Apologies for absence were received from Cllr McGrath with Cllr Galea in attendance as substitute.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2024 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.

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 in the published agenda order.

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/P1053

Ward: Wimbledon Park

Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Planning Officer presented the report.

The committee received representation from one objector who raised points including:

·       Unique site and the development was of concern to the whole community.

·       Appreciated that the development was scaled back but there remained concerns with regards to ensuring the protection of the sweet gum tree and further concerns of the proposed balcony on the first floor which would likely result in significant detrimental impact to at least 6 adjoining properties.

·       Given the unique location, the precedent set on Lambourne Avenue for balconies did not apply and they requested that the balcony was removed from the plans.

The committee received representation from the agent Reza Parizi who raised points including:

·       The application underwent consultation with Merton’s Planning Department and gained authority from various authorities including the Case Officer, Conservation Officer and Tree Officer.

·       The current design received no objections from the public during the recent consultation.

·       The existing property was structural unsound, the proposed design would positively contribute to the conservation area.

·       The design aligned aesthetically with existing properties and complied with both the London Plan and Merton Planning Policies.

·       There would be privacy screens on the first floor terrace and the Sweet Gum Tree would be protected.

·       The client and design team collaborated with the Planning Case Officer to ensure compliance. Examples of this were the removal of an outbuilding at the rear of the property and a reduction in the width and depth of the proposal.

·       The design offered a well configured living space and amenities with adequate parking.

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

·       The Tree Officer was involved with the application and the Sweet Gum Tree had a TPO (Tree Protection Order). Page 11 of the officer’s report outlined all protective measures and was dated 11 December 2023. The report highlighted minimal impact and officers were satisfied that the Sweet Gum Tree would be protected.

·       The balcony was reduced in width during negotiations. At first floor level the balcony would be set slightly in and have 1.7metre high screens to its sides. It was acknowledged that it would have some cross views to neighbouring gardens, but this would be at an oblique angle. The Sweet Gum could have some effect on visual impact during the summer but not during the winter months.

·       Obscured glass for first floor windows were fairly common. The officer felt that given the side on view to the property from the south and north, a fixed glazed window was appropriate. If members disagreed, it was possible to have high level high opening windows from 1.7metres from floor height.

·       Condition 21 addressed concerns raised in regard to air source heat pumps. Officers would expect details related to sound to be submitted on discharge of condition which would then be consulted on with the Environmental Officer to ensure that the proposal was acceptable.

·       If solar panels on the roof formed part of the plans, then it would also form part of the consent.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Application number: 23/P3164

Ward: Hillside

Recommendation: GRANT Planning permission subject to conditions

The Planning Officer presented the report and highlighted that they received late representation from the Conservation Officer who was not consulted on the application. The Planning Officer read out the representation that was received.

The committee received representation from two objectors who raised points including:

·       11 of the 17 residents objected to the application.

·       Inappropriate design and material which gave visual unappealing symmetry, they did not agree with comments in the report related to visual enhancement.

·       The applicant planned to build on the main wall of the building which was owned by the freeholder. The freeholder had not given consent and would not until terms were agreed.

·       The rear terrace layout was inconsiderate and impractical. For 3 years the neighbour below had experienced leaks.

·       The development would infringe on the light and privacy of neighbours.

·       The lease clause confers their right to stop any detrimental impact to the character of the building.

·       The property was left empty and unoccupied for 20 years.

·       Application failed to respect the style and architecture of the building which should be preserved.

The chair invited the applicant to make representation, the following was raised:

·       The applicant inherited the property and was an architect by profession. The applicant would downsize to live at this property and was committed to high quality construction.

·       Pre-application advise was taken and the plans were discussed with the applicant’s neighbour.

·       A daylight study was completed without being requested. Feedback was that there would no impact but taking on feedback from neighbours a further assessment was done which stated there would be minimal impact on the terrace and adjoining room.

·       A structural engineer attended the property to assess the existing fabric.

·       New additions to the rear were to be light weight glazed structures to further reduce any impact.

·       There was a solar addition to improve sustainability.

·       Overall quality of the proposal was acceptable based on studies and assessments.

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

·       Matters which related to leases of the property were not material planning considerations. As set out in the report, matters for consideration were impact on the character of the building, impact on the area and neighbouring amenities and matters to help control the building process.

·       In relation to the late comments received from the Conservation Officer, design and visual impact was a matter of judgement. Concerns were raised around design issues but there was no mention of harm to the conservation area or neighbouring listed buildings.

·       The applicant completed a daylight sunlight assessment which concluded there was no breach to the BRE guidelines. The floor plans showed the development did step in away from the shared wall so officers were satisfied.

·       The building itself did not sit within the conservation area.

·       Solar panels would be placed on the flat roofs of the extensions. This was not conditioned as there was no requirement for such environmental benefits.

The Chair invited the applicant to respond to clarify details raised within questions from the committee.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Application number: 23/P3138

Ward: Graveney

Recommendation: GRANT Planning permission subject to conditions? and a s106 agreement

It was proposed and seconded to defer the item as the applicant was not in attendance to answer member queries.

Jon Berry informed the committee that it was not a requirement for the applicant to attend. The application was reviewed by an inspector and as such there was a risk to the Council of an appeal based on non-determination. Any appeal could be accompanied by an application for costs against the Council. A consideration would be whether or not members reasonably delayed making a decision, the applicant not attending the meeting would not be considered sufficient grounds. There would be possible financial and reputational risk for the Council.

A proposal was made for delegated decision, but this was not seconded.

Members of the committee agreed to proceed with the application.

The Planning Officer presented the report.

There were no registered speakers for this item.

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

·       Each application would be taken on its individual merits, very few sites had material planning considerations applied to them in the way that this application did. There was a very strong steer from the planning inspectorate which members had to give great weight to and overall the development was judged to be a good quality development that provided a particular form of housing which met a housing need, that the inspectorate felt was right for the area.

·       The spare room was an attractive addition to give more space for homeworking and did not take away from the shared amenities such as the lounge room and spacious kitchen. As such, the loss of the room would not be grounds for refusal.

·       It was difficult to know what the inspector looked at when considering the volume of HMO’s in the area. Graveney had a higher number of HMO complaints but in proportion to the number of complaints per HMO, Wimbledon Village and Hillside had more than Graveney.

·       It was in the developer’s best interest to maintain the standard of the property to ensure that they could charge the desired rent. 

·       The purpose of the 106 agreement was to make it permit free. The development was in a CPZ so there could not be any car ownership and as such would not add to parking issues.

·       The development had permission for a 6 bedroom HMO, the question before members was around the impact of going to a 7 bedroom HMO.

·       All registered HMO’s were recorded by the HMO department, this would be the 7^th HMO in a road of approximately 200 properties.

·       You could not issue a condition for a person to keep the inside of a property as attractive as one would like for it to be.

·       A condition was recommended which would limit this development to 7 persons in total. This would also be covered within the HMO license.

·       The inspectorate’s decision was based on 7 people.

The Chair moved to the vote on the Officers’ recommendation: Votes For – 7, Against – 2, Abstentions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

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.