Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 15th November, 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

Link: Audio Recording

Items
No. Item

45.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillor Kevin Burke.


46.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 155 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2017.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2017 were approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.

47.

Declarations of interest

Minutes:

5. APPLICATION NO.A2016/76132 30 DEVON ROAD, SUTTON, SM2 7PD

 

Councillor Vincent Galligan declared a Non Pecuniary Interest as he is a member of the Cheam Fields Club and will leave the room while this item is discussed.

 

6. APPLICATION NO.B2017/77755 TEMPORARY SCHOOL SUTTON HOSPITAL SITE, COTSWOLD RD, SUTTON SM2 5NF

 

Councillor McManus declared that he sat on committee when the main school application was discussed and voted against the school at this site.  As his views have not changed he confirmed that he will leave the room. Other Members confirmed that they also heard the original application but confirmed they could approach this application with an open mind and would remain for this item.

 

47a

Order of Items

Minutes:

The Chair advised that the order would be amended to hear agenda item 8 first the rest of the agenda would remain unchanged.

48.

APPLICATION NO.D2017/77900 23 Apeldoorn Drive, Wallington SM6 9LF pdf icon PDF 157 KB

Erection of a single storey rear extension and conversion of garage into a habitable room involving alteration to front elevation

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a single storey rear extension and conversion of garage into a habitable room involving alteration to the front elevation.  This report was taken as read and Members moved to vote.

 

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

To grant (9)     Councillors Bourne Sadiq, Pollock, Reynolds, Court, Galligan,   McManus, Whitham, Shields
Against (0)    
Abstained (0)

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No.D2017/77900, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.



 

49.

APPLICATION NO.2017/12 Objection to the confirmation of Tree Preservation Order Lansdown House, 98 Brighton Road, Sutton pdf icon PDF 291 KB

To confirm the provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 2017/12 protecting two trees on land belonging to the above property.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application  to confirm the provisional  Tree Preservation Order 2017/12 protecting two trees on the land belonging to the above property.

 

The Officer  highlighted the main aspects of her report and the objections received concerning damage to the structure and to the parking area of the property.  She advised the committee that no engineering evidence has been provided by the objectors.

 

Members sought clarity on the following points : T1 is it definitely rare and unusual - The Officer confirmed it is very unusual this is the first time she has seen this type  in 15 years.

Members requested confirmation of  the distance between tree and property,  the Officer confirmed the trees are 9-10 metres from the front of the building. Clarity was sought on the engineering solution mentioned in the presentation.  The officer confirmed that rather than grinding out the roots a cellular system could be added on top of the exposed roots to flatten off at the level of the car park, which would be at a similar cost to removing the tree and roots.


Paula Alberti, an objector, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant replied.

The principal issues raised by Paula Alberti were:-

  • Her aim is to protect her property
  • The roots look unsightly and are dangerous particularly  in the dark
  • She highlighted the damage to the ceiling of her property but confirmed that there is no professional confirmation that the damage had been caused by the tree.

 

Members asked the Objector if the roots of the trees in the car park were already there when she moved to the property.  She confirmed it came up on the report when she purchased the property. When asked if professional advice was sought regarding damage to property the objector confirmed that  no professional has review had taken place. The Objector confirmed damage had got worse since she moved to the property 8 years ago.

 

At debate the members did not consider there was any evidence to confirm that trees had caused damage to the building and considered that there was a technical solution to enable the retention of the trees by building up the surface of the car parking area in line with the advice of   the officer.

 

The Chair Brought the committee to the vote on the officer's’ recommendation

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

To grant    (9)             Councillors Bourne Sadiq, Pollock, Reynolds, Court, Galligan,   McManus, Whitham, Shields
Against     (0)
Abstained (0)         

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for TPO  No. NO.2017/12 subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

50.

APPLICATION NO.A2016/76132 30 Devon Road, Sutton, SM2 7PD pdf icon PDF 201 KB

Installation of eight 8 metre high columns to provide 12 x 1kw floodlights (four single and four double columns) to three existing tennis courts.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for installation of eight 8 metre high columns to provide 12 x 1kw floodlights (four single and four double columns) to three existing tennis courts.  Councillor Galligan left the meeting for the duration of the item.

 

The officer presented the main points from the report.Members asked for clarification - on the height above ground of the structures and why these are higher than the lights refused in the previous application. Officers confirmed 8 metres will be the height above ground and the reason for the increase in height is to prevent overspill of lighting the officer highlighted the significant difference in the location of the columns which are away from residents. The Officer from Environmental health outlined the new technology since the previous application. Members asked for Lux level for street lighting compared the the Lux level of the proposed lighting. The Officer confirmed a Lux of 5 -15 for a street light and that the flood light will have a  maximum level of up to 500 Lux on court but light spill beyond would be between 2-5 Lux.


Chris Barry and Alan Dorman Local Residents and  objectors, and Councillor Mary Burstow, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant replied.

