To consider any item(s) referred by a previous meeting of the Planning Sub-Committee to this Committee for consideration and determination:
There are none.
Minutes:
Application 17/02166/FUL had been referred for consideration by the Planning Sub-Committee at the meeting held on 5 October 2017.
Councillors Chatterjee, Perry, Winborn and Wright recused themselves from consideration of this item having explained that the property is owned by their political group and they wished to avoid the risk of a perception of bias were they to take part in the discussions and vote on this matter.
Erection of 1 two storey three bedroom detached house and 1 two storey detached two bedroom house at rear fronting Purley Rise.
Ward: Coulsdon West
In response to Member questions officers confirmed that none of the trees on the site were subject to Tree Preservation Orders and so consideration had been given to maintaining the character of the mature garden and hedging. It was stated that there was a clear desire to maintain the trees on the public highways and officers were satisfied they could be maintained.
The Committee noted that the character of Purley Rise had been evolving with more contemporary designed houses further down the road with officers suggesting that there was a mixed character emerging.
In response to Member questions, officers confirmed that the proposal was for a car free development with the courtyards intended to be amenity spaces for the properties. This had been considered acceptable due to the proximity of the site to Purley District Centre.
Mr Tom Vincent (Granit Architects) spoke as the agent, on behalf of the applicant, and addressed the following:
· The development would create two new family units in the area;
· There was an established precedent for development to the rear of Brighton Road;
· The applicants had worked with the Council throughout the process;
· An abrocultural assessment had been undertaken which had influenced the proposed layout of the site and lost trees would be replaced;
· The street scene was varied; and
· The design took into consideration the topography of the site so the two storeys would appear as one and half storeys, and the timber cladding and green roof would embed the development into the site.
Some Members noted the contemporary design of the development and the additional housing that would be provided. Furthermore, it was noted that the development was proposed to be car free.
Other Members expressed concerns in regards to the proposal as it was felt that while the design was interesting it did not address the street scene and gave the impression of two large garden sheds rather than houses. It was suggested that the approach taken at 48 Purley Rise would have been more appropriate and would have created a positive addition to the street scene rather than, what was considered, an attempt to hide the houses. The Committee stated that they were in favour of additional housing, making the site a car free development and that trees would be protected or replaced. However it was stated that the proposals should be reviewed to create a development which would sit within the street scene.
After consideration of the officer's report, Councillor Paul Scott proposed and Councillor Pat Clouder seconded a motion for REFUSAL, on the grounds of inappropriate form of development, failing to fit comfortably within the street scene and reflect the local character of the area, and the Committee voted 5 in favour, 1 absention, so planning permission was REFUSED for development at 36 Brighton Road, Purley CR8 2LG.