The Sutton Council Planning Committee met to discuss three planning applications, ultimately approving one and rejecting two. The approved application allows for the demolition of a bungalow and the construction of four dwellings, while the committee rejected applications to convert two properties into houses in multiple occupation (HMO).

Suez Planning Appeal

Before moving on to the planning applications, a councillor raised concerns about a planning appeal from Suez, a waste management company. The councillor noted that while those who had previously objected to the application had been notified, the committee members had not. They also expressed concern that the appeal would be dealt with via written statements between Suez and Suez.

An officer apologised for the oversight, explaining that ward councillors should have been notified, and confirmed that the deadline for written submissions to the planning inspector was 15 October. They added that the three reasons for the original refusal would be central to the council's case.

Overhill, Woodmansterne Lane, Wallington, SM6 0SU

The committee considered an application for the demolition of an existing bungalow at Overhill, Woodmansterne Lane and the erection of four two-storey dwellings with parking, refuse and cycle stores. The application was referred to the committee due to more than ten letters of objection and was de-delegated by Councillor Edward Joyce because of the proposal's bulk and being an overdevelopment of the area.

After hearing from a resident representing the Woodcote Green Residents Association, who argued that the development would be an overdevelopment of the site and would negatively impact the privacy of adjoining properties, and from Barry Hillman, the architect for the scheme, who argued that the development would provide much-needed family homes and that the design was in keeping with the area, the committee voted to grant planning permission. Six councillors voted in favour, and four against.

Concerns were raised about the safety of the nearby roundabout at the junction of Woodcote Road and Woodmansterne Lane, with Councillor Tim Foster noting that highways officers had not referred to upcoming feasibility work to address safety issues at the roundabout. Councillor Patrick Magnus raised concerns about speeding on Woodmansterne Lane.

Other concerns included the size of the garden space, and the provision of only one parking space per dwelling.

69 Egmont Road, Sutton, SM2 5JS

The committee considered an application for a change of use from a class C3 dwelling house to a class C4 small HMO to provide six rooms at 69 Egmont Road. The application was referred to the committee due to more than 10 letters of objection.

After hearing from an objector, Mr Spray, who argued that the application was an abuse of the planning process and should have been presented alongside a previous application for the adjoining property, and that the applicant's intent was to create a sui generis¹ large HMO via the back door , the committee voted to refuse planning permission.

Councillor Trish Fivey asked what was stopping the applicant from turning the property into a huge HMO, especially because they owned the adjoining property at number 67.

Councillor Sam Cumber raised concerns about the low PTAL rating of the area, and Councillor Tim Foster criticised the draconian section 106 agreement preventing residents from applying for parking permits.

Councillor Peter Geiringer asked how close the area was to having enough HMOs, noting that policy states that if more than 20% of properties within a 100-metre radius of the site are HMOs, then that concentration may have negative impacts on the surrounding area.

The committee agreed that the impact on amenity due to the concentration of two HMOs was grounds for refusal.

69 Cornwall Road, Cheam, SM2 6DU

The committee considered an application for a change of use from class C3 residential to class sui generis larger HMO to provide nine rooms at 69 Cornwall Road, including the erection of a single-storey rear extension and conversion of the garage into a habitable room. The application was referred to the committee due to more than 10 letters of objection.

After hearing from Mr Matty, chair of the local residents association, who argued that the development would negatively impact the character of the road and that it was contrary to policy 10 of the Sutton Local Plan, and from Councillor David Hicks, who argued that the quality of accommodation was wrong and that the application only considered the commercial needs of the owner, the committee voted to refuse planning permission.

Councillor Steve Bye asked whether seven people would be sharing a bathroom, and Councillor Eric Allen noted that nine people would be sharing one kitchen. Councillor Bye also questioned how the four parking spaces would be allocated.

Councillor Tim Foster said that there were no regulations stating that an HMO must have ensuite bathrooms.

The committee agreed that the site was contrary to local plan policy 10, being outside the area of potential intensification, involving the loss of a family home, and unsuitable for conversion to an HMO.

Councillor Patrick Magnus raised a point of order, stating that everyone in the room knew who lived in the immediate vicinity and that this person had also had a planning application before the committee. He said that he felt like he was witnessing a stunt in action and that he would abstain from the vote.