Four family homes at Overhill, Woodmansterne Lane, Wallington

The site and surroundings

The site was a wide triangular bungalow plot beside homes, a school, flats and public open space, outside a conservation area.

“The application site relates to “Overhill”, a bungalow located at the northern end of Woodmansterne Lane. It is not located in a conservation area.”

“To the south of the site are detached and semi-detached single family dwellings, in a mix of sizes, plot sizes and architectural styles, front Woodmansterne Lane. Opposite the site to the north-west is Wallington High School for Girls.”

Officer report

Planning history

The only recorded earlier permission allowed two single-storey flank extensions in 1987.

“81/23237 “Erection of two single storey flank extensions” granted planning permission 25 August 1987.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Twelve objections raised concerns about overdevelopment, infrastructure, privacy, parking and access, while consultees raised no objections subject to conditions.

“Impact on Local Infrastructure such as schools and healthcare The application would be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). CIL is used to support community needs by funding the infrastructure required by the new development. Impact on neighbours Loss of privacy It is considered that the proposal would not adversely impact on any adjoining neighbours in terms of loss of privacy. This is set out at Section C (Neighbour Amenity) of the report below.”

“Highways Officer No objections subject to conditions to secure cycle store details. A separate Section 278 Agreement between the applicant and the council’s Highway Authority is required for the vehicle access arrangements. Tree Officer No objections subject to a condition to ensure tree protection. Biodiversity Officer No objections subject to conditions to secure a Biodiversity Gain Plan and Construction Environmental Management Plan.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors addressed the committee, followed by the applicant’s architect, who supported the design, standards, sustainability and highway arrangements.

Members’ questions and debate

Members discussed roundabout traffic, speeds, garden sizes, parking, access, sight lines, overlooking and whether the site was overdeveloped.

“Members discussed the available car parking spaces for the dwellings. Officers explained that in total there were four parking spaces and two parking spaces for visitors. Officers responded that all other parking was on the street. Further questions involved the maximum number of cars that could be parked onsite.”

“In response to questions from Members, the objectors said the application was an overdevelopment of the site and inappropriate. Members also asked if the objectors thought that there was a problem with overlooking. The objectors indicated that the applicant's proposal to use oblique glass blocking the view of the windows showed that there was an issue with privacy or overlooking.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation was held, and the committee granted planning permission with six votes in favour and four against.

“A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4.”

“Councillor Jayne McCoy Against Councillor Richard Clifton For Councillor Sam Cumber For Councillor Trish Fivey For Councillor Patrick Ogbonna For Councillor Eric Allen For Councillor Patrick Magnus Against Councillor Tim Foster Against Councillor Muhammad Sadiq Against Councillor Peter Geiringer For Agreed…”

Minutes