The principal issues raised by Chris Barry and Alan Dorman were:-

  • Speaking on behalf of 32 local households and pointed out only 22 supporters from the surrounding area.
  • Negative impact of the the light spill onto surrounding properties and affect for residents on the proposed wall of light with no screening
  • Negative impact of increase to current paying hours
  • Club has no method of controlling type of travel to and from club and intensification of use

 

Members asked for more details of enforcing any travel plan and for the PTAL rating in the local area.  Officers confirmed  PTAL Level is 2 which is considered to be low.


The principal issues raised by Councillor Mary Burstow were:-

  • Economic issue that 7 other local clubs have flood lights
  • She expressed concern that if the club failed the site could then be used for housing.
  • The distance from the courts to the residents properties.
  • She would support lighting up to 9.30 pm only.

 

The principal Issue raised by the Agent/ Applicant Adrian Butler- the Chairman of the Cheam Fields Club and Bryan Jepp the Tennis Secretary and James Brunt from Abacus lighting consultancy were as follows:

 

  • Many Members of the club are from  households in walking distance
  • Maintaining tennis is vital to the income of the club.
  • Difficulty in attracting players of working age and lose players in winter as unable to offer sufficient winter court time and these are part of reason for wanting to install lighting
  • Lights are designed to minimise impact on residents by lighting only 3 courts and design is to reduce light spillage and to reduced visual impact. Proposal will only flood light in evening not morning and will be willing to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

51.

APPLICATION NO.B2017/77755 Temporary School Sutton Hospital site, Cotswold Rd, Sutton SM2 5NF pdf icon PDF 317 KB

Conversion of vacant former hospital premises (C2) to temporary school (D1), together with installation of external fire escape staircase, alteration and renovation of windows and doors, formation of new playground, disabled and visitor parking bays, hard and soft landscaping and drop-off facility with vehicular and pedestrian access off Cotswold Road.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor McManus left the room for the duration of this item.


The Committee considered a report on the above application for conversion of vacant former hospital premises (C2) to temporary school (D1), together with installation of external fire escape staircase, alteration and renovation of windows and doors, formation of new playground, disabled and visitor parking bays, hard and soft landscaping and drop off facility with vehicular and pedestrian access off cotswold Road.


Members raised questions on the school travel plans and Impact on the local public transport. The Highways officer highlighted the importance of the travel plan and how that is used to liaise with TFL regarding additional provision of busses.


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

To grant (7)     Councillors Bourne, Sadiq, Pollock, Reynolds,Court, Galligan, and Whitham
Against (0)    
Abstained (1)  Councillors Shields

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. B2017/77755, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

52.

APPLICATION NO.A2017/77711 Land at Rear of 173 - 177, Cheam Common Road, Worcester Park KT4 8SX pdf icon PDF 325 KB

Redevelopment of the proposed site to create two 4-bedroomed houses including provision of 4 parking spaces, private bike stores and communal bin store.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for redevelopment of the proposed site to create two 4  bedroomed houses including provision of 4 parking spaces, private bike store and communal bin store,

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Richard Broadbent.

 

Members asked for clarification on the differences in this application to previously refused applications and also for confirmation of separation distances in this latest plan.  Officers confirmed separation distance as previously 3.6 metres and now 6.05 metres from the boundary of the existing properties.

 

Members asked if all trees on boundary are going to remain in place.  Officers confirmed that two trees on boundary will be retained and additional planting will be required.  It was confirmed the Council's tree officer has been on site to assess the impact on the tree which is protected.  Members expressed concern at loss of habitat.  Members sought clarity on why this is not considered back garden development. Officers advised of other developments nearby in particular The Retreat and also highlighted other developments in the near locality.

 

James Browne and June Branch two objectors, and Councillor Richard Broadbent, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31.

The principal issues raised by the objectors were:-

  • Objection to the  to scale and size of the proposed development
  • It was pointed out that whilst number of properties has reduced the actual footprint is now only 5% less that the proposal for 4 homes
  • The new proposal has an increase in depth and outlook of residents will be blocked.
  • Given size and scale of development this will harm character and is contrary to wider area.
  • Development will result in harm to privacy and security will cause noise disturbance and have a negative impact on wildlife and reducing trees that take away surface water, causing a flood impact.


The principal issues raised by Councillor Richard Broadbent were:-

  • Speaking as ward councillor against the application and in support of residents
  • Changes to the proposal since previous application were not sufficient
  • Due to scale and massing and close proximity to boundary this will cause significant harm to residents and harm outlook of neighbours
  • The development will cause noise and disturbance to residents and harm to their amenity
  • Open views currently reflect suburban nature of the area and if this application is approved this outlook  will be lost

 

Members questioned in view of government policy if objectors believed some form of development may take place on this site in future.  In response Officers pointed out that the planning inspectorate had not objected to the principle of development and that committee need to be satisfied if this scheme goes far enough in meeting issues previously raised and reiterated differences in a previously refused scheme.

 

At debate Members noted that whilst less units the overall footprint is not significantly reduced. Regarding conditions Officers confirmed if Members are minded to approve the application utilizing existing habitat and use of hardstanding could be added under condition 4 and details of the existing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

53.

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.

Appendix to the Minutes - Conditions, reasons and informatives. pdf icon PDF 202 KB