No Apologies for absence were received at the start of the meeting

Councillor Dave Ward gave apologies as he had to leave the meeting after Item 7.

There were no declarations of pecuniary interest.

Councillor Lanning declared that she had sought legal advice that confirmed that she does not have a disclosable pecuniary interest in Item 7. She confirmed that she would be able to assess the application with an open mind.

Councillor McGrath declared that in the interest of openness and transparency he has a connection to the applicant of Item 5, and so would not take part in the debate or vote on the item.

Councillor Latif declared that in the interest of openness and transparency he knows the applicant of Item 5, and so would not take part in the debate or vote on the item

Councillor Dean declared that in the interest of openness and transparency he has had discussions with the applicant for Items 8 and 9, and so would not take part in the debate or vote on both items.

Councillor Linda Kirby made a statement to inform the Committee that she and Councillor Najeeb Latif had both Chaired recent Design Review Panel meetings. At these meetings neither take any part in the debate nor vote on the proposal

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2020 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

Supplementary Agenda: Amendments and modifications to the Officer’s report were published in a Supplementary Agenda. This applied to items 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12.

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

Application Number: 19/P4084                  Ward: Wimbledon Park

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to completion of a S.106 Agreement and Conditions

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P4084 is: Granted Planning Permission subject to Conditions and S106 Agreement

Proposal: Erection of a part third and part fourth floor extension to provide 1 x 1 bedroom and 1 x 2 bedroom flats

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional material in the Supplementary Agenda - Modifications.

The Committee received a verbal representation from ward Councillor Ed Gretton who made points including:

·         This application will still cause the same level of overlooking as the previously refused scheme. The issues have not been resolved

·         Residents of Strathmore Road are very concerned about the overlooking

·         The application should have three additional conditions to require all glazing on the Strathmore Road side to be fully obscure; to further set back the third floor and to reduce the height of the roof extension.

The Planning officer responded by saying that there was already a standard condition for obscure glazing. However the plans cannot be changed by condition.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to completion of a S.106 Agreement and conditions

Application Number: 19/P1794                  Ward: West Barnes

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to Conditions

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P1794 is: Granted Planning Permission subject to Conditions

Proposal: Conversion of existing property from 3 to 8 flats involving the erection of single storey side extensions and a two storey rear extension (with basement level) with associated landscaping, off-street car parking, cycle parking and refuse storage.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation.

The Committee received verbal representations from two objectors to the application, who made points including:

·         We acknowledge the changes made by the developer and  but are disappointed that there are eight units in the development

·         There are documents missing from the planning portal

·         There are a number of planning applications in this area . Each one places more pressure on the infrastructure and more pressure on street parking in the area.

·         Loss of oak tree

·         The area is in a flood plain with an underground a river, this puts the basement at risk

The Committee received a verbal presentation from the Applicant’s agent who made points including:

·         We have worked with Officers on this application, and have the full support of the Council’s conservation Officer

·         This application takes the opportunity to reinstate many of the original features including the plaster and brickwork of this locally listed building, and to bring the building back to its former glory

·         We recognise that there is an issue with the parking but have been advised that 5 spaces is acceptable

·         The Council’s engineers have found the small basement acceptable, and there is a basement method statement

·         The landscaping will include mature planting

In reply to the objectors, The Planning Team Leader South explained that there are robust conditions in place to control the basement construction drainage. There are also conditions on the construction method statement and timing of construction. It is considered preferable to have landscaping at the front rather than one additional parking space.

Officers answered Members questions with the following points:

·         Some units have their own outdoor space but all have access to shared garden

·         The number of three bedroomed units is being maintained

·         The units meet national space standards

·         If required by a resident, a disabled parking bay could be created by widening one of the provided spaces

·         The allocation of parking spaces is not a planning matter

·         The Character of the street is houses with a small number of flats

·         The area does is not a CPZ, and parking spaces are available on the nearby road

One members commented that this proposal was very slightly too big, whilst another Member commented that the design was very attractive and of a high quality.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Application Number:19/P2387                  Ward: West Barnes

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, completion of a S.106 legal agreement a S.278 agreement and conditions.

