Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 6th June, 2018 7.30 pm

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

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

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

There were no apologies for absence.

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 116 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 April 2018.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 April 2018 were approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chair, subject to amendments on page 7 correcting the named members listed as voting for the application.

3.

Declarations of interest

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest made.

 

4.

Order of Items

Minutes:

The Chair requested the committee first take Item 11 on the agenda and announced that items 4 and 5 would then be taken together with a separate vote on each application.

 

5.

APPLICATION NO. DM2018/00394 - 13 Woodbury Drive, Sutton, SM2 5RA pdf icon PDF 104 KB

Demolition of existing rear conservatory, store and utility and erection of a single storey side extension with new roof to existing garage and conversion of loft space to include the formation of a gable to the front and rear, three dormer extensions to the front and two to the rear roof slope with alterations to the existing roof line.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The committee considered a report on the above application for the demolition of existing rear conservatory, store and utility, and erection of a single storey side extension with new roof to existing garage and conversion of loft space to include the formation of a gable to the front and rear, three dormer extensions to the front and two to the rear roof slope with alterations to the existing roof line.

The committee took the report as read.

 

 

 

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
DM2018/00394 Committee Report

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

 

Resolved: that planning permission be granted for application No. DM2018/00394, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out on the Planning Portal.

 

Agreed
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 6.

    APPLICATION NO. DM2018/00586 - Carew Manor Special School, Church Road, Wallington, SM6 7NH pdf icon PDF 192 KB

    Temporary planning permission, for a period of 3 years, for the erection of a new single storey modular building to provide 2No classrooms.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Committee considered a report on the above application for temporary planning permission, for a period of 3 years, for the erection of a new single storey modular building to provide 2 classrooms, and application DM2018/00587, for listed building consent for the temporary planning permission, for a period of 3 years, for the erection of a new single storey modular building to provide 2 classrooms.

     

    Members raised concerns with officers regarding the temporary time period of 3 years and the likelihood of the school finding more suitable permanent accommodation within 3 years and parking in the area. Officers confirmed that the parking had been assessed and the anticipated effect of the proposal was very low.

     

    Officers acknowledged that the proposal was of poor design but said that its function outweighed its form, and on balance the building is necessary due to special education need in the borough and additional places required.

     

    Rob Watkins, Headteacher of Carew Manor Special School, and Kieran Holiday, Head of Pupil Based Commissioning, made themselves available for questions from the committee.

     

    Members queried the suitability of the temporary building, whether it would meet the school’s needs, and what would happen if permanent accommodation wasn’t found or demand increased over the 3 years. The Headteacher said he was confident the temporary accommodation would be suitable in meeting the school’s needs, keeping the students warm, giving greater mobility access and meeting the standard size for classes.

     

    The Head of Pupil Based Commissioning explained that the proposal was required ahead of anticipated need, and should the building be needed after the 3 years another application would have to come before the committee.

     

    Members asked for clarification on the view from the front of the school and location of the temporary building on the site. Officers confirmed that the temporary building can’t be seen from the West or the South and is tucked away on a tarmac location, with no interference with the fabric of listed building, and can be easily taken away.

     

    At debate members agreed that the building was not ideal but best option under the circumstances as the Council has a statutory duty to provide places for children, and should permission not be granted parents will be in a compromising position.

     

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    DM2018/00586 Committee Report

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

     

    Resolved: that planning permission be granted for application No. DM2018/00586, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out on the planning portal.

     

    Agreed
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 7.

    APPLICATION NO. DM2018/00587 - Carew Manor Special School, Church Road, Wallington, SM6 7NH pdf icon PDF 155 KB

    Listed building consent for the temporary planning permission, for a period of 3 years, for the erection of a new single storey modular building to provide 2No classrooms.

    Additional documents:

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    DM2018/00587 Committee Report

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

     

    Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. DM2018/00587, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out on the Planning Portal.

     

    Agreed
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 8.

    APPLICATION NO. DM2018/00250 - 42 Blenheim Road, Sutton, SM1 2PX pdf icon PDF 191 KB

    Erection of a detached two storey, 3-bedroom dwellinghouse with landscaping, bin store and two off street parking spaces accessed from Blenheim Road.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a detached two storey, 3-bedroom dwellinghouse with landscaping, bin store and two off street parking spaces accessed from Blenheim Road.

     

    Members asked officers to clarify what the differences were between this application and the previous application for the same site that was refused. Officers explained that prior refusal was due to design and a lack of parking, and the current proposal now has an additional parking space and amended design.

     

    Members asked how the proposal fits in with the surrounding area. Officers said that it fitted in well with neighbouring properties and there was a chimney to mimic the appearance of other buildings

     

    Brian Dear and Nyree Hands-Heart, objectors, and Councillor Steve Penneck, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31.

     

    The principal issues raised by objectors were:-

    • There will be an adverse impact to local on street parking, and demand will increase
    • Proposal would Increase likelihood of accidents with vehicles and increase tensions between neighbours
    • Many family properties have multiple vehicles
    • Believe this proposal to be an example of garden grabbing

     

    The principal issues raised by ward councillor were:-

    • The proposal is double fronted detached house, is out of character with the cottage style semi-detached, and doesn’t respect local character
    • The proposal will result in a loss of parking and will adversely affect the amenity of neighbours in the area

     

    Members asked the highways officer to clarify the parking provision, who explained that new developments should provide two off street parking spaces, which will require a crossover subject to application to the highways department.

     

    Members asked the ward councillor what effect the proposal would have on the character of the area and the ward councillor responded that there had been no re-development in the area, and the land at the outset was not felt to be large enough for development.


