Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 5 October 2017 as an accurate record.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 5 October be signed as a correct record subject to the revised minute for Item 5.4 (17/02952/PRE) circulated within the Addendum.

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act, Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that it is a requirement to register disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) and gifts and hospitality to the value of which exceeds £50 or multiple gifts and/or instances of hospitality with a cumulative value of £50 or more when received from a single donor within a rolling twelve month period. In addition, Members and co-opted Members are reminded that unless their disclosable pecuniary interest is registered on the register of interests or is the subject of a pending notification to the Monitoring Officer, they are required to disclose those disclosable pecuniary interests at the meeting. This should be done by completing the Disclosure of Interest form and handing it to the Democratic Services representative at the start of the meeting. The Chair will then invite Members to make their disclosure orally at the commencement of Agenda item 3. Completed disclosure forms will be provided to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion on the Register of Members’ Interests.

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 no development presentations.

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.

Application 17/02166/FUL had been referred for consideration by the Planning Sub-Committee at the meeting held on 5 October 2017.

Councillors Chatterjee, Perry, Winborn and Wright recused themselves from consideration of this item having explained that the property is owned by their political group and they wished to avoid the risk of a perception of bias were they to take part in the discussions and vote on this matter.

Erection of 1 two storey three bedroom detached house and 1 two storey detached two bedroom house at rear fronting Purley Rise.

Ward: Coulsdon West

In response to Member questions officers confirmed that none of the trees on the site were subject to Tree Preservation Orders and so consideration had been given to maintaining the character of the mature garden and hedging. It was stated that there was a clear desire to maintain the trees on the public highways and officers were satisfied they could be maintained.

The Committee noted that the character of Purley Rise had been evolving with more contemporary designed houses further down the road with officers suggesting that there was a mixed character emerging.

In response to Member questions, officers confirmed that the proposal was for a car free development with the courtyards intended to be amenity spaces for the properties. This had been considered acceptable due to the proximity of the site to Purley District Centre.

Mr Tom Vincent (Granit Architects) spoke as the agent, on behalf of the applicant, and addressed the following:

·         The development would create two new family units in the area;

·         There was an established precedent for development to the rear of Brighton Road;

·         The applicants had worked with the Council throughout the process;

·         An abrocultural assessment had been undertaken which had influenced the proposed layout of the site and lost trees would be replaced;

·         The street scene was varied; and

·         The design took into consideration the topography of the site so the two storeys would appear as one and half storeys, and the timber cladding and green roof would embed the development into the site.

Some Members noted the contemporary design of the development and the additional housing that would be provided. Furthermore, it was noted that the development was proposed to be car free.

Other Members expressed concerns in regards to the proposal as it was felt that while the design was interesting it did not address the street scene and gave the impression of two large garden sheds rather than houses. It was suggested that the approach taken at 48 Purley Rise would have been more appropriate and would have created a positive addition to the street scene rather than, what was considered, an attempt to hide the houses. The Committee stated that they were in favour of additional housing, making the site a car free development and that trees would be protected or replaced. However it was stated that the proposals should be reviewed to create a development which would sit within the street scene.

After consideration of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 170/17

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

Demolition of existing buildings to the centre and rear of the site and existing extensions to the roof, and the construction of a new spine building

including glazed link to part retained mews building, an extension from the southwestern facing elevation of the existing locally listed building, a single storey extension to the restaurant, subterranean accommodation, parking, a swimming pool and servicing space to create a total of 530 hotel rooms and 170 vehicle parking spaces, the re?cladding of the 1970s extension with ground floor canopy, provision of enhanced landscaping across the site including 3 coach parking spaces to the front, formation of a vehicle access and the adaption of existing entrance to the hotel.

Ward: South Norwood

Recommendation: Grant permission

Demolition of existing buildings to the centre and rear of the site and existing extensions to the roof and the construction of a new spine building including glazed link to part retained mews building, an extension from the southwestern facing elevation of the existing locally listed building, a single storey extension to the restaurant, subterranean accommodation, parking, a swimming pool and servicing space to create a total of 530 hotel rooms and 170 vehicle parking spaces, the re-cladding of the 1970s extension with ground floor canopy, provision of enhanced landscaping across the site including 3 coach parking spaces to the front, formation of a vehicle access and the adaption of existing entrance to the hotel.

