Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 20 October and 10 November 2022 as accurate records.

The minutes of the previous meeting were not reviewed at this meeting.

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act, Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that it is a requirement to register disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) and gifts and hospitality to the value of which exceeds £50 or multiple gifts and/or instances of hospitality with a cumulative value of £50 or more when received from a single donor within a rolling twelve month period. In addition, Members and co-opted Members are reminded that unless their disclosable pecuniary interest is registered on the register of interests or is the subject of a pending notification to the Monitoring Officer, they are required to disclose those disclosable pecuniary interests at the meeting. This should be done by completing the Disclosure of Interest form and handing it to the Democratic Services representative at the start of the meeting. The Chair will then invite Members to make their disclosure orally at the commencement of Agenda item 3. Completed disclosure forms will be provided to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion on the Register of Members’ Interests.

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.

Ward: Kenley

Recommendation: Grant permission

Ward: Kenley

The officer explained that the sub-committee was only to consider appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of this application, as outline planning permission to provide four family homes had already been granted.

In response to members’ questions officers explained that:

·       The treatment of the boundaries could be secured by planning conditions;

·       Two-tone block paving was proposed and this could be made of permeable materials by planning conditions;

·       No concerns had been raised regarding biodiversity, and that 22 trees would replace the existing 16; and,

·       The plan for the display and removal of refuse complied with building control.

The sub-committee then heard statements made by an objector to the site and by the applicant’s agent. In response to points raised officers confirmed that the distances of the proposed development to Hays Lane were correct as stated in the report and that the reference to the house numbers was corrected by the objector. Officers confirmed the properties at 137-139 Hayes Lane were Grade II listed; however, their significance from the street scene would be maintained and given that the siting of the development towards to the rear would not be readily visible from wider area.  

The sub-committee then went into deliberation, during which they expressed the desire for the applicant to ensure semi-mature trees were planted, and that the boundaries between the properties were treated carefully so as not to harm the neighbours’ outlook. Cllr Ben-Hassel raised concerns over the lack of details in regard to landscaping. In response Officers advised that if Members were concerned in this respect the landscaping condition could be reworded to require the submission of further details.

After consideration of the officer's report and with the rewording of the landscaping condition, Councillor Fitzsimons moved and Councillor Ben-Hassel seconded the officer's recommendation, and the Committee voted 5 in favour and one abstention, so planning permission was GRANTED for development at 10 Cedar Walk.

Ward: South Norwood

Recommendation: Grant permission

This application was withdrawn.

Ward: Addiscombe East

Recommendation: Grant permission

Ward: Addiscombe East

The following two applications on the same site were heard consecutively by the sub-committee. Officers explained that the applicant had previously had planning permission refused for the alterations of the existing outbuilding and use as a separate dwellinghouse, which was later dismissed on appeal by the Secretary of State.  The planning inspector stated that the alterations and use of the outbuilding as a separate dwellinghouse would harm the neighbouring properties by reason of  over-looking and loss of privacy; the Inspector did not find an issue with the character or appearance of the development.

In response to members’ questions officers explained that:

·       The rectangular building proposal would not cause any loss of garden space but the L-shaped building proposal would reduce the garden space of the host property by approximately 20 square metres;

·       Refuse would be kept within the confines of the development and brought up to the road in the usual way for properties there; and,

·       The outlook of both of the proposals was onto the private amenity space of the host property and not the neighbouring gardens.

The sub-committee then heard statements made in objection for both applications from two residents, one of whom was a leaseholder of one of the flats in the host property.

Members then deliberated over the following points:

·       Previous appeal decisions and their relevance to the current applications;

·        Permitted development rights;

·        Whether such an outbuilding was built lawfully when the host property was in single occupancy;

·        They had concerns about overlooking and a loss of privacy;

·       The solution proposed to overlooking (installing one-way glass) was not sufficient;

·       The loss of garden area to the host property was unacceptable;

·       The living conditions of present and future occupiers would be poor; and,

·       The bins would worsen the outlook of the front of the properties and would add to visual clutter.

After consideration of the officer's report, Councillor Ben-Hassel moved and Councillor Fitzsimons seconded REFUSAL, on the grounds of overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy, the quality of amenities of future occupiers by reason of poor outlook. The Committee voted unanimously in favour of refusal, so planning permission was REFUSED for development at 19 Ashburton Road.

Ward: Addiscombe East

Recommendation: Grant permission

The details of this application were heard in conjunction with the other application on the same site.

After consideration of the officer's report, Councillor Ben-Hassel moved and Councillor Parker seconded REFUSAL, on the grounds of overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy and the quality of amenities of future occupiers by reason of poor outlook. The Committee voted unanimously in favour of refusal, so planning permission was REFUSED for development at 19 Ashburton Road.