Venue: Civic Offices, St Nicholas Way, Sutton, SM1 1EA
Contact: Committee Services Tel: 020 8770 4990 | Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were given by Councillors Kevin Burke, Margaret Court, Patrick McManus (Substitute: Councillor Tim Crowley) and Graham Whitham.
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings held on 29 March 2017 and 19 April 2017.
The minutes of the last committee, 20 June 2017, will be presented to a future meeting.
The Minutes of the meetings held on 29 March 2017 and 19 April 2017 were approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chair, subject to the following amendments:
Re: Planning Committee, 19 April 2017
· Minute 166: “has carried out” to replace “done”.
· Minute 169: “80% non-compliant” to read “80% compliant”.
· Minute 169: to be made clear that Mr Alan Plan is the Chair of CHAPRA and was representing in particular the petitioners.
· Minute 169: Councillor Broadbent’s representation to read “above 6 storeys” not “6 storeys and higher”.
· Minute 169: Councillor Broadbent’s representation to refer specifically to “on-street parking”.
· Minute 169: Questions to applicants to read “It was confirmed that homes will be for outright sale, except for the 13 affordable units…
· Minute 169: Members’ debate to read “Members considered that the proposed development did not align with planning policy, was too high and the infrastructure would not support the development.”
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No declarations of interest were made.
ORDER OF ITEMS
The Chair announced the the application B2017/76738 - Old Inn House, 2 Carshalton Road, Sutton, SM1 4RA had been withdrawn.
Retention and completion of an outbuilding at rear with basement.
The Committee considered a report on the above application for retention and completion of an outbuilding at rear with basement.
The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Emmerson.
Following the officer presentation, Members sought clarification on:
· The retrospective nature of the application, which was confirmed in part.
· Condition 8 - flood management - and its enforcement.
· The basement level indicated in the plans and its intended use as an office.
· The timeframe for any enforcement action should conditions be breached.
Carl Jones, an objector representing residents of Glenthorne Gardens, and Councillors Emmerson and Javelot, Ward Councillors, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant, Steve Downey, replied.
The principal issues raised by the objector, Carl Jones, were:-
· A belief that the intended use of the building was not as stated in the application.
· The reduced amenity to neighbouring properties.
· The retrospective nature of the application.
· Flood concerns and the lack of a condition relating to a basement impact study.
Members asked the objector about groundwater run-off and whether this was a pre-existing problem to construction works, to which the objector responded in the negative. The difference in ground height was also questioned and Officers referred to Paragraph 5.10 of the report. Members asked if work had stopped at present, which was confirmed.
The principal issues raised by Councillors Emmerson and Javelot reiterated those raised by the objectors with regards to intended use, reduced amenity, the retrospective nature and flood concerns. Councillor Javelot suggested in his representation that the application might be refused on the basis of an adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours and overdevelopment of land involving the loss of garden land.
Members asked the Ward Councillors about enforcement action taken to date. Councillor Javelot confirmed that liaison with the applicants had taken place largely via officers. The Head of Planning offered to provide a chronology of enforcement action after the meeting, should this be desired.
The principal issues raised by the applicant, Steve Downey, were:-
· The intended use of the outbuilding as stated in the application.
· The fencing-off of the garden was intended as responsible to the existing tenant family.
· Compliance with planning officer advice.
· Ground level equal to the neighbouring property at No.9.
Members asked the applicant why planning permission had not been sought and it was confirmed that this was due to a belief that the plans fell under permitted development. The applicant did not consider the outbuilding to be a one-bedroom house, but for ancillary use, and the inclusion of a basement was to avoid multiple outbuildings. It was confirmed the outbuilding would contain a toilet and sink.
Officers clarified permitted development rights for Class E outbuildings and why planning permission was required under the circumstances. Members further raised the issue of flooding and the applicant responded that this was covered by condition. It was confirmed by the applicant that Thames Water had visited the site.
In debate, Members discussed whether they were satisfied that this building would be used ... view the full minutes text for item 17.
Demolition of existing garages and outbuilding and erection of 2no. 2-storey, 4-person semi-detached dwellinghouses on land at the rear of 26 and 28 Windborough Road with parking accessed via ‘The Avenue’ and associated bin storage and bicycle parking.
The Committee considered a report on the above application for proposed development of garden land rear of 26 & 28 Windborough Road, Carshalton.
Following the Officer presentation, Members enquired about the garages and the road to them, which was confirmed to be a private road. Members asked why previous applications in the report had been refused. Officers responded that discussions had taken place with the applicant following prior refusals relating to a single detached unit. It was questioned whether this was considered back-garden development which was confirmed and considered acceptable.
Vincent Desmond, objector, and Councillor Butt, Ward Councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the agent, Nigel Husband, replied.
The principal issues raised by Vincent Desmond, the objectors, were:-
· Concerns over the process and the impact upon neighbours not included in consultation.
· Inadequate parking arrangements and a loss of amenity to residents.
· Access rights and the maintenance of the access lane.
· The larger building proposed in comparison to previous applications.
Members asked if the objector was aware of who owned The Avenue as a private road but he was not. The private road was confirmed by another registered objector, Robert Wallace, to be co-owned by residents of Windborough and Stanhope Roads. The loss of amenity in relation to parking was further raised with the objectors who reiterated the access problems to the garages. The Principal Engineer present, Don Anyiam, explained the parking provision outlined in the report.
The principal issues raised by Councillor Butt were:-
· Increased traffic and congested parking in the local area.
· Loss of privacy and security.
· Size and scope of the plans at a detriment to local residents.
Members enquired as to possible access via Stanhope Road, rather than Stanley Park Road, which was confirmed as possible, but more difficult, by the Councillor.
The principal issues raised by the agent, Nigel Husband, were:-
· The pre-application undertaken.
· The design similarity of the proposed semi-detached property.
· The access to the new property via The Avenue and the parking provision.
In response, Members further enquired as to the pre-application advice given and the applicant stated that the development was considered acceptable. Details of the parking provision included in the report were also confirmed by the applicant.
In debate, Members discussed the width of The Avenue, access for the purpose of construction and the construction management strategy. In terms of highways, Members enquired as to visibility on The Avenue, particularly at night time, and the Principal Engineer confirmed it to be acceptable. Permitted development rights were confirmed to be withdrawn by condition.
A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:
To grant (4) Councillors Vincent Galligan, Hamish Pollock, Muhammad Sadiq and Samantha Bourne.
Against (3) Councillors Tim Crowley, Tony Shields, Jason Reynolds.
RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted for application No. C2017/76491, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.
ANY URGENT BUSINESS,
brought forward at the direction of the Chair, who has approved the reason for the urgency.
No urgent business was raised.