Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Jerome Neil.

Councillor John Dehaney attended as Substitute for Councillor Neil

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2018 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 5,6,7,8,9,10,13 and 16.

Order of the meeting – The Chair announced that the order of items taken at the meeting would be: 10,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,13,14,15 and 16

Application number: 17/P3898      Ward: VILLAGE

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Erection of a single storey rear extension

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation, including the information in the supplementary agenda and the additional plan. Members noted that Historic England had not yet submitted a formal view regarding demolition of the Air Raid Shelter, but that the planning decision was separate to this process and that Historic England’s view will be taken into account if necessary.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Application number: 17/P3218      Ward: Hillside

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to a S106 Legal Agreement and Conditions

Proposal: Erection of 5 bedroom detached dwelling arranged over four floors including basement and roof space accommodation

The Committee noted the officer’s report, presentation, amendments in the Supplementary agenda and an amended plan. The Committee received verbal representations from two objectors and the Agent to the application.

The Objectors made points including:

·         There are already flooding problems on the road. The basement will make this worse and will be at risk of flooding

·         The basement will add to subsidence risk in the area

·         The basement is very large

·         There is no confidence that the applicant will adhere to building regs.

·         The applicant has not carried out a proper flood risk assessment

·         The development would cause a loss of light to neighbours

·         The balcony would cause a loss of privacy to neighbours

·         Construction vehicles would be a risk to school children using the road

·         Applicant has already cut down 5 mature trees

·         There is no contribution to affordable housing

·         This is overdevelopment and will cause a real environmental impact

The Agent made points including:

·         The trees were cut down lawfully as none had TPOs and the site is not in  Conservation Area. An Apple tree was kept by request and an eucalyptus felled by request.

·         This will be 5 bedroomed dwelling that will assist with meeting Merton Council’s housing target

·         It does not cause overshadowing

·         There will be a sustainable drainage strategy for the development, and a sustainability and energy statement

·         The development is policy compliant in all respects

In reply to points raised by the Objectors, Officers commented that:

·         There is no balcony – it is a green roof and will be ‘no access’ by condition

·         The Council’s flood and structural engineers have approved the details submitted so far. Applicant will need to provide a more detailed construction method statement regarding the basement construction

·         There is no requirement to provide affordable housing as this is a single unit

In reply to points raised by the Members, Officers commented that:

·         It is not possible to specify a basement contractor by condition, or to request monitoring equipment. Party Wall agreements are not a planning issue.

·         The loss of light to number 51 is considered acceptable, as the windows facing the development are a stairway and a bathroom

·         The proposed parking space is the same depth as the existing space at number 51.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted  to GRANT Planning Permission subject to a S106 Legal Agreement and Conditions.

Application Number: 17/P3813         Ward: VILLAGE

Officer Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to s.106 legal agreement and conditions

Proposal: Demolition of existing garages and the erection of a 1 x single dwelling house comprising of lower ground, ground and part first floor.

The Committee noted the officer’s report, presentation, amendments and additional information in the Supplementary agenda. The Committee received verbal representations from an objector and the Agent to the application.

The Objector raised residents’ concerns including:

·         There are British Standards that make recommendations to  protect trees

·         The Corner of the proposal is within the root protection area

·         The Footprint of the proposal is not outside the root protection area

·         Even shallow excavations can damage trees

·         This development will damage trees

The Agent to the Application made points including:

·         The building has been designed on the basis of the site constraints

·         It is a  sustainable design

·         It has been agreed that it is unlikely that the tree roots are growing under the present garage

·         Special pilling rig will be used in construction to protect tree roots and all pilling will be done within the footprint to give roots more room

·         TPOs will be served on the Holly and Lime trees

Members commented that they were reassured by the tree officer’s expert view that trees would not be harmed by this development and the tree protection conditions imposed on the application

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to to s.106 legal agreement and conditions.

Application Number: 17/P2879         Ward: Merton Park

Officer Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Erection of single storey rear extension

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the supplementary Agenda. The Committee received verbal representations from an objector, the applicant and the Ward Councillor.

