Five flats at 24 Church Hill, Purley

What was proposed

The application proposed extensions and roof alterations to create five flats, with parking, amenity spaces and landscaping.

“Alterations to the front garden are also proposed to provide 4 car parking spaces, bins stores and cycle stores. The rear garden would be split into two to serve as amenity…”

Officer report

The site

The site is a detached two-storey building already divided into three flats, in a suburban area with large detached homes and parking.

“The application site relates to a detached two storey property which has previously been extended into the roof space and converted into 3x2 bedroom flats and is located on the southern side of Church Hill.”

“The site is roughly rectangular in shape with two vehicular access points onto Church Hill, serving the existing in/out driveway and open parking area, including a garage. The surrounding area is suburban in character and consists of large 2/3 storey detached dwellings located on large plots each with spacious forecourts and dropped kerbs used for parking. There is also unrestricted parking on Church Hill.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Two earlier schemes were refused and dismissed at appeal, while the existing three-flat conversion was approved in 2007.

“25/01095/FUL- Alterations and extensions to the existing building including the construction of roof extensions, installation of new rooflights, windows and side, front and rear extensions to provide 1 x 1 bed flat; 2 x 2 bed flats and 2 x 3 bed flats (5 total) together with associated parking and landscaping.”

“07/03102/P- Alterations; conversion to form 3 flats. APPROVED 10/10/2007 and implemented.”

Officer report

Objections and consultation

Eighteen neighbours objected, alongside objections from a ward councillor and MP, raising concerns about design, overdevelopment, amenity, parking and highways.

“The following Councillor and MP made objections: Councillor Samir Dwesar • Obtrusive by design • Overdevelopment • Limited residential amenity and poor PTAL rating • Inadequate access to daylight • Parking space concerns • Refuse collection concerns • Cumulative impact • Neighbour impact…”

“MP Chris Philp • Overdevelopment • Over-intensification of the site • Out of character • Does not respect the existing development pattern • Fails to respect the separation distances in Barnards Place • Impact on neighbouring properties in relation to overlooking and overbearing impact, dominant, visual intrusion, loss of light and loss of outlook • Accuracy of plans and lack of measurements • Parking stress and highway safety 6.3 The following issues were raised in…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The case officer presented the application, the agent spoke in support, and the referring ward councillor addressed the committee.

The committee debate

Members considered a refusal motion based on poor design quality and forecourt clutter detracting from the street scene.

“The motion to GRANT the application was taken to a vote and fell with five members voting in favour, five members voting against and no members abstaining. The chair used his casting vote against the motion.”

“Councillor Neal proposed a motion to refuse the application on the grounds of poor design quality, stating that the proposals would introduce clutter to the forecourt, thereby detracting from the character and appearance of the street scene. This was seconded by Councillor Johnson.”

Minutes

How members voted

The approval motion was tied and defeated by the chair’s casting vote; a tied refusal motion was carried by the same casting vote.

“The motion to REFUSE the application was taken to a vote and carried with five members voting in favour and five members voting against and no members abstaining. The chair used his casting vote for the motion.”

Minutes