Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Linda Kirby and Dave Ward.

Councillors David Chung and John Dehaney attended as substitutes.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 July were agreed as an accurate record.

The Chair will announce the order of Items at the beginning of the Meeting.

A Supplementary Agenda with any modifications will be published on the day of the meeting.

Note: there is no written report for this item

Supplementary Agenda: Amendments and modifications to the Officer’s report were published in a Supplementary Agenda. This applied to items 6 and 9.

Order of the meeting – The Chair announced that the items would be taken in the following order 7, 9, 6, 8, 5, 10 and 11.

Application Number: 19/P1914      Ward: Wimbledon Park

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P1914 is:

Granted Planning Permission subject to Conditions

Proposal: Alterations to previously approved extensions following previously approved planning permission 18/P0952, including: insertion of rooflight over new extended flat roof, changes to front rooflights, new window in front elevation, removal of rear chimney stack, changes to rear dormer and side (northern) elevation windows.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation.

In reply to members’ questions the Building and Development Control Manager replied:

·         If people get a planning permission and then build something that does not match the permission then they are taking a risk. However in this case what is being proposed is probably more acceptable than the original permission.

·         Issues relating to the guttering need to be resolved between the applicant and neighbours – this is not a matter for planning.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Application number: 19/P2384      Ward: Village

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P2384 is:

Granted Planning Permission subject to Conditions

Proposal: Application to Vary Condition 2 (Approved Plans) attached to LBM Planning Permission Ref.19/P0155 (Dated 21/02/2019) relating to the erection of a single storey link to the existing Coach House at 24 The Grange, excavation of basement and erection of a single storey rear extension (Amendment involves revisions to the footprint of approved basement).

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional conditions and informative in the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications

The Committee received a verbal representation for one objector who made comments including:

·         This is the third planning application, the first was rejected and dismissed by the inspector. The second was approved

·         This application seeks to increase the size of the basement

·         There is a miscalculation in the Planning Officers report, it is not an extra 110m² it is an extra 150m²

·         This is not a minor material amendment; it increases the basement by 93% outside the curtilage

·         In the appeal decision the Inspector considered the proposals excessive – why have planning officers not taken this into account?

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Applicant who made points including:

·         The additional area is 130m² when viewed against footprint – the objectors figures are wrong

·         The appeal on the  previous scheme was dismissed owing to the proposed ground floor extension, the Inspector considered the basement on that scheme acceptable

·         Following our second, successful, application we talked to Officers about extending into the roof space but they advised against this. We have now asked for an increase in the basement size, which will not be visible in the conservation area.

·         This proposal is for a basement that is almost exactly the same size as the approved footprint, and is roughly half the size that could be allowed for this site

·         It will be under only 16% of the garden and we have deliberately kept it well away from our boundaries.

In reply to members’ questions the Building and Development Control Manager replied:

·         Conditions requested by the Flood Risk Manager and Structural Engineer are in the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications

·         The applicant says that the increase is 130m²

·         The Appeal on the  previous application was dismissed for reasons associated with a ground floor extension not the basement

·         This proposed increase to the previously approved basement is still smaller than other recently approved basements in the area

·         It is not for Planning to ask about the proposed use of the basement

·         This proposal still has good separation from the boundary with neighbours

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions.

Application number: 19/P0883      Ward: Abbey

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and S106 agreement

Proposal: Erection of a two storey detached building with accommodation at roof and basement level comprising 13 flats (5 x 1, 6 x 2 and 2 x 3 bedroom flats) and associated works

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation.

The Committee received a verbal representation for one objector who made comments including:

·         We knew that there would be development of this site but this proposal is overdevelopment

·         Object to the extent of the digging and excavation required and the risks associated with this to my property owing to the soil type in the area. This was raised by the surveyor when I bought this property

·         I also object to the roof terrace, this will overlook and affect my privacy. If the Screening is high enough to block overlooking it will then block sunlight to my property

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Applicant’s agent who made points including:

·         Please note that the applicant only acquired this site last year and was not involved in any previous activity at this site

·         We have worked with Merton Planning Officers to deliver an efficient use of the site

·         The proposal is for 13 units in a highly sustainable location, with a density that is acceptable according to the London Plan

·         To address comments made by the Inspector on the previous application, this application has no building at the rear of the site, all of this area is outdoor amenity space

·         All the 1 and 2 bedroomed units will be parking permit free. The 3 bedroomed family unit will get a permit, and to allow for this two on street parking spaces will be been created

·         Condition 16 requires the Secured by Design plan

·         There were no objections to the application from statutory consultees

In reply to the objectors comments the Building and Development Control Manager replied that all the relevant documentation had been submitted and assessed for the basement construction and no issues had been raised.

The Ward Councillor, Nigel Benbow, made a verbal representation to the Committee and made points including:

·         Why have previous concerns with the design and parking not been taken into consideration? Parking is very difficult on Hamilton Road

·         The development is still too large for Hamilton Road, and is out of keeping with the beautiful Victorian houses on this road

·         The description of the property as 2.5 storeys is misleading, the proposal has a basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and roof terrace.

·         The roof terrace will cause a loss of privacy to neighbours

·         The minimum distance between buildings should be 18-21m according to the London Plan – does this building achieve that?

