Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Abigail Jones and David Dean

There were no declarations of Pecuniary interest.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2016 are agreed as an accurate record.

Officer Recommendation:
The recommendations for each individual application are detailed in the relevant section of the reports. 

The published Agenda and Supplementary Agenda tabled at the meeting form part of the Minutes:

a.     Supplementary Agenda: A list of modifications for agenda items 5, 6, 7 and 9 were published as a supplementary agenda.

b.     Item 5 was withdrawn from the Agenda prior to the meeting.

c.      Verbal Representations: The Committee received verbal representations detailed in the minutes for the relevant item.

d.     Order of the Agenda – The Chair amended to order of items to the following: 9,6,7 and 8.

Application Number: 15/P1569                 Ward: Trinity

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to completion of a s106 Agreement and Conditions

ITEM  WITHDRAWN FROM THIS AGENDA

This Item was withdrawn from this Agenda prior to the meeting

Application Number: 16/P2454     Ward: Colliers Wood

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to Conditions

Proposal: Demolition of warehouse and the erection of 4 x 3 bedroom and 2 x 4 bedroom houses with cycle and refuse storage and associated landscaping work

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda-Modifications.

Members noted that the one window considered affected by the analysis of light impact, is a bathroom window.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Application Number: 16/P3683                 Ward: Village

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to Conditions

Proposal: Removal of condition 18 (relating to replacement fence on the west boundary of the application site) attached to LBM planning application 15/P0940 for the demolition of existing house and the erection of 2 x detached houses

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda-Modifications.

Members noted that there is now legal advice  that the removal of Condition 18 should be allowed, as a refusal could not be supported on appeal. Planning Officers emphasised that the path does still exist but is on private land. Members commented that they would like to see the developers resurface the path

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to remove planning condition 18

Application Number: 16/P2849                 Ward: Hillside

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to Conditions

Proposal: Conversion of 3 x flats into 2 x semi-detached houses, erection of two storey side extension, rear roof extension and excavation of basement with associated parking and landscaping.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation.

Members asked officers about the Basement Construction Method Statement requested by Condition18, and the concerns in the report regarding potential flooding issues. Members noted that construction cannot begin until this method statement has been submitted and approved by the Council’s Flood Risk Officer and Structural Engineer.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Application Number: 16/P3135                 Ward: West Barnes

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to Conditions

Proposal: Addition of one storey extension to existing building involving removal of the mansard and re-cladding of the elevations to provide six new self-contained dwellings in addition to the 19 self-contained flats within ground, first and second floors permitted under prior approval LBM Ref: 16/P0233. Works include amendments and additions to fenestration of building

The Committee noted the officers report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda - Modifications. The Committee received verbal presentations from two objectors and the agent to the application, and from ward councillors Gilli Lewis-Lavender and Brian Lewis-Lavender.

Objectors felt that this proposal was overly large and would be overbearing on their properties. They also felt that the design was out of keeping with its surroundings. They were concerned about overlooking and loss of privacy.

The Agent said that the existing building  can be converted to residential use without planning permission, but the applicant was trying to find a design that satisfied their financial requirements but that was acceptable to residents.

Members noted Officers comments that:

·         All the separation distances between the proposed development and existing houses, exceeded those required by policy and therefore issues of overlooking and loss of privacy did not justify refusal. The two windows closest to existing houses will both be obscure glazed

·         All the evidence, provided in the report, showed that the development would satisfy parking requirements.

·         The new application was regarded as more acceptable than the previous application and an improvement on the plans as first submitted for the current application

·         There were other buildings of a similar height in the area, but their roofs were different in design to the roof of the proposed building.

·         It is currently not known what impact Cross Rail 2 would have.

Members commented that although this proposal was better than the previous proposals with definite improvements for the scheme under consideration,  they still felt the bulk, height and massing were too great for the area. They did not like the proposed cladding. The proposal was felt to be out of character with Motspur Park  and intrusive on the streetscene.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to:

1.    REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

The  Bulk and Massing of the proposal are too great, contrary to LBM policies.

The proposal would have a negative impact on the streetscene

2.    DELEGATE to the Director of Environment & Regeneration the authority to make any appropriate amendments in the context of the above to the wording of the grounds of refusal including references to appropriate policies

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The Development Control  Manager asked Members to note the contents of the report, in particular that the Planning Inspector had

·         Allowed: Waitrose application – 15/P2776

·         Allowed: The Cricketers  Public House – 15/P0890

·         Dismissed: 160 London Road – thus supporting the Council’s policy to refuse on the lack of  3 bedroomed units.

The Development Control Manager reported that Merton is one of the better performing London councils on success at Appeal. He also reported that the new performance levels for appeals set by Government may not be as onerous as first thought.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

Members noted the Report on recent Enforcement Case Work being dealt with by the Planning Enforcement Team.

Members asked for investigations of two sites:

7 Streatham Road – Distinctive Chimneys have been removed and other roof work appears to be starting.

18 Morden Road – Members asked about the progress of the enforcement report on this site.