Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 2023 as an accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 2023 were not reviewed by the committee at this meeting. Therefore the minutes will be submitted to a later meeting for agreement.

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

Three applications were brought before the committee for decision at this meeting and are detailed below.

Demolition of existing property and the erection of 7no. dwellings with shared access from Quail Gardens, along with amenity space, drainage, infrastructure and other associated works.

Ward: Selsdon Vale and Forestdale

Recommendation: Grant permission

Officers presented the report to the committee, highlighting that, since previous refusal of an application by officers, the scheme had been improved by reducing the number of proposed units so that the gardens were more spacious and benefited from the amount of daylight required by BRE guidance. The applicant had also agreed to pay a contribution towards the provision of sustainable transport, and had agreed to provide for car club membership. The windows had also been changed to improve internal daylight and sunlight conditions.

In response to members’ questions officers explained that:

·       Two diseased or poor condition trees would be removed as part of the proposal and 28 trees would be provided within the communal space and there would be some additional trees in some of the rear gardens;

·       Drainage would be managed by an infiltration system;

·       Car club membership would be provided for 3 years, which was standard practice;

·       The applicant had proposed a public route to connect to Selsdon Woods behind the development.

The committee heard objections for the following reasons:

·       That additional car use by residents would cause unworkable congestion on the roads;

·       Flooding and overspilling sewage would be caused by providing more houses;

·       Building in the area would compromise the building structure of other houses on the road;

·       A resident of another house on the street who had significant care needs would be distressed by the building work.

Officers responded to the issues raised by explaining that Thames Water had not objected to the plans for managing surface water drainage and sewage management. Officers confirmed that the applicant could be encouraged to make contact with any neighbours who may be directly affected by building works.

After consideration of the officer's report, Councillor Luke Shortland proposed and Councillor Danielle Denton seconded the officer's recommendation (as set out in section 2 of the officer’s report) and the Committee voted with 8 votes in favour, 1 against, and 1 abstention so planning permission was GRANTED for development at 46 Quail Gardens.

Demolition of existing building and erection of 2 x 4-storey buildings comprising 31 residential units plus 29 car parking spaces and associated landscaping.

Ward: Sanderstead

Recommendation: Grant permission

Officers presented the report and in response to members’ questions explained that:

·       First Homes was a form of intermediate tenure available only to first time buyers with a household income below £90,000 per annum which must be priced at 30% under the market value and retained at that value in perpetuity;

·       The applicant had done a viability assessment which had concluded that providing 35% affordable housing would not be viable, and the applicant had not been able to secure a register provider so it would not be possible to secure a grant to increase the delivery of affordable housing on site;

·       There would be defensible space around the outside of the ground floor units.

Members heard objections on the following grounds:

·       It would cause detrimental impact on the character of the area and harm to the street scene with the loss of a generous verdant boundary around the development;

·       That the underground parking provided for in the fallback scheme was preferable to the visibility of cars parked at street level;

·       The built form was too large overall.

Officers responded to the objections, clarifying that the built form of the proposal under consideration was not as large as the fallback proposal, that the green boundary around the site would be retained and that car parking would not be overtly visible from the street.

After consideration of the report, the Chair moved to vote on the officers' recommendation. The Committee voted with 0 votes in favour, 4 against, and 6 abstentions, so this motion thereby fell.

A second motion for DEFERRAL so that a further Affordable Housing assessment could be carried out was proposed by Councillor Clive Fraser and seconded by Councillor Humayun Kabir, with 5 votes in favour and 5 votes against, with the Chair using his casting vote against, so this motion thereby fell.

The Committee then voted on a third motion for REFUSAL, on the grounds of the impact on the street scene and over-dominance was proposed by Councillor Ian Parker and seconded by Councillor Danielle Denton, with 5 votes in favour, 2 against, and 3 abstentions, so planning permission was REFUSED for development at 2 Beech Avenue.

Partial demolition of integrated garages and extensions at 15 Wattendon Road to facilitate access for the erection of 8 new homes (4 pairs of semi-detached houses) in rear garden land of 15 & 17 Wattendon Road with access, parking & landscaping.

Ward: Kenley

Recommendation: Grant permission

Officers presented the application to the committee and in response to questions from members clarified that:

·       There would be one access point and each property would have its own rubbish refuse location at the front of the properties and not on the main highway;

·       Subservience is taken from within the context of the site and surrounding area. Given the topography of the site, distance and visibility from Wattendon Road the development was regarded as subservient.·       The separation from other properties, distance from the street, and land levels meant that the properties would not have a dominant visual impact on the street.

The committee heard objections based on the following points:

·       The development would cause overlooking of neighbours;

·       This development would not maintain the character of the local area;

·       Townhouses were not appropriate among bungalows;

·       Traffic build-up would be caused and would be dangerous;

·       Parking is insufficient;

·       Noise, vibrations and physical intrusions would harm wildlife;

·       There would be increased light pollution, traffic and air pollution.

After consideration of the officer's report, Councillor Clive Fraser proposed and Councillor Appu Srinivasan seconded the officer's recommendation and the Committee voted with 5 in favour, 5 against, and the Chair using his casting vote against, so this motion thereby fell.

A second motion for REFUSAL, on the grounds of incongruity with the area, nonconformity to the pattern of development in the area, lack of subservience to the host property, and the lack of legal agreement related to the sustainable transport contribution, was proposed by Councillor Danielle Denton and seconded by Councillor Ian Parker.

The Committee then voted on a second motion for REFUSAL, with 5 votes in favour, 5 against, and the Chair using his casting vote against, so planning permission was REFUSED for development at 15-17 Wattendon Road.

To note the accompanying report by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport.

The accompanying report by the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport was noted by the committee.