Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Richard Butt and for lateness from Councillor Colin Hall.

held on 3 September 2009

The Minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2009 were agreed as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.

Report of Executive Head of Planning & Transportation

Further to Minute 32/09, the results of the consultation with residents most affected by the proposed use of part of the former playing fields by Highview Primary School were reported.  Around 240 properties had received a leaflet and Freepost questionnaire seeking their views on the 3 options over a 4 week period ending 31 August 2009.  51 responses had been received, details of which were set out in a Schedule of Responses circulated with the report.  An additional response from the Sheen Way Residents Association was tabled at the meeting.

A large majority of respondees (36) had been in favour of Option 2, although not all of them had favoured the exclusive use of any area by the school.  There had been a common misunderstanding by a small number of respondents that the primary school had previously had regular use of the site that had been withdrawn in the past.

In principle, use of part of the site as a permanent school playing field would not be incompatible with the overall proposals for the site, as there could be a section of the local park fenced off to prevent problems with dog fouling. 

In view of the majority view, it was suggested that the school could be allowed to have exclusive use of the area specified in Option 1 on a permanent basis and use of the additional areas in Option2 for a temporary period of 3 years.  This temporary use would be reviewed when the council was in a position to implement its long-term proposals for the site, as set out in the draft Site Development Policies DPD.  This temporary use would be subject to a clear undertaking from the school that the additional land would be returned to the council and identifying their responsibility for the costs of fencing/re-fencing and maintaining the enclosed areas.

Members were concerned about what would happen at the end of the temporary period.  Cllr Colin Hall pointed out that there were other junior football pitches in the vicinity, although Sheen Way was more convenient for the school.  Members were also assured that, if they were minded to endorse the school’s request, appropriate safeguards could be put in place, in the form of a formal legal agreement, which would ensure that the council’s long-term proposals for the site would not be jeopardised.

Resolved: (i) To note the outcome of the public consultation:

(ii) To RECOMMEND the Asset Management Advisory Group to recommend to The Executive that Highview Primary School be allowed to use part of the former Sheen Way playing fields as soon as is reasonably practicable, as described in paragraph 4.1 of the report, subject to the completion of a formal legal agreement between the council and the school to safeguard the council’s interest in the land and clarify the school’s responsibility for the costs of fencing/re-fencing and maintaining the enclosed areas.

Report of Executive Head of Planning & Transportation

Further to Minute 14/09, Bob Gordon presented the results of the public consultation on the Sutton Town Centre AAP Preferred Options document.  There had been a reasonable response to the extensive consultation.  A total of 405 representation points had been made by 112 respondents, details of which were set out in the Schedule of Responses that had been circulated with the report, together with the officer’s comments/recommendations.

131 of the representations received were in support, 135 were objections and 139 were observations/general comments.  Bob highlighted the main, substantive issues that had been raised.  It was noted that significant numbers of residents had objected to the proposed removal and relocation of the St Nicholas Church Hall into a new Civic Complex.  Bob explained that this idea had come from the council’s urban design consultants, and had been included for consultation purposes only.  He suggested that this proposal should not be taken forward into the next stage of the document. 

A significant number of respondents had supported the idea of family friendly evening activities in the Civic Quarter.  Members discussed the definition of ‘family friendly activities’ and what this meant in reality.  There was still a perception that Sutton Town Centre was not a safe place to visit in the evenings.  The long-term objective was to encourage and attract a wider range of people to visit between 5pm and 8pm.  As a first step a variety of attractions and events were being planned as part of the Town Centre Renewal Project.

A lot of work still needed to be done to support and evidence the final proposals in the AAP, including meetings with landowners and stakeholders.  More research was required, including detailed investigation of the potential development sites, a brief heritage review, to address concerns expressed by English Heritage and a review of the Gyratory system to assess the scope for sharing space and other changes, including suggestions for 2-way working. 

Given this additional work, the agreed programme for producing the Submission Version of the document was no longer realistic.  A revised programme would be submitted to the Advisory Group in November 2009, following receipt of the GLA’s comments on the draft Revised Local Development Scheme.  A report on the next stage of the AAP would be submitted to the Advisory Group in March 2010.

Whilst acknowledging the resource issues in the Strategic Planning team, the Chair stressed the importance of progressing the AAP as quickly as could be achieved so that it could be used in determining planning applications to ensure that the council’s vision for the Town Centre was not undermined.

Resolved: (i) To note the detailed Schedule of Responses in Appendix 2 to the report, which sets out officers’ views and recommendations in relation to each representation point, and will be used as the basis for preparing the final stage of the Sutton Town Centre Area Action Plan;

(ii) To endorse the broad approach to the main issues raised during the public consultation, as set out in the report;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Report of Executive Head of Planning & Transportation

Further to Minute 31/09, Duncan Clarke presented a summary of the comments received on the Additional Sites Document, which was a supplementary consultation to the Site Development Policies DPD Preferred Options Document. 