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P2387 is: Refused Planning Permission, subject  to any direction from the Mayor of London. The Reasons will be detailed in the Minutes

Proposal: Demolition of the existing buildings at 265 Burlington road and 300 Beverley way and erection of two blocks of development ranging in height between seven and 15 storeys and comprising 456 new homes, of which 114 will be one beds, 290 will be two beds and 52 will be three beds. 499sqm of b1(a) office space will be accommodated at ground floor level along with 220 car parking spaces, 830 cycle parking spaces, a realigned junction onto Burlington road, hard and soft landscaping and associated residential facilities. The application also includes minor changes to the layout and configuration of the retained Tesco car park

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in Supplementary Agenda – Modifications. The Planning Team Leader South reminded Members that recent guidance had suggested that the emerging London Plan should be given moderate weight when assessing schemes such as this.

The Committee received verbal representations from three objectors.

A representative of Raynes Park High School made points including:

·         Tall buildings are against policy

·         The proposed 12 storey block is only 18m from the school boundary and 33m from the nearest classroom.

·         There will be constant shadowing of the school’s design classroom. This will affect pupils learning as light levels will be variable.

·         Research shows that natural light is of benefit to student progress

·         Department of Education advice on classroom design gives priority to natural daylight

·         We are sensitive to the need for housing but this application is too close to the school

A representative from a local Business made points including:

·         Good Vehicle access is essential to local businesses

·         The station and level crossing already affect our business

·         The level crossing is a major source of congestion as it causes long traffic queues. This traffic will also block access to the proposed development

·         Measures to improve this congestion, such as a stacking lane, have not been incorporated into this proposal

·         This development should encourage local businesses but it does not

A local resident made points including:

·         I understand the need for housing but do not support this proposal, as it is not of a suitable quality

·         The use of a podium for parking creates a poor interface with the street

·         The DRP gave an earlier version of the proposal a red and commented on the podium, but this proposal still includes the podium and design and quality is not  improved

·         There are numerous quality issues with the design of the units from the dual aspect to the balconies that will be windy, lacking in privacy, unsafe and useless

·         Only 12% of the units are three bedroomed, 33% less than the London Plan

·         492 letters of objection were received by the Council

The Committee received a verbal presentation from the Applicant’s agent who made points including:

·         This proposal will provide 465 new homes with 40% (171 units) affordable, and the other 60% for market rent. The independent viability assessment said that only 24% should be offered as affordable but developer choose to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Application Number:19/P1676                  Ward: Dundonald

Officer Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to conditions and S106 legal agreement

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P1676 is: Refused Planning Permission. Reasons will be detailed in the Minutes

Proposal: Scheme A - demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide  office space and residential units in buildings of two to six storeys, comprising 118 self-contained flats, car and cycle parking, vehicle access, landscaping, plant and associated works. 

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda- Modifications.

In reply to Members Questions Officers made point including:

·         The Council commissions external viability experts to assess the viability of proposed schemes. Costs, the financial environment and other factors can change with time which will influence the viability. A previous application for this site did provide affordable housing but the viability assessment for this proposal concludes that this scheme cannot support any affordable housing. A clawback mechanism is proposed so that viability can be reassessed in the future.

·         The previous application was ‘build to rent’

·         The Housing Mix of the Scheme is not supported by the Housing Officer. Given the move away from prescribed housing mix figures in the emerging London Plan and the applicants arguments Planning Officers consider the failure to provide three bedroomed units is justified

·         There is a formula for calculating play space which depends on the ‘child yield’ of a scheme. This is influenced by the amount of affordable housing. As this scheme has no affordable housing the amount of play space provided, whilst considerably less than the previous scheme, meets requirements the requirements of the housing mix of the scheme.

Members commented on the application and expressed concern about:

·         The loss of three bedroomed units, against the Housing Officers advice

·         The sustainability of the development, the Climate Change Officer described it as fairly compliant, but Members would expect better than this.