    At debate members commented that the site was cramped, not ideal for the proposed development, had a lack of amenity space and reduced on-street parking provision on the road. Members said further that it was an overdevelopment of the plot and didn't integrate with the local area as it is was a detached property and not a semi-detached property.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    DM2018/00250 Committee Report

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

     

    Rejected
    To Refuse Motion

    Councillor Shields motioned to refuse the application on the grounds that the proposal would cause material harm to area, by virtue of bulk design and massing, with a failure to preserve or enhance the unique architecture of the area.

     

    The motion was seconded by Councillor Sadiq.

     

    The Head of Planning advised that grounds for refusal may not have the best prospect of success at appeal, and members requested that he provide some guidance. The Head of Planning, based on the comments at debate, summarised the committee's views as causing material harm and overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a cramped development, leading to decreased amenity space with an adverse effect on the area.

     

    Councillor Shields retracted his earlier motion and motioned on the above comments made by The Head of Planning for the grounds for refusal.

     

    The motion was seconded by Councillor Sadiq.

     

    A poll vote to refuse planning permission was taken on the grounds that the proposal would cause material harm and an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a cramped development, reducing the level of amenity space, leading to an adverse effect on the area. When there voted:

     

    Resolved: that planning permission be refused for application DM2018/00250 on the grounds that the proposal would cause material harm and an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a cramped development, reducing the level of amenity space, leading to an adverse effect on the area.

     

    Agreed
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 9.

    APPLICATION NO. DM2018/00274 - 9A Lower Road, Sutton, SM1 4QJ pdf icon PDF 115 KB

    Conversion of loft space including the formation of a dormer extension to the front and rear roof slope.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Committee considered a report on the above application for Conversion of loft space including the formation of a dormer extension to the front and rear roof slope.

     

    Members asked what was different with this application from previous refused proposals. Officers said that no comments had been made on front dormers but that the rear dormer has since been reduced in bulk and massing.

     

    Members asked what the relevance was of neighbouring properties also having front dormers and what precedent was given to them. Officers explained that the proposal was considered to be in line with the character of the area and considerable weight has to be given since there are 3 other front dormers in the street scene.

     

    Marigold Langan, an objector, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31.

     

    The principal issues raised by the objector were:-

    • The applicant has already applied for several extensions on neighbouring properties, and if granted this application would set  a precedent.
    • The site is small and the extension will reduce the parking spaces
    • Drainage and waste demands are already under considerable pressure
    • 5 and 6 Lower Road have velux windows and does not set a precedent for dormer windows

     

    Members asked what the biggest concern of the objector was. The objector said it was overlooking into the garden.

     

    Members asked if the overlooking windows in the bathroom and hallway could be glazed to obscure the window. Officers confirmed that this can be conditioned by the committee and added to the application permissions.

     

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    DM2018/00274 Committee Report

    A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission subject to a condition to glaze the bathroom and hallway windows, was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

     

    Resolved: that planning permission be granted for application No. DM2018/00274, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out on the planning portal and the additional condition requested.

     

     

    Agreed
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 10.

    APPLICATION NO. DM2018/00090 - Allon Court, 2 Eaton Road, Sutton, SM2 5DN pdf icon PDF 135 KB

    Erection of a third floor extension to existing block to provide an additional 2-bedroomed self-contained flat.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a third floor extension to existing block to provide an additional 2-bedroomed self-contained flat.

     

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

     

    Members asked whether a restriction on working hours could be put in place in regards to building works, and officers confirmed that could be a condition.

     

    A restriction of working hours could be put in place in regards to building works

     

    George Kiselov and Anne Mitchell, objectors, and Councillor Richard Clifton, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31.

     

    The principal issues raised by objectors were:-

    • There will be noise disruption and dust due to buildings works
    • Previously refused permission due to effects of sunlight on the period properties
    • The new penthouse will not help to improve housing shortage as the residents are private owners/tenants
    • The reduced height since the previous application makes no difference
    • There will be a loss of privacy, overlooking and a loss of light

     

    The principal issues raised by the ward councillor were:-

    • Residents of Allon Court will be at a serious disadvantage
    • There will be no significant conditions to mitigate against the noise and nuisance of building works, which should considered should the application be granted
    • The winter sun will be unable to reach the roof line of Allon Court, leading to a loss of light

     

    Members asked the ward councillor how many properties on Cumner Road would be affected by the loss of light, and the ward councillor estimated 55 properties.

     

    Members asked if granted, what would stop another floor being built. Officers clarified that the Local Plan accounts for buildings up to 4 storeys high, which is policy compliant in areas designated for potential intensification, such as the area of the proposal.

     

    At debate some members raised concerns regarding loss of light and the disruption that would be caused to residents. Members discussed what potential conditions if any would help the concerns of objectors. Some members expressed that they were sceptical of the objections raised against this application particularly on loss of light as the building was already tall, and the number of potential conditions that were being discussed.

     

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    DM2018/00090 Committee Report

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

     

    Rejected
    To refuse Motion

    Councillor Shield’s motioned planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposal would constitute an overly dominant form and be detrimental to the streetscene, as viewed from Cumner and Eaton Road.

     

    The motion was seconded by Councillor Sadiq.

     

    A poll vote to refuse planning permission was taken on the grounds that the proposal would constitute an overly dominant form and be detrimental to the streetscene, as viewed from Cumner and Eaton Road. When there voted:

     

    Resolved: that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposal would constitute an overly dominant form of development and would be detrimental to the streetscene, as viewed from Cumner and Eaton Road, for application No. DM2018/00090.    

    Agreed
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 11.

    Order of Items

    Minutes:

    The Chair announced that due to time Items 9 & 10 would deferred to the next meeting of the Planning Committee.

     

    12.

    Any urgent business,

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

     

     

     

    Minutes:

    There were no urgent items.