Change of approach by Planning Committee
The Love Norbury Planning Committee meetings have had a lot of paper work which has taken a lot of time to prepare. In order to reduce the workload and given that it is now possible for everyone to be notified of planning applications, links will be sent directly from the Planners to the Committee members to look at. At the meetings the plans will be displayed on a screen and the drafting of comments prepared at them, rather than up to now after discussion at the meetings. Members will in future check decisions, appeals, enforcements, directly on the Planning Register rather than through a report to the meetings. The Committee is always looking for new people to join it as representatives of their Residents Association. If you want to know more please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Guide to Planning Register and receiving emails about applications
At the meeting with Residents Associations held earlier this year the planners promised that they would be setting up a method to enable every resident to register and receive email notifications about planning applications whether their neighbours properties, their street, their neighbourhood, ward. That guide is now available and can be downloaded here:
Public Access Register – Searching and Registering Guide
With the new ward boundaries the Planning Register was amended to put in the new ward names. This meant that applications under the old ward names could not be accessed unless the individual property name or application number was known. At the request of the Love Norbury Planning Committee the register was amended within 24 hours to put back in the old ward names as well.
If you comment on applications please tick the Planning Register box to have your views emailed back to you; and forward on for the Planning Committee at email@example.com
New Planning Applications
Craignish Norbury Trading Estate (18/02258/PAD). Demolition of Units 3 and 4 April 2019
This link does not work and the application does not show up on the planning register. This has been drawn to the attention of the Planners.
92 Dalmeny Avenue (18/02359/GPDO)
Erection of single storey rear extension projecting out 6 metres with a maximum height of 3 metres. Only adjoining neighbours, side and back can comment.
224 Green Lane (17/04916/HSE)
Extension of existing vehicle crossover
1393 London Road (18/01685/FUL)
Side extension, loft conversion and internal alterations to convert existing D1 English School office unit into 9 flats.
(other than Lawful Development Certificates)
1264 – 1266 London Road (18/00337/ADV). Erection of externally illuminated wall mounted signs and non-illuminated fascia sign, and erection and replacement of freestanding internally illuminated signs
73 Norton Gdns (18/01756/NMA). Minor change to design re-demolition of an existing single storey rear extension and erection of single storey rear extension (amendment to planning permission 17/03452/HSE).
Planning Committee Comments on Applications
158 Green Lane
Although it states it is for 158 Green Lane, Norbury, the maps show are for the area containing 21A Green Lane, Woodcote/Purley. (See FRA Figure 1 Environment Agency Flood Zone Map, Figure 2 Environment Agency Surface Flooding Map, Appendix C Critical Drainage Area Maps, Appendix D Risk of Flooding from Surface Water, Appendix E Surface Geology Area Map and Appendix E Surface Geology Area Map). The first line of Conclusions (page 8) gives the development site as 21A Green Lane. So either the assessment has been done for the wrong Green Lane address, or two separate assessments have been carried out and the report has mixed them together somehow. In any event, it doesn’t look as if the report is for 158 Green Lane SW16. Clarification is needed from the applicants about this. If the text is for 21A Green Lane then they need to submit the proper report for 158 Green Lane. If the text is for 158 Green Lane then they need to re-submit the report with the correct maps contained in it.
This serious mistake should invalidate the application and it be withdrawn, and the applicant should re-submit the correct documentation.
The Committee assumes that the approach taken on the flood risk assessment at 158 should be similar to that for 212 Green Lane. Given the close proximity of these two properties the Committee suggests that Development Control examines both flood risk assessments together and constructs Conditions that mean that the same approach is taken to reduce flood risk in all its forms. There should also be a condition for a water butt.
40 Hillcote Ave – proposed extension
The Planning Committee has commented: Given that the side wall of the property is not overlooking other houses, the amenity of the residents might be improved by the addition of extra windows.
1460 London Road – proposed India sweet shop
The Planning Committee has submitted the following comment:
While there is no indication of equipment to cook to make sweets on the premises, in view of the Patricia Cafe’s situation (1579 London Road; 17/05685/CONR), there should be a condition that no cooking can take place on the premises. There appears to be a lack of information about bin storage detail.
80 Newlands Rd
The Committee has objected to this conversion to a one and three bed house.
The Committee is concerned that it is not clear how many people are expected to be living in these two flats. The Design and Access statement suggests Flat 1 will be for two people sharing the single bedroom.
However Flat 1 has a playroom, This suggests the possibility of a child living in the flat. As this is only a one bedroom flat this would mean the bedroom would be shared by a lone parent and child, which is not satisfactory. Would the parent be tempted to use the playroom as a bedroom for the child?
As a three bedroom flat this could house 6 people. However, it also has a study on the 2nd floor. This could also be turned into a bedroom by the occupants, adding to the number of people living in the flat. There is a danger that this flat could be let on a multi-occupancy basis rather than used by a family. The Committee suggests:
(1) that clarification be sought on the number of anticipated residents in each flat
(2) that Conditions be placed to prevent the use of the playroom and study as bedrooms
(3) that Conditions specify the maximum number of people who can be accommodated e.g. as was the case with 14 and 150 Nor bury Crescent.
It appears that the proposed storage of bicycles and bins at the front of the property is for use by the residents of Flat 1, while the residents of Flat 2 will have to take their bins and cycles through the house. It should be possible to consider having all the storage at the front for both Flats, and increase the amenity area for Flat 1 at the rear. The bin storage areas will need to be in conformity with the proposed changes to the recycling bin provision.
The Committee is concerned that the greater the number of people living in the two flats will aggravate the existing problems of competition for car parking. Para 5.2. of the Design and Access Statement states: ‘Parking is not considered to be an issue as the proposal is not making provision for parking for this one bedroom flat as the site is well served by public transport facilities short walking distances from the proposal site reducing the dependence on the car.’ This statement ignores the fact that the occupants of the one bedroom flat cannot be prevented from having a car, and that if the three bedroom flat becomes multi-occupied there could be more than one car owned by the future residents. The side streets along London Rd are becoming increasingly difficult in relation to competition for car parking spaces. While on paper the public transport seems more than adequate, in fact the 109 bus route is becoming more and more crowded, and the railway service at Norbury Station is not only unreliable but also congested at peak times. The increased number of planning approvals and number of residents plus the use of family housing for multi-occupied renting means that there are more and more people trying to balance car ownership/public transport use. Unless restrictions are placed on the maximum number of people which can live in the two Flats this application lays the basis for being overdevelopment in relation to the property, the street and the pressure of transport services, and therefore contribute to a lowering of the amenity of other residents.