Apologies for absence were received from Cllr McGrath with Cllr Hicks in attendance as substitute and Cllr Barlow with Cllr Paterson in attendance as substitute.

Apologies for absence were also received from Cllr Bhim.

There were no declarations of interest.

To Follow

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 October 2023 were agreed as an accurate record with the following amendments:

•         Bullet point 3 of Cllr MacArther’s statement amended to include ‘implausible’.

•         Inclusion of the YouTube links of the meeting.

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

Please note that members of the public, including the applicant or anyone speaking on their behalf, are expressing their own opinions and the Council does not take any responsibility for the accuracy of statements made by them.

The Committee noted the amendments and modifications to the officer’s report. The Chair advised that the agenda would be taken with Agenda Item 6 first, followed by Agenda Item 5.

Please note that members of the public, including the applicant or anyone speaking on their behalf, are expressing their own opinions and the Council does not take any responsibility for the accuracy of statements made by them.

Application number: 23/P0747

Ward: Village

Recommendation: REFUSE Planning Permission

The Planning Officer presented the report.

The committee received representation from the applicant Stephen Sexton who raised points including:

•         The recommendation for refusal was due to the upper extension resulting in material harm to the character and appearance of the existing building, conservation area and the wider street scene.

•         Design features were included to reduce the height and minimise the visual impact.

•         Kitchens and bathrooms had the minimum permitted ceiling height and were located underneath the upper extension. This allowed the upper extension to be sunk into the floor below which reduced height and visual impact.

•         The top floor flat was built in 1974 and in need of modernisation.

•         Surrounding propertied were not in the conservation area. The north of 3 Lansdowne Road was in the conservation area, but views were blocked by 2 Lansdowne Road. To the east, the conservation area was blocked by another building. To the south of Lansdowne Road, they were not in the conservation area. The first property to be in the conservation ware was 17 Lansdowne Road. There were no direct frontal views to the development from any property which was in the conservation area.

•         The upper extension was set so far back from the edge of the building that it would not be visible from Lansdowne Road.

•         The upper extension was too far to be seen from the ridgeway, with limited views from the Downs which were not in the conservation area.

•         The refused appeal scheme was in relation to two buildings with 2 additional full height floors of 7000 square feet which comprised of 8 two bedroom apartments. The current application was for an ensuite bedroom of 400 square feet, a fraction of the scale which was previously proposed.

In response to questions raised by the committee, Planning Officers advised:

•         Visual impact of the scheme was a matter of judgement.

•         Downs Road and Lansdowne Road were not within the conservation area although most of the areas outside of those roads were. It was acknowledged that some of the views from immediately in front of the building would be partially visible to the structure but officers also looked at wider views as well as the design of the scheme, and whether it was appropriate for the host building and surroundings.

•         This was a subjective assessment. The scheme would improve accommodation for a single unit however, there was already consent to remove the conservatory and extend the flat sideways. The proposal would be a benefit for the resident only and not for the wider public. The proposal would make the building taller than any other in the local area. There were many purpose built blocks of flats in the area so they needed to be sure that the visual impact was acceptable.

•         Most of the master bedroom would be glazed with an outlook but there would be some back panelling where there would be no light coming through.

•         Many elements of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Application number: 23/P1621

Ward: Lower Morden

Recommendation: GRANT PRIOR APPROVAL subject to conditions s106 agreement

The Planning Officer presented the report.

The committee received representation from Ward Cllr Sally Kenny who raised points including:

•         Repairs and maintenance were inadequate and would be made worse if two additional floors were added.

•         Residents received a letter today which stated that the planning meeting would be on 24 February 2000. Residents accepted the year 2000 was an error but as it stated 24 February, they thought today’s meeting would be cancelled. Once residents were made aware that the item would be heard today it was too late for them to attend.

•         The leak in the block was ongoing for 2 years which was poor. Scaffolding was currently in place to address this but not many workers have been seen.

•         It took two years to address resident concerns of stair nosing. Although now complete it was worth noting how long it took.

•         The communal door lock had to be replaced at least three times in one year which suggested materials used were inadequate.

•         Residents felt that the communal cleaning areas were done inadequately and to a poor standard.

•         How would the developer cope with the addition of 12 new flats.

•         Residents wanted to know what steps would be taken to keep them informed at every stage of the process, how would they access their homes, how will they be protected during the works.

•         It took four to five months to deal with waste management issues.

The committee received representation from the applicant Thomas Rumble who raised points including:

•         Proposal was for an addition of 12 flats, a mix of one and two bedroom apartments.

•         The site filled Brownfield land and benefited from the permitted development rights, granted under part 20 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) which allowed the addition of floors above the existing building. These rights were further supported by the London Plan and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

•         Prior approval considerations were reviewed in the officer’s report.

•         Two parking surveys completed in 2021 and 2023 demonstrated that the proposal would not cause undue parking stress, further supported by the London Plan which encouraged car free developments. The Councils Highway team also had no objections.

•         The scheme would provide a two tier cycle rack provision which offered 12 spaces, available to existing and proposed tenants on site.

•         A £10,000 contribution would be provided for the provision of cycle hangers in local area.

•         A £3.600 contribution would be made for the Councils local e-bike cycle hire scheme.

•         The lower of the two additional floors would match the existing three levels and was previously approved by the Council via prior approval earlier in the year.

•         The upper additional floor formed a mansard roof to be pitched on its sides. The setting of this floor broke up massing and ensured the external appearance was appropriate and more consistent with the local area.

•         The proposed extension was further supported by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The report was noted.

A security and health and safety concern was raised in relation to 7 Watery Lane. It was also noted that works were completed without planning permission. Jon Berry agreed to refer this matter to the Enforcement Team.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The report was noted.