of the meeting held on 21 July 2010 (ENCLOSURE).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2010 were approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a detached two storey building comprising six additional classrooms with office and storage accommodation.

In response to questions officers explained that the cantilevered balcony would be on the playground side of the proposed building, which would provide an acoustic barrier and so it was unlikely to create a noise nuisance; that it was difficult to get a true impression of the proposed east elevation from a two dimensional drawing; that it was believed none of the houses in Warwick Road would suffer from a loss of light when calculated using accepted measurement methods; that any loss of outlook for local residents had to be balanced against the benefits of the proposed development to the School; that a recommended condition provided for crime prevention measures; and that the potential loss of two trees had to be balanced against the deterrence of anti-social behaviour and maximising the area of the playground.  The School’s intentions, if any, to use the proposed building outside school hours were not known.

Mr Tony Phelan, an objector, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33, and Mr Gordon Ironside replied for the applicant.

The principal issues raised by Mr Phelan were:-

• Residents had been consulted on only one night in winter
• At present the properties in Warwick Road were three metres from the existing building, including a 1.5 metre public footpath
• The existing railing on the School’s boundary should remain and the proposed building be constructed within the boundary
• The proposed building would overshadow 50% of the area of the gardens in Warwick Road
• Roof lights in the proposed building would be opened and lead to increased noise
• The School had become a business from 6 am to 10 pm each day
• The proposed building should be constructed on the same line as the existing building to avoid the loss of two trees
• The School used the playground for sport instead of its own sports hall

In response to questions officers explained that, although the proposed building was shown as being constructed on the boundary, the School intended to have planting against the new wall.  The proposed planting needed to be confirmed but it would not be able to encroach on the public footpath.

The principal issues raised by Mr Ironside were:-

• The School was short of specialist accommodation and some classrooms were too small
• The School had developed a master plan to meet its needs, which envisaged building on the perimeter of the site rather than creating one large building
• Some grants for building development were time limited
• The ability of the proposed building to create an acoustic barrier had been considered an attraction
• The School would support a gated footpath on its boundary
• The police were satisfied with the crime prevention details of the proposal
• The proposed sedum roof was considered to be attractive
• The design had been developed to meet the School’s needs and to meet comments
• There would be no openable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 567.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report on the above application for an extension to the existing boiler house to provide a new heat and power enclosure, and the provision of a new chimney.

Members noted that the extension was proposed because the applicant had found that, subsequent to the granting of application No. B2009/61594/FUL below, it would be impractical to locate the proposed combined heat and power plant in the basement of that development.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 33.4, when there voted:

To grant (8)                Councillors Moira Butt, Monica Coleman, Adrian Davey, Lester Holloway, Edward Joyce, John Leach, Stan Theed and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. B2010/62866/FUL, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report on amendments to the above previously approved application for the erection of a two storey building with basement and roof level plant accommodation, with an inner courtyard to provide a centre for molecular pathology, together with 44 car parking spaces, bicycle and motor cycle facilities.

Councillor Pamela Picknett, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33.

The principal issue raised by Councillor Picknett was that, although local residents supported the work of the Royal Marsden Hospital, they still had concerns about car parking in the area, which they believed were to have been resolved through a ‘section 106’ agreement.  Officers explained that their recommendation was to grant permission on the same basis as before, subject to the omission of the proposed combined heat and power plant and consequential amendments to the recommended conditions.  The proposed ‘section 106’ agreement would provide funding for a controlled parking zone in Belmont.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 33.4, when there voted:

To grant (8)                Councillors Moira Butt, Monica Coleman, Adrian Davey, Lester Holloway, Edward Joyce, John Leach, Stan Theed and Graham Whitham.

            Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. B2009/61594/FUL, subject to (a) the written conclusion of a ‘section 106’ agreement within a period of six months from the date of this decision, or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation, after which time the decision to grant planning permission will be rescinded; and (b) the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report on the above outline application to determine access, layout, scale and appearance for a single storey building to provide a gospel hall with associated 111 space car and coach park; and access only to be determined for a two storey building to provide an 80 bedroom care home with nursing care for the elderly and associated car parking.

