Apologies were received from Councillor David Dean. Councillor Najeeb Latif attended as substitute.

No declarations of pecuniary interest were received.

The minutes of the meeting on 17 March 2016 were agreed as a true 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, 7, 9 , was published as a supplementary agenda

(b) Verbal representations: The Committee received verbal representations detailed in the minute for each relevant each item

(c) Order of the Agenda– the Chair amended the order of items to the following: 7, 8, 9, 10, 5, 6

RESOLVED: That the following decisions are made:

Application No: 15/P1955    Ward: Wimbledon Park

Recommendation: GRANT permission subject to S106 Legal agreement and Conditions

Proposal: Erection of two storey block with accommodation in the roofspace comprising four flats (2x 1 bed and 2x 2 bed).

The Committee noted the Officers report and presentation, and modifications to the wording of the report presented in the Supplementary Agenda.

The Transport Planning Officer confirmed that the property had a PTAL (public transport accessibility level) of 6a (excellent) as it was 960m from Wimbledon Station.

Officers explained that whilst the Crossrail 2 Safeguarding  team had said that the property was outside of the safeguarding area, this  is contrary to the Crossrail 2 website, which shows the property to be in this area.  Planning Officers have recorded the fact that they have informed the Crossrail 2 safeguarding team of this discrepancy and it is now up to the safeguarding team  to resolve this issue.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT planning Permission subject to a s106 legal agreement and conditions.

Application No: 15/P4762    Ward: Colliers Wood

Recommendation: GRANT permission subject to S106 Legal agreement and Conditions

Proposal: Erection of a new residential building comprising 1 x 2 bed ground floor flat with garden and outbuilding (home office) and 1 x 1 bed flat on first floor and within loft

The Committee noted the Officers report and presentation.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT planning Permission subject to a s106 legal agreement and conditions.

Application No: 15/P2830    Ward: Wimbledon Park

Recommendation: GRANT permission subject to S106 Legal agreement and Conditions

Proposal: Demolition of existing house and erection of a pair of two storey 5/6 bed semi-detached houses with accommodation at basement and roof levels

The Planning Applications Committee noted the Officers report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda- Modification sheet which included an additional and an amended plan. In addition the Committee noted verbal representations from 3 objectors to the application, and a verbal representation by the applicant.

Objectors raised points including:

·         Scale, mass, visual impact of proposal unacceptable

·         Proposal is 2 ½  times bigger than existing property

·         Fails to relate to the rhythm and density of current streetscene

·         GGIs produced by the developer are misleading

·         The development would obscure the views of Wimbledon Park

·         Basement prolongs construction time

·         The Basement Impact Study is very basic and doesn’t focus on the impact of development on the slope

·         Parking will be lost

The applicant asked members to note that they had worked closely with Planning Officers and several large amendments had been made as part of the process. Officers asked members to note that the proposed development was considered to preserve the characteristics of Lambourne Avenue; with a large gap between the proposed flank wall and the corner, the houses set no further forward than the existing house, and stepping down in height following the topography. Transport Planning Officer added that the developer had accepted the restrictions to visitor parking.

Members asked Officers to clarify the visual impact of the development on the basement of Number 5 Lambourne Avenue. Officers said that as the proposed development sat to the north of No. 7 it would have no overshadowing or loss of sunlight.  Members asked about a point raised by the first speaker – that the new development had a volume 2 ½ times bigger than the existing house. Officers replied that yes the proposed development was much bigger but that it sits in a plot that is much bigger than neighbouring plots and this had been taken into account when assessing the scheme. Members asked about the claim by the speaker that the CGI produced by the applicant was misleading. Officers explained that the proposed development did sit above road level but the corner element had the same ridge height as the existing house, that the proposed roof design had a hip roof form and would slope away from the front elevation rather than the existing gable that projects vertically, and this would  assist in reducing its presence in the street scene.

