Venue: Virtual meeting
Contact: Committee Services Tel: 020 8770 4990 | Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Note: To submit a Written Statement to this meeting or request to speak, visit https://www.sutton.gov.uk/info/200474/your_council_voting_and_elections/1211/register_to_speak_at_the_planning_committee
Welcome and introductions
The Chair, Councillor Drew Heffernan, welcomed those present and those watching on the live stream.
The chair announced that the item had been withdrawn DM2020/01348 - 2 WEST WAY CARSHALTON SM5 4EW.
Apologies for absence
There were no apologies for absence.
Minutes of the previous meeting
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 6 January 2021.
The minutes of the meeting held 6 January were not available at this time.
Declarations of interest
There were no declarations of interest.
Demolition of existing bin and cycle storage and erection of a three storey building comprising 8 dwellings, parking, cycle store, bin store and landscaping.
The Committee considered a report on the above application for the demolition of existing bin and cycle storage and erection of a three storey building comprising 8 dwellings, parking, cycle store, bin store and landscaping.
The item had been deferred from the Committee held on 6 January 2020 in order to receive further information in respect to car parking, air quality, and waste storage and collection.
The Members clarified points including that the Lambeth methodology that had been used to measure parking stress was an industry standard, used by boroughs throughout London. Members drew attention to the increase in stress levels shown between a survey completed in 2017, showing a 51% stress level and the survey completed in 2019 which showed stress levels had increased to 86%. Nick Greenwood, Highways Officer drew attention to the report which included that that currently and in the proposed application a sufficient number of parking spaces and permits could be provided so overspill to the surrounding roads should not occur.
Members noted that the Lambeth methodology measured stress levels at night but that as the area was an area of employment, this resulted in high parking levels during the day. Members drew attention that local residents had expressed concerns about parking issues during the day also that Members had experienced issues with parking when they had made site visits prior to this Planning Committee meeting. Attention was drawn that the report included that a condition of the application included that the applicant identified car parking spaces to be allocated to the proposed development.
The Highways Officer suggested that the application would not create illegal traffic movements in the Stafford Road in proximity to the application site although it may require traffic to use areas of the road marked with cross hatching on occasions for example when buses used the bus stop or as dustbin lorries collected from the site.
Andrew Chandler, Head of Waste and Street Cleansing clarified that the provision and collection arrangements proposed in the application were in line with national guidance. He also confirmed that if storage were insufficient in the future the frequency of collections could be increased. He and operation teams were not aware of any issues at the site at present regarding over filling of the bins on site.
In debate Members suggested that waste could not be collected safely as the suggested process for collection required dustbin lorries to stop on the main road close to an area of crosshatched lines.
Members expressed concern that the application would lead to overspill parking, and the area was already insufficient parking in the area, this had been reported by local residents and by Members who had made site visits prior to this Planning Committee.
Members were aware that the site was currently under developed.
Councillor Tony Shields proposed that the application should be refused with the reasons that:
There was a deficiency in parking provision in the area.
There was insufficient process for the safe removal and storage of ... view the full minutes text for item 96.
Erection of a 2 storey building with roof accommodation comprising 6 residential flats with provision of refuse storage, bicycle storage and car parking.
The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a 2 storey building with roof accommodation comprising 6 residential flats with provision of refuse storage, bicycle storage and car parking.
The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Holly Ramsey and the application has also received more than 10 letters of support contrary to the officer's recommendation.
Jody Williams, Deputy Planning Manager Officer presented the report.
There were no further questions for the Deputy Planning Manager Officer.
Kevin Hemmings, Tabor Gardens Residents Association, an objector, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant replied.
The principal issues raised by Kevin Hemmings were:-
Many of the letters of support were from addresses some distance from the site.
· Flytipping mentioned by the applicant in the area had not been experienced by residents of properties close to the site.
· There was not anti social behaviour at the site as it was not accessible.
· Parking had become an issue in the area, since the site had been altered, this included the church having to install gates.
· Parking remained an issue in the High Street area.
· Traffic in The High Street can become grid locked at times.
· The application was not in keeping with the character of the area.
· The application was too large and was detrimental to the area.
Members clarified with the objector that the site was at a busy junction which is frequently congested. This junction was close to the traffic lights at the cross roads, which was a red route and included several bus routes, the application would lead to further congestion. In addition it was suggested that the site road was dangerous due to a blind corner.
Councillor Holly Ramsey had been unable to attend the meeting, but had provided a written statement (published in full with the agenda). The main points included:
· She agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse the application.
· Letters of support were from addresses outside of the Sutton borough.
· The site would be overdeveloped.
· The character of the Cheam Village conservation area would not be protected.
· There would be impact on neighbouring properties.
· Increased traffic onto a busy junction would add to congestion and would be dangerous.
The principal issues raised by Sumade de Silva, agent were:-
· The application was much smaller than that previously made, and rejected.
· The view that the application was not in the character of the area was subjective.
· Parking would be provided in line with London standards.
· Previous parking had been on a private site.
· The site was not appropriate for three bed family homes as it was close to commercial units.
· There was a need for smaller and more affordable housing in Cheam.
· There had been no concerns raised by the Highways team.
In response to questions from Members Adam Islam, applicant clarifed that four trees had been removed from the site, and that these had been replaced by trees of a better quality.
Members heard that the level of the site had been ... view the full minutes text for item 97.
Erection of a second floor extension and reconfiguration of the existing building to provide an additional 14 rooms, alteration to fenestration, provision of canopy over entrance, relocation of refuse and storage, and landscaping.