Officers submitted a draft decision notice based on their recommendation to grant permission.

In response to questions officers explained that the location of the proposed care home and access road at present conflicted with the proposed access to the school to be built on the adjoining site, but that an access road as shown in the application was capable of meeting the needs of both developments.  The school would not be able to open until the access was provided and separate discussions were taking place with a view to changing the alignment of the school access road.  Most of the concerns about traffic on Woodmansterne Road and parking would be addressed in recommended conditions if permission were granted.

Mr Kevin Stanley addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33 on behalf of the applicant.

The principal issues raised by Mr Stanley were:-

• The proposed development met the policies and objectives of the new Local Development Framework
• The proposed development represented a considerable investment for the community; and would provide employment, education and nursing care in the Borough

In response to questions Mr Stanley explained that the architect of the proposed care home had worked with social services to meet the needs of Sutton residents and to comply with all relevant standards.  Large capacity events in the proposed gospel hall would be by invitation only.  Parking in conjunction with those events would not be permitted in Woodmansterne Road and invitees would be asked to use large capacity vehicles.  There would normally be fewer than six such events each year.  There were no parking difficulties at the site of the existing gospel hall.

Some members had concerns that the use of the proposed access road by the applicant and the new school could conflict, and noted that other uses in the area also sought to expand.  They also had reservations about the care home use, increased traffic and the availability of the access road in time for the opening of the new school.  However it was noted that a previous application had shown the expected line of the access road as now proposed.  In any event, if necessary the Council could use its compulsory purchase powers to secure the school access.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 33.4, when there voted:

To grant (6)                Councillors Monica Coleman, Adrian Davey, Lester Holloway, Edward Joyce, John Leach and Stan Theed.

To refuse (1)              Councillor Graham Whitham.

Abstained (1)             Councillor Moira Butt.

            Resolved: That if there is no adverse direction by the Mayor of London planning permission be granted for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 569.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report on the above application to vary condition No. 6 of planning permission D2000/46759/DET for details of siting, design, landscaping, external appearance and means of access of three buildings for uses falling within Class B1 (business), B2 (general industry) and B8 (storage and distribution) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, together with ancillary office accommodation, service areas, car parking and access from Beddington Lane and Therapia Lane (details pursuant to application No. D99/45387/OUT); to read “Site investigation and remediation strategy: the development site shall be remediated in accordance with the measures outlined within the ground water monitoring report and the remediation measures as approved on 30 March 2010 pursusant to condition No. 6 of outline planning permission D99/45387/OUT”.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 33.4, when there voted:

To grant (8)                Councillors Moira Butt, Monica Coleman, Adrian Davey, Lester Holloway, Edward Joyce, John Leach, Stan Theed and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. D2010/62850/FUL, subject to the informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the use of the premises for purposes falling within Class A3 (restaurants and cafes) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005 (as amended) and installation of an extract duct at the rear.

Ms Angela Brandwijk addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33 on behalf of the applicant.

The principal issues raised by Ms Brandwijk were:-

• It was intended to open the premises as a coffee shop
• The premises would not be open in the evening
• There was a greater concentration of eating establishments on the other side of Wallington Railway Station than in the area of the application site

Members expressed differing views on whether or not there was an over concentration of eating establishments in the area of the application site.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 33.4, when there voted:

To grant (6)                Councillors Moira Butt, Adrian Davey, Lester Holloway, Edward Joyce, John Leach and Graham Whitham.

Abstained (2)             Councillors Monica Coleman and Stan Theed.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. D2010/62760/FUL, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the use of the premises for purposes falling within Class A5 (hot food takeaway) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005 (as amended), the provision of an extract duct, air conditioning/compressor unit and fresh air intake at the rear, and the installation of a new shop front.

In response to questions officers explained that peak demand for the proposed use was expected to be in the evening, when it was felt there would be sufficient parking spaces available; that it would be difficult to create a dedicated parking space for use by the applicant; that if permission were granted for the application it would not endorse parking on the footway, which could be enforced; that it was believed that the proposal would not inconvenience local residents; and that it was assumed that objectors’ concerns about security referred to residents’ shared access to the rear of the premises with the applicant.

Mr Peter Fisher, an objector, and Councillor Richard Clifton, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33, and Mr Richard Unwin replied for the applicant.

The principal issues raised by Mr Fisher were:-

• Refuse bins from premises at the rear were brought outside his bedroom window for collection
• Refuse left at the rear of the premises harboured flies and rats
• One refuse bin was shown on the application plan but the applicant’s other premises in the area had four
• Waste from the nearby Tesco store was left at the front of their premises
• Residents at the rear of the premises would suffer from increased noise
• It was hoped that delivery mopeds would not park at the rear of the premises
• There was no parking available in the area at all in the evening
• The application did not represent a suitable use of the premises

The principal issues raised by Councillor Clifton were:-

• There were a significant number of objections to the application
• The delivery mopeds would create noise and disturbance
• A similar previous application had been refused because of the lack of parking
• Delivery mopeds would end up parked on the footway
• There was no room for more refuse to be stored at the rear of the premises
• A lot of refuse from existing premises was placed in domestic bins

The principal issues raised by Mr Unwin were:-

• There had been long discussions to meet planning, environmental health and highways requirements
• The main activity would be between 6.30 pm and 10.30 pm, which did not coincide with heavy traffic
• There would be sufficient space for additional refuse bins if necessary
• The proposed use would not create a lot of waste
• Deliveries would be limited to one pallet three times each week
• The proposed use would not create additional noise
• The rear of the premises were secure and could not be used by delivery vehicles
• Deliveries would be made to the loading bay at the front of the premises
• The proposed use would create fewer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 572.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

Further to Minute 456/10, the Committee considered a report on the above retrospective application for the demolition of the existing dwellings and the erection of a part two, part three, part four storey building comprising 31 one-bedroom and eleven two-bedroom self-contained flats for the elderly, with manager and guest accommodation, communal and ancillary facilities, refuse store, 14 car parking spaces and vehicular access onto Woodbourne Gardens.

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Colin Hall.

The Committee had previously deferred consideration of the application pending the submission of further information regarding the valuation.

Officers confirmed that they had examined the applicant’s valuation of the development, which showed that there would not be sufficient profit to meet the ‘section 106’ charge, and could not see any reason to oppose that valuation.  Basic financial information of the costs incurred and the applicant’s estimated prices for each completed unit were given.  However members believed that the information lacked sufficient detail for them to reach a conclusion that supported the applicant’s assertion.

Mr Andrew Burgess and Mr Greg Hilton addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33 on behalf of the applicant.

The principal issues raised by Messrs Burgess and Hilton were:-

• The various costs for land, interest charges, building, marketing and profit added up and the prices that could now be achieved for each unit precluded payment of the ‘section 106’ contribution
• The application had been in keeping with planning policy at the time
• All the evidence was that the scheme as approved was no longer viable
• Deferring a decision would exacerbate the situation
• It was legitimate to seek to re-negotiate the ‘section 106’ contribution

Members expressed surprise that the applicant was proceeding with a scheme that was claimed to be totally unprofitable and had not offered a proposal to pay any of the ‘section 106’ contribution; and they suggested that the Committee’s stance, to require the submission of detailed financial evidence to support the applicant’s claim, was reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

The Chair proposed that consideration of the application be deferred pending the submission of detailed financial appraisals for the scheme by both the applicant and the Council’s officers.

A poll vote on a motion to defer consideration of the application was held in accordance with Standing Order 33.4, when there voted:

To defer (7)                Councillors Moira Butt, Adrian Davey, Lester Holloway, Edward Joyce, John Leach, Stan Theed and Graham Whitham.

            Resolved: That consideration of application No. D2010/62215/FUL be deferred pending the submission of detailed financial appraisals for the scheme by both the applicant and the Council’s officers.

Councillor Monica Coleman had previously made representations on the above application and therefore did not speak or vote on it, but remained present.