Agenda and draft 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:

Demolition of the existing three terraces of houses, redevelopment of these and the existing surface level car park. Erection of a part 6/part 8/part 9 storey building and separate part 4/part 5 storey building to provide 238 residential units with replacement station car park, together with ancillary community indoor space, disabled car parking, communal amenity space and improvements to the public realm on Whytecliffe Road South.

Ward: Purley and Woodcote

Recommendation: Grant permission

Demolition of the existing three terraces of houses, redevelopment of these and the existing surface level car park. Erection of a part 6/part 8/part 9 storey building and separate part 4/part 5 storey building to provide 238 residential units with replacement station car park, together with ancillary community indoor space, disabled car parking, communal amenity space and improvements to the public realm on Whytecliffe Road South.

Ward: Purley and Woodcote

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

• There was a query on why PRP advice around introducing greater sky gaps at upper levels was not incorporated. It was explained that the role of the Place Review Panel (PRP) was to recommend suggestions and improvements. The PRP had suggested that the applicant increase the gaps between the upper levels of the blocks. The relevant parts of the top floor level that the PRP suggested reducing could only be seen from particular viewpoints and at certain angles. The introduction of gaps between the upper levels of the blocks would reduce the number of units in the development, so consideration would have been taken to determine how noticeable the change would be, how much of an improvement would the increased gaps provide, balancing against potential other implications/considerations for example the number of affordable housing units etc.
• There was a query on the existing number of three bed units on site. It was explained that the existing homes at 34-52 Whytecliffe Road South were likely to have originally have been three bedroom units, with two main bedrooms and a box room. Homes at 26 -32 Whytecliffe Road South were originally likely to have been two-bedroom properties, but some may have been extended to create a third bedroom
• There was a query on whether there was sufficient capacity on rail network to cope with the additional demand. It was explained that part of Network Rail’s portfolio requirement is to increase housing supply on their land, and that this in part supports the operation of the network. The proposed development would see an additional 112 residents travelling to work by train in the morning peak. Purley station was considered a high capacity train station and Network Rail had not raised any issues around capacity and their ability to accommodate the extra individuals travelling via the station.
• There was a query on how the community space would be used and whom by. It was explained that the community space would be available to be used for 20 hours, and charity groups would also have access to the community space.  Residents would have access to the space outside of these hours.

Marco Tomasi and Richard Quelch spoke in support of the application and Ward Member Councillor Samir Dwesar 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 scheme had been in development for five years.
• Members acknowledged that the applicant had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14/24

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

There were none.

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

There are none.

Attached is the list of Delegated and Planning Committee/Subcommittee decisions taken between 11 March 2024 and 22 March 2024.

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