Agenda and minutes

Members are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) and other registrable and non-registrable interests they may have in relation to any item(s) of business on today’s agenda.

There were no disclosures of a pecuniary interest not already registered.

To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.

There was none.

To receive the following presentations on a proposed development:

There are none.

There were none.

To consider the accompanying reports by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport:

Retrospective planning permission for the demolition of the existing building, erection of a two/three storey building with accommodation in roof space comprising 6 x two bedroom and 1 x three-bedroom flats, formation of vehicular access and provision of 7 parking spaces, cycle and refuse storage and landscaping.

Ward: Sanderstead

Recommendation: Grant permission

Retrospective planning permission for the demolition of the existing building, erection of a two/three storey building with accommodation in roof space comprising 6 x two bedroom and 1 x three-bedroom flats, formation of vehicular access and provision of 7 parking spaces, cycle and refuse storage and landscaping.

Ward: Sanderstead

Councillor Humayun Kabir arrived at the Council Chamber at 6.18pm.

The officer presented details of the planning application and in response to members’ questions explained that:

• Officers had recommended a condition to improve the pathway to the bike storage and lighting does not need planning consent however if they felt as though an improvement could be made then it could be added as a condition.
• The guidance was that a 1.2m wide access pathway was provided for bikes. The access path on the site was between 85cm-1m wide which was just enough for a bike but it was not ideal.
• The pathway in the approved plan was wider than the pathway in the proposed development. The retaining wall was a lot slimmer which made the pathway wider.
• Officers put a condition on to provide step free access to both doors, three flats would then have step free access. The developer would have three months to implement the step free access to the flats.
• The lower ground floor gardens did not have access to the main rear garden. These were duplex flats. The London plan had an M42 standard which required 90% of new homes to have wheelchair accessible flats. This had been recommended as a condition by officers.
• Officers set out the differences between the previously approved application and the proposed development.

The committee clerk read out a written statement submitted by Mara Sturt-Penrose spoke in objection to the application, David Kemp spoke in support of the application and the ward Member Councillor Lynne Hale addressed the Committee with her view on the application. After the speakers had finished, the committee began the deliberation, during which they raised the following points:

• Refusal would not mean demolition as enforcement would have to be proportional.
• The principle of development of the site had been approved.
• The development was largely in keeping with the surrounding area.
• There were concerns about the headroom in the roof space and the width of the access path.
• The London plan had changed which is why some of the conditions in the proposed development were considered substandard.
• If the application was approved Members sought to enforce the several conditions such as improved lighting along the narrow pathway, the introduction of some landscaping at the front of the site and the enforcement of a maintenance plan for the landscaping on the site.

The substantive motion to GRANT the application based on the officer’s recommendation was proposed by Councillor Parker. This was seconded by Councillor Fraser.

The motion to grant the application was taken to a vote and carried with nine Members voting in favour. The Committee RESOLVED to GRANT the application for the development at Ark Apartments, 54 Arkwright Road,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5/23

Demolition of existing dwellings, erection of four pairs of two storey 3-bed semi-detached dwellings with roof accommodation with car parking; formation of accesses onto Sloane Walk together with a new pavement; and provision of cycle, refuse stores and soft landscaping.

Ward: Shirley North

Recommendation: Grant permission

Demolition of existing dwellings, erection of four pairs of two storey 3- bed semi-detached dwellings with roof accommodation with car parking; formation of accesses onto Sloane Walk together with a new pavement; and provision of cycle, refuse stores and soft landscaping.

Ward: Shirley North

The officer presented details of the planning application and in response to members’ questions explained that:

• The developer put together a comprehensive biodiversity report which was reviewed by the councils ecologists.
• Along the boundary there was space for 13 car parking spaces this was going to be reduced to 4. A parking stress survey found that the capacity was at 80% so there was room for more spaces to be implemented.
• All parking spaces will have electric charging provisions.
• There was a need for family accommodation which were 3 bedrooms or more.
• The parking stress had increased since the appeal decision from 71% to 80% but it was still below the 85% figure which officers would see as a trigger to investigate.
• Officers had suggested as a condition that the adoption and maintenance of the footpath would be taken on by the developer and the council.
• The width of the road was not changing and the footpath was within the boundary of the site.
• Cllr Brews question during deliberation.

