Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Barlow with Cllr McLean in attendance as substitute and Cllr Butcher with Cllr Brunt in attendance as substitute.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 August 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: 24/P0916

Ward: ?Wimbledon Park?

Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions  

The Planning Officer presented the report.

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

• This was not a family home, non-family members come and go.
• An outside laundry was created that could only be entered from outside of the house through a side door.
• Questioned why an elaborate office was required for a house that was not a family home but an open shared site.
• Number 8 and Number 10 formed one site.
• There were no buildings in the area beyond 30 square metres. If permitted, it would set a precedent.
• Was supposed to be a home office but was now a self-contained accommodation which was not a permitted development.
• If the applications were looked at in their entirety previously, it would not have come to committee and should not be considered as an acceptable development.
• Applicant also owned Number 8 and it was improbable that they needed the extra space for a family of 4.
• Do not have evidence of other people living on the premises but this was outside the permitted development.
• No other properties in the area had living accommodation at the end of their gardens.

The committee received representation from Cllr Jil Hall who raised points including:

• The building constituted overdevelopment and was far too big for the allocated plot.
• Initially built as garden offices but were now self-contained accommodation which was in breach of the planning rules.
• Understood that a condition of a legal agreement could be issued so that the accommodation could not be rented out but how would this be enforced. Notice of a planning enforcement inspection would be given which would allow for arrangements to be made to make it look as if the accommodation was being used by family members.
• This was a separate self-contained living accommodation that was being used and rented out on a commercial basis, which set an awful precedence for the area.
• The application did not meet the requirement set out in the Merton Council Small Site Toolkit.
• The applicant made changes in the knowledge that it could be used as an unlicensed HMO.

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

• Conditions were attached previously to similar applications, but they now used legal agreements which held more weight and was self-reenforcing. They could take enforcement action and if required, a legal injunction.
• A local planning authority could impose a condition which necessitated certain enforcement processes, which the applicant could appeal against. A legal agreement would be harder to challenge as the applicant would be a signatory who knew the exact terms and it would not be imposed by the local planning authority like a condition. The legal agreement carried greater weight then a planning condition with potentially more severe penalties and there was a general willingness from courts to enforce S106 agreements. Due to the nature of this application, a legal agreement felt necessary and would be defended if further evidence was received of the agreement not being complied with.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Application number: 24/P0924

Ward: ?Wimbledon Park

Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions

The Planning Officer presented the report.

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

• Evidence of current use indicated that the outbuilding was used as a separate dwelling and relying on a legal agreement to ensure proper use would be inappropriate.
• The development for No8 and No10 should be considered as a single site as the applicant and family were the same. The back building was accessed separately to the main dwelling via a shared keypad gate erected between the two houses.
• The applicant treated this as a single site despite two applications made.
• Point 313 of the officer’s report in relation to self-use, this was evidence that could be disagreed with as opposed to a fact.
• The utility room was actually a bedroom, the building had separate access from the road, enclosed by a 6ft fence and accessed through a separate keypad operated gate. The gate was removed for the inspection and replaced 2 days later, evidence of this was sent and acknowledged by Planning.
• Couple have lived there for 18+ months and come and go separately from the main house which has been seen on camera. They move through the garden from No10 to No8.
• Have already mentioned the independent laundry for usage by a number of households at No10.
• The applicant runs a building company and knows the building rules and regulations but has ignored them.
• Should not fall on residents to observe compliance with a legal agreement they are unaware of.
• Requests that the committee view the unlawful back builds in conjunction with a major land development of the main house at No8, including a huge basement.
• The reluctance of a party wall agreement created doubt of compliance of a legal agreement.
• The combined site of No8 and No10 constituted a major overdevelopment for purely business purposes.
• What was built was not permitted development and consists of a living accommodation which was not there before, the first development of this type in Pitt Crescent.
• The building was in breach of planning regulations and should not have been allowed to progress to this stage. Retrospective planning permission was not acceptable.
• Despite resident concerns raised in August 2022, the garden brick building at No8 and No10 was still used as living accommodation. Enforcement action did nothing.
• Amenities were impacted due to noise and smoking.
• Lack of due process and transparency with local residents they felt frustrated and misled with no assistance from Planning Officers.
• There was a conflict of interest as the applicant was an employee of Merton Council.
• The applicant owns a building company and knows what was and what was not permitted development
• Have no faith in a legal agreement.
• The use of the house was not for a family dwelling but to double the size of the existing dwelling, adding a sub-basement and roof space; why do they need all this space, it was purely a development for rental income via an HMO.

The committee received representation from Cllr Jil Hall who  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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.

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

• Burn Bullock involved complex and serious discussions as the police investigation was still ongoing.
• The last officers heard was in August 2024, where the owner’s legal advisers acknowledged that scaffolding was necessary as well as a temporary roof. The architect advised that a design specialist and engineer had been on site and were going to come up with a specification and quotes, but they have heard nothing since.
• Although structurally sound, they feared from a building control perspective that the winter months would not help. The compliance period to get all of the unauthorised activity off of the site expired yesterday so the next step was to complete a compliance check. They have backing from the inspectorate to take it to court if needed.
• The White Hart was also of concern, they have now granted permission for commercial use on the ground floor and residential use above.

The Programme Manager introduced the report.

In response to questions raised by the committee, the following was advised:

• New policies on HMO’s have been included. The key thing was that adopting the plan helped to move forward with HMO guidance which complimented the existing Article 4 direction.
• The council is legally obliged to review plans every 5yrs. This plan has a 15yr life plan which runs until 2038 and would be reviewed within that time.
• Cabinet Members already committed the Council to do a Design Code for site CW2. When looking at Design Codes, officers reviewed the surrounding area but the site that the Design Code would focus on would be site CW2 as this was the only site in Colliers Wood allocated for a taller building. The power lines in Colliers Wood inhibit taller buildings so unless the powerlines went underground, which was not the plan, it was likely that Colliers wood would stay at the current levels.
• Thanks to residents, in planning terms South Wimbledon had been updated and although this may not filter through to the electoral register, it would be correctly referred to in planning terms.
• On the strategic height diagram in the Local Plan, in general Local Plans trump guidance such as SPD’s but it was worth noting that the strategic heights diagram for Wimbledon was very much based on the Wimbledon SPD which went through substantial consultation.
• The Council’s position was that Brittania Point should have remained the pinnacle which was not held up by Inspectors. Representation for Morden was received that asked for the Council building to be the pinnacle. This was not something that was in the local plan and wasn’t the position taken. The Morden Policy did have a strategic heights diagram which looked at building heights in Morden, but they proposed regeneration of Morden and rather than expanding the town centre out, taller buildings will be proposed in the area.
• The work done for Morden did look at taller buildings, but it didn’t measure by storeys as storey heights could be misleading, instead it was measured at 71meters.
• Cabinet Members have tasked the team to produce a design code for the active site at the land south of Brittania Point which was a priority moving forward. The Inspectors were clear that national policy allowed provision for either the Council or applicant to do design codes so it didn’t slow down development. They would then look at what else needed design codes, it was important to note that nationally design codes were now focussed on areas of change instead of everywhere in the borough. They would have to come back to members to confirm timescales and whether the Council led on every design code that came forward.
• The plan would only be adopted by resolution of Full Council on 20^th November 2024. Tonight’s report looked at whether this committee would recommend to resolve at the upcoming Full Council meeting.
• The submitted plan had more then 9months of consultation by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.