The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a second floor extension and reconfiguration of the existing building to provide an additional 14 rooms, alteration to fenestration, provision of canopy over entrance, relocation of refuse and storage, and landscaping.
The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Richard Clifton and 10 objections have been received.
Luke Simpson, Planning Officer presented the report.
Members clarified the building in the application was separated from other buildings. It was confirmed that lighting in the area surrounding the proposed cycle store, and boundary paths would be lit with low luminescence lighting. Members suggested there may be some noise nuisance to neighbours as residents used the cycle store.
The Planning Officer confirmed there would be a management plan, code of behaviour in place and CCTV in communal areas at the site. There would be a phone line available for residents and neighbours to contact if they had concerns of nuisance from the site. Members noted the application included a license for a maximum of 60 people to occupy the site, and the current planning permission in place was for occupancy by 58 people.
Nicola Sharp, Cedar Court Board, an objector, and Councillor Richard Clifton, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant replied.
The principal issues raised by Nicola Sharp were:-
· The renovations were welcomed
· The design would result in more intrusion to neighbouring properties
· The roof design would result in a loss of sunlight to neighbouring properties
· The loss of light only mentioned loss to primary rooms and not to other areas such as balconies.
· There would be noise to neighbours from the private terraces to be included in the application.
· There had been noise and disturbance from people socialising at the site in the past, and the site was not filled to near capacity at present.
· There were concerns about waste management at the site.
· Parking was a concern, as the agreement would include that there would be no permits for street parking, this would lead to issues of residents using car parks of surrounding properties.
The principal issues raised by Councillor Richard Clifton were:-
· The application had been opposed by more than ten residents
· The frontage is narrow, with the majority of the building being to the rear.
· The rooms are small.
· The amenity, light and outlook of the surrounding properties would be impacted.
· Expressed concern that obscured glazing proposed on the balconies was unsuitable.
Members clarified that the ward councillor’s main objection was the addition of balconies, and that screens were not satisfactory in reducing overlooking.
The principal issues raised in response by Brain Kavangh, agent were:
· Current provision at the building was substandard.
· The application would improve the standard of the accommodation provided.
· The appearance of the building would be improved by render, and the addition of new windows.
· Lighting around the bike store would be low level.
· A management plan would be in place.
· The applicant is a major ... view the full minutes text for item 98.
Erection of nine two storey dwellings with accommodation at roof level together with parking, new vehicular access from Woodend and associated landscaping. Provision of open space, pond and allotment plots.
The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of nine two storey dwellings with accommodation at roof level together with parking, new vehicular access from Woodend and associated landscaping. Provision of open space, playground, pond and allotment plots.
The application has been de-delegated by Councillor Steve Penneck, also the application has received more than 10 letters of objection.
Gavin Chinniah, Development Management Planning Manager presented the report.
Members clarified there would be allocated parking for allotments users included in the application. Also that some of the open space would be for private use, and some open space would be for use by the general public.
Members asked about flood risk and lighting at the site. The Development Management Planning Manager clarified that the Flood Officer had not raised any issues.and that there would be a lighting strategy for the site.
Members asked about the covenant that was reported to in place at the site, but were aware that the Planning process is unaffected by covenants as covenants would be addressed through a separate process.
The Development Management Planning Manager explained that the open space would be maintained for 10 years and following that period it would either be gifted to either the Council or the public, present there is no confirmation ro the arrangements. The open space would be accessed by a gate which would be closed at night to reduce risk of antisocial behaviour in the open space.
Rob Yuille,Sutton Garden Residents Association an objector, and Councillor Steve Penneck a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant replied.
The principal issues raised by Rob Yuille were:-
· The area was a conservation area as included in the Local PLan.
· The site had previously been a community space with amenities such as tennis courts prior to having been sold in 1997. Residents would like the space to come back to community use.
· A loss of allotments breaches the Local Plan.
· The quality and maintenance of the proposed park is not clear from the application.
· There is no heritage statement in the application.
· The proposed buildings would not match the arts and crafts style of houses in the surrounding area.
· There was no inclusion in the application in relation to flooding, access, traffic, parking noise and fire.
· There was no construction plan.
· The security fences in the application would close the site to other local residents.
· There would be a net loss of biodiversity, both habitats and trees.
· The application would cause overlooking, reduced privacy and dominate the view for Woodend residents.
· Residents at present benefited from green space, this reduction would have serious effect on their lives, and have a long lasting effect on the area.
David Warburton, Biodiversity officer clarified the biodiversity impacts of the application.
The objector explained the residents association had around 200 households, and 40/50 formal member households.
The principal issues raised by Councillor Steve Penneck were:-
· The Sutton Garden suburb is a conservation ... view the full minutes text for item 99.
Part demolition and erection of a part one, part two storey front/side/rear extension in connection with the creation of a first floor, raising ridge height and new roof with dormer extensions to the rear to create additional habitable accommodation within roofspace, rooflights to the front roof slope and provision of a raised patio with steps to rear garden.
This application was withdrawn.
Removal of the existing 15m pole and 3 ground based cabinets and erection of a 22.5m monopole with antenna and 3 ground based equipment cabinets within the existing cabin room and ancillary works.
The application was deferred to the next meeting.
Any urgent business
To consider any items which, in the view of the Chair, should be dealt with as a matter of urgency because of special circumstances (in accordance with S100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972).
There was no urgent business.