Agenda item

REFUSED

Description of application – Change of use of existing Grade 1 listed mansion to 20 residential dwellings, with associated internal/external alterations and partial demolition works, rear extensions, rear car park, cycle parking and refuse/recycling provision, hard and soft landscaping (including removal of some trees), woodland management and associated infrastructure.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member Councillor Peter Morgan in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  Councillor Morgan submitted his personal viability assessment of Sundridge Manor which was circulated to Members. 

Whilst the Planning Development Control Manager had no reason to think that Councillor Morgan’s assessment was incorrect, as this was the first time he had seen it, he had no way of confirming the figures.  He informed Members that the Authority used independent viability experts to assess such submissions and the conclusions of the assessment of the applicant’s viability submission were set out in the report.  He also referred to the three previous reasons for refusal and advised Members that should they be minded to refuse this application, reasons one and two could potentially stand whilst reason three (the long-term provision of passing bays) had been resolved and was no longer valid.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1  The proposed development of the site is considered to be inappropriate overdevelopment in Metropolitan Open Land due to the construction of new buildings which would have a greater impact on the openness of Metropolitan Open Land and the purpose of including land within it, than the existing development. This inappropriate development is by definition harmful to Metropolitan Open Land. This harm, together with the loss of trees, is not clearly outweighed by the benefits of the development including the heritage benefits to Sundridge Mansion and its setting, the Woodland Management Plan and Housing provision. Very special circumstances do not therefore exist. As such the proposal is contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF (2012), Policy 7.17 of the London Plan (2015) and Policy G2 of the UDP (2006).

2  The proposed development of the site will require road surfacing and markings, signage and traffic lights in the vicinity of Stable Villas and Sundridge Mansion for road safety purposes, that will be harmful to the setting of the Listed Buildings, contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF (2012) and to Policy 7.8 of the London Plan (2015) and BE8 of the UDP (2006).