55 representation points had been received from 42 respondees.  Details of these were set out in an Appendix to the report, together with the officer’s comments and recommendations. 

It was noted that English Heritage had advised that Site D3: Royal Marsden Hospital, Downs Road, Belmont, was in an archaeological priority area.  In addition, Natural England had raised nature conservation issues relating to this site.  In recognition of this, Cllr Whitham suggested that the wording should be amended to state that “It is proposed to progress the Preferred Option to a potential site allocation in the Proposed Submission version of the Site Development Policies DPD, subject to the satisfactory resolution of the issues raised by English Heritage and Natural England”.

Respondees had supported the Preferred Option proposal for site D4: Sutton United Football Ground, Gander Green Lane, Sutton.  John James, Chairman of the SUFC supporters club, commented that a number of the Club’s supporters, although in support of the proposals, had found it difficult to navigate through the council’s on-line consultation system to register their support.

Resolved: To note the comments received and endorse the actions proposed for each site, as set out in paragraph 2 of the report, subject to the satisfactory resolution of the issues raised by English Heritage and Natural England with regard to Site D3: Royal Marsden Hospital.

Report of Executive Head of Planning & Transportation

Further to Minutes 75/08 and 23/09, Keith Fraser presented a report detailing the responses received to the consultations on the Site Development Policies DPD Preferred Options Document.  Around 830 representations had been received from more than 200 respondents.  Of these, approximately 350 had been objections, 280 were in support and almost 200 were observations.  The individual responses were set out in an Appendix, attached to the report, together with officers’ responses and recommendations. 

Keith highlighted the key issues that had been raised.  These comprised 3 areas: policies; sites; and map changes.  In particular, he drew attention to the responses from the Government Office for London and the GLA.  Officers would be meeting GLA representatives the next day to discuss these and try to find a way forward.  It was noted that the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) issue had been dealt with by way of the Examination in Public on the Core Planning Strategy.  The outcome of this was reported elsewhere on the agenda.

A revised Schedule of Proposed Site Allocations with Deleted Sites was also tabled.

Members were invited to comment on the issues and officers’ recommendations, which would form the basis for preparing the next stage of the DPD.

One of the main areas of concern had been in relation to the policies dealing with Achieving Environmental Sustainability and, in particular, the advanced timescale for requiring sustainable homes and businesses.  Officers had suggested inserting the words “where feasible” within policy DM6 at appropriate places to help address these concerns.  However, they were now minded not to do this, but to bring back proposals to the next meeting of the Advisory Group for consideration.  Members discussed the issue agreed that the council should be seeking to achieve the highest possible standards.  Cllr Colin Hall suggested that they should ask the Homes & Communities Agency for advice regarding the costs and feasibility of requiring developers to achieve the Code 6 sustainability standard, as they had experience in this area.

Officers had met the PCT and spoken to other representatives to discuss the future health requirements on the Sutton Hospital site.  It appeared that the move to St Helier was highly likely go ahead, so this land would be surplus to the PCT’s requirements.  However, decisions relating to the Chiltern Wing were some way off.  A revised, proposed site allocation plan with a preferred use of Mixed Use: Residential and Health was tabled, which recognised that the PCT wanted a large GP facility within the site.  Members were assured that the area adjacent to the Marsden would only come for residential development if it was not required by the Marsden for expansion. 

Cllr Graham Whitham drew attention to the objection he had submitted to the PCT’s proposals for this site, which he said failed to meet their stated objectives of “Better Healthcare Close to Home” and “Improving Outcomes for Patients”.  He emphasised, however, that his argument was with the PCT and not with the council’s Planning Team, which could only work with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Report of Executive Head of Planning & Transportation

The Inspector’s final Report of the Examination into the Draft Core Planning Strategy had been received.  The Inspector’s conclusion was that the Strategy was sound and should be adopted, subject to a number of changes.  The key change required was the need to delete all references to the de-designation and development of Metropolitan Open Land in the Beddington, Hackbridge and Kimpton areas.

In order to meet required adoption procedures, it was intended to bring a full report on the outcome of the Inspector’s considerations, alongside a copy of the final version of the Core Planning Strategy and Proposals Map for formal approval for adoption to the Advisory Group on 6 October 2009, The Executive on 3 November 2009 and full Council on 7 December 2009.

Officers proposed publishing the Inspector’s Report in advance of the formal adoption procedures.

Resolved: (i) To note the receipt of the Inspector’s Report and that a full report will be presented to PAG at its meeting on 6 October 2009;

(ii) To endorse the proposed distribution arrangements set out in the report for the Inspector’s Report in advance of the formal adoption procedures.

Resolved: To note that the next meeting will be held on Tuesday, 6 October 2009, starting at 7:30pm.