The Sutton Council Planning Committee met on 3 September 2025 to discuss planning applications for a care home, a house in multiple occupation, and a grammar school. The committee voted to grant planning permission for the Wallington County Grammar School and the Calico Avenue application, but voted to refuse planning permission for the Longfield Avenue application. The committee voted to grant planning permission for the Grantley Court Nursing Home application.

Grantley Court Nursing Home, 22 York Road, Cheam SM2 6HH

Planning permission was granted for the erection of a single-storey detached dwellinghouse with accommodation in the roof space, and a change of use from a Class C2 care home¹ to Class C3 dwellings², to provide nine self-contained residential units. The development includes a roof extension, a dormer extension to the rear, rooflights to the rear roofslope, a first-floor roof terrace, alterations to fenestrations, bin and cycle stores, parking spaces, vehicular access, and associated landscaping at Grantley Court Nursing Home, 22 York Road, Cheam, SM2 6HH. This application was referred to the committee because Councillor Hicks de-delegated the application, raising concerns about the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, a negative precedent in the area, increased traffic, and insufficient parking.

Key points addressed in the planning report included:

• Land Use: The development is considered acceptable because there is no policy to protect care homes, and the development would provide nine new units, contributing to housing needs within the borough.
• Design: The proposed development would respect the local context and would not harm the character of the surrounding area.
• Amenity: The proposed development would not harm the amenity of neighbouring or future occupiers and would provide a satisfactory level of accommodation.
• Highways and Parking: The proposed development would not adversely impact parking provision, highway and pedestrian safety, biodiversity, trees, or landscaping.

The committee considered objections from local residents, which are listed in the Appendix C - List of Contributors document. These objections included concerns about overdevelopment, the character of the area, poor design standards, lack of amenity space, pollution from cars, back garden development, impact on neighbours, and highways and parking. The planning officer's report addressed each of these concerns, stating that the development complies with the relevant policies of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and the London Plan 2021.

The committee also considered the Declarations of interest document and the Fire Precautions - Civic Offices document.

The committee voted to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix B - Grantley Court Nursing Home. These conditions include requirements for:

• Adherence to approved plans
• Time limit for commencement
• Fire safety measures
• External materials
• Construction method statement
• Noise mitigation
• Biodiversity gain plan
• Wildlife scheme
• Landscaping
• Boundary treatment
• Electric vehicle charging spaces
• Access road surface
• Car parking management plan
• Accesses and car movement plan
• Waste management plan
• Secure cycle storage
• Privacy screens
• Statement of conformity
• Tree protection
• Energy statement
• Overheating details
• Sustainable drainage

Application No. DM2025/00431, 37 Longfield Avenue, Hackbridge SM6 7AZ

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 SM6 7AZ. The existing HMO has seven bedspaces, and the proposal sought permission for a nine-bedroom HMO. The application was referred to the Planning Committee because it received over 10 letters of objection, contrary to the recommendation to grant planning permission, and the application had been de-delegated by Councillor Sheldon Vestey.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the officer's report.

Councillor Dave Tchil, Ward Councillor, addressed the meeting, raising concerns including:

• Setting a precedent for converting semi-detached houses into large HMOs in urban areas.
• The wellbeing of current occupants being jeopardised by the loss of communal living space.
• Inadequate cycle parking.
• Carers frequently visiting the HMO occupants and occupying street parking spaces.
• Reports of antisocial behaviour.
• Over-intensification of HMOs in the locality due to two others being built nearby.

Ghlenn Perry Capuyan, the applicant, addressed the meeting, stating that:

• The property has been built to a high standard and the bedrooms are spacious.
• The application had been developed in consultation with the Planning, Highways, and Waste Management teams.
• The additional two bedrooms will remain unoccupied until planning permission is granted.
• All rooms meet fire safety regulations.
• The council's Highway Officer raised no objection to the proposed cycle storage.
• The applicant is willing to enter a S106 Legal Agreement³ to prevent occupants from attaining parking permits.
• The property is leased to a CQC⁴ regulated provider who provides accommodation to adults with learning difficulties.
• The proposal aligns with Sutton's housing strategy, making more efficient use of existing stock and offering flexible affordable housing.

