer (9)        Councillors Bourne, Sadiq, Reynolds, Burke, Court,

                            McManus, Shields, Burstow and Zuchowska
Against (0)

Abstained (0)       

Resolved: That application No. B2017/76784, be deferred.

21.

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.

Minutes: Reasons and Informatives pdf icon PDF 115 KB