The Chair confirmed that, as stated on the agenda, the meeting would be filmed and broadcast via the Council’s web-site.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor David Dean.

Councillor John Bowcott declared an interest (but not a disclosable pecuniary interest) in Item 8 (Grosvenor Court, Grosvenor Hill, Wimbledon, SW19 4RX) ( ref. 15/P0797) by reason that he lived near the application site, but indicated that this would not influence his consideration of the item.

Officer Recommendation:
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2016 be agreed as a correct record.

RESOLVED: That (1) the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2016 be agreed as a correct record; and

(2) the Committee approves the revised minutes from the meeting of the Planning Applications Committee held on 12 November 2015, to prevent disclosure of personal information and to ensure the Council is acting within data protection requirements

Officer Recommendation:
The recommendations for each individual application are detailed in the relevant section of the reports.  (NB.  The recommendations are also summarised on the index page at the front of this agenda).

The published agenda and the modifications sheet tabled at committee form part of the Minutes.

(a) Modifications Sheet - A list of modifications for items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 15, and additional letters/representations and drawings received since agenda publication, were tabled at the meeting.

(b) Oral Representations – The Committee received oral representations at the meeting made by third parties and applicants/agents in respect of items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 & 13.  In each case where objectors spoke, the Chair also offered the applicants/agents the opportunity to speak; and the Chair also indicated that the applicants/agents would be given the same amount of time to speak as objectors for each item.

The Council also received oral representations at the meeting from the following Councillor (who was not a members of the Committee for this meeting) in respect of the items indicated below -

Items 7 & 9 – Councillor Andrew Judge

(c) Order of the agenda – Following consultation with other Members at various times during the meeting, the Chair amended the order of items to the following -
7, 8, 6, 9, 10, 12, 5, 13 & then 11.

RESOLVED: That the following decisions are made:

Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to S.106 Obligation and conditions.

1. Proposal – Demolition of existing garage building and the erection of a detached 1 bed dwellinghouse.

2. Trees – Officers confirmed that the proposal would result in the removal of one tree, but that proposed condition (7) would require provision of a suitable replacement tree; and advised that other trees shown on photos of the site appeared to be located outside the application site.

3. Approval – The application was approved unanimously.

Decision: Item 5 - ref. 15/P2177 (Land adjacent to 5 Cambridge Road (and rear of 3 Cambridge Road), West Wimbledon, SW20 0SQ)

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and subject to the conditions set out in the officer case report.

Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to S.106 Obligation and conditions.

1. Proposal – Demolition of existing bungalow and the erection of six houses (3 pair of semi-detached houses on basement, ground, first and second floors) with 6 parking spaces.

2. Noise/Boundary Fencing – It was noted that a continuous double boarded acoustic fence of 1.65m height was proposed along the side of the access road boundary with the side and rear garden of 260 Coombe Lane, and that this would assist in reducing the impact of noise from traffic along the access road.  In response to concerns raised by a member about the possible noise impact of the proposed development on other properties in Coombe Lane, officers suggested that, possibly such fencing could be extended along the application site’s boundary with those other properties in Coombe Lane.

2.1 The Chair invited the applicant’s representatives present to comment on this suggestion and they indicated that such an extension of the fencing (as part of the development) would be acceptable to the applicant.

3. Access Road – Members raised concerns about the proposed access road, including referring to the increase in traffic in Coombe Lane since the previous scheme for the site was refused on appeal in 1998.  Officers confirmed that they were satisfied that previous concerns raised by the appeal Inspector regarding the access road had been overcome, especially following a deed of easement allowing access over a triangle of land belonging to 260 Coombe Lane which would allow a remodelled access to the site. 

3.1 Officers also confirmed that the access road would provide suitable access for emergency vehicles, and indicated that the widest fire engines would be 1.5m narrower than the proposed access road.

4. Access Road – Lighting – Officers confirmed that a condition was proposed requiring submission of details of access arrangements for approval, and this would allow officers to ensure that the access road had suitable lighting on both the footway and road, and met security requirements for designing out crime.

