Agenda item

Demolition of existing dwelling and the erection of two storey building with accommodation in roof space and basement, containing 2 x one bedroom, 2 x two bedroom and 3 x three bedroom flats with associated access, 5 parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse store.

Ward: Sanderstead

Recommendation: Grant permission

Demolition of existing dwelling and the erection of two storey building with accommodation in roof space and basement, containing 2x one bedroom, 2x two bedroom and 3x three bedroom flats with associated access, 5 parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse store.

Ward: Sanderstead

Following the officers’ presentation, Committee Members received confirmation that there was sufficient on street parking in the local area.

Dennis King, speaking in objection, raised the following points:

·         Detrimental to the amenities of surrounding properties and loss of light

·         8m high and close to neighbouring property

·         3m beyond back wall of neighbouring property – will impact on the sunlight of the neighbouring property

·         Terrace will be overlooked

·         Living conditions of adjoining occupier are seriously harmed

Jorge Nash, speaking on behalf of the applicant, raised the following points:

• 7 new dwellings would be created and would include family sized dwellings
• Design of the scheme had been chosen to replicate the appearance of a single dwelling house
• The massing was no greater than neighbouring property and was in keeping with the large detached dwellings of the surrounding area
• Impact of the scheme was largely on No.41, however the property would be set back from the street to reduce the impact
• Did not consider the concerns regarding overlooking to be any different from a two storey property
• Five off street parking spaces were to be provided
• The rear of the property would extend beyond the neighbouring property but was within with guidelines.

Councillor Lynne Hale, speaking in objection as Ward Member, raised the following points:

·         Insufficient parking was to be provided

·         Highway safety issues had not been addressed

·         The design was out of character with the local area

·         Impact on No.41 would be significant higher as the current property was a bungalow and had been designed to be lower to enable sunlight to shine into the property

·         The scheme was illogical scheme and would put the neighbouring property into shade

·         Sunlight was important to good mental health and it was unacceptable to reduce a residents natural light

·         The scheme failed to reflect the significant changes in land levels and would create issues of overlooking

Officers confirmed that previous refused applications at the site were deeper than the current proposal, in addition planning policy had changed to reflect the need for more housing. The finished floor levels of the scheme would also be agreed to ensure the development was properly managed.

Some Members stated that the proposal was a large scale intensification of the site which would be detrimental to the local area, with significant impact upon No. 41 in particular with loss of sunlight. Members further noted that three units within the development would be below the minimum space requirement and concerns were raised in relation to flood risk. In response officers stated the scheme was compliant with flood risk assessments and the flood risk would not increase, furthermore a landscaping condition would be put in place to mitigate surface water drainage concerns.

Other Members of the Committee stated that the site could support intensification and while the development would be four storeys high it would appear to look like two storeys. It was felt that the proposal would have the appearance of a large detached house but would accommodate seven homes, and additional housing was required within the borough. It was stated that the largest impact would be upon the side windows of No.41, however as they were secondary windows it was felt that the property would continue to receive good levels of sunlight.

After consideration of the officer's report, Councillor Jason Perry proposed and Councillor Luke Clancy seconded a motion for REFUSAL, on the grounds of overdevelopment in relation to the size and massing, and the impact on amenities on neighbouring properties, and the Committee voted 4 in favour, 5 against, so this motion thereby fell.

Councillor Paul Scott proposed and Councillor Joy Prince seconded a second motion for the officer's recommendation, and the Committee voted 5 in favour, 4 against, so planning permission was GRANTED for development at 43 Downsway South Croydon CR2 0JB.

The Committee adjourned from 8.44pm to 8.50pm.