Agenda and draft minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 11 July 2024 and Thursday, 25 July as accurate records.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings held on Thursday, 11 July 2024 and Thursday, 25 July be signed as correct records.

Disclosure of Interests Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act 2011, they are required to consider in advance of each meeting whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI), some other registrable interest (ORI) or a non-registrable interest (NRI) in relation to any matter on the agenda. If advice is needed, Members should contact the Monitoring Officer in good time before the meeting. If any Member or co-opted Member of the Council identifies a DPI or ORI which they have not already registered on the Council’s register of interests or which requires updating, they must urgently complete the disclosure form which can be obtained from Democratic Services at any time, copies of which will be available at the meeting for return to the Monitoring Officer.

Members and co-opted Members are required in general to disclose any relevant DPIs, ORIs or NRIs at the meeting –

• Where the matter relates to a DPI they may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not stay in the room unless granted a dispensation.
• Where the matter directly relates to the financial interest or wellbeing of an ORI they may not vote on the matter unless granted a dispensation.
• Where a Member or co-opted Member has an NRI which directly relates to or affects their or a relevant person’s financial interest or wellbeing, whether they can participate in any discussion or vote on the matter or stay in the room depends on the detailed rules in paragraphs 7 of Appendix B of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

The Chair will invite Members to make their disclosure of interests orally at the meeting and they will also be recorded in the minutes.

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 were none.

Proposed development of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with associated equipment, CCTV and access arrangement.

Ward: New Addington South

Proposed development of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with associated equipment, CCTV and access arrangement.

Ward: New Addington South

Councillor Christopher Herman entered the Council Chamber at 6.48pm.

Richard Thwaites and James Davis attended to give a presentation. They then responded to Members’ questions and the issues raised for further consideration.

The Members raised the following points and questions:

Land use principle

Members sought clarification as to whether the proposed development would act as a backup supply to the national grid to address any local shortages in the Croydon and Bromley area. Members also enquired about the efficiency of the storage capacity of the technology used on site.

Members queried how visible the proposed development would be given the hedges which are existing and the proposed planting. They also enquired about whether they would use matte paint to avoid the glare from the sun. The developer explained that they would have a matte green finish on the development to avoid any potential glare. 

Members asked the developer whether the battery storage would only take energy from the national grid or would it obtain energy from any local generators. The developer explained that the intention was to charge and discharge energy from the National Grid.

Members expressed the belief that given the issues with climate change, the land use of the development was considered appropriate.

Members queried whether the proposed 30-year period could be extended in future.

Design and impact on character of the area

Members queried whether it was possible to conduct a site visit to New Addington, so that the impact of the view from Croydon could be fully understood.

Members asked the developer how future proof the technology used in the proposed development was.

Impact on neighbouring residential amenity

Members queried the impact of cabling on the substation.

Members enquired about the level of noise caused by the proposed two daily deliveries to the site during construction phase.

Members asked about the proposed agreement to make a £10,000 payment to local community groups, how this amount related to industry standards for this type of contribution and how would the contribution be distributed.

Members asked for clarification on why £10,000 was the chosen amount, and suggested the developers should get in touch with residents of New Addington regarding the needs of the local area.

Access, parking and highway impacts

Members queried on how the developers would manage the impact of the construction of the development would have on the conservation area.

Trees and biodiversity

Members believed that the piece of land next to the site was poor grade agricultural land, and more intensive tree planting would be more beneficial to the overall appearance of the site and Croydon and Bromley Council could consider how to create a more appealing environment in terms of biodiversity, trees and forestry.

Members had concerns about the impact that the proposed development would have on residents and on the green belt which was in Bromley.

Members queried about the impact of construction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55/24

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

Retrospective application for demolition of existing two storey detached property and garage, erection of a two storey plus basement and roof level building, creation of nine self-contained residential dwellings (C3) with terraces on side and rear elevations, and associated alterations including landscaping, car parking, bicycle and refuse stores.

Ward: Purley and Woodcote

Recommendation: Grant permission

Retrospective application for demolition of existing two storey detached property and garage, erection of a two storey plus basement and roof level building, creation of nine self-contained residential dwellings (C3) with terraces on side and rear elevations, and associated alterations including landscaping, car parking, bicycle and refuse stores.

Ward: Purley and Woodcote

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

·       There had been several site visits conducted by officers, one of the concerns that had been noted was the landscaping and it had been acknowledged that the hedging had died. Part of the conditions would require a new landscaping scheme.

·       The bin store was smaller than previously approved, but officers considered that residents could still fit the required number of bins within the stores provided.

·       Officers were unsure about how many bins there were currently on site, they had considered whether the bin storage area was big enough to accommodate the number of bins or the size of bins that the Refuse Team had advised would be required for the number of units in the proposed development.

·       The development had been there for a couple of years and was occupied. Officers had not been made aware of any missed bin collections at the premises.

·       This was a development which had been implemented, not entirely in accordance with the conditions that were originally granted, and the applicant had been engaging with officers to try and resolve those issues. Planning legislation enabled this to happen is through the assessment of a new application, which was currently under consideration by the Committee.  If members were to grant planning permission, then officers had an open enforcement file in relation to this case.

·       The walls at the front of the site were composed of breeze block which was not an appropriate finish for a wall. Officers determined that render was a suitable solution, as it was better than what was currently in place. There was evidence of rendering in the area and so officers thought that was a reasonable solution to that part of the site.

·       The application had been submitted by the freeholder, so they were responsible for maintenance.

·       This was a partially retrospective and partially prospective application, and the principal development of the site had previously been agreed. The previous application was implemented, but not in accordance with the conditions that were attached to the planning permission. Whilst the Croydon local plan had not changed since the previous application was considered, there had been some changes to the London plan and so this application has had to accommodate those changes since the previous application. Officers believed that the previous application was a fall-back position, so Members should give weight to that previous decision. Therefore, whilst it was a retrospective application the planning history should factor into Members considerations.

·       Members needed to consider the acceptability of the drawings and documents submitted in the application. The planning legislation did not allow Members to take into account the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57/24

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.

Attached is the list of Delegated and Planning Committee/Sub Committee decisions taken between 26 August 2024 and 15 September 2024.