·         The development should be permit free, in line with TfL advice

·         Loss of children’s play space, by departing from the previous housing mix the scheme is less child friendly

·         Overdevelopment of the site, it expands on the previously allowed scheme, and has a higher density

·         Concerns regarding Trees on site, and their replacement

A motion to refuse was proposed and seconded. This was agreed by a vote

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to:

1.      REFUSE Planning Permission for the following reasons:

·         Inappropriate housing mix, specifically the lack of 3 bedroomed units, with reference to the LBM Housing Officers comments at 7.3.11 and 7.3.12 of the Officers Report

·         Sustainability credentials not satisfactory, with Reference to the LBM Climate Change Officers comments at 5.8 of the Officers Report

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: 19/P1675                  Ward: Dundonald

Officer Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to conditions and S106 legal agreement

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P1675 is: Refused Planning Permission. Reasons will be detailed in the Minutes

Proposal: Scheme B - demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide  office space and residential units in buildings of two to seven storeys, comprising 124 self-contained flats, car and cycle parking, vehicle access, landscaping, plant and associated works. 

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda- Modifications

In reply to Members’ questions, Officers made points including:

·         The previously allowed scheme had blocks that dropped down at either end, this scheme has a more uniform height

·         There is an additional floor to Block C, compared to the previously allowed scheme

·         There is no requirement for affordable housing, according to the results of the viability assessment

Members commented that the additional Bulk and Massing of this scheme would have a negative visual impact. Members were concerned that the housing mix of this scheme did not include any 3 bedroomed units,  and that the sustainability measure were not as they would expect for such a scheme.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to:

1.      REFUSE Planning Permission for the following reasons:

·         Inappropriate housing mix, specifically the lack of 3 bedroomed units, with reference to the LBM Housing Officers comments at 7.3.11 and 7.3.12 of the Officers Report

·         Sustainability credentials not satisfactory, with Reference to the LBM Climate Change Officers comments at 5.8 of the Officers Report

·         Bulk and massing – the proposal would give a greater sense of enclosure  within the development and would impact on the public realm

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: 19/P3985                  Ward: Dundonald

Officer Recommendation: Grant Variation of Condition

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P3985 is: Granted Variation of Condition

Proposal: Application for variation of condition 2 (approved plans) attached to LBM planning permission 19/P0597 relating to the conversion of existing ground floor flat to create 1 x one bedroom flat and 1 x studio flat. Demolition of existing rear extension and replacement with full width single storey rear extension.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation.

An Objector could not be present and asked for a statement to be read out. This covered points including:

·         The Planning Officer’s report contains material errors. Serious difficulties with design and construction are not addressed.

·         The plans and descriptions are inadequate, and do not provide sufficient information on which to make a decision. Key features have been left out. The errors and omissions suggest major changes are involved, making it impossible to determine whether the application adheres to planning rules.

·         The construction difficulties are due to the differences in internal floor levels within the two flats.

·         There is contradictory information given about the height of the extension

·         This extension compromises the structural integrity of the building and the adjacent houses.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Variation of Condition, subject to conditions

Application Number: 19/P2127                  Ward: Graveney

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to Section 106 Obligation and Conditions

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P2127 is: Granted Planning Permission subject to Conditions and S106 Agreement

Proposal: Change of use of site from former scaffold yard to residential use, and erection of a residential block providing 5 self-contained units

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications.

The Committee received a verbal representation from an Objector to the application and from the Applicant’s architect and Agent.

The Objector made points including:

·         This application will be very close to the boundary with my property and will be an invasion of privacy, bedrooms will be overlooked, there will be a loss of daylight and sunlight.

·         The development is very dense and does not have enough garden space. It does not fit with the local character.

The Applicant’s architect and Agent made points including:

·         The design has been inspired by Victorian architecture, taking cues from the nearby shopping parade, and using the correct materials

·         The comments of DRP were taken on board, the first scheme was too dense and inwards looking

·         We have considered the representations of neighbours. The Design is policy compliant and construction will be controlled by condition.

Members asked officers if the CPZ could include the future residents of this scheme. The Transport Planning Officer replied that as the CPZ is about to be introduced in this area, the residents of this scheme will not able to have permits. This is a sustainable location despite having a ptal rating of 2, and it is policy to discourage car use.

