Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Abigail Jones

There were no declarations of interest.

Councillor John Bowcott made a statement to inform the Committee that he Chaired the Design Review Panel meeting that considered Items 13 and 15 of the applications on the agenda but he did not take part in the debate or vote on the proposal

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 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 5,7,9,13, 14, 15, and 18 were published as a supplementary agenda.

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

c.      Order of the Agenda – The Chair amended to order of items to the following: 5,7,9,10,6,11,13,14,15,12

d.     Councillor David Dean was not present for the presentation or vote on Item 12

e.     The Committee noted that Items 8 and 16 had been withdrawn from the Agenda prior to the meeting

Application Number: 15/P4601                 Ward: Village

Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Demolition of existing house and the erection of a new 5 bed dwellinghouse

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary agenda. The Committee received verbal presentations from three objectors to the application and the applicant’s Agent.

The Objectors raised residents’ concerns, and the Development Control Manager responded to major concerns:

·         Concerns regarding disruption during the construction process and any potential affect on property prices are not a material planning considerations.

·         Concerns regarding the garage are not relevant to this application and can be investigated separately.

·         The separation distances at all levels are acceptable

·         The Council’s Structural and Flood Risk Engineers have found the scheme acceptable.

Members made comments on the application, and the Development Control Manager Responded:

·         The Party Wall agreement will cover any issues of soil settlement

·         Officers might have preferred to see a hipped roof design, but still  felt that the proposed roof was acceptable

·         The Existing building does not merit being saved, the proposed new building is more interesting than the old building.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s Report

Application Number: 15/P3217                       Ward: Abbey

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Demolition of the existing building and the construction of a three storey block of flats (4x1 bed and 3 x studio flats)

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s Report

Application Number: 16/P1418                 Ward: Hillside

Recommendation: Grant planning permission subject to planning conditions.

Proposal: Demolition of existing attached rear building (former school room) and two storey outrigger and the erection of new part single storey, part two storey rear extension with a basement and a lowered ground floor and 2nd floor mansard rear roof extension.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary agenda. The Committee received verbal presentations from an objector to the application and the applicant, and Ward Councillor Daniel Holden.

The Objector raised residents’ concerns, as detailed in the Officer’s report. She reminded the Committee that the original site notice contained incorrect information, and that the parking survey was inaccurate.

In response to points raised by the Speakers and Committee Members, the Planning Officer made the following comments:

• Proposal has footprint that is  slightly wider and slightly shorter than current building
• Historic England does not regard the rear structure briefly used as a school room as being of sufficient architectural or historical interest to be worthy of statutory listing
• As the proposal is for extension to an existing property rather than a new house it would not be reasonable to make it parking permit free and there is no mechanism for restricting the number of permits per house.
• The basement is shown as being for storage only. Its location wholly below ground and lack of windows/lightwells will limit its function
• The proposed roof design mirrors existing developments on the street
• There is no change in the boundary with neighbours and the amenity space is the same as the current house.
• The large rear extension is considered acceptable.

 RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s Report

Application Number: 16/P1092                 Ward: Dundonald

ITEM NOW WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA

Item withdrawn from this agenda

Application Number: 16/P1872                 Ward: Trinity

Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to planning conditions and thecompletion of a S106 agreement covering the following heads of terms:

1) Restriction on future occupiers obtaining parking permits

2) The applicant agreeing to meet the Council's costs of preparing

drafting and monitoring the section 106 obligations.

Proposal: Demolition of existing two storey rear outbuilding and covered workshop area and two storey outrigger attached to main building. Change of use of part of ground floor and erection of single and two storey extensions to create a new 2 bed residential unit. Rebuilding of the outrigger at a greater width and addition of mansard roof extensions to the main roof and to part of the outrigger to enlarge the existing residential unit. Alterations to existing pedestrian access points.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary agenda. The Committee received verbal presentations from three objectors to the application, and the applicant’s agent.

The Committee noted the particular concern of objectors relating to the loss of the workshop space. The current workshop and retail shop, are operated as one business, class A1. The owner of the business spoke as an objector to the application, and was asked about the nature of his business. He told the Committee that the vast majority of his income came from the work done in the workshop space.  Officers said that the new development would contain a retail space. As the current usage was retail with the workshop being ancillary to this use, the proposal  was considered acceptable. Some members did not consider this acceptable and were concerned about the loss of a thriving business. A motion to refuse was proposed and agreed.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to:

1.    REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

                 i.          Rather than being regarded as a retail use with ancillary workshop use for planning policy purposes, it would be more appropriate to examine it under Policy DM E3 as a scattered employment site as the workshop was the main use and main source of income for the occupier of both the car spares shop and workshop. The application would cause the loss of a viable employment site contrary to policy DM E3

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

Application Number: 16/P2148                Ward: Merton Park

Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to planning conditions.

Proposal: Demolition of the existing garage and green house and the erection of a part single part 2 storey (plus accommodation in the roof space) rear extension, the erection of a two storey side extension with rear dormer and the erection of side roof dormers.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary agenda. The Committee received verbal presentations from two objectors to the application and the applicant’s agent

Members noted that the Conservation Officer was satisfied that the proposal would have a neutral impact on the Conservation Area.

Members commented that they were most concerned about the two storey side extension and that this unbalanced the symmetry between the house and it neighbour.

A motion to refuse the proposal on the grounds that it did not respect the design, scale or bulk of the original building was proposed and seconded but was defeated in the vote. The Committee then voted on the Officers recommendation to grant planning permission.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s Report

Application Number: 16/P2451                 Ward: Hillside

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Demolition of a semi-detached dwellinghouse (one half of a pair) and replacement with a new semi-detached dwellinghouse with basement

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary agenda. The Committee received verbal presentations from three objectors to the application and the applicant, and Ward Councillor Daniel Holden.