Kate Hughes spoke in objection to the application, David James spoke in support of the application and the ward Member Councillor Richard Chatterjee addressed the Committee with his view on the application. After the speakers had finished, the committee began the deliberation, during which they raised the following points:

• The application went to appeal and was dismissed. The site was right for development despite the proposal being out of keeping with the area.
• The proposed development consisted of high quality materials however this was at odds with the style of the other buildings in the area.
• The proposed development would provide an additional 8 family homes.
• There were concerns over parking stress and there was a poor PTAL rating in the area.
• The developer has met the required conditions after working in conjunction with the councils planning officers.
• There are potential issues with overlooking and carparking.
• The issues which had been raised by the residents had been dealt with by the planning inspector.

The substantive motion to GRANT the application based on the officer’s recommendation was proposed by Councillor Kabir. This was seconded by Councillor Fish. The motion to grant the application was taken to a vote and carried with 10 Members voting in favour. The Committee RESOLVED to GRANT the application for the development at 176 and 178 Orchard Way, Croydon, CR0 7NN.

Redevelopment of land to the rear of Nos. 9 and 10 Fairoak Close, Kenley CR8 5LJ to provide new residential accommodation (Use Class C3), comprising 3 pairs of two storey semi-detached dwellings (6 dwellings in total) with associated access road, landscaping, refuse storage, cycle and car parking provision (amended description).

Ward: Kenley

Recommendation: Grant permission

Redevelopment of land to the rear of Nos. 9 and 10 Fairoak Close, Kenley CR8 5LJ to provide new residential accommodation (Use Class C3), comprising 3 pairs of two storey semi-detached dwellings (6 dwellings in total) with associated access road, landscaping, refuse storage, cycle and car parking provision (amended description).

Ward: Kenley

The officer presented details of the planning application and in response to members’ questions explained that:

• There would be enough room for larger vehicles however they would have to reverse onto the site as there was not enough room for them to turn around.
• The fire strategy was designed so that a fire engine would not have to enter the site, they would use their 90ft hose. The 2.8m detailed in the report excludes the pedestrian walkway, there was also enough space for bin storage.
• The minimum width for an access road was 3.7m and the access road was wider than that however they would either have to reverse in or out of the site.
• There was a condition that was recommended to have a plan for bin collection.
• There would be an area marked out with an enclosure for the residents to leave their bins out on bin collection day.
• There was no policy requirement for the developer to provide a separate path for pedestrians from the waste storage.
• The waste collection operatives won’t collect the waste if the bins were more than 20m from the street.
• There were no tpo’s being lost in the proposed development, there were three category three trees and a hedge being lost.

David Gouldstone spoke in support of the application. After the speaker had finished, the committee began the deliberation, during which they raised the following points:

• The design of the development was similar to the design of the buildings in the surrounding area.
• 6 new family homes and 10 parking spaces were welcomed.
• There was a limited amount of overlooking.
• The access to the site was straightforward.
• The site was in an area with a lot of biodiversity.
• The developers had replicated the design of the other homes in the area to a certain degree.

The substantive motion to GRANT the application based on the officer’s recommendation was proposed by Councillor Fish. This was seconded by Councillor Brew. The motion to grant the application was taken to a vote and carried with ten Members voting in favour. The Committee RESOLVED to GRANT the application for the development at Land r/o 9 and 10 Fairoak Close.

To consider any item(s) referred by a previous meeting of the Planning Sub-Committee to this Committee for consideration and determination:

There are none.

There were none.

To consider the accompanying report by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport:

RESOLVED to note the weekly Planning decisions as contained within the report.