5. Refuse Store – Members expressed concern that the refuse store would be some distance from the proposed houses to the side of the access road near its Coombe Lane end, and occupiers would not transfer their refuse such a distance.  Officers advised that they were satisfied with the proposed arrangements; that the current occupier of the existing bungalow on the site had similar arrangements; and that the exact siting of the store so as to minimise any narrowing of the access road, would be subject to approval by officers under the proposed conditions.

6. Parking – Members expressed concern amount the small amount of parking proposed, namely 6 parking spaces for 6 houses.  Officers indicated that it should be possible to incorporate an extra parking space into the development, and for this to have a charging point for electric vehicles.

7. Discussion – There was considerable discussion about the above matters and other issues including proposed density; the lack of spacing between the proposed buildings leading to a loss of views of the green  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to S.106 Obligation and conditions.

1. Proposal – Demolition of existing three storey block and the erection of a part three, part four storey building providing 21 residential units (3 x 1, 14 x 2 and 4 x 3) with associated landscaping, parking & access arrangements.

2. Updated Plans – Officers advised the floor plans circulated with the main agenda didn’t show the most recent amendments to the scheme on which neighbours had been consulted; apologised for this; indicated that updated plans had been circulated to Committee members at the start of the meeting; and explained that the main changes on the updated plans included a reduction in scale due to the loss of one unit at second floor level and omission of second floor balconies.  (NB The updated plans circulated at the meeting – already on Merton’s web-site with the application papers- were subsequently also published on Merton’s web-site with the agenda papers for this meeting.)

3. Affordable Housing – Officers referred to concerns raised by objectors that the proposed development would result in the loss of existing affordable housing on the site.  Officers advised that this would not be the case as -
(a) the original planning permission in the 1960’s for the buildings currently on the site didn’t include any conditions restricting who the flats could be let to;

(b) the previous owner of the site, the Metropolitan Police, was not a registered social landlord, but had let the site to the Crown Housing Association who had found their own tenants; and

(c) the advice of the Council’s Policy Unit was that in these circumstances, there were no grounds to refuse the current application by reason of loss of existing affordable housing.

3.1 Affordable Housing Contribution – Review – Reference was made to the proposed contribution of £200k towards affordable housing off site (as detailed in para. 10.1.2, agenda page 109).  Members expressed concern that due to increasing property prices, the viability of the scheme and this contribution figure needed to be subject to further review once the scheme was built.  Officers confirmed that it would be possible for any approval to be subject to the proposed Section 106 Agreement including an additional provision for a review mechanism for determining whether an increased affordable housing contribution can be provided later in the development timetable.

3.2 As indicated below, the Committee subsequently agreed that any approval be subject to such a review mechanism and that officers be delegated authority to agree the detailed wording required.

4 Controlled Parking Zone – Reference was made to the possible impact of the development on on-street parking in the area, especially in the evening outside of the hours when the local CPZ (Controlled Parking Zone) was in force.  A member suggested that the proposed Section 106 Agreement also include a financial contribution towards a review of the CPZ.  Officers explained that, as far as they were aware,  there were currently no plans to review this CPZ at present, and as indicated below, the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to S.106 Obligation and conditions.

1. Proposal – Demolition of garage blocks (comprising 9 x garages) and erection of new garages, refuse store and cycle store at ground floor level and new 2 bed flat at first floor level.

2. Sunlight/Daylight – Officers drew attention to the new report on sunlight and daylight included in the Modifications Sheet (for various items) tabled at the meeting, showing that the proposed development would meet BRE guidance as regards the neighbouring property, Emerson Court.

2.1 Officers also confirmed that overall the proposed development would meet BRE guidelines, including separation distances.

3. External Materials – Officers confirmed that a condition (3) was proposed regarding the submission of external materials for approval.

4. Approval Motion - It was moved and seconded that permission be granted.  The motion was carried by 8 votes to 0.  (Councillor Daniel Holden abstaining).

Decision: Item 8 - ref. 15/P0797 (Grosvenor Court, Grosvenor Hill, Wimbledon, SW19 4RX)

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and subject to the conditions set out in the officer case report and the tabled modifications sheet.

Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to S.106 Obligation and conditions.

1. Proposal – Renovation of existing Rose Cottage to create 4x 2-bed self-contained flats including erection of two storey rear extension, erection of new 3-bed semi-detached house (adjoining 97 Hamilton Road) and erection of new detached two storey 2-bed mews house at rear of site.

2. Extra Condition – Restoration of Rose Cottage - Officers suggested that an extra condition possibly be imposed requiring that the restoration of Rose Cottage be completed prior to the occupation of the other residential units on the site.  As indicated below, the Committee subsequently agreed to this extra condition.

3. Materials – Officers confirmed that officers were satisfied as regards the level of detail provided regarding external materials and windows; and 1:20 detailed plans would be requested where needed.

Decision: Item 9 - ref. 15/P3573 (101 Hamilton Road, South Wimbledon, SW19 1JG)

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and subject to the conditions set out in the officer case report and the tabled modifications sheet. and subject to the following additional condition -

(i) Extra Condition - Restoration of Rose Cottage – An extra condition be imposed requiring that the restoration of Rose Cottage be completed prior to the occupation of the other residential units on the site.

Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to S.106 Obligation and conditions.

1. Proposal – Erection of detached dwellinghouse on land at rear of 150-152 Hartfield Road.

2. Separation distances – Officers referred to an objector’s contention in their oral representations that the distance from the rear of the new development to the dwelling at 107 Gladstone Road would be only 18m, whereas the officer report stated that the separation distance to Gladstone Road properties would be approximately 20.5m.  Officers advised that the 20.5m distance had been confirmed by the applicant and pointed out that even 18m would be close to the minimum 20m separation distance between 2-storey dwellings suggested in the Council’s SPG on New Residential Development.

3. Rear Windows – Officers advised that the new development’s two large ground floor rear windows facing Gladstone Road would not be easily visible from neighbouring properties due to the high fence at the back of the rear garden of the new development.

4. Approval – The application was approved unanimously.

Decision: Item 10 - ref. 15/P2482 (Land rear of 150-152 Hartfield Road, Wimbledon, SW19 3TJ)

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and subject to the conditions set out in the officer case report and the tabled modifications sheet.

Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to conditions.

1. Proposal – Erection of a single storey rear extension

Decision: Item 11 - ref. 15/P3746 (8 Pentney Road, Wimbledon, SW19 4JE)

Decision: GRANT PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out in the officer case report.

Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to conditions.

1. Proposal – Increase in width of access to existing garage, erection of a brick chimney to north side elevation and a brick planter to the front elevation.

2. Approval – The application was approved unanimously.

Decision: GRANT PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out in the officer case report.

Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to conditions.

1. Proposal – Demolition of existing dwelling house and erection of new four storey dwelling house comprising a basement level and rooms in the roof space, together with associated car parking and landscaping.

4. Approval Motion - Councillor Najeeb Latif indicated that he had liaised with the owners of Nos 6 & 8 St Mary’s Road on the application, and therefore he would not be voting.  It was moved and seconded that permission be granted.  The motion was carried by 8 votes to 0 (Councillors John Bowcott and Najeeb Latif abstaining).

Decision: Item 13 - ref. 15/P3969 (8 St Mary's Road, Wimbledon, SW19 7BW)

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out in the officer case report.

After consideration of item 9, at about 9.40pm, the Committee adjourned its discussions for about 5 minutes.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

RECEIVED

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

1. Modifications Sheet - A list of modifications for various items, including this item, was tabled at the meeting.

2. Burn Bullock PH, 315 London Road, Mitcham, CR4 (para. 2.05) – Councillor Ross Garrod referred to the extension notice issued on 6/11/15 (to allow the required works to be completed) having an expiry date of 6/3/16 whereas the report indicated that the works should be completed by the end of March 2016.

Officers indicated that information on the expiry date of the notice was not available at the meeting but did confirm that the works should be completed by the end of March 2016.

RECEIVED

See above Minutes on
(a) Item 4 (Town Planning Applications – Covering Report); and
(b) Item 15 (Planning Enforcement – Summary of Cases).