The Objectors raised residents’ concerns including:

·         Proposed basement will extend beyond the footprint of the house

·         Proposed basement will  lead to flooding of neighbouring homes and gardens

·         Settlement of the basement construction will put stress on to number 5

·         Risks to number 5 of demolition and excavation

·         New house much bigger than others on street – out of keeping

·         New House will have no access from front to rear garden

·         The existing house does not need to be demolished and it would be more sustainable to refurbish this building

·         Other London Councils have basement policies that would require more ground investigations to be done

·         The Party Wall agreement is too weak to properly protect Number 5

The Applicant’s Agent raised points including:

·         The current house in need of large scale works to bring up to modern standards

·         There is no policy to retain such a house in this area, and the proposal satisfies planning policies

·         The excavation will be done by hand to minimise disruption

·         All the proposed works have been approved by the LBM Structural engineer

·         The soil conditions and hydrology have been thoroughly assessed and approved by LBM Flood Risk Engineer.

The Development Control Manager replied to Members questions:

·         It is not necessary to discuss the party wall as this is covered by the Party Wall Agreement

·         LBM do not have a policy that limits basement size (unless extending over 50% of the rear garden)

·         Other properties in the road have similar roof designs and this roof could be built under permitted development rights – the house opposite looks very similar

Members made comments including:

·         This is overdevelopment of the basement

·         The Basement Games room is 81 m² – this exceeds London space standards for a 2 bedroomed dwelling

·         Other properties may have roof and side extensions but don’t also  have the overly large basement

·         The proposed property would be wider than existing properties and this combined with the roof design would have a negative effect on the rhythm of the streetscene.

·         The development is very un-neighbourly

A recommendation to refuse was proposed and seconded and voted on.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to:

1.               REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

                    i.             The proposed Roof and Side extension will lack the rhythm of the streetscene, contrary to policy DM D2

                  ii.             The proposed house and basement is too large and does not respect the scale and proportions of the original house and surroundings contrary to policy DM D3

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Application Number: 16/P2487                 Ward: Village

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Reconstruction of roof involving increasing the roof pitch by 9 degrees from 36 to 45 degrees and ridge height by 300mm and installation of two roof lights to rear roof elevation

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s Report

Application Number: 16/P3126                 Ward: Village

Recommendation: GRANT permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Demolition of swimming pool, rifle range and all weather tennis courts and erection of sports hall, swimming pool, and creation of artificial playing surface (to accommodate two floodlit tennis courts), three cricket nets and relocated tennis hut; new access to Ridgway for construction traffic and thereafter for emergency use only; new landscaped area to the lodge; associated circulation space and remodelling of entrance from Woodhayes Road.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary agenda. The Committee received verbal presentations from an objector to the application and the applicant’s agent.

Members made comments including:

·         Mindful that DRP was very complimentary of the design of the new building

·         Mindful that  residents are concerned about lighting of the tennis courts but such lighting is directed on to the court and will not cause a problem

·         Noise of tennis matches will not be a problem

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s Report

Application Number: 16/P0112                 Ward: Village

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling house and erection of new 5 bedroom detached dwelling house with accommodation at basement level and within the roof space, together with new boundary treatment, provision of car parking and landscaping.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary agenda. The Committee received verbal presentations from three objectors to the application and the applicant, and ward Councillor

The Development Control Officer answered Members questions and points arising from objectors comments:

·         The LBM Conservation Officer is happy with this design and siting

·         An extra condition has been added to make obscure glazing necessary in windows facing Linden Cottages

·         There is adequate separation between the proposed building and Linden Cottages so that light will not be lost

Members commented that the proposed house was of an attractive design, but some members felt that it was too big and would tower over the properties in Oldfield Road.

A motion to refuse planning permission was proposed, and seconded, for the reasons of Bulk and Massing and lack of sympathy for the houses on Oldfield Road. The vote was tied and the Chair used her casting vote to defeat  the motion to refuse.

Members then continued by voting on the Officers Recommendation to approve the application

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s Report

Application Number: 15/P4741                 Ward: Abbey

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions and S106 agreement

Proposal: Demolition of existing industrial buildings (Class B2 & B8) and erection of a part 2, part 3, part 4 storey buildings and associated works (parking & landscaping etc) to provide  34 x residential units and 459 sqm of office space (Class B1a).

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary agenda. The Committee received verbal presentations from three objectors to the application and the applicant’s Agent, and Ward Councillor Katy Neep

The Planning Officer made comments in reply to questions from Members:

·         The contribution to affordable housing was based on the view of the independent viability assessor

·         A viability review mechanism will be incorporated into the S106 triggered if there is a significant delay in building out the development following grant of planning permission

·         The Environment Agency are now happy with the Application and the Flood Risk Assessment

·         The application has design features to ensure privacy with screening on the upper level terraces and balconies

·         The separation distances meet guidelines

·         The Council’s own employment studies show that there is a demand for the type of employment premises provided by this application.

Members made comments including:

·         This development will provide much needed new homes

·         It is regrettable that no affordable housing is provided, just a contribution to off site affordable housing

·         Concerned about loss of low cost employment use premises

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s Report and S106 agreement

Application Number: 16/P2942                 Ward: Hillside

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to Conditions and S106 Agreement

ITEM WITHDRAWN FROM THIS AGENDA

Withdrawn from Agenda

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

REPORT TO FOLLOW

The Committee heard that there had been no Planning Appeal Decisions to note this month

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

REPORT TO FOLLOW

The Committee noted the report on recent and current Enforcement Cases.