There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 March 2020 are 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 5 and 6.

The Chair announced that there would be no change to the order of items in the published agenda.

Application Number:            19/P3400                   Ward:  Merton Park

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to S106 Obligation or any other enabling agreement.

RESOLVED that Application 19/P3400 is granted planning permission subject to conditions and s106 agreement.

Proposal: The demolition of former two storey Doctors’ Surgery and erection of a three storey residential block providing 8 self-contained flats.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation, including the additional condition proposed as set out in the supplementary agenda.

Two objectors had registered to speak and had submitted written statements which were read out by the Senior Democratic Services Officer at the request of the Chair.  The statements raised points relating to overlooking, loss of privacy and light, noise impact and the proximity of the refuse bins to neighbouring property.  A written statement on behalf of the applicant was also read out, setting out the adjustments made to address the concerns of neighbouring residents and the benefits the scheme would bring to the area.

The Development Control Team Leader South addressed the points raised by the objectors in respect of overlooking, loss of light and loss of privacy.  He advised the Committee that if it was minded to approve, an additional condition could be added to request complete obscure glazing on the kitchen window in question.  He demonstrated on plans the separation distances which were not close enough to warrant refusal and officers felt that the applicant was acceptable in terms of light.

In response to questions from Members, the Development Control Team Leader South advised:

- officers considered the location of the cycle and refuse storage to be reasonable.

- it would be reasonable to request obscure glazing and privacy screen up to 1.6 or 1.7m high if Members were minded.

- officers did not consider the distance between the windows of the proposal and the windows of No. 85 to be unreasonable.

- there would be no reduction or harm to amenity space and existing trees should be retained.

- the previous application was for 9 units and the current proposal was for 8 units and the previous application did not meet floor space standards, whereas the current application did meet the standards.

- each application must be considered on its own merits and the particular conversation area, therefore standard construction times would not be appropriate in this case.

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 7.58pm and resumed at 8.05pm

Members made a number of comments, including:

-       Some felt that the application was a good scheme overall, although there were concerns over refuse storage and the proximity to the bedroom of flat 3.

-       There were some concerns in respect of overlooking and privacy, which had not been dealt with and it was felt that the application should be rejected on that basis.

-       Some felt that the proposal would make a positive contribution to developing the area and would delivery important housing provision.

-       An additional condition relating to provision of Swift boxes was requested.

Development Control Team Leader South confirmed that a condition relating to swift boxes could be accommodated.

At the conclusion of the debate the Chair called for a vote on the recommendation to approve planning application, with the addition of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Application Number:            20/P0420                   Ward:  Village

Officer Recommendation:  GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions and S106 agreement.

RESOLVED that Application 20/P0420 is granted planning permission subject to conditions and s106 agreement.

Proposal: The erection of a two storey media pavilion, replacement of temporary cabins with a dedicated technical services room (TSR), and reconfiguration of gate 20 including the relocation and widening of existing access/egress, relocation of existing gatehouse building, new accreditation hut and gatehouse building, landscaping and associated works.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation, including the additional conditions proposed as set out in the supplementary agenda.

A statement had been received on behalf of a residents association which was read out by the Senior Democratic Services Officer at the request of the Chair.  Whilst not objecting to the application, concerns were raised over the environmental impact of the proposed scheme and the continued enlargement of the facilities over time and a request that the s106 agreement includes provision for road and pavement maintenance and parking controls.  A written statement on behalf of the applicant was also read out, addressing the concerns of neighbouring residents and the benefits the scheme would bring to the area.

The Development Control Team Leader North addressed the points raised in the written submission and advised that traffic would not be increased by the proposal, it would be moved to a different part of the site. The Council did not have the authority to include a private road in the s106 legal agreement as proposed by residents and nor could we include environmental measures, such as road maintenance, given the size of the proposal and what it relates to.

The Vice-Chair advised that he had taken part in meetings with both the applicant and the Residents Association and therefore would not be voting on the application.  The Vice-Chair left the meeting at 8.45pm and did not return for the remainder of this item.

In response to questions from Members, the Development Control Team Leader North advised that the parking provision on the underground parking facility in Somerset Road would reduce the pressure on parking in the area and standard construction hours were proposed.

At the conclusion of the debate the Chair called for a vote on the recommendation to approve planning application, with the addition of the conditions set out in the supplementary agenda and it was

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to conditions and a s106 agreement.

Application Number:            19/P3324                     Ward:  Village

Officer Recommendation:      GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions.

RESOLVED that Application 19/P3324 is granted planning permission subject to conditions.

Proposal: Demolition of existing detached dwelling house and the erection of a new single storey dwelling house with accommodation at basement level) and provision of off-street parking and associated landscaping works.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation.

In response to questions from Members, the Development Control Team Leader North advised that additional planting was proposed and the species of trees would be determined by condition.  Officers were not aware of a Controlled Parking Zone in operation in the area and advised that this was not grounds for refusal.

At the conclusion of the debate the Chair called for a vote on the recommendation to approve planning application and it was

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

(The Vice-Chair was not present for the duration of this item.)

Application Number:               19/P2287                     Ward:  Colliers Wood

Officer Recommendation:      GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and a unilateral undertaking to restrict eligibility to parking permits.

RESOLVED that Application 19/P2287 is granted planning permission subject to conditions and a unilateral undertaking to restrict eligibility to parking permits.

Proposal: Demolition of existing building and outbuilding and erection of a two storey building plus lower ground floor level, to contain 8 x self-contained flats with off street parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse storage.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation.

One objector had registered to speak and had submitted a written statement which was read out by the Senior Democratic Services Officer at the request of the Chair.  The statement raised points relating to fire safety and the narrow access and egress which was felt to be unsuitable and unsafe.  A written statement on behalf of the applicant was also read out, setting out the adjustments made to address earlier concerns relating to design, bulk, light and parking.

The Development Control Team Leader South addressed the points raised in the written submission relating to fire safety and advised that this had been addressed through condition to require the applicant to implement a fire safety plan to the satisfaction of the London Fire Brigade.  He also advised that it was not possible to alter the dimensions of the driveway and that officers did not consider that the dimensions were unreasonable.

In response to questions from Members, the Development Control Team Leader South advised that the middle property was single aspect and demonstrated the location of the windows.

Some Members noted that the development would add to the housing stock and did not feel that the application would be detrimental.

At the conclusion of the debate the Chair called for a vote on the recommendation to approve planning application and it was

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to conditions and a unilateral undertaking to restrict eligibility to parking permits.

(The Vice-Chair was not present for the entirety of the debate on this item and therefore could not vote.)

The Committee noted the report on recent Planning Appeal Decisions.

The Committee noted the report on recent planning enforcement.