Agenda and minutes

Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that, in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act, they are required to consider in advance of each meeting whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI), an 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 should 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 to disclose any DPIs and ORIs 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 meeting unless granted a dispensation.

·       Where the matter relates to 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 their financial interest or wellbeing, or that of a relative or close associate, they must disclose the interest at the meeting, may not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not stay in the meeting unless granted a dispensation. Where a matter affects the NRI of a Member or co-opted Member, section 9 of Appendix B of the Code of Conduct sets out the test which must be applied by the Member to decide whether disclosure is required.

The Chair will invite Members to make their disclosure orally at the commencement of Agenda item 3, to 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 consider the accompanying reports by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport:

There was one planning application presented before the Sub-Committee for decision which involved the following:

Outline application for the consideration of access, appearance, layout and scale only in relation to the erection of two buildings comprising a total of 4 semi-detached houses, formation of vehicular access and provision of associated parking, refuse and bicycle storage fronting Ballards Rise.

Outline application for the consideration of access, appearance, layout and scale only in relation to the erection of two buildings comprising of a total of 4 semi-detached houses, formation of vehicular access and provision of associated parking, refuse and bicycle storage fronting Ballards Rise.

Ward: South Croydon

Recommendation: Grant permission

Ward: South Croydon

Natalie Rowland, Principal Planning Officer (Planning and Sustainable Regeneration), presented the application to the Sub-Committee and highlighted to members that:

·       The addendum which had been published shortly before the committee met that day had produced the results of the parking stress survey, which was 42 per cent;

·       There was a high risk of surface water flooding in the area but that the application would be subject to a pre-commencement condition regarding Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs);

·       The development site was built on a sloping road;

·       A development opposite the site of this application had been approved for the erection of eight flats across two buildings;

·       The application proposed six car parking spaces and cycle storage for all units;

·       There were windows planned which would face a pathway which ran between the houses, which would allow light into the buildings but would be obscure glazed so as not to cause any privacy issues;

·       There would be a compliance condition in place for visibility displays from the car parks to the road for which the developer would be responsible and to which the Transport Officer had no objections.

The Sub-Committee heard two representations against the application, and one representation on behalf of the applicant, which made the following points:

·       49 residents and the MP had objected to the planning application;

·       The proposal was bulky, overbearing, and incompatible with the street scene;

·       The buildings would tower over neighbouring properties due to the incline of the hill;

·       The lack of sight-lines from the car park would compromise highway safety;

·       There was a lack of consideration for the impact that a potential 24 extra residents would cause to the local amenities, especially since eight flats were being built opposite;

·       That there was an acute need in the area for family housing and this development proposed to provide ample family housing;

·       The development was designed to be traditional and complement the area and new development opposite;

·       That there was sufficient separation from neighbouring properties to ensure privacy was retained;

·       That there was ample car and cycle parking and that the location was well connected via public transport.

In response officers explained that regarding overlooking the gardens of some of the neighbouring properties was not an issue as the rear of the development site was lower down the hill than the property concerned. The distances from the properties also complied with Greater London Authority (GLA) guidance, and regarding the transport matter, a footpath had been installed on the opposite side of the street as part of the development of the eight flats opposite.

After consideration of the officer's report, Councillor Clark proposed and Councillor Kabir seconded the officer's recommendation with three in favour and 3 against. The Chair used his casting vote to REFUSE the application, on the grounds that it was out of character and that it would bring harm to neighbours due to dominance because of the changes in land level. The Committee voted 3 in favour, 3 against, with the Chair using  ...  view the full minutes text for item A35/22