·         The proposal shows 6 wheelie bins – this will not be enough

·         The development will not provide acceptable living conditions for residents

·         £40,000 developer contributions to affordable housing is not enough

·         This proposal is over-development

In reply to members’ questions the Building and Development Control Manager replied:

·         The Officers report presents a full consideration of the site in relation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Application Number: 19/P1462      Ward: Merton Park

Officer recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions

PAC Resolved that application 19/P1462 is:

Refused, the reasons will be detailed in the minutes

Proposal: Erection of single storey rear extension

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation.

The Committee received a verbal representation for one objector who made comments including:

·         This application makes no significant changes to the previously refused scheme

·         This is the fourth application, all the previous ones have been refused by Merton, with the most recent also being dismissed by the Planning Inspector. None of the reasons for refusal have been addressed by this proposal. The applicant has consistently ignored Officer’s advice.

·         The proposal is not modest, it takes up the majority of the garden in a Conservation Area. It would compromise security and is out of proportion with the existing building and would cause material harm.

·         The applicant has been told that the lease does not allow for this extension

In reply to members’ questions the Building and Development Control Manager replied:

·         The Committee needs to be clear about their reasons for refusal and the inspectors reasons for dismissing the appeal. Officers have interpreted the Inspectors reasons being that the previous rear extension design was inappropriate, but not that it did not respect the original form of the property.

·         There has been one appeal on this property

·         This application is wider and higher than the application that went to appeal. It is now 1.1m wider than the existing property.

Members made comments including:

·         This proposal still does not respect the original form of the property

·         Previous refusals were based on width and height, this proposal is wider and higher then these applications

·         The Inspector did reject the Committees previous reason for refusal that the extension would affect the occupiers of the flat above, but as this application is now higher I think that this reason is valid.

A proposal to Refuse the application for the same reasons as the previous application was proposed and seconded and agreed by the vote.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to:

1.    REFUSE Planning Permission for the following reasons:

·         The proposed single storey extension would, by virtue of its bulk, scale and width, result in a disproportionately large addition which would not be sympathetic to the form of the existing building contrary to Policy CS14 of the Core Planning Strategy 2011 and Policies DMD2 & DMD3 of the Sites and Policies Plan 2014.

&

·         The proposed single storey extension would, by virtue of its width, depth, height, proximity to the neighbouring property above and roof form, result in material harm to the amenities of the occupiers of the residential flat above the application site, Flat No.2, 237 Kingston Road, Wimbledon, SW19 3NW, by way of loss of outlook, contrary to Policies DMD2 and DMD3 of the Sites and Policies Plan 2014

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: 19/P1235      Ward: Merton Park

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and Section 106 agreement

PAC Resolved that application 19/P1235 is:

Granted Planning Permission subject to conditions (and an additional condition that will be detailed in the minutes) and S106 agreement

Proposal: Erection of a 1 bed, single storey detached dwellinghouse. Resurfacing of existing access routes and associated security gates.

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

The Committee received verbal representations from two objectors who made comments including:

·         The development will cause inconvenience and disruption to residents

·         There is a tree that is not mentioned in the application, and residents will not approve its removal

·         The development will block the emergency access to South Merton Station

·         Residents will not allow access

·         How will the CCTV operate and who will be responsible?

·         How will the locked gates operate and who will have keys?

·         Who will own and upkeep the road?

·         Other residents have not been consulted

·         Will the lighting be high or low lighting?

·         The application will disturb wildlife especially the resident colony of hedgehogs, who hibernate between October and April. They would need openings to get through the fences.

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Applicant who made points including:

·         We have worked for five years to develop this proposal and have worked closely with council Officers

·         Application is now recommended for approval by Merton Officers and we have met the requirements of the Metropolitan Polices’ Designing Out Crime’ Officer

·         The site is in an established residential area, close to the station with a good ptal rating. The development will be a modern one bedroomed bungalow and screening. No new access will be created.. This will be a simple and quick build and existing access will be resurfaced

·         All residents will have a key to the gates, and the lighting will be low level. Security will be improved by installing CCTV

·         The site is currently poorly used as a fly-tip and could provide hiding place for criminals. This development will regenerate, restore access and increase security of the site.

·         The Bungalow meets L:ondon Space standards and amenity space standards

In reply to points raised by the objectors the Building and Development Control Manager replied:

·         All development causes some temporary disruption but this will be a small and quick build.

·         There will be a legal agreement to prevent parking on site

·         Cannot consider the legal advice regarding access arrangements as part of the planning process

·         The tree is not very healthy and is not  subject to a TPO

·         CCTV, emergency access and lighting are matters for building control not Planning

·         The gates and access are not matters for planning this is a matter between the residents and applicant

·         A condition regarding wildlife, in relation to Hedgehogs, can be included

In reply to members’ questions the Building and Development Control Manager replied:

·         This is not a standard site, so as for a property with a long drive, residents will need to move their refuse to the main highway for collection

·         The 14m separation distance is not relevant because it occurs at a point where it is not possible to have overlooking

·         The development would certainly improve the surfaces in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Committee noted that the appeal against their decision to refuse application 17/P2574 (Former Sparrowhawk Site, 159 Commonside East, Mitcham) had been dismissed by the inspector.

RESOLVED: The Committee noted the report on Planning Appeal Decisions

RESOLVED: The Committee noted the report on Current Enforcement cases