Agenda and draft minutes

Planning Sub-Committee - Thursday, 8th February, 2024 8.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Town Hall, Katharine Street, Croydon CR0 1NX. View directions

Contact: Tariq Aniemeka-Bailey 020 8726 6000 x64109  Email: tariq.aniemeka-bailey@croydon.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

15/24

Disclosure of Interest

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.

Minutes:

There were no disclosures of a pecuniary interest not already registered.

16/24

Urgent Business (if any)

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.

Minutes:

There was none.

17/24

Minutes of the previous meeting

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2024 as an accurate record.

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 25 January 2024 would be considered at the next meeting.

 

18/24

Planning applications for decision pdf icon PDF 81 KB

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

 

Additional documents:

19/24

23/01420/FUL - 8 and 8A St Helen's Road, Norbury, London, SW16 4LB pdf icon PDF 117 KB

Alterations, conversion of single family dwellinghouse to form 3x selfcontained

flats, reconfiguration of area to front of 8 & 8A St Helen's

Road, demolition of existing side extension, erection of single storey

side/rear extension, rear dormer extension and provision of associated

cycle and refuse storage.

 

Ward: Norbury and Pollards Hill

Recommendation: Grant permission

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Alterations, conversion of single family dwellinghouse to form 3x self-contained flats, reconfiguration of area to front of 8 & 8A St Helen's Road, demolition of existing side extension, erection of single storey side/rear extension, rear dormer extension and provision of associated cycle and refuse storage.

 

Ward: Norbury and Pollards Hill

 

 

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

 

  • The cycle storage was towards the rear of the site and would be accessed via a path alongside the property near the rear garden.
  • The previous proposal included a proposal of bulky waste storage, which conflicted with the parking spaces and did not demonstrate that larger 4.8m vehicles could enter and exit the site. The current proposal would move the bulky waste storage so that it was no longer near the parking spaces.
  • The single storey side rear extension would be approximately 2m in depth and was considered to be subservient to the host building. The materials used in the design of the side rear extension would also match the host building.
  • Given the modest scale there would be no harmful loss of light or outlook to the neighbouring property.
  • The greater London archaeological advisory service stated that the scale of the development did not meet the threshold for them to provide a comment on the application. 
  • There was a condition which required maintenance for a period of 5 years, over this period landscaping would be established.
  • The landscaping condition required details of the hard and soft landscaping to be submitted by the applicant.
  • The applicant claimed that they had ownership of the site. If the site was sold then the landscaping responsibilities would be determined based on whether the freehold had been retained following the sale.
  • The maintenance condition required planting which had died to be maintained.

 

Councillor Ben-Hassel spoke in objection to the application, Chris Brady spoke in support of the meeting and Councillor Griffiths. After the speakers had finished, the sub-committee began the deliberation, during which they raised the following points:

 

  • The side alleyway would need adequate lighting and there was a request for this be added as a condition if the application was granted.
  • The breaking up of the symmetry of the front gardens was an issue.
  • The concerns expressed in the transport officer’s comments on the application regarding the movement of vehicles on and off the site was also considered to be an issue.
  • The applicant had made positive changes to satisfy the inspectorate’s previous comments.
  • The removal of the balcony on the 1st floor was appreciated as this reduced the potentially harmful impact on the neighbouring property.
  • The ‘no dig’ policy for the front of the property would protect the lime trees at the front of the site.
  • If there were any trees lost due to the proposed development, then a condition should be added to ensure that a sufficient number of trees were replanted.
  • The local area had a mixture of properties including detached and semi-detached houses,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19/24