Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 26 October 2023, Thursday 8 February 2024, Thursday 22 February 2024, Thursday 21 March 2024, Thursday 4 April 2024 and Thursday 18 April 2024 as accurate records.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held Thursday 26 October 2023, Thursday 8 February 2024, Thursday 22 February 2024, Thursday 21 March 2024, Thursday 4 April 2024 and Thursday 18 April 2024 be signed as correct records.

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.

The Chair declared that he had met Jose Sanchez Loureda at the South Croydon Community Association AGM, however they had not discussed any matters related to the application.

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:

Change of use from Class E(e) (previously D1) medical or health

services to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis)

comprising 11 bedrooms with shared kitchen facilities together with

alterations, construction/enlargement of basement area, front and rear

lightwells including external stairs, a dormer extension on both side

roof slopes, erection of two/three storey side/rear extension, changes

to fenestration, designated refuse/recycling, and cycle storage space.

Ward: South Croydon

Recommendation: Grant permission

Change of use from Class E(e) (previously D1) medical or health services to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis) comprising 11 bedrooms with shared kitchen facilities together with alterations, construction/enlargement of basement area, front and rear lightwells including external stairs, a dormer extension on both side roof slopes, erection of two/three storey side/rear extension, changes to fenestration, designated refuse/recycling, and cycle storage space

Ward: South Croydon

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

• The building had previously been used as a medical centre which was for community use but had not been occupied since 2017. Following a previous application for the site, officers received a letter from the NHS which stated that the community use for the medical centre was no longer necessary. Officers have contacted the NHS to see whether the community use of the medical centre was needed as part of the current application, and they confirmed that it was not.
• The Officer recommendations gave weight to the planning inspectors findings as a material consideration, who felt as though the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties could be limited but needed to limit the number of occupants via a planning condition. 
• The proposed development would require an HMO license, so there was a separate housing regime which could assess the scheme. Officers had liaised with officers in the housing team regarding the application and they explained that the scheme complied with the relevant housing acts.
• Officers recommended a management plan condition which the applicant had agreed to which would ensure that the overall quality of the scheme was safeguarded for future occupiers.
• The proposed development would be using an existing building which had a series of steps which led up to the building, the implementation of a ramp which led to the front door would cause an issue with the character and appearance of the area. 
• There were no standards for external space for HMO properties. Officers had proposed a planting strategy and could propose a long-term maintenance plan to ensure quality for future occupiers.
• Officers looked at the space at the front of the property so a council operative could provide a waste collection service. Officers had secured a condition for a refuse strategy to be in place and ensured that there was a distance of 20m to the street to allow a council operative to collect waste if required.
• The inspector explained that the issues regarding access to the cycle storage could be managed via planning conditions.

Jose Sanchez Loureda spoke in objection to the application, Jeremy Butterworth spoke in support of the application and Councillor Danielle Denton addressed the Committee with her view as the Ward Councillor. The sub-committee began the deliberation, during which they raised the following points:

• There was no issue with the change of use, Members were satisfied that the premises was no longer required to offer community use.
• The reduction in the number of rooms was appreciated.
• The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12/24

Erection of a rear dormer and installation of 4no. front roof lights, 2no. rear roof lights and 1no. side roof light.

Ward: Park Hill and Whitgift

Recommendation: Grant permission

Erection of a rear dormer and installation of 4no. front roof lights, 2no. rear roof lights and 1no. side roof light.

Ward: Park Hill and Whitgift

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

·       The site was not within a conservation area.

·       The orientation of the dormer window was straight down the back of the garden. There would be potentially some oblique views either way which Members would need to consider, but they also needed to acknowledge that a dormer window was previously granted on the site. Whilst one application with a dormer window was refused, officers believed that the reductions on the scheme overcame any issues raised previously.

·       Roof lights did not require planning permission to be installed.

·       In the proposed development the dormer window was 1.9m high, the depth was 2.1m and the overall width was 6m. In a previously approved application on the site the dormer window was 1.6m wide, 1.85m deep and 5.8m in width. In a previously refused application the dormer window was 2.6m high, 2.86m deep and 8.7m in width.

Bob Mc Quillan spoke in objection to the application, Minesh Jobanputra spoke in support of the application and Councillor Andrew Price addressed the Committee with his view as the Ward Councillor. The sub-committee began the deliberation, during which they raised the following points:

• 26 Mapledale was on a corner plot, so any dormer window had a greater potential to impact on neighbours, particularly from overlooking.
• In 2022 an application was refused for a dormer extension due to visual intrusion on 1 Grimwade Avenue.
• Not enough steps had been taken to reduce the impact on 1 Grimwade Avenue and the proposal would still cause visual intrusion and loss of privacy to this neighbouring property.
• Policy DM10 seeks to ensure no direct overlooking into habitable rooms.
• Some members felt there was a 2018 consent for a larger dormer which would have been more visually intrusive (officers clarified that this consent had expired), the proposed development was less intrusive, and the applicant had made a good case for why they were doing the extension.
• Several properties in the area had been extended to the side and the rear.
• This was an unusual design for a street development; however, this issue was commonplace throughout the borough.
• Some members felt the actions that the applicant had made to reduce the impact on its neighbours was sufficient.
• There was already an approved proposal on the site, albeit expired.
• Whilst the proposed development was smaller than the 2022 application, it was still possible for the development to intrude on the neighbouring property.
• Some members felt the size of the window in the dormer would not allow any overlooking into neighbouring properties.
• The position of the dormer was a concern regardless of the size of the dormer.

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 motion was taken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13/24