The committee refused planning permission because the loss of the reception room and dining room to accommodate additional bedrooms would result in unacceptable intensification of use of the only remaining communal room, to the detriment of residents' amenity and neighbouring amenity for number 35 Longfield Avenue, contrary to policies 10 and 29 of the Local Plan.

Application No. DM2024/00995, 19 Calico Avenue, Hackbridge, Sutton SM6 7FZ

The committee voted to grant planning permission for the retention of a pergola⁵ to the rear of the property at 19 Calico Avenue, Hackbridge, Sutton SM6 7FZ. This application was referred to the Planning Committee because seven letters of objection and a petition with 11 signatures objecting to the planning application were received.

Edward Cheuk Yin Chow, an objector, addressed the meeting, raising concerns including:

• The pergola has caused a reduction in natural light.
• There had not been a survey conducted on the impact of loss of light on neighbouring properties.
• The applicant had ignored planning development rights.
• There is a security concern as the pergola is blocking security cameras.
• The property is unoccupied and for sale, so the pergola is not being used.

Rocky Sek, representative of the applicant, addressed the meeting, stating that:

• The pergola is a 3 by 4 metre lightweight open side structure designed to provide passive shading and cooling.
• The roof allows for shade control whilst maintaining an open and breathable environment.
• The pergola is 400mm offset from the neighbouring boundary fence and is proportioned in scale for a residential garden.
• The pergola is an acceptable scale with open shelter which does not cause loss of light or visual obstruction to the neighbouring property.
• The pergola is made from aluminium and closely matches the existing door and window frames.
• Attempts to reduce the height of the structure would compromise its engineering integrity and invalidate the manufacturer warranty.

The committee acknowledged the impact on the neighbour but questioned if it was significant enough to justify refusal. Members observed that the objector's photograph, showing shadow, was taken in the morning, suggesting the impact might not be continuous. The committee granted planning permission subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix B of the agenda.

Application No. DM2025/00390, Wallington County Grammar School, Croydon Road, Wallington SM6 7PH

The committee voted to grant planning permission to vary condition 4 (hours of operation) of planning permission reference: DM2019/00168 to extend the hours of operation for public use of the sports hall at Wallington County Grammar School, Croydon Road, Wallington SM6 7PH. The hours of operation of the sports hall would be extended to 10pm on weekdays and allow use on weekends between 8am and 10pm. This application was referred to the committee because it received over 10 letters of objection, contrary to the recommendation to grant planning permission, and the application had been de-delegated by Councillor Barry Lewis.

Councillor Barry Lewis, Ward Councillor, addressed the meeting, raising concerns including:

• Traffic and parking issues, including blocked driveways and cars parked on grass.
• Residents are already frustrated by events held at the school on weekends.
• Hall users will likely continue to avoid the car park, leading them to park on nearby streets.
• The sports hall's current 9pm closing time already disturbs residents with noise.
• The car park management plan is not adhered to.

David Webb, representative of the applicant, addressed the meeting, stating that:

• Schools generate peak trips at the start and end of the academic day.
• The school employs strategies to reduce trip generation.
• The proposal seeks to extend the use of the sports hall away from school pickup and dropoff times.
• The use of the sports hall is restricted to a maximum of 40 people at a time, with 42 spaces available in the car park.
• Staff from the lettings company will manage bookings and monitor on-site parking.
• The proposal will not cause any issues in terms of highway and pedestrian safety.
• The school is willing to work with residents regarding additional management measures.
• The extension of the sports operating hours will provide community benefit.

The committee debated the proposal, with arguments in favour including the school's ability to generate income and provide a valuable community resource. Concerns were raised about potential parking overspill onto nearby roads. The committee voted to grant planning permission.