The Objector made points including:

·         Extension is vast, over 3m long and wider than the house, and will cover 2/3 of the current garden.

·         Following previous refusal the applicant has made small changes to depth and height but not width, and so has rejected officer advice

·         There is no regard to the neighbours for noise ans nuisance

·         An insurance company has said that the extension will invalidate current insurance

·         The roof will be a security risk

·         Kingston Road is narrow and will cause difficulties for construction vehicles

The Applicant made points including:

·         This is my home.

·          I am a professional in the industry and will ensure building standards are high

·         The original footprint and ridge height have been reduced

·         Neighbouring extensions are more substantial

·         It is acceptable in policy terms

The Ward Councillor John Sargeant made points including:

·         Applicant has not followed Planning Officer’s advice

·         This extension is overbearing

·         The roof sloping towards the building is unacceptable and is designing weakness into the building

·         This extension will cause security and other problems for  residents of the flats

·         Access issues – no room for construction vehicles on Kingston Road

In response to members questions, officers replied that:

·         There is no problem with having a roof that slopes towards the main building, it is possible to use engineering solutions to cope with this.

Members commented:

·         The property is in a Conservation Area and this extension impacts on the frontage and unbalances the house.

·         The building currently remains in its original proportions, this proposal would impact negatively on the original building, and is against policies DMD2 and DMD3

·         That  the amenity of the first floor residents would be affected, where they now see a drop outside their window the development would replace this with a roof.

·         They also commented that the proposal was a very unsympathetic extension that was disproportionate and out of balance with the original building.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to:

1. REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

·         The  bulk and scale and width of the extension are too great and are not proportionate or sympathetic to the existing building

·         The extension would cause a loss of amenity to the residents of the first floor flat

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: 17/P3976         Ward: Raynes Park

Officer Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to s106 Legal Agreement and conditions

Proposal: Erection of 2 x 2 bed flats at rooftop level

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and amendments  in the supplementary agenda. The Committee received a verbal representation from an objector and the applicant.

The Objector raised residents’ concerns regarding loss of light to rooms in Aston Court. In particular daylight and sunlight to her kitchen which she believed to be a ‘habitable’ room.

The Applicant/Agent stated that a full daylight survey showed that the development caused no loss of light to habitable rooms, and that a kitchen was not classed as a habitable room with regard to the BRE daylight and sunlight recommendations. This view was endorsed by the Planning Officer

Members asked officers about the separation distance between the application site and the objectors property and heard that this was over 20m.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to s.106 legal agreement and conditions

Application Number: Proposal A - 17/P1449      Proposal B – 17/P1450

Ward: Cricket Green

Officer Recommendation:

Proposal A: Grant Planning Permission subject to planning conditions.

Proposal B: Grant Listed Building Consent subject to planning conditions.

Proposal A: Alterations and extensions to Canons House to provide a mix of workspace (B1), education and community spaces (D1) involving demolition of toilet block and part of wall for erection of new entrance and community wall, partial demolition and extension to Madeira Hall to provide café, play/community room and public toilets, repair works to the Dovecote, provision of a new civic space in location of current northern car park, provision of new play area to replace existing play area, and associated landscaping and external works including reinstatement of historic running track, installation of outdoor gym equipment, new fencing, entrances, paths and lighting, and resurfacing of driveway.

Proposal B: Application for Listed Building Consent for alterations and extensions to Canons House to provide a mix of workspace, education and community spaces involving demolition of toilet block and part of wall for erection of new entrance and community wall, partial demolition and extension to Madeira Hall to provide café, play/community room and public toilets, repair works to the Dovecote, provision of a new civic space in location of current northern car park, provision of new play area to replace existing play area, and associated landscaping and external works including reinstatement of historic running track, installation of outdoor gym equipment, new fencing, entrances, paths and lighting, and resurfacing of driveway.

The Committee noted the officers report, presentation, amendments and additional information in the Supplementary agenda. The Committee received two verbal representations on the application.

