There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2022 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

The Committee noted the amendments and modifications to the officer’s report. The Chair advised that the agenda would be taken in the published agenda order.

Application No: 22/P0812

Ward: Hillside

Recommendation: GRANT Planning permission subject to conditions and S106 Agreement

The Planning Officer presented the report.

The Committee received presentations from two objectors who raised points including:

• This application was similar to the application that was refused in 2021 which continued to conflict with Mertons policy on affordable housing.
• Objectors felt that the property was visually intrusive, overbearing and unneighbourly due to its mass, height, bulk and sighting.
• The development would cause overshadowing, overlooking and a 30% loss of light
• The existing property built in 1900 should be a heritage asset
• There have been 48 letters of objections
• No affordable housing has been provided
• There was a security concern of the communal area of the two linked apartment blocks
• The impact of car parking could impact neighbours
• There was no like for like replacement of trees
• As the property was on a hill slope, there was a risk to the foundations of neighbouring homes.

The committee received presentations from Ward Councillor Daniel Holden who raised points including:

• This was the second time the that the site had come to the Planning Application Committee.
• Neighbours would be negatively impacted by this development, with negatives outweighing any positives of the scheme.
• The application should be refused due to an overbearing loss of light and loss of privacy, harming the resident’s rights to a peaceful enjoyment of their homes and gardens.
• The application was previously refused due to a lack of affordable homes which has not changed with this application. This has meant that this proposal has failed to meet the Merton Council and London Plan policies on affordable housing units.
• The proposal was contrary to policy DMD2 of the sites and policy plan, policy CS14 of Merton’s core strategy as well as the London Plan.

The committee received presentations from the representative of the applicant, Stephen Norris, who raised points including:

• As per the current Planning policy, the development made the most efficient use of the land.
• The site was within the public transport accessibility level 6A which was considered to be very high.
• As the first scheme was refused by the Committee in December 2021, they have worked with Planning Officers to overcome the previous objections and have made a positive contribution towards the character and appearance of the area.
• 17 new units have been proposed which would be a net gain of 13 units.
• Further consideration was given to minimise the impact to surrounding dwellings by controlling the views out from the new block to minimalise overlooking.
• The development maximised the amount of green and amenity spaces around the building
• The height of the building was reduced by 2.05 meters, the shoulder of the building reduced by approximately 2 meters and the boundaries from Bluegates was extended by a further 1 meter.
• The gap between the development and the back of LeewardGardens would be between 20 to 25 meters. To prevent direct overlooking, all of the facing windows have been indented and angled.
• Three reports were commissioned, one from the applicant and two from the council with regards to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Application No: 22/P2120

Ward: Raynes Park

Recommendation: GRANT Planning permission subject to conditions and S106 Agreement

The Planning Technician presented the report.

There were no objectors registered to address the Committee on this item.

In response to questions from the committee, the Planning Officer advised:

·       It would be a requirement as per Condition 20 that requested details of the air source heat pump be provided.

·       A condition could be included which would require compliance to noise

·       Detail of walls and fences would be required as part of Condition 5 to be submitted as a pre-commencement condition. Amendments could be made to include citing, height and external appearance as well as Hedgehog tunnels.

·       The highway and transport officers have acknowledged that this would be a restricted site and have recommended a condition that there would be a Logistics Plan in place.

The Chair moved to the vote on the Officers’ recommendation with the following additional conditions:

·       Air source heat pump agreed subject to noise.

RESOLVED: That the Committee GRANTED Planning Permission Subject to Conditions

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The report was noted.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The report was noted.

Members of the committee expressed gratitude for the work completed thus far by the Planning Team.