Ward: South Norwood

The Committee were informed that the proposal was for a 530 room hotel with new extensions and the recladding of the 1970s extension. While the hotel was a locally listed building set within a conservation area there had been a number of extensions and modifications over the years. There was a large amount of screening between the site and the two storey flats to the north and the rear of the property was proposed to be improved.

Officers clarified that vehicle access would be down the side of the building to an underground car park and that the proposed scheme would improve accessibility and safety. With regards to coach parking, three spaces would be provided at the front of the property and there would be a coach management plan for additional parking off site. The Committee were also informed that the proposal would increase the distance from the nearest property from 14 metres to 16 metres.

The proposed developed, Members were informed, would be undertaken in phases however to ensure the re-cladding was done not all the rooms could be occupied until completed. Historic England, it was noted, welcomed the amendments to the proposal and was content with the scheme as the massing had been decreased through the application process and the blue canopies would also be removed.

The socio-economic impact of the scheme was the introduction of 100 new jobs and more people using the local district centre.

In response to Member questions officers confirmed that they were content with the security of the site and that no trees would be lost as a new additional layer of planting would be introduced to improve the screening. Officers confirmed they did not have a CGI of the proposal during the winter months.

The Committee raised concerns regarding the coach parking and were informed that the site would accommodate three coaches parking at the front of the site and that any additional coaches would be allowed to drop off only and would be required to park off site, which would be secured through a legal agreement. Members were assured that it was a common situation for hotels to have off site coach parking agreements and that the proposal would be secured be a legal agreement. Officers stated the agreement would manage the whole  ...  view the full minutes text for item 172/17

Demolition of existing buildings & erection of a part four/part five storey building to create a 1200 place (900 pupils & 300 6th Form Post?16 Pupils) six form entry secondary school with associated access and landscaping (incorporating a roof top multi use games area (MUGA))

Ward: Addiscombe

Recommendation: Grant permission

The Committee reconvened at 9.13pm.

Demolition of existing buildings & erection of a part four/part five storey building to create a 1200 place (900 pupils & 300 6th Form Post-16 Pupils) six form entry secondary school with associated access and landscaping (incorporating a roof top multi use games area (MUGA))

Ward: Addiscombe

The Committee were informed that the site had been identified as a site for a secondary school in the emerging Local Plan. A survey had been undertaken that had found there was sufficient on street parking in the surrounding area, however there were six bus stops within the vicinity of the site and it was anticipated that pupils would arrive via sustainable transport methods. The survey of on street parking had taken place during pick up and drop off times. Members were further informed that Transport for London (TfL) had been consulted and were satisfied that the proposed school would have a limited impact on bus capacity, however if additional capacity was required then there was a commitment between TfL and the Department for Transport.

In response to Member questions the officer confirmed that the MUGA would be floodlit, but due to it being set down on the roof Environmental Health officers were satisfied that it would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Officers stated that no additional pedestrian crossings were proposed, however there would be active management of the access to the school and that there was not sufficient space for more disabled parking spaces to be provided on the site.

The Committee noted that the school would aim for a bronze level Travel Plan which it did not feel was aspirational considering its location, and that only half of the expected amount of cycling parking would be provided. Officers responded stating that the applicant had highlighted areas where additional cycle storage could be provided in a phased manner and that it could be included within the conditions that the school should aspire to achieve a gold level Travel Plan.

In response to Member questions regarding landscaping, officers confirmed that it was intended that there would be a mix of high and low landscaping and that if trees 14 and 16 could not be retained then they would be replaced by semi-mature trees. The Committee were further informed that an air quality assessment had been undertaken and reviewed by officers who were satisfied with the assessment.

Ms Azra Ibrisimbegovic and Mr Brad Grisdale spoke in objection and raised the following issues:

·         The design of the building made it appear like a prison;

·         The playground was not of a sufficient size;

·         Doesn’t meet safety standards as students and staff would need to go out into the road during a fire alarm and emergency services would be unable to access the school;

·         The proposal only just met inside recreational standards and not outdoor standards;

·         Mediocre design for students;

·         Appreciate the need for more school places but the proposal was too large for the site;

·         Residents already experienced problems  ...  view the full minutes text for item 173/17

Erection of 1 two storey three bedroom detached house and 1 two storey detached two bedroom house at rear fronting Purley Rise

Ward: Coulsdon West

Recommendation: Grant permission

The planning application was considered as an item referred by the Planning Sub-Committee, as above.

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

There are none.

There were none.