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

Ward: Sanderstead

Recommendation: Grant planning permission

Erection of 2 x 3-storey dwellings accessed from Sanderstead Road with associated landscaping and bin and bike stores.

Ward: Sanderstead

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

• As there was no provision for parking on site, residents could park on nearby roads within the vicinity of the site.
• The applicant submitted a tree report which indicated that the stem diameter of the lime tree in the neighbouring garden to be 490mm and the neighbouring occupier conducted their own report and measured the stem diameter at 730mm, because of this discrepancy the Councils tree officer went to the site to measure the tree and found the stem diameter to be 640mm. Amendments were made to the external steps and rear patio accordingly.
• The transport assessment in the parking stress survey identified 185 free parking spaces, only 14% of the spaces were occupied during the night that the assessment was carried out.

Richard Lander spoke in objection to the application, Ron Davies spoke in support of the application, and the Ward Member Councillor Hale addressed the Committee with her view on the application.

After the speakers had finished, the committee began the deliberation, during which they raised the following points:

• The site was in a public transport accessibility level 2 (PTAL) area which indicated poor access to public transport, there was also a lack of parking spaces on the site.
• There were safety concerns as Sanderstead road was a fast moving and hazardous road.
• The modern design of the proposed development was out of keeping with the local area.
• There would need to be a robust construction logistics plan implemented before work could be carried out on the site.
• Road safety advice from officers meant that citing road safety issues as a reason for refusal would not be appropriate.
• There was an appreciation that the developer had taken on board the feedback regarding the implementation of family homes rather than flats.
• The public footpath alongside the site has street lamps at either end. A condition could be attached requiring lighting within the site.
• Access to the site was not step-free.
• The lack of parking in the forecourt means that there would be no vehicular crossover onto Sanderstead Road which would help with road safety.

The substantive motion to GRANT the application based on the officer’s recommendation was proposed by Councillor Fraser. This was seconded by Councillor Fitzsimons.

The substantive motion was taken to a vote and fell with three members voting in favour and three members voting against the motion. The chair used his casting vote to vote against the motion.

Councillor Parker proposed a motion for refusal as the development was out of keeping with the local area due to the modern design and style, the development was cramped and lacked an appropriate level of access. This was seconded by Councillor Ramsey.

The motion to refuse the application was taken to a vote and carried with three Members voting in favour, two  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9/23

Ward: Selsdon and Addington Village

Recommendation: Grant permission

Partial demolition and extension of existing bungalow, upwards and to the side and rear to create one 3-bedroom dwelling and one 5-bedroom dwelling, associated landscaping, car parking and refuse storage.

Ward: Selsdon and Addington Village

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

• The bungalow currently on the site was 6.8m high, the prior approval upwards extension would take the building to 9.2m in height and the proposed scheme in the application would also take the height to 9.2m.
• The prior approval upward extension was for a single family dwelling house whereas the current proposal sought to sub divide the unit into two separate properties and if the application was refused then the applicant could appeal and would use the fallback position of the prior approval as part of their argument.

Ron Davies spoke in support of the application and the Ward Member Councillor Ward 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:

• Despite their being prior approval on the site, the proposed development was overbearing.
• The massing of the extension in the current application was larger than surrounding properties and extended to the boundary with surrounding properties.
• The site was not appropriate for incremental densification as it was a small site and there were concerns over the massing of the proposed development.
• The area had a low PTAL rating but there were no issues with parking around the site.
• The design of the proposed development was more sensitive than the design of the proposal which had prior approval and was more in keeping with the local area.
• The proposed development would have a negative impact on the adjoining occupiers. Members expressed concern about having a three- and five-bedroom property on the site.
•  

The substantive motion to GRANT the application based on the officer’s recommendation was proposed by Councillor Fraser. This was seconded by Councillor Fitzsimons.

The substantive motion was taken to a vote and fell with three Members voting in favour and three Members voting against. The Chair used his casting vote to vote in against the motion to grant the application.

The Chair proposed a motion to refuse the application as the scale and massing of the proposed development, particularly at the rear of the property, would have a negative impact on adjoining occupiers due to dominance and an overbearing nature. This was seconded by Councillor Parker.

The motion to refuse the application was taken to a vote and carried with three Members voting in favour and three Members voting against. The Chair used his casting vote to vote in favour of the motion to refuse the application.

The Committee RESOLVED to REFUSE the application for the development at The Gallop, South Croydon, CR2 7LP.

Ward: Selsdon and Addington Village

Recommendation: Grant permission

Partial demolition and extension of existing bungalow, upwards and to the side and rear to create one 2-bedroom dwelling and one 3 bedroom dwelling, associated landscaping, car parking and refuse storage.

Ward: Selsdon and Addington Village

Ron Davies spoke in support of the application and the Ward Member Councillor Ward 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 proposed development did not maximise the potential of the site to provide more housing for residents, however the scheme was policy compliant.

The substantive motion to GRANT the application based on the officer’s recommendation was proposed by Councillor Parker. This was seconded by Councillor Ramsey.

The substantive motion was taken to a vote and carried with five Members voting in favour and one Member voting against.

The Committee RESOLVED to GRANT the application for the development at The Gallop, South Croydon, CR2 7LP.