Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2017 as an accurate record.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held 14 December 2017 be signed as a correct record.

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act, Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that it is a requirement to register disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) and gifts and hospitality to the value of which exceeds £50 or multiple gifts and/or instances of hospitality with a cumulative value of £50 or more when received from a single donor within a rolling twelve month period. In addition, Members and co-opted Members are reminded that unless their disclosable pecuniary interest is registered on the register of interests or is the subject of a pending notification to the Monitoring Officer, they are required to disclose those disclosable pecuniary interests at the meeting. This should be done by completing the Disclosure of Interest form and handing it to the Democratic Services representative at the start of the meeting. The Chair will then invite Members to make their disclosure orally at the commencement of Agenda item 3. Completed disclosure forms will be provided to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion on the Register of Members’ Interests.

There were no disclosures of a pecuniary interest not already registered.

To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.

There was none.

To consider the accompanying reports by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport:

Erection of part single/two storey building comprising 2x2 bedroom flats, provision of associated cycle and refuse storage and landscaping.

Ward: Upper Norwood

Recommendation: Grant permission

Erection of part single/two storey building comprising 2x 2 bedroom flats, provision of associated cycle and refuse storage and landscaping.

Ward: Upper Norwood

Following the officers’ presentation, Committee Members asked questions on whether the site was located within a conservation area and were informed the boundary of the conservation area ran along the boundary of the site. In response to Member questions officers informed the Committee that the windows on the ground floor would look onto the street scene or rest of the site.

Members stated the layout of the site was unusual as part of the land would remained fenced off and queried what the ongoing maintenance of the site would be and whether it could be maintained by a community group. Officers stated that the applicant intended to maintain the land and that there would be a condition in place to ensure continued maintenance happened, however discussions could be held with the applicant with the regards to a community group maintaining the land.

Judy Ching and Bill Baylis, speaking in objection, raised the following points:

·         That while the applicant had sought to resolve previous design issues there would continue to be a loss of privacy

·         There would be overshadowing

·         Ambiguity with regards to the height of the building

·         Impact on the view of neighbours

·         A light impact report was being sought in respect to the common law right to natural light

·         Resident amenity had not been considered

·         Wildlife habitat would be lost

Shahjahan Khan, the applicant, raised the following points:

·         Property had no current use and had been vacant for 10 years

·         Flytipping had been experienced at the site

·         Previous applications for larger schemes had been rejected

·         Heritage officers and daylight specialists had been consulted

·         There was a 1.7m boundary along the back wall which people would be unable to see over

·         Proposed dwelling on first floor level will not impact on the privacy of neighbours

·         Period railings would run across the entire site and would be maintained

·         Nine Grade A trees would be planted

·         The proposal would enhance the conservation area

The Head of Planning stated that while there would be an impact on daylight and outlook it was the responsibility of planning to assess whether the impact would be reasonable. Officers stated that they had worked with the applicant to develop a scheme that would be more sensitive to the conservation area and would continue to work with the developer on how the additional land could be used.

The Committee noted that the land was a site that should be developed and that the proposal was modest and reflected the architecture of the surrounding area. Members stated that it would be important to ensure the land was properly managed and suggested a community group could be approached to maintain it in future.

The concerns of residents with regards to loss of daylight were acknowledged, however it was felt that the impact would not be unreasonable to warrant refusal.

After consideration of the officer's report, Councillor Paul  ...  view the full minutes text for item A5/18