Agenda item

APPLICATION NO.C2017/78477/FUL - Land Rear Of 35-39 Park Hill (Would Be Known As 1-3 Hale Gardens), Carshalton, SM5 3SD

Erection of three 2-bedroom detached dwellings with off street parking for 4 cars and refuse storage area.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of three 2-bedroom detached dwellings with off street parking for 4 cars and refuse storage area.

 

Following the officer presentation, Members enquired as to the existence of a velux window in the single-storey bungalow. This question would be asked of the applicant present. Further clarification was sought to existing parking spaces, which would be asked of the objectors present, and the waste strategy management plan required by condition. Members also queried the layout of the parking spaces and turning area, as well as the height of the second storey in the design, as included in the officer presentation.

 

Further questions were raised with regards to the access road and access to existing garages, with clarification to be sought from the objectors, the shortest separation distance to neighbouring properties and waste collection provision (with the Chair referring to Paragraph 5.52). It was confirmed that a previous application for four units had been withdrawn. Concerns were raised by members as to sight lines out of the access road.

 

The Principal Engineer - Highways and Transport confirmed that the fire authority concerns now fell under building regulations rather than planning considerations.

 

The Head of Development Management and Strategic Planning explained, with regards to access concerns, that the applicant had not been able to confirm complete ownership of the access road.

 

David Dearnaley and Trevor Cartmell, objectors, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant, Joe Hunting, replied.

 

The principal issues raised by the objectors were:-

·         Paragraph 5.10 of the report (previous permissions).

·         Issues of access to the site, particularly for large vehicles.

·         Refuse collection and Paragraph 5.52 of the report.

·         Ownership of the access route.

·         Submission of an objection to the revision, referring to a variation in height in the plans.

 

Mr Cartmell confirmed he could access his garage via the road and his property in response to earlier discussions. This was said not to be the case for all the garage owners.

 

Members asked the objectors for further detail with regards to the ownership of the right of access, their opinion on the separation distance to neighbouring properties and turning space for vehicles.

 

The Chair sought clarification on the orientation of the dormer windows, which were confirmed to be facing east at a greater distance than the shortest separation to the nearest neighbouring property.

 

The principal issues raised by the applicant were:-

·         Ownership of the access road and garages on the site.

·         Provision for turning on the site.

·         Waste management and refuse collection.

·         The existing extant planning permission.

·         Separation distances to neighbouring properties.

 

Questions were raised with regards to the velux window on the single storey building, which was explained to be for light purposes and the roof was confirmed not to be habitable space. In response to a member question, the applicant explained the allocation of parking provision.

 

Further queries were raised with regards to a proposed gate in relation to the access rights. The applicant explained that the gate would not block access to the garages, referring to access rights in property deeds, and also referred to a construction management plan.

 

Members also addressed concerns of access by larger vehicles, such as those for waste collection, and the applicant responded that such vehicles could access the site. In response to an additional question, clarification was given that the street naming department had been contacted to determine the new address.

 

Further history on previous planning applications was also provided by the applicant in response to queries from members about the changes proposed. This was then further discussed in debate, given that access requirements had been satisfied in previous applications.

 

Members also raised in debate: health and safety considerations, noise and vibrations, restricted access, fear of crime and privacy. Previous applications, which had been granted, were also referred to and the difference in the number of units explored. Additional conditions were also proposed with regards to lighting of the access route and a speed limit.

 

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission, with two additional conditions regarding a scheme of lighting for the access road serving the development site and a scheme of road markings and/or a signage strategy, which limits vehicle speeds along the access road serving the new dwellings, was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

 

To grant (6)      Councillors Hamish Pollock, Muhammad Sadiq, Vincent Galligan, Margaret Court, Kevin Burke, Graham Whitham

 

Against (4)       Councillors Samantha Bourne, Patrick McManus, Tim Crowley, Jason Reynolds

 

RESOLVED: That planning permission be granted for application No. C2017/78477, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives.

Supporting documents: