of the meeting held on 27 June 2012 (ENCLOSURE).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2012 were approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.

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

                                                                                                                        (to follow)

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a first floor side extension and the formation of a water permeable parking area.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To grant (7)                Councillors Sheila Andrews, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Bruce Glithero, John Leach, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. B2012/65805/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 installation of photovoltaic solar panels on the existing School roof.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant a lawful development certificate was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To grant (7)                Councillors Sheila Andrews, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Bruce Glithero, John Leach, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That a lawful development certificate be granted in respect of application No. B2012/65634/CPU, for the reasons and 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 erection of a single storey extension to enlarge an existing classroom.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To grant (7)                Councillors Sheila Andrews, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Bruce Glithero, John Leach, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. D2012/65956/3FR, 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 installation of photovoltaic solar panels on the existing School roof.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to refuse a lawful development certificate was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To refuse (7)             Councillors Sheila Andrews, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Bruce Glithero, John Leach, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That a lawful development certificate be refused for application No. B2012/65635/CPU, for the reasons and and 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 erection of a single storey rear extension to provide a replacement bathroom.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To grant (7)                Councillors Sheila Andrews, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Bruce Glithero, John Leach, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. C2011/65338/3FR, 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 retrospective application for the erection of a single storey rear extension to provide a replacement bathroom.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To grant (7)                Councillors Sheila Andrews, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Bruce Glithero, John Leach, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. C2011/65288/3FR, 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 erection of a single storey rear extension to provide a replacement bathroom.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To grant (7)                Councillors Sheila Andrews, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Bruce Glithero, John Leach, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. C2011/65289/3FR, 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 erection of a single storey rear extension to provide a replacement bathroom.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To grant (7)                Councillors Sheila Andrews, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Bruce Glithero, John Leach, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. C2011/65486/3FR, 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).

                                                                                                                        (to follow)

The Committee considered a report on the above application to vary conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission A1999/45325, allowed on appeal, to permit an extension to the opening hours of 0800 to 1800 hours, Monday to Friday, and to permit an increase in the number of children allowed on the premises from 15 to no more than 26 children and four members of staff at any one time.

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Jonathan Pritchard.

Officers reported the receipt of a further objection on the grounds of traffic and parking, subsequent to the publication of their report.

In response to questions officers explained that a displayed internal photograph did not show the total area of the nursery, and that Ofsted inspectors had expressed a view that the nursery could accommodate up to 26 children.

Mr Duncan Prior, an objector, and Councillor Jonathan Pritchard, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and Mr E Nicholas replied for the applicant.

The principal issues raised by Mr Prior were:-

·         There were many written objections of the harm and suffering caused to residents

·         Permission should not be granted if it would adversely affect the amenities of adjoining residents

·         Officers’ reasoning was fundamentally flawed

·         It was not credible that 26 children would not make more noise than 15

·         Complaints had been made to environmental health officers but they had not acted whilst a decision on the application was outstanding

·         It was necessary to limit the number of staff and children to manage the noise level

·         The existing conditions should be enforced

·         Residents had respected the law and engaged with the planning process

In response to questions Mr Prior explained that there had been no obvious activity at the premises until December 2010 and no effect on residents until children used the garden in May 2011; that enforcement action had not been taken whilst the application was being considered so there had been no point in complaining further; that young children lived in adjoining houses; and that the applicant had not made any effort to communicate with local residents.

The principal issues raised by Councillor Pritchard were:-

·         The proposed intensification of use was incompatible with a residential area

·         It would create a precedent in an Area of Special Local Character

·         The previous application had only been granted on appeal

·         Noise concerns had been allayed by the restriction on the number of children

·         The applicant was in breach of existing conditions

·         Officers had cited an unacceptable diminution in amenity

·         There had been an unreasonable delay in dealing with the application

·         Granting permission would reward the breach of planning conditions

The principal issues raised by Mr Nicholas were:-

·         A maximum of six children arrived at 7.30 am and so any highway obstruction would only be for ten minutes

·         All parents were asked not to obstruct driveways

·         Ofsted had reviewed the premises and increased the number of children permitted to 26

·         Children arriving at 7.30 am remained indoors

·         Outdoor play was from 9.30  ...  view the full minutes text for item 700.

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

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the extension of the existing waste management centre comprising the construction of a plant for the anaerobic digestion of household waste and two additional gas engines, the lateral extension of landfill activity to encompass a lagoon, the export of clay from the base of the existing landfill phases and formation of a temporary clay stockpile, revisions to the landfill phasing plan, and the extension of the duration of waste management activities at the site to 2023.

