Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to conditions.

1. Proposal - Demolition of existing house and erection of a new part two/part three-storey 5/6 bedroom detached house with basement.

2. Basement – Officers responded to various issues related to the proposed basement raised by objectors in their oral representations, including that the proposals had been assessed as satisfactory by the Council’s structural and flood engineers subject to the submission and approval of further details (prior to any construction works) as required by the proposed conditions (as outlined in para. 11.2).

2.1. Basement and Renshaw Court – Officers referred to some objectors’ suggesting that Part (b) of planning policy DM.D2 (which precludes basements near listed buildings) should apply to this application due to the proximity of Renshaw Court, a locally listed building.  Officers explained this  policy related to statutorily listed buildings and so didn’t apply in this case (as outlined in para.11.1).

2.2 Basement – Piling Method – Councillor Najib Latif suggested that, due to the proximity of other buildings, the developer should be required to use sheet piling using a “telescopic leader rig” which would reduce noise/vibration substantially.  Officers advised that, whilst this might be too prescriptive, it would be possible to amend the proposed conditions to require that the piling method used was one that minimised noise/vibration.

3. Consultation – In response to concerns raised by a local resident that they had not been consulted about the proposals, officers confirmed that  occupiers of a number of neighbouring properties had been consulted including No.226 Somerset Road.

4. Conservation Area – Officers confirmed that site adjoined the North Wimbledon Conservation Area boundary and therefore the setting of the Conservation Area was a material consideration when assessing the application.

4. Discussion – Members raised concerns about the design and appearance of the proposed building in a residential area on a site that adjoins a Conservation Area, where therefore the Council was entitled to expect  a higher standard of development.  A member referred to the neighbouring houses presumably being within the Conservation Area because they were considered to be of sufficient quality to be in the Conservation Area; and expressed concern that the proposed development would not relate to those neighbouring houses in an appropriate manner.

5. Refusal Motion:  It was moved and seconded that permission be refused as detailed below.  The motion was carried unanimously.  Subsequently the Committee agreed that officers be delegated authority to agree the detailed grounds of refusal and also agreed (C) below.

Decision: Item 10 - ref. 15/PP2567 (222 Somerset Road, Wimbledon, SW19)

(A) subject to detailed grounds of refusal being agreed in accordance with (B) below, REFUSE permission on grounds relating to the following -

(i) The site is adjacent to North Wimbledon Conservation Area, and therefore the Council was entitled to expect a higher standard of development, and the quality of design of the proposals is inappropriate on a site adjacent to a Conservation Area.

(B) Delegation: The Director of Environment & Regeneration be delegated authority to agree the detailed grounds of refusal, including any appropriate amendments, additions and/or deletions to the proposed grounds/policies.

(C) Reasons for not following Planning Officers' recommendation for permission: The Committee considered that the officer report and recommendations had given insufficient weight to the proximity of the application site to the Conservation Area.