Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Philip Jones.

Councillor Judy Saunders attended as substitute

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2017 are agreed as an accurate record.

Supplementary Agenda: Amendments and modifications to the Officers’ report were published in a Supplementary Agenda. This applied to items; 5, 6, 7, 9 and 12.

Order of the meeting – The Chair announced that the order of items taken at the meeting would be; 9, 6, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12

Application Number: 17/P1729     Ward: Raynes Park

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Erection of bin storage area in car park to replace one parking space.

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

In answer to Members questions, Officers replied that:

·         It would be unreasonable to put a time constraint on rubbish collections as this is a small enclosure and is not adjacent to any windows

·         Fire safety is not a Planning consideration, it is covered by Building Regulations. Planning Officers do not have the expertise to assess fire risk, it would be for the applicant to assess the flammability of the external cladding and ensure that the smoking area and its proximity to external cladding was safe.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Application Number: 16/P2971     Ward: Lavender Fields

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to completion of a section 106 agreement and conditions

Proposal:  Demolition of existing building and the erection of a part 3 storey, part 4 storey (with setback) residential block comprising 14 x residential units, provision of 8 on-street car parking spaces (subject to traffic management order) and 20 cycle parking spaces

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

The Planning Officer reported that this application was originally brought to the Planning Committee in April 2017, but Members decided to defer their decision so that the application could be referred to the DRP (Design Review Panel). However the applicant withdrew the application from the DRP Agenda, and has now submitted an amended application with changes made to the design of elevations. There is no mandatory requirement for applications to be reviewed by the DRP. The Planning Officer reminded members that there had been a full discussion of the proposal at the Planning Applications Committee in April 2017.

The Objectors raised residents’ concerns, including:

·         Comparisons with Noble Court are not valid as that is smaller and set back from the highway

·         There has been a lot of public opposition to this application

·         This application fills the plot, will cause overshadowing and relies on parking bays on the street.

·         The amendment are not effective and should have changed the skyline of the application design

·         Design does not relate to the rhythm of the surrounding streets

·         The site is not in a Conservation Area but it is in an area defined as of interest in the area Character Study

·         An initial complaint submitted to Merton Council has never been answered

·         The development does not meet London Policies – it will result in loss of light and privacy for its neighbours, and will be oppressive

·         Residents are not against development of this site, but not this design

The Applicant commented that this application was policy compliant and would deliver much needed homes in Merton.

In answer to points raised by objectors the Planning Officer said:

·         The matter of an ongoing complaint should not prevent Members from deciding on the application before them

·         The local Grid Iron Terraces are not statutory heritage assets

·         Church Road contains diverse and tall buildings. The proposed building is slightly lower than the ridge of the block opposite.

·         Residents are concerned about the large brick area facing Hawthorne Avenue, but this will not be viewed directly from their homes

Councillor Ross Garrod spoke and raised points including:

·         The Developer has ignored recommendations

·         I have personally received many objections to this development

·         The main concerns are still applicable despite amendments; the height, it not being set back, the mass, the footprint is far bigger than the existing buildings,

·         Appreciate that the address is Church Road but it will have big impact on Hawthorne Avenue with the bike stores, refuse collection and entrances all on this road. Planners have ignored this impact

Councillor Ian Munn spoke and raised points including:

·         It is an Attractive design but it is in the wrong  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Application Number: 17/P1556     Ward: Village

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Erection of a single storey rear extension

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and the additional information in the supplementary agenda. Members noted that a correction had been made as the Objector had commented  about the depth of the extension not the height. Officers asked Members to note  that they understood the proposed depth to be 2.94m, but the Neighbour objecting believed  the proposed depth to be 2.96m

The Objector raised concerns including:

·         There have been 13 planning proposals for this property and permitted development rights have been removed

·         Solicitors have said that there should be no further development of the site

·         The increased depth of the current proposal reduces the depth to the boundary of Langholm cottage, which will be only 6m if proposed scheme allowed.

·         The proposal will create a footprint that is too big and intensify development. There have been many attempts to increase the depth

·         There are misleading measurements in the proposals

·         This proposal will set a precedent for additional extension above the single story.