Members commented that it was harsh to not allow permits for this scheme. and a motion was proposed and seconded to allow all units one parking permit. Members voted to grant planning permission and then voted to allow one parking permit per unit.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT planning permission subject to Section 106 Obligation and Conditions.

The Committee voted that the development should not be permit free and that residents should be allowed 1 permit per household

NOTE: after the meeting it was confirmed that it was not in the power of the Committee to give  parking permits in this area given that the CPZ is already confirmed.

Application Number: 19/P4326                  Ward: Trinity

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to S106 agreements and conditions

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P4326 is: Granted Planning Permission subject to Conditions and S106 Agreement

Proposal: Alterations and extensions to existing building including change of use of doctor's surgery to residential (5 x 2 bed flats) and associated landscaping, parking, cycle storage and bin storage

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda - Modifications

The Committee received a verbal representation from one objector to the application, who made points including:

·         This application is overdevelopment on a small site. It is dense and dominant.

·         The area is mainly single Victorian houses. It will impact on the neighbourhood and conservation area

·         Can this building support 17 residents?

·         The area CPZ is already oversubscribed. The development will affect parking and highway safety in the area

·         The proposal extends the building line on Trinity Road further than existing houses. This sets a dangerous precedent

·         There will be overshadowing, loss of light, overlooking and loss of privacy to local residents

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Agent to the application, who made points including:

·         The Applicant had hoped that the Surgery could be refurbished but a new surgery close by has left this one redundant

·         A change of use is required as it can no longer be used as a doctors surgery

·         This application is smaller than previous and represents a sympathetic design that will be an improvement to the site.

·         The parking is fully compliant and will be covered by the S106 agreement

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Ward Councillor, James Holmes, who made points including:

·         Not aware that the applicant had to change her business

·         This application does not address the reasons that previous applications were refused, there is no visible commitment to make the these changes.

·         The community is disappointed that the site will no longer be used as a surgery

·         The extension was described as unneighbourly and detrimental in the previous  application and this is not addressed in this application

·         Residents feel that this application would be worse than the previous. There is a significant extension to the width.

·         How will this work for 17 residents, some of the rooms have no windows

The Planning Team Leader North explained that all rooms have some natural light but there are open plan living rooms with windows at one end only.

Members made comments including:

·         The flank wall created by the proposal on Trinity Road was stark

·         The offer of a permit free development is welcomed

·         The Applicant has demonstrated that an alternative use is required. The surgery is re-provided at the Patrick Doody Health Centre

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject S106 agreements and conditions

Application Number: 19/P3893                  Ward: Graveney

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to relevant conditions

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P3893 is: Refused Planning Permission. Reasons will be detailed in the Minutes

Proposal: Demolition of existing building and erection of 3 x 3 bed terraced houses. associated landscaping and creation of amenity areas, parking and cycle storage

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation

The Committee received verbal representations from two objectors to the application, who made points including:

·         3 narrow properties on this site is over intensive, it is overdevelopment and is not in keeping with the road.

·         There are other new town houses in the road but not three in a terrace

·         There is a perfectly good house on the site already, and this proposal will result in the loss of trees

·         This development will cause overlooking, and loss of privacy to neighbours

·         The increase in hardstanding and the removal of trees will lead to an incresae in the likelihood of  flooding

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Applicant’s agent, who made points including:

·         The previously refused scheme did accept the principle of more intensive development, but was based on 6 units across 2 existing plots.

·         This new proposal is half the size of that originally proposed, but is on the larger of the two plots.

·         This proposal is a better wider design that the previous application

·         There are no issues of overlooking, the bulk has been reduced with smaller dormers and the eves kept low

·         The precedent has already been set by number 21

·         The hardstanding will improve the landscaping at the front and all details have been accepted by the flood risk officer

Members commented that two house would look better than three, and that the frontage of 15.8m will look large on the street.

Members commented that this was overdevelopment of the site and a refusal on the grounds of Bulk and Massing being too great for the site was proposed and seconded.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to:

1.      REFUSE Planning Permission for the following reasons:

·         Bulk and massing resulting in overdevelopment of the site

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

The Committee noted the report on recent Planning Appeal Decisions

The Committee noted the report on recent Planning Enforcement cases