The Sutton Council Planning Committee met on 6 August 2025, and made decisions on three planning applications. Councillors refused an application to increase the number of bedrooms in an existing house in multiple occupation (HMO) at 37 Longfield Avenue, and granted permission for the retention of a pergola at 19 Calico Avenue and for extended hours of operation at the sports hall at Wallington County Grammar School.

Wallington County Grammar School Sports Hall

The committee voted to grant planning permission for Wallington County Grammar School to vary condition 4 of planning permission reference: DM2019/00168, which allows the school to extend the hours of operation for public use of the sports hall. The hours of operation of the sports hall will be extended by one hour on weekday evenings, to 10pm, and allow use on weekends between 8am and 10pm.

The application received 17 letters of objection, mainly concerning potential parking issues.

Councillor Barry Lewis de-delegated the application on highways grounds, stating that the increased hours of operation would lead to access, traffic and parking issues.

The council's Highway Officer raised no objections to the Car Park Management Plan. The 42 car parking spaces available on site are considered sufficient to accommodate the proposed public use of the school's sports facilities, which is restricted to 40 people at any one time.

David Webb, Principal Transport Consultant at i-Transport, spoke on behalf of the school, and said that the applicant has engaged with the borough and its officers throughout the course of this application. He added:

Both reports demonstrate the proposal would not result in any operational development and any new vehicle trips to the sports hall would occur well away from the existing school drop off and pick up times or other academic events.

Councillor Eric Allen asked what types of activities would be taking place, and whether 40 people was a realistic number. Officers confirmed that activities include cricket, badminton and indoor football, and that 40 was a maximum number, with badminton likely to attract fewer people.

Councillor Trish Fivey said that every school in the borough has issues with dropping off and picking up, so she thought that was irrelevant. She added that schools are struggling financially, so she applauded the school for thinking outside the box to get some more revenue in.

Councillor Sam Martin said that the way people behave is to park inconsiderately, and that this will continue without a different approach.

Councillor Jayne McCoy, Chair of the Planning Committee, said that she was familiar with the school, and that the parking was tight. She also said that she never knew there were spaces at the back.

Councillors suggested that the school should put up signage to direct people to the car park, and that the school should engage with the local community.

19 Calico Avenue

The committee voted to grant planning permission for the retention of a pergola¹ to the rear of the property at 19 Calico Avenue, Hackbridge. The application was brought to the committee because the council received seven letters of objection and a petition with 11 signatures.

The pergola measures 3m in depth, 4m in width and 2.5m in height, and is of dark grey colour to match existing windows and doors of the rear elevation of the building.

A resident of Number 17 Calico Avenue, Mr Chan, spoke in objection to the application, saying that they had suffered a loss of light since it was built, and that the pergola blocked their security camera.

Mr Sek, planning agent, spoke on behalf of the owner, Ms Wong, and said that the process was forced following a naval objection. He added that the pergola is a modest, well-designed and professionally installed structure that supports sustainable living by reducing solar gain and indoor temperature.

Councillor Luke Taylor asked whether the property was up for sale. Mr Sek confirmed that it was, because the owner did not feel welcome, due to negative posts on social media.

Councillor Tony Shields said that he thought there was definitely an impact on the next-door neighbour, but that it was not an overbearing impact. He added that he would be tempted to say that there's a chance to recover the situation for the neighbour without undue impact on the residents if the committee were to refuse it, and therefore require it to be removed as the property owner moved away.

Councillor Tim Foster observed that the photo shown by the objector was taken in the morning, and that the shadow would not be a consideration later on in the day, because the sun rises in the east.

37 Longfield Avenue

The committee voted to refuse planning permission for the provision of two additional bedrooms to an existing house in multiple occupation (HMO) at 37 Longfield Avenue, Hackbridge. The existing HMO has seven bedspaces, and the proposal sought permission for a nine bedroom HMO.

The application was brought to the committee because the council received over 10 letters of objection, and Councillor Sheldon Vestey de-delegated the application.

The main concerns raised were that the proposal would result in a loss of amenity² to the existing residents, and increased noise and disturbance for the neighbours. The planning officer, Mr Rochford, said that the proposal complies with policy 10 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018, except for 10 (i), as the application site is not a detached property. He added that the council gave limited weight to the breach of policy 10 (i).

Councillor Luke Taylor questioned what scrutiny had been avoided by taking a convoluted approach to planning applications. He said that in the course of five months, the plans of the owner had gone from it being a residential home to a three bed HMO to a seven bed HMO to a nine bed HMO.

Councillor Tim Foster asked why the ground floor reception and dining room were in parenthesis, and whether they were already bedrooms. He said that the HMO license was dated 18 March, before the approval of the 24th, so it must have already been a nine bedroom HMO, making it a retrospective planning application.

Councillor Tony Shields asked whether the license was for one occupant per room, and how that was checked up on and enforced. He added that there was a heck of a lot of difference in getting 18 people out of the house and nine people out of the house.

Councillor Sam Martin asked why the council was waiving the requirement for HMOs to be detached houses. Mr Rochford said that there wasn't a reason why it being semi-detached was a good enough reason to refuse it.

Councillor Eric Allen was concerned about the issue of not allowing parking permits in section 106. He said that this doesn't mean that they can't have cars and they can't park them outside of parking restrictions.

Councillor Chil, a ward councillor, said that neighbours are surprised that officers are recommending approval of this type of information, not least because this isn't a detached property. He added that the loss of that living space is really dangerous with regards to the wellbeing of the clients that are currently using that HMO.

Glenn Perry-Kapuya, the applicant, said that the proposal sits on the desk intensification of an existing lawful house in multiple occupations, increasing the numbers from seven to nine. He added that these rooms were built to a high standard, hence why our bedrooms are quite spacious and remain unoccupied, especially those additional two bedrooms.

Councillor Sam Cumber asked what the logic was of going through several applications, going from a small HMO to a larger HMO to an even larger HMO. Mr Perry-Kapuya said that the reason why they intended to do it in stages is because to make sure that we get the profit.

Paul Clough, a retired planning minister and neighbour of Councillor Shields, said that if the committee approves this matter tonight, he will provide a written opinion as to why such a decision should be judicial reviewed.