Jonathan Lewis, Planning Team Leader, presented the item and drew members’ attention to the additional information in the Supplementary Agenda, in particular the legal advice received by officers regarding the determination of the Listed Building Consent. He confirmed that further time would be given to allow outstanding consultees time to reply. He also asked the Committee to note the commentary regarding how the revised scheme addresses the comments made by the DRP (Design Review Panel) by the applicants architect, the head of Future Merton and the Council’s Conservation Officer. In particular he asked the Committee to note how the architect had responded to the DRP views on the entrance.

He informed the Committee that the Business Plan was not material to the planning application.

He guided the Committee through the application and associated plans, as presented in the Officer’s Report, and the Committee took some extra time to read the additional information provided in the Supplementary Agenda.

Tony Burton representingMitcham Cricket Green Community and Heritage, and The Canons Partnership; made points including:

·         Volunteers have spent a lot of time putting together the funding bid to allow this work to go ahead

·         Did not expect to be speaking against the application

·         The application is poor in places, but could be improved by the addition of four conditions:

1.    The Canons benefits from the flat being occupied, however this proposal threatens this occupation owing to lack of bathroom in the flat

2.    The new Café needs to be available for community use and needs to be open longer than  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Application Number: 17/P3807        Ward: West Barnes

Officer Recommendation: Grant planning permission subject to conditions, the completion of a S106 legal agreement and the extinguishment of an existing section 52 legal agreement relating to the site.

Proposal: Erection of 3 detached houses with vehicular access from Rookwood Avenue, footpath access between Rookwood Avenue and Blagdon Road, landscaping and a minor boundary alteration to No. 36 Rookwood Avenue.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation. The Committee received a verbal representation from Ward Councillor Gilli Lewis-Lavender

The Ward Councillor commented that the developers had worked hard to listen to residents and answer their questions, and Residents support this application. Councillor Lewis-Lavender supports the application and requests that the developers also do the remedial work to the bridge required.

Members asked officers about the status of the open land and heard that the proposed pedestrian paths would be transferred to Merton Council, and the land would have guaranteed public access. This associated open land would be landscaped by the developers and ownership transferred to a management company that would allow residents to become involved with a view to taking on the management company after 25 years.

Officers commented that the Bridge mentioned by Councillor Lewis-Lavender was outside of the planning application site.

Members commented that this was an innovative and imaginative solution to the use of the land.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions,

the completion of a S106 legal agreement and the extinguishment of an existing section 52 legal agreement relating to the site.

Application number: 16/P4333         Ward:Graveney

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to a s106 undertaking for a permit free development and conditions.

Proposal: Demolition of existing warehouse and erection of 8 dwellings comprising of 4 x 2 bed duplex flats and 4 x 1 bed flats

The Committee noted the Officer’s report and presentation.

RESOLVED

GRANT Planning Permission subject to a s106 undertaking for a permit free development and conditions.

Application number: 17/P3677         Ward: Figges Marsh

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to a s106 undertaking for a permit free development and conditions.

Proposal: Demolition of existing building and erection of a single storey Lidl foodstore with associated car parking, cycle parking and landscaping.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and amendment in the supplementary agenda.

Members commented that this application fully addressed the previous reasons for refusal, and thanked the applicant for listening. However they felt that this was a lost opportunity as there was no housing associated with the development.

The Transport Planning Officer explained that officers were working with TfL to try to relieve the traffic issues on Streatham Road.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Application Number: TPO 717          Ward: Village

Officer Recommendation: That the Merton (No.717) Tree Preservation Order 2017 be confirmed, without modification.

The Committee noted the Officer’s report.

RESOLVED

That the Merton (No.717) Tree Preservation Order 2017 be confirmed, without modification.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The Committee noted the report on recent Planning Appeal Decisions.

Enforcement Report to Follow

The Committee noted the report on current enforcement work.

It was noted that the Enforcement Appeal for 12A Commonside West had been dismissed.