Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meetings held on Thursday, 28 September 2023 and Thursday, 23 November 2023 as accurate records.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 28 September 2023 and Thursday, 23 November be signed as correct records.

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:

Full planning application for development ranging in height from 9 (ground plus 8 levels) to 28 storeys (ground plus 27 levels), containing 199 residential units, a healthcare facility (Use Class Ee), disabled car parking spaces, cycle parking, and associated amenity space, hard and soft landscaping.

Ward: Fairfield

Recommendation: Grant permission

Full planning application for development ranging in height from 9 (ground plus 8 levels) to 28 storeys (ground plus 27 levels), containing 199 residential units, a healthcare facility (Use Class Ee), disabled car parking spaces, cycle parking, and associated amenity space, hard and soft landscaping.

Ward: Fairfield

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

• With regard to the affordable housing financial viability reviews, matters such as profit levels and the existing use value of the site were assessed by independent consultants. The details provisions of the financial viability reviews are included in the section 106 agreement. The Greater London Authority (GLA) had provided clear guidance on how section 106 agreements should be written and the way that the early and late-stage review mechanism were set out. The agreement between the NHS and landowner on the cost of the site was between them however the applicant could not claim to give the site to the NHS for free and then charge them a rate as this money could have been used to increase the affordable housing provision on the site. The Financial Review mechanism exists to ensure that any increased developer profit is fairly apportioned, and if changes (e.g. finance costs, commercial rates) result in additional developer profit, this would be reflected in the Financial Viability Reviews. If there was an uplift in value then it would be split between the Council and the developer, the GLA’s guidance on the standard split was 60/40 split in favour of the Council.
• The developer was required to seek to achieve grant funding however this level of affordable housing was unlikely to be eligible for any grant funding.
• The developer was building a facility suitable for the NHS in line with the site allocation. Any commercial agreement between the NHS and the developer would exclude the Local Planning Authority. The NHS have stated that they had a general need for floor space in the local area and once the facility had been built then the NHS would decide what their priority need was in the area and before deciding what the facility would be used for specifically.
• The NHS had asked for an ambulance space to be provided and this request had been met.
• The policy requirement was that an end user had to be specified, in this case it was the NHS. However, if the NHS decided that they no longer wanted to use the facility once it had been built then there was a requirement that if the space was uninhabited for two years then the developer would have to provide a basic fit out of the area for another party to use.
• There was a policy requirement in the London plan called the urban green factor which determined a target for the amount of greenery on the site, which has been complied with.
• The developer had provided a transport statement which had been reviewed by Council officers and the TFL. The proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68/24

Demolition of existing dwellings; erection of a two-storey development with roof accommodation comprising 8 family dwellings; provision of new access; provision of 12 parking spaces, refuse and recycling stores, secure cycle parking and communal landscaped amenity space.

Ward: Coulsdon Town

Recommendation: Grant permission

Demolition of existing dwellings; erection of a two-storey development with roof accommodation comprising 8 family dwellings; provision of new access; provision of 12 parking spaces, refuse and recycling stores, secure cycle parking and communal landscaped amenity space.

Ward: Coulsdon Town

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

• The highways officer, applicant and agent had shown that the required site lines could be achieved, this would require a slight cut back in some of the hedging on the boundary.
• A transport assessment was submitted with the application, and it was deemed that the scheme would not cause a significant increase in highway danger despite the increase in the usage of the road.
• The reduction in size of the proposed the development from the previous application would reduce the impact of the development on the street scene. The stepped nature of the development was more acceptable that what had previously been dismissed.

Mina Samaan spoke against the application and Simon Grainger spoke in support of the application and the ward Member Councillor Creatura 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 proposed development would provide six family homes which the local area needed.
• The proposed development would be in keeping with the street scene.
• The road was arrow and had reached saturation point.
• The site was in PTAL 0 rated area so there would likely be a lot of cars on the road.
• The site was on a bend which caused a potential hazard.
• There were no other terraced properties on the road and it was out of keeping with the area.
• The impact on 27 Hollymeoak road was of concern.
• The proposal was too big for the site.
• The proposed development was much improved on the scheme what had previously been refused.
• The scheme was a gentle densification and fit into the street scene.
• It was welcomed that new homes be built the south of the borough namely Coulsdon.
• Residents concerns should be taken into account.
• The design of the property was appreciated.
• The parking offered on the site was the maximum parking permitted in line with policy requirements.
• The garden spaces were extremely narrow.

The substantive motion to GRANT the application based on the officer’s recommendation was proposed by Councillor Fish. 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 and one Member voting against.

The Committee RESOLVED to GRANT the application for the development at 29-31 Hollymeoak Road.

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:

There were none.

Attached is the list of Delegated and Planning Committee/Subcommittee decisions taken between 13 November 2023 and 31 December 2023.

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