The Planning Committee meeting on 10 June 2026 discussed several planning applications. The committee refused an application for refuse and cycle stores at 1-24 Jengar Close due to significant resident objections regarding its location and impact on amenity. The committee also granted permission for the retention of a change of use to a four-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 5 Gainsborough Terrace, despite resident concerns. The committee refused planning permission for a restaurant and residential units at 33-35 The Broadway, Cheam, citing concerns over design, bulk, and housing mix.

Refuse and Cycle Stores at Jengar Close

The committee refused an application for refuse and cycle stores at 1-24 Jengar Close. Residents overwhelmingly objected to the proposal, primarily due to the proposed location of the bin store, which they argued would be too close to residential windows and entrances, causing issues with fire safety, evacuation, noise, disruption, and cleanliness. Concerns were also raised about the potential for increased rat populations and the impact on local wildlife, such as hedgehogs. Residents stated that the current bin storage was sufficient and questioned the necessity of the new facilities, especially as a previous application for additional floors on the blocks had been rejected. Councillor Richard Choy, the ward councillor, supported the residents' objections, highlighting the disaster of the bin store's location and urging for it to be relocated. The applicant's representative argued that the stores were intended to enhance facilities and were consistent with council guidance. Despite the officer's recommendation to grant permission, the committee voted to refuse the application, agreeing that the location of the bin store would adversely affect the amenities of the occupiers due to refuse accumulation, unpleasant odours, and noise, contrary to Policy 29 of the Sutton Local Plan.

Change of Use to HMO at 5 Gainsborough Terrace

The committee granted permission for the retention of a change of use from a family dwelling to a four-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 5 Gainsborough Terrace. While the application received over 10 objections, the officer's recommendation was to grant permission. Objectors raised concerns about the loss of family housing, the proximity to an existing HMO, potential for increased anti-social behaviour (citing a past cannabis factory discovery at the property), and parking issues. They also argued that the property's character was out of keeping with the suburban nature of the area, drawing parallels to a previously refused HMO application in Cornwall Road. The applicant, Mr. Mujahed Sayed, stated that the property had been used as an HMO for some time and that the application was to comply with new council requirements. He highlighted that there had been no complaints, no physical alterations, and that a parking survey showed low stress levels. The committee debated the definition of an HMO and the potential impact of increased occupancy, but ultimately noted the lack of complaints and physical changes. Councillor Richard Clifton, Vice Chair of the Planning Committee, found no planning reason to refuse the application, given the evidence of no issues arising from the current use and the lack of physical changes. The committee voted to grant permission, with the officer's recommendation being followed.

Restaurant and Residential Units at 33-35 The Broadway, Cheam

The committee refused planning permission for the erection of a part one, part two storey rear extension, a dormer extension, and alterations to provide a restaurant and six self-contained residential units at 33-35 The Broadway, Cheam. The application had received over 10 letters of support, contrary to the officer's recommendation for refusal. The primary reasons for refusal cited by officers were:

• Design and Impact on Conservation Area: The proposed two-storey rear extension was deemed to be a disproportionate and incongruous addition that would lack subordination to the main building and fail to respect the character of the surrounding Cheam Village Conservation Area.
• Impact on Neighbour Amenity: The development's proximity, bulk, massing, and height were considered to result in a visually overbearing impact and loss of privacy to the occupants of the neighbouring property, Beltinge, Parkside.
• Housing Mix: The application site being outside Sutton Town Centre, the proposal failed to accord with Policy 9 of the Sutton Local Plan by not providing a minimum of 50% of dwellings as three-bedroom units or two-bedroom, four-person units.

Objectors echoed these concerns, particularly regarding the overdevelopment, loss of light, and overlooking of their properties due to the extension's scale and proximity, exacerbated by land level differences. They also raised issues about construction disruption and the potential for the restaurant to become a takeaway. The applicant's representative argued that the proposal was a regeneration of an existing site, that the rear extension was similar to approved developments nearby, and that the housing mix was commercially viable given site constraints. Despite the applicant's arguments and letters of support, the committee unanimously voted to refuse the application based on the officers' reasons.