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 area beyond; too much proportion of the existing garden land on the site being be lost to development; and including the issues detailed in the refusal grounds below.

8. Refusal Motion:  It was moved and seconded that permission be refused as detailed below.  The motion was carried by 7 votes to 1 (Councillor Daniel Holden dissenting).  Subsequently the Committee agreed that officers be delegated authority to agree the detailed grounds of refusal and also agreed (C) below.

Decision: Item 6 - ref. 15/P2082 (258 Coombe Lane, Raynes Park, SW20)

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

(i) The proposal constitutes overdevelopment of the site, resulting in the excessive site coverage of the development, and the intensity of the number of dwellings proposed is discordant with the pattern of plots locally contrary to Policy DN.D2 of the Merton Sites and Policies Plan (July 2014);

(ii) The massing of the proposed buildings having a harmful impact in terms of being a backdrop to MOL (Metropolitan Open Land);

(iii) The proposed development fails to demonstrate that there are suitable access/servicing arrangements; and

(iv) The proposed development fails to conserve the natural environment.

(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 had given insufficient weight to relevant Council policies Plan.