Venue: Civic Offices, St Nicholas Way, Sutton, SM1 1EA
Contact: Committee Services Tel: 020 8770 4990 | Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Note: This meeting was moved from 17 July 2019.
Apologies for absence
Councillor Drew Heffernan welcomed attendees and asked if there were apologies for absence.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Kevin Burke, with Councillor Steve Cook attending as substitute, and Councillor Amy Haldane substituted by Councillor Chris Williams.
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2019.
The Chair informed attendees that the minutes of the meeting 5 June 2019 were deferred and would be considered at the next meeting.
Declarations of interest
Councillor Vincent Galligan he knew the applicant for item 5 declared he is able to approach with an open mind.
Councillor Tony Shields for item 5 declared he knows the objector as a resident in his ward but is able to approach with an open mind.
Demolition of existing garages and cadet hut and erection of a four storey residential development comprising 23 self-contained flats (eight 1 bed and fifteen 2 bed flats), 24 car parking spaces accessed from Alexandra Gardens, erection of a single storey building to house cycle spaces and single car garage/ storage unit and the provision of shared amenity space.
The Committee considered a report on the above application for the demolition of existing garages and cadet hut and erection of a four storey residential development comprising 23 self-contained flats (eight 1 bed and fifteen 2 bed flats), 24 car parking spaces accessed from Alexandra Gardens, erection of a single storey building to house cycle spaces and single car garage/ storage unit and the provision of shared amenity space.
Following the presentation by Katy Johnson, Deputy Planning Manager, Members requested clarification on:
The level of affordable housing included in the application, requirements by the Mayor of London for developments on publicly owned land, and those in the Sutton Local Plan.
The mix of one and two bed homes, which would maximise viability and that the Local Plan showed a demand for family homes in Sutton.
Four storey developments are the norm in the area, therefore the design is appropriate for the area.
Consideration of the arrangements for the disposal of the land at this site as considered at the Strategy and Resources committee is not a consideration for the Planning Committee.
The bats observed to be on the site does not preclude the granting of the application as any developer would be required to exercise mitigations.
The applicant Peju Fabunmi and agent Patrick Grincell addressed the Committee:
The principal issues raised by the applicant/agent were that:-
Sutton Living is a wholly owned subsidiary company of the Council, and also explained its purpose.
SHP will have nomination rights to any properties developed by Sutton Living.
The applicant confirmed to Members that Sutton Living do not have any lease agreement of the land on this site at the moment.
Members suggested that there is nothing of a similar modern design to this application in the area surrounding the application, but that the application's design would improve the area. Current style need not be replicated and that the application showed sufficient similarity to the buildings in the area at present.
Members expressed concern about the inclusion of balconies, suggesting they could become unsightly if used for storage as observed in other developments. Members were aware of the balconies in the current surrounding properties.
Communal space would be provided by this development, including a play area.
Retrospective application to retain alterations to parking and landscaping areas.
The Committee considered a report on the above application for retrospective application to retain alterations to parking and landscaping areas.
The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Richard Clare
Following the presentation by Jody Williams, Deputy Planning Manager, Members requested clarification that:
There is no requirement that the applicant provide a barrier between the car park and the objectors access, however in discussion with Officers the applicant had confirmed they would consider installing a fence to stop both encroachment from the carpark onto the neighbours access land or the use of it for access to the carpark. Members suggested that any barrier installed would need to be of a substantial nature such as a chain link fence rather than chains but without taking land from either applicant or objector.
The parking area had a sign stating the area is for staff parking, however the area is not marked into parking bays, which creates issues of high usage and getting in and out of the area. Officers and members agreed that the applicant could be approached to be supported to develop a staff travel plan.
The application is for the alterations and not for the original car park.
Simon Axten, an objector, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31.
The principal issues raised by the objector were that:-
These concerns have been on going over a number of years, and the situation would become worse with the addition of extra spaces.
The car park is very busy during the premises opening hours and is used by others outside of these hours. Although there is access to the carpark without using the objectors land, this is not always used correctly due to the way the car park is used park, the current use also frequently results cars overhanging the objectors land both of which created issues when using the access road.
In debate, Member considered:
That car park users drive onto the objectors land and that he is unable to use his access as it is blocked due to the way the carpark is used, with vehicles encroaching his land.
Members suggested if a barrier were installed the car park would require new management.
At the objectors request Members agreed that conditions be amended that a meeting would take place between the applicant and the objector within 3 months to agree the installation of a barrier. It was agreed that either Officers or ward Councillors would support this meeting.
Erection of a single storey front / side extension and a single storey rear extension, formation of a dormer extension to flank roof slope and alterations to existing windows and provision of additional windows. Erection of a detached single storey outbuilding.
The Committee considered a report on the above application for retention of windows and fenestration alterations to the front, side and rear elevations of the property, a dormer extension to the side roof slope, additional rooflights and the flat roof above the garage and proposed erection of a single storey front/side extension, single storey rear extension, additional windows to flank elevations of rear extension and a detached single storey outbuilding.
The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Kevin Burke.
Following the presentation by Jody Williams Deputy Planning Manager, Members requested clarification on:
Members discussed the size of the development of the main structure and the ancillary building in the garden and considered what was acceptable under permitted development, additions to the planning application which had been agreed, and that it was these being considered in this application.
The site is a cul de sac houses in the road are not of a uniform character, the plot ratio to garden is for this application not significantly less than other properties in the area.
Ronak Dashan, an objector, and Councillor Lily Bande, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant Mr Holland replied.
The principal issues raised by the objector were:-
The information provided from a previous appeal to the Planning Inspectorate at this site but that this had been ignored in this application.
Trees have been removed on the site.
The site would be over developed by the size of the application.
There are a number of windows, included in the design and that several of these would overlook other properties, including into bedrooms.
The principal issues raised by the ward Councillor were:-
The application is for a property which would be too large for the plot and would dominate other properties in the area.
This development would be able to be seen from the Landseer Road conservation area.
The principal issues raised by the applicant/agent were:-
The applicant would be happy to consider the addition of landscaping to the application.
It was confirmed the ancillary building is for storage rather than dwelling, and it is of single wall construction.
In debate, Members considered that:
There are 12 windows on the west flank elevation of the application, some would be obscured but that sight into bedrooms of surrounding properties remained. They noted that the appeal ruling information provided included that there should not be any further windows added, however this application included additional windows.
In addition, members raised concern of the amount of glazing in the west facing elevation as this would give rise to a perception of overlooking of neighbours.
The application would result in a reduction in the property /garden ratio, and is for a large property on a small plot which raised concerns about the bulk and dominance.
Members discussed the additional size of the various additions added to the property, and the total dimensions of this application.
Any landscaping requested to be added would require input from the tree officer, and ... view the full minutes text for item 15.
Increase height of existing 15 metre high Golf Ball Stop Fence at the rear of the driving range to 20 meters.
The Committee considered a report on the above application for an increase height of existing 15 metre high Golf Ball Stop Fence at the rear of the driving range to 20 metres.
The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Tim Crowley.
Following the presentation by Katy Johnson, Deputy Planning Manager, who informed members that condition 3 should now be deleted.
There were no further questions.
Any urgent business,
brought forward at the direction of the Chair, who has approved the reason for the urgency.
There was no urgent business.