Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 22 September 2022 as an accurate record.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 22 September 2022 be signed as a correct record.

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:

Demolition of garages and construction of 4 mews houses with associated landscaping, cycle storage and refuse provision.

Ward: Addiscombe East

Recommendation: Grant permission

Demolition of garages and construction of 4 mews houses with associated landscaping, cycle storage and refuse provision.

Ward: Addiscombe East

The officer presented details of the planning application and responded to questions for clarification.

Robert Porter and Suzanne Rixon spoke in objection to the application.

Alice Brownfield spoke in support of the application.

The Chair used his discretion to enable the ward Member Councillor Maddie Henson to address the Committee on behalf of Sarah Jones MP with her view on the application.

The Committee deliberated on the application presentation heard before them having heard all the speakers who addressed the Committee, and in turn addressed their view on the matter.

The substantive motion to GRANT the application based on the officer’s recommendation was proposed by Councillor Fitzsimons. This motion was not seconded and therefore the substantive motion fell due to a lack of support.

Councillor Neal proposed the motion to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would result in an overdevelopment of the site, by virtue of its height, mass, scale and design, resulting in a detrimental impact that fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the East India Estate Conservation Area. 
2. The proposed development would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties, resulting in an overly dominant, overbearing and oppressive impact on the rear habitable rooms and gardens of these properties, by reason of the height and massing of the proposed development.
3. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the refuse storage arrangements, in particular the proposed location of the refuse store adjacent to 38 Havelock Road and located on the access road, and the proposed location for bulky waste, would be incompatible with the movement of vehicles and would prevent safe access and egress to the site for vehicles and pedestrians.

The motion to refuse the application was seconded by Councillor Parker.

The motion to refuse the application was taken to a vote and carried with four Members voting in favour one Member voting against and one Member abstaining their vote.

The Committee RESOLVED to REFUSE the application for the development at Land And Garages Rear Of 1 To 4 Mulberry Lane Accessed Between 36 And 38 Havelock Road.

The Chair called for a vote to extend the Planning Committee meeting past the 10pm guillotine, this was taken to a vote and carried with all Members voting to extend the meeting.

Demolition of existing dwelling house (retrospective) and the construction of a new 7-bedroom dwelling house comprising basement, ground and first floor with accommodation in the roof space; dormers to the rear; together with landscaping and car parking and associated works.

Ward: Park Hill and Whitgift Ward

Recommendation: Grant permission

Demolition of existing dwelling house (retrospective) and the construction of a new 7-bedroom dwelling house comprising basement, ground and first floor with accommodation in the roof space; dormers to the rear; together with landscaping and car parking and associated works.

Ward: Park Hill and Whitgift

The officer presented details of the planning application and responded to questions for clarification.

Bob McQuillan and Nicholas Stretton spoke in objection to the application.

Pravin M Patel spoke in support of the application.

The Ward Member Councillor Appleton addressed the Committee with her view on the application.

The Committee deliberated on the application presentation heard before them having heard all the speakers who addressed the Committee, and in turn addressed their view on the matter.

The substantive motion to GRANT the application based on the officer’s recommendation was proposed by Councillor Fraser. This motion was not seconded and therefore the substantive motion fell due to a lack of support.

Councillor Parker proposed the motion to refuse the application based on the character, height, scale and mass of the development and its impact on adjoining occupiers. This was seconded by Councillor Gander.

The motion to refuse the application was taken to a vote and carried with four Members voting in favour and two Members voting against.

The Committee RESOLVED to REFUSE the application for the development at 39 Grimwade Avenue, CR0 5DJ.