The applicant raised points including:

·         This is a single storey rear extension and is extremely modest in size

·         It cannot have an impact on neighbours

·         The property has good sized gardens and this proposal cannot be overdevelopment

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Application Number: 17/P1116     Ward: Village

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Reconstruction of roof involving increasing the roof pitch from 40 to 50 degrees and ridge height by 300mm and installation of two roof lights to rear roof elevation (as approved by LBM Planning Permission Ref.16/P2487 dated 30/11/2016) with the addition of roof lights to side elevation, access door and new window to garage, provision of porch, refuse store and installation of air conditioning units.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation

The Objector raised residents’ concerns including:

·         The information on changes to the roof angle and the resultant increase to ridge height provided in the Officers report is at odds with the information previously provided by the agents. Residents want to be sure that the ridge height will not increase above 300mm

·         The development    includes  the  installation   of air conditioning   units.     No background   noise assessments  have  been  undertaken   and no details  of  noise  emissions  from  the  units  have been submitted   as part of the   planning  application  before you

·         In  order  to  protect  the  amenity  of  neighbouring occupants, residents request conditions are imposed to control the following matters;

1.    the submission and approval of a noise survey to establish the background ambient noise levels (day and evening);

2.    that  noise emissions from the air conditioning units do not exceed 10dB(A) below night background noise levels; and

3.    the submission and approval of the methods of noise attenuation prior to the first use of the air conditioning units, with these measures retained in perpetuity.

In reply to the residents concerns the Planning Manager offered to add a condition that limits the increase of the ridge height to 300mm.

With regard to conditions relating to the air conditioning unit the Planning Manager explained that the first proposed condition was unnecessary as long as a condition is added stating that noise emissions from the units do not exceed 10dB(A) above ambient. Environmental Health could take action if this level did exceed 10dB(A). He also explained that the third requested condition was already covered by condition D4 in the Officers Report

RESOLVED

A.   The Committee voted  to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the conditions in the Officer’s report and the addition of a condition to limit the increase in ridge height to 300mm and a condition regarding the noise levels emitted by the  air conditioning unit, stating that these should not rise to 10dB(A) above ambient noise levels.

B.   The Director of Environment and Regeneration be given delegated authority to agree the detailed wording of the additional conditions

Application Number: 17/P1086     Ward: Village

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Erection of a 4 bedroom detached dwelling house with accommodation at basement level and within the roof space together with the provision of associated car parking and landscaping and front boundary wall/railings and gates.

Officers announced that a late review of the current proposal and it’s relationship to  the previous refusal had raised issues that needed to be further investigated and asked the Committee to agree to defer this item to a future meeting. Officers apologised to the applicant, who had wished for the application to be heard at this meeting, and to the objectors who were also present at the meeting. The Chair proposed that the item was deferred, this was seconded and agreed by the Committee. The Chair apologised to the applicant and asked Officers to deal with the item with urgency.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to DEFER this item to a future meeting

Application Number: 17/P1569                 Ward: Hillside

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to Conditions

Proposal: Erection of electrical substation and changes to the landscaping to the rear of the building

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation. The Planning Manager asked members to note:

·         Environmental Health have not objected but have  added a condition regarding noise

·         The Flood Risk Officer has not objected but has added 3 Conditions that were not presented in the report or in the Supplementary Agenda

The Objector raised concerns including:

·         This sub-station is only 10yards from my property but over 200 yards from the property it serves

·         If the sub-station will produce no noise why have the developers offered me acoustic screening

·         This sub-station would be much better located closer to the highway. It should have 24 hour access from the highway

·         The distance will require additional caballing and more chance of water entering the ducting and outing the supply

·         This area does flood

·         Do not believe the developer when he says there is no other location for this

The applicant made points including:

·         The sub-station is necessary because there is not enough capacity in the local network

·         We investigated suitable locations, but this application is for the only suitable one – there is little space at the front of the new block.

·         We worked with UK Power Networks to provide a unit that is silent and totally safe

In response to issues raised by the objector the Planning Manager said:

·         The cabling will be designed so that water cannot cause power outages

In response to issues raised by Members the Planning Manager said:

·         A condition regarding the landscaping, fencing and trellis around the substation and boundary with the neighbour could be added

·         The condition regarding noise is with regard to noise generated at the Boundary

·         The size of the sub-station meant that it could not be allowed under PD rights

·         We don’t know when the developer discovered that the network could not provide enough power for the new building

Members made comments in support of the application but said that the proposed new condition on fencing, trellis and landscaping should be as strong as possible.

Members made comments against the proposal saying that it was un- neighbourly, and they had difficulty believing that the developers did not realise that they had a problem until this stage in the development. A motion to refuse was proposed and seconded for reasons of un-neighbourliness  and cited policies DMD3 and DMF2

This motion was voted on but was not passed

A vote was then taken on the Officers recommendation to allow, with the addition of the condition on fencing, trellis and landscaping and conditions supplied by the Flood Risk Officer.

RESOLVED

A.   The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the conditions in the Officer’s report and additional conditions from Flood Risk officer and an additional condition relating to landscaping, fencing and trellis work.

B.   The Director of Environment and Regeneration be given delegated authority to agree the detailed wording of the additional conditions

C.   The Conditions provided by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Members noted the Report

Members noted the Report