Officers reported the receipt of further representations subsequent to the publication of their report, from Wandle Valley Regional Park Trust, Hackbridge and Beddington Corner Neighbourhood Development Group and Councillor John Drage.  The representations proposed the further improvement of the ‘section 106’ agreement and broader representation on the Conservation and Access Management Committee.

Mr Ian John for the applicant, in responding to questions under Standing Order 31, explained that smells in the area emanated from the sewage plant operated by Thames Water and not the application site, and that the proposed gas engines were required to manage the accumulated gas.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To grant (6)                Councillors Sheila Andrews, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Bruce Glithero, John Leach and Graham Whitham.

Abstained (1)            Councillor Tony Shields.

            Resolved: That the decision in Minute 416c/08 to grant planning permission for application No. D2005/54794/FUL be confirmed, subject to (a) the written conclusion of the revised ‘section 106’ agreement now reported 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 application for the erection of a detached four-bedroom single storey dwelling with roof accommodation and integral garage.

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Peter Geiringer on behalf of Councillor Pamela Picknett.

Officers submitted additional recommended conditions in response to the applicant’s submission of an energy statement and a pre-assessment for the Code for Sustainable Homes.

In response to questions officers explained that, apart from some Edwardian properties, there was no discernible plot size or style in the area, and consequently no typical building height.  They emphasised that most of the proposed development had been approved and the only issue was the proposed second storey over the newly constructed garage; and clarified the height of the garage flank wall and its distance from the boundary and the rear wall of No. 11 Cornwall Road.  They acknowledged that there would be an impact on No. 11 Cornwall Road.

Mrs Kate Collings, an objector, and Councillor Peter Geiringer, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31.

The principal issues raised by Mrs Collings were:-

·         No. 11 Cornwall Road was occupied by her elderly parents

·         Their only outside space was a small terrace adjoining the flank boundary of No. 13 Cornwall Road

·         The planning consent had required the original garage to be retained

·         The original garage had been demolished and foundations laid for a larger garage

·         The flank wall was wider and higher than the original, and over-bearing

·         The flank garage wall caused over-shadowing and loss of sunlight

·         Proposed Velux windows in the roof would reduce the privacy enjoyed by her parents

·         The proposal would adversely affect adjoining properties and lead to a loss of amenity.

In response to questions officers explained that the first stage in responding to the breach of planning control had been to invite the applicant to submit a planning application to retain what had been built.

The principal issues raised by Councillor Geiringer were:-

·         The development did not accord with the planning consent

·         The amenity of adjoining residents was adversely affected and their outlook destroyed

·         Overlooking led to a loss of privacy

·         Adjoining properties needed to use artificial light during the day

·         Loss of sunlight

·         There had been errors in the submitted drawings

·         The development encroached on the garden of No. 11 Cornwall Road

·         The only outside space of No. 11 Cornwall Road was overlooked by the new garage wall

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To grant (0)               

Against (7)                 Councillors Sheila Andrews, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Bruce Glithero, John Leach, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

A poll vote on a motion to refuse permission on the grounds that the bulk, height and close proximity to neighbouring properties would lead to an unacceptable loss of light and outlook for those properties was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To refuse (7)             Councillors Sheila Andrews,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 702.

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

The Committee considered a report on the above application for demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of two four-bedroom detached houses fronting Sandy Lane South, each with an integral garage, two parking spaces and new vehicular access off Sandy Lane South; the erection of a detached four-bedroom house with attached double garage and two parking spaces fronting Tudor Close; the provision of a bin storage area for the proposed houses and the existing dwellings in Tudor Close; together with resurfacing and widening of Tudor Close.

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Joyce Melican.

Officers submitted an amended recommended condition relating to the widening of Tudor Close.

In response to questions officers acknowledged that the study in the proposed houses could be used as a bedroom; and confirmed that the proposed parking provision exceeded the Council’s minimum standard and that the applicant owned the roadway of Tudor Close.

Mr Malcolm Flegg, an objector, and Councillor Joyce Melican, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31.

The principal issues raised by Mr Flegg were:-

·         Residents accepted the re-development of the existing bungalow, but a third house would be over-development

·         The width of Tudor Close would be too narrow to enable vehicles to pass

·         The exit from Tudor Close would be a ‘blind’ junction

·         More vehicles would use the Tudor Close access

·         The increased width of Tudor Close would be of no use

·         The applicant should install a proper road and footpath

·         Overlooking

·         Loss of daylight

·         Enforcement of the conditions

The principal issues raised by Councillor Melican were:-

·         Residents had submitted a petition and letters of objection

·         The first application had been withdrawn

·         Residents would be content with two houses fronting Sandy Lane South but not a third

·         Increased traffic and parking

·         The exit from Tudor Close

·         Loss of light and overlooking

·         The increased width of Tudor Close would be insufficient for two cars to pass

·         Safety of residents where Tudor Close egressed onto Sandy Lane South

·         The fall in the ground level meant the new houses would be higher

In response to a question officers explained that a visibility splay could not be achieved on the north side of Tudor Close and that was shown clearly in submitted drawings.