Members asked about the impact of the development on the Conservation Area. Officers replied that they considered that the key attributes of this part of the Conservation Area had been preserved in particular the long, wide gap and view of Wimbledon Park, which is a key characteristic of Lambourne Avenue in relation to the Conservation Area.

Members asked about the proposed basement and whether the slope stability had ben considered, following comments made by one of the objectors. Officers stated that the Council’s structural and Flood  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Application No: 15/P3224   Ward: Cannon Hill

Recommendation: GRANT permission subject to S106 Legal agreement and Conditions

Proposal: Conversion of existing dwelling house into 2 flats including erection of new side porch.

The Committee noted the officers report and presentation, and verbal representations from an objector to the application and a representative of the applicant.

The objector made points as detailed in the officers report and emphasised that there were no other flat conversions in the Cannon Hill area which is an area of family sized house.

Members asked about the unusual design of a living area above a bedroom and whether this arrangement would require an additional condition on soundproofing.  Officers stated that this issue was covered by Building Regulations. They also answered that the layout of the accommodation could be changed in future.

Members commented that it was sad to lose a family house and they understood residents concerns about this and parking issues. However they noted that some new developments of flats were due to be built in the area. They commented that this development exceeded the London Space Standards and that lose of a family house was not a reason for refusal.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to a s106 legal agreement and conditions

Application No: 15/P1506    Ward: Wimbledon Park

Recommendation: GRANT permission subject to S106 Legal agreement and Conditions

Proposal: Conversion of the existing two storey dwelling to provide 1 x 3 bedroom ground floor flat with access to own rear garden and 2 x 1 bedroom flats including the erection of a two storey rear extension, rear dormer roof extensions and two roof lights to front roof slope.

The Committee noted the officers report,  modifications contained in the Supplementary Agenda, and presentation, a verbal representation from a representative of local residents objecting to the application and a verbal representative for the applicant.

Officers stated that they had considered previous refusals and were satisfied that this proposal overcame the reasons for these refusals by reducing the number of proposed units, the size of the proposed extensions, providing a family sized unit and making improvements at the rear of the property.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to a s106 legal agreement and conditions

Application No: 15/P4735    Ward: Hillside

Recommendation: GRANT permission subject to Conditions

Proposal: Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of a single storey extension, excavation of basement with light wells, new boundary wall and associated landscaping

The Committee noted the officers report and presentation and the verbal representations of an objector to the application, representing himself and other residents of St John’s Road and a verbal representation by the Structural Engineer to the applicant.

The Objector raised residents’ concerns, as detailed in the Officers report, associated with the construction of the basement.  The Structural Engineer to the applicant stated that he was confident that his investigations had addressed all issues and that he had on on-going role in developing the design and instructing the building contractors.

Members asked officers about the monitoring of ground water levels, and if this work, recommended by the LBM Flood Engineer would be part of the Construction Method Statement (CMS). Officers replied that it was not part of the CMS.

Members asked about the shallow footings of the existing buildings, and Officers replied that  the structural assessment carried out by suitably qualified engineers and surveyors working for the Council had found the site to be satisfactory. Members noted that a slightly different design of basement could be built under this property under permitted development rights.

Members commented that they understood residents’ concerns about the construction of a basement but they understood that the specialist engineers and surveyors had assessed the development and found it satisfactory. They also commented that the proposed development would have a positive impact on the conservation area.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The Committee noted the report showing recent decisions made by Planning Inspectors. Members noted that the appeal for application 15/P0499 (14 Burley Close, Streatham) was allowed because the inspector felt that sufficient reasons for refusal had not been given, but that the costs had not yet been set.

Officers said they would continue to monitor the Alpha Place, Garth Road site.

RESOLVED

The Planning Applications Committee noted the contents of the Planning Appeal Decisions Report

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The Committee noted the contents of the Planning Enforcement – Summary of Current Cases report, and noted that the site visit to the  Burnt Bullock had been re-scheduled to 25 April 2016, but the reason for this rescheduling was unknown.

RESOLVED

The Committee noted the contents of the Planning Enforcement – Summary of Current Cases report