Joint Planning Committee meeting Monday 12 June
If you have any comments on the planning applications below or other planning issues please email me at
by the end of of Sunday 12 June.
If you post any comments on any of the applications below on the Council’s planning register please copy them to me for the Committee’s information.
- 30 Annulls Rd
17/02201/CAT. This application seeks consent to prune the tree to historic pollarding level (approx 50%) and remove rotten branches. (TPO no. 15, 1989)
- Ground Floor Flat, 28 Beatrice Avenue
17/02772/FUL for formation of vehicular access
- Craignish Avenue, 1 The Norbury Trading Estate,
17/02394/LP: Application to use for vehicle repairs. MOTs. Already in light industrial use. Ian’s comments in email of 19 May, mainly concern how much onsite parking available and likely increase of parking pressure in already busy Craignish Avenue and proximity of London Road.
- Craignish Avenue, 7 The Norbury Trading Estate,
17/00871/FUL: Application for continued use as a church.
- 1 Hill Drive
17/02399/TRE. T1: Oak Tree – Fell to as close to ground level. T2: Cedar – Fell to as close to ground level. (TPO no. 58, 1987)
- 6 Hollies Close
17/02357/HSE for alterations and use of garage as habitable room: erection of single storey rear extension and dormer extension in rear roof slope.
- 64 Isham Road
17/02106/LP for erection of dormer extension in rear roof slope and rooflights at front.
- 1270 London Road, Windsor House
17/01914/DISC for Discharge of condition 1(2) attached to permissions 14/00808/p and 15/01784
The JPC requested consideration be given to keeping cycle access separate from vehicle access for safety reasons.
- 1330 London Road
17/02289/FUL, Construction of 3rd floor and 3-bed flat.
- 1451 London Road
17/02692/FUL for use of ground floor for purposes within class A3 (restaurant/cafe)
- 100 Melrose Avenue
17/02491/LP for erection of dormer extension in rear roof slope and installation of three velux windows into the front sloping roof
- 150 Norbury Crescent
17/02471/DISC for discharge of conditions 2 and 3 attached to planning permission 16/05768/p for the conversion to form 1 x 3 bedroom, 2 x 1 bedroom flats
- 12 Norbury Cross
17/02758/GPDO. Erection of single storey rear extension projecting out 6 metres with a maximum height of 3 metres
- 69 Norbury Hill
17/02644/HSE. Erection of first floor side extension
- 18 Pollards Hill West
17/02410/DISC for discharge of conditions 1,2,3,6,7,8 and 9 attached to planning permission 15/04600/p for the Demolition of building, erection of 5 houses with garages and formation of access road
17/02513/NMA . Demolition of existing building; erection of 2 five bedroom and 3 four bedroom detached houses with attached or detached garages; formation of access road and provision of associated parking (amendment to planning permission 16/02089PDT)
17/01914/DISC. Discharge of condition 1(2)
- 39 Stanford Road
17/02505/LP for Erection of single storey rear extension in respect of ref no 16/03056/gpdo
- 65 Stanford Road
17/02753/GPDO. Erection of single storey rear extension projecting out 6 metres with a maximum height of 3 metres
Council’s sloppiness on information on the planning register
The Joint Planning Committee is continually drawing the Council’s attention to its failure to put documents on the planning register and the consultation close dates. This happened with 11 Norbury Hill (17/01834/GPDO) which has been rectified as far as the documents are concerned. I informed the Local Plan Public Hearing Inspector that the Committee will be considering putting in formal complaint to the Council.
The Joint Planning Committee is increasingly concerned at the wide range of dormers with different sizes and materials being approved that are visually out of keeping with the property, and are often not of a consistent design standard with each other in the same stretch of properties thereby spoiling the roof line.
In the case of the dormer proposal for 37 Norbury Close it commented to the Council that the dormer window’ is far too large and far too prominent to be acceptable in appearance. Not being sufficiently subservient to the form of the roof the dormer destroys the style and character of the building. The location of the roof lights are inappropriate for the street scene.’
The Joint Planning Committee is also concerned about the way in which roof windows are designed. It has objected to the proposals for 1581 London Rd because the three roof lights at the rear of the building are not arranged in an acceptable layout and appear messy. The roof light to the front is out of keeping and detrimental to the appearance to the street scene.