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 were received from Councillor Sadiq with Councillor Burstow attending as substitute and Councillor Shields with Councillor Crowley attending as substitute.
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings held on 9 August 2017 and 6 September 2017.
RESOLVED: that the Minutes of the meeting held on the 9 August 2017 and 6 September 2017 were approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.
Declarations of interest
4. APPLICATION NO. C2017/77036 - 15 The Market, Wrythe Lane, Carshalton, SM5 1AG.
Councillor Jason Reynolds, Non Pecuniary, sits on the Circle Residents’ Association who have objected to the proposal, and will be leaving the room for the item
6. APPLICATION NO.B2017/77643 - 1 Evesham Close, Cheam, SM2 6HP.
Councillor Kevin Burke, Non Pecuniary, the application is in his ward and his fellow ward councillors will be speaking on the item.
7. APPLICATION NO.A2017/77675 - 30A Cheyham Way, Cheam, SM2 7HX.
Councillor Graham Whitham, Non Pecuniary, the speaker on behalf of the resident's for this item, had signed his Councillor nomination form and he advised that he would leave the room whilst the application was considered, and not partake in this item.
Councillor Mary Burstow, Non Pecuniary, the application is within her ward.
Proposed change of use from retail (Class A1) to a community centre (Class D1) incorporating educational and religious/cultural use.
Councillor Reynolds left the meeting for the duration of the item.
Due to the officers’ recommendation for the application to be refused and that objections to the proposal were not of a significant number, members questioned why officers’ did not use their delegated powers to refuse the application.
Richard Green, Planning Manager, explained that officers felt there was a significant level of interest in the application and it was in the public interest to refer the application to the committee. It was also confirmed that a number of the letters of representation raised matters that officers did not consider should warrant a reason for refusal.
Councillor Tim Crowley motioned, on the basis that objections did not reach the constitutional limit that the committee move straight to a vote on the officer's recommendation to refuse planning permission. The motion seconded by Councillor Kevin Burke
The Committee considered a report on the above application for the proposed change of use from retail (Class A1) to a community centre (Class D1) incorporating educational and religious/cultural use.
A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to refuse permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:
To refuse (8) Councillors Bourne, Burke, Burstow, Court, Crowley, Galligan,
Pollock, and Whitham
Abstained (1) Councillor McManus
Resolved: That planning permission be refused for application No. C2017/77036, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.
Proposed demolition of the existing garages and outbuildings and erection of a new two-storey, three-bedroom dwellinghouse with associated front and rear gardens, bin and bicycle storage and parking.
Councillor Reynolds rejoined the meeting.
The Committee considered a report on the above application for the proposed demolition of the existing garages and outbuildings and erection of a new two-storey, three-bedroom dwelling house with associated front and rear gardens, bin and bicycle storage and parking.
Members asked for clarification on how the garages on accessways are used, how waste disposal will take place and the conditions associated with use of the balcony.
Planning officers explained that a waste management scheme will be put forward by the applicant to the council for consideration as part of a planning condition.
Jane Tyrrell, an objector, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the agent replied.
The principal issues raised by the objector were:-
Members asked the objector whether accessway was wide enough for a lorry. The objector said it was not, the fire brigade would not be able to get down there and the access way is privately owned.
The Chair reminded the committee that different regulations cover fire brigade building control and planning applications can be decided despite there being no legal rights of access.
The principal issues raised by Nigel Husband the agent were:-
Members raised questions and concerns regarding the hedge around the property and asked requested that condition 13 be more prescriptive with the conditioning to retain the existing hedge and landscaping. The agent confirmed they were happy to accept amendment of the condition.
Members asked the agent what measures they would take to improve the lighting down the access way. Then agent said they are prepared to put lighting there but the access way is privately owned.
Members queried if there could be a condition to design out crime. The Planning Manager explained that there are conditions to enforce secured by design, if the applicant is willing to accept the condition. The agent confirmed that the applicant would be willing to accept the extra conditioning.
At debate members agreed that the access was a problem but a precedent had already been set for this type of access way in the borough, and it did not justify a reason for refusal of the application.
Members commented that the proposal was out of character with the area, was over-development of the site and a bad example of the infill of back gardens.
It was felt by members that some ... view the full minutes text for item 41.
Erection of two storey front extension.
The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a two storey front extension.
Roger Skidmore, an objector, and Councillors Simon Wales and Wendy Mathys, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant replied.
The principal issues raised by the objector were:-
Members asked the objector if the front elevation had cladding and blended in more with the development, if the proposal would be more acceptable. The objector said it would be an improvement but not acceptable due the L shape.
The principal issues raised by Councillor Simon Wales were:-
Members asked officer’s to clarify if there would be any loss of light to number 8 and if there was any criteria regarding the 50% size increase. Officer’s said that it was not considered there would be any material impact on light and there was no existing policy in regards to footprint, and the separation distance is considered sufficient.
The principal issues raised by Councillor Wendy Mathys in support of the applicant were:-
The principal issues raised by Bonny Ghose the applicant were:-
Members asked the applicant if they would be prepared to place white cladding on the front elevation. The applicant said that they had planned to use tiling as is used on other properties in the street, but raised no objection for a potential condition in regards to the white cladding. Planning officers confirmed that condition 3 could be amended to ensure that materials were submitted to the LPA for approval prior to commencement of development so that the frontage could include either cladding or tile hanging.
At debate members expressed that they were pleased with the frontage, the possibility of cladding/tile hanging and that the scheme should be supported as more family homes were needed in the borough. ... view the full minutes text for item 42.
Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of three detached 4-bedroomed two storey houses with roof accommodation and attached garage, associated car parking spaces, hard and soft landscaping, garden sheds and new access road.
Councillor Whitham left the meeting for the duration of the item.
The Committee considered a report on the above application for the demolition of an existing bungalow and erection of three detached 4-bedroomed two storey houses with roof accommodation and attached garage, associated car parking spaces, hard and soft landscaping, garden sheds and new access road.
The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Holly Ramsey.
Members asked for clarification on the level of the building, the width of the access road and the location of the velux windows.
Andrew Barnett, an objector, Ward Councillor Holly Ramsey, and Adrian Kearley a supporter addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant replied.
The principal issues raised by the objector were:-
Members asked the objector if they would still object to just two properties being built, instead of the three that are proposed. The objector said that their objections would be less and that three properties is just too many for the site.
The principal issues raised by Councillor Holly Ramsey were:-
Members asked officer’s to clarify if the landscaping was protected. Officers confirmed there was a landscaping condition ensuring it is in place for a minimum of 5 years.
The principal issues raised by the applicant’s representative Adrian Kearley and the architect were:-
Members asked the applicant’s representative to clarify if there was sufficient space for bins and sufficient space in the garage. The applicant's representative confirmed there was
Members expressed that they would seek to remove permitted development rights for the garage with a condition. The applicant’s representative said they would be happy to accept this.
Members noted that Epsom and Ewell council objected to the proposal. The Planning Manager commented that Sutton’s Biodiversity and Sustainable Officers made no objections.
At debate members conveyed that the proposal was too dense for the area, out of character, lacked amenity backyard space and voiced concerns in regards to parking.
Councillor Pollock motioned for refusal of the application on the grounds that the proposal was of a poor design, had a cramped layout, unacceptable access arrangements and inadequate ... view the full minutes text for item 43.
Any urgent business,
brought forward at the direction of the Chair, who has approved the reason for the urgency.
There were no urgent items.