Members considered that the point about over-development of the site had been well made.  They noted that the application site was near an area of special local character and suggested that any development should respect the context and character of the area.  They also expressed some concerns about the width of Tudor Close.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To grant (0)               

Against (7)                 Councillors Sheila Andrews, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Bruce Glithero, John Leach, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

A poll vote on a motion to refuse permission on the grounds that the proposal would constitute an over-development that was out of character with neighbouring properties and would provide inadequate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 703.

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

The Committee considered a report on the above application for a replacement planning permission to extend the time limit for implementation of application No. A2009/60862/FUL for the erection of a detached two-bedroom bungalow with garage, two parking spaces and new access from Colborne Way.

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Stuart Gordon-Bullock.

Officers reported that, subsequent to their report, the Council’s biodiversity manager had not raised any objection, subject to the recommended condition requiring a detailed ecological survey and any appropriate mitigation measures.

Councillor Stuart Gordon-Bullock, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31.

The principal issues raised by Councillor Gordon-Bullock were:-

·         An environmental impact assessment had not been carried out

·         Neighbours were concerned about the number of planning applications submitted over many years

·         The applicant did not own all of the properties that comprised the application site

To grant (7)                Councillors Sheila Andrews, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Bruce Glithero, John Leach, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. A2012/65747/RPA, 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 seeking confirmation of the above tree preservation order made on 30 January 2012, which had had immediate effect under section 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  The order protected one Pine tree in the rear garden of Rutland House.

The Council had received objections from the owners of Rutland House Care Home.

The Pine tree was approximately eight metres from the rear of the main house.  It was a mature specimen, measuring approximately 18 metres in height and appeared to be in a satisfactory condition, exhibiting no serious signs of disease or structural defect.  The tree was visible from several public view points and was considered to have high public amenity value.

The objections, which were reported, were the unreasonable extent of property maintenance necessitated by the tree; bird droppings led to a slip, trip and fall hazard for the elderly residents and so restricted their access to the rear garden; and the wellbeing of the tree would be at the expense of the wellbeing of the elderly residents of Rutland House.  Whilst officers were not unsympathetic to those views the level of maintenance and the provision of a safe environment were part of the routine management of the property and not considered unreasonable.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to confirm the order was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To confirm

the order (7)              Councillors Sheila Andrews, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Bruce Glithero, John Leach, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That tree preservation order No. 2012/02 be confirmed without modification.

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

The Committee considered a report on the above application for demolition of the existing building and the erection of a four storey building comprising 74.3m² of office floor space at ground floor with six one-bedroom flats above, the provision of bicycle and refuse stores and three associated car parking spaces at the rear.

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Pamela Picknett.

In response to questions officers explained that the Public Transport Accessibility Level was not assessed solely on the basis of the frequency of public transport or its destination; and that the decision on the application could not anticipate the implementation of a controlled parking zone in Belmont.

Mr Peter Mattey, an objector, and Councillor Peter Geiringer, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and Mr Jonathan Leeson replied for the applicant.

The principal issues raised by Mr Mattey were:-

·         Parking was at a premium in the area

·         A controlled parking zone was proposed

·         Public transport was not good

·         An application in respect of the adjoining site had been refused because of a lack of parking

·         Residents would be displaced

·         There was no off-street parking available

·         Only two parking spaces were proposed for six flats and offices

·         The application site was in a family orientated area that needed family accommodation

The principal issues raised by Councillor Geiringer were:-

·         The area had been developed when there were no cars

·         Office workers would arrive by car

·         Only two spaces were proposed for six flats

·         There was no off-street parking in the area

·         Public transport in Belmont could not be compared with that in Sutton

·         The Public Transport Accessibility Level could not be accepted

·         The application should be refused because of the lack of available parking

The principal issues raised by Mr Leeson were:-

·         The parking provision conformed with central government policy

·         The flats were one-bedroom and designed for young people or elderly people who were down-sizing

·         The claim that all of the flat owners would have cars was disputed

·         There was the possibility that purchasers would choose to offer the flats for rent

Members noted the public transport issue and considered that, on the whole, the design was acceptable.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To grant (5)                Councillors Sheila Andrews, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Bruce Glithero and John Leach.

Against (2)                 Councillors Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

            Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. B2012/65739/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.

The time being 10.37 pm, consideration of the remaining item of business was adjourned until the next meeting of the Committee in accordance with Standing Order 23.2.