Application number: 18/P2076   Ward: Merton Park

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Erection of single storey rear extension

The Committee noted the officers report and presentation and additional information in the supplementary agenda.

The Objector made points including:

·         This is the 3rd application and the 5th set of amended plans. And the applicant has still not followed officers’ advice

·         Application is still wider than the existing building and is still more than 3.5m deep.

·         This application is materially harmful to neighbours

·         Application is higher than floor of first floor flat

·         It will be visible from the road and it will unbalance the house and does not respect the existing house

·         The roof slopes down towards the house

·         It’s height will be above the fence line, and the flat roof is a risk to the security of the first floor flat

·         Building Insurers say it would invalidate the insurance of all properties in the house

·         Would affect the freeholds within the house

The Applicant made points including:

·         This application is 29% smaller than last application and 42% smaller than first application

·         The dimensions side and back have been pulled in to reduce the massing of the extension

·         Added artificial grass to the roof for neighbours benefit

The Ward Councillor Dickie Wilkinson made points including:

·         Applicant purchased the flat knowing that it was a one bedroomed flat in a Conservation Area. He is asking for too much and has not taken enough account of previous refusals

·         Does not enhance the Conservation Area

In answer to Members’ Questions Officers made comments including:

·         Can’t say if the roof is above or below the floor of the first floor flat, but the parapet wall is below the window sill level of the first floor bay window – even at highest point it is 20cm below the sill. It is now set back so will not be seen.

·         The roof does slope down towards the house but all flat roofs are built at a slight angle which is not visible to the eye. Water will be guided to the guttering

·         The garden serves the ground floor only and the proposal is less than half the depth of the garden

·         The depth plus the new lighwell is 4.5m

·         Dimensions meet policy requirements

·         Can’t say exactly what first floor residents will see, but the parapet wall is now set back and there is not enough harm to the first floor outlook to warrant a refusal

Members made comments including:

·         It is not acceptable for the first floor to look out on this roof. The extension is too high and slopes the wrong way. It is not acceptable for parts of the roof to be higher than the floor of the property above.

·         The applicant has not reduced the width enough, so it will still have a negative impact on the Conservation Area

·         Concerned about upward tilt of the roof as it will impact on the amenity of a property in different ownership.

·          Do not think artificial grass is an improvement on previous design, would much prefer to see a sedum green roof

·         Annoyed that applicant has not followed Officers advice in full and has instead presented their compromise.

·         It is not creating new housing

·         Too much of the garden is being used

·         The Applicant has not given enough information with the dimensions

One Member spoke in support of the application:

·         There is a housing crisis in Merton and this type of application increasing bedroom numbers should be encouraged where it is possible

·         Applicant has taken Officers’ Advice to reduce the size of the proposal

·         Officers say it is acceptable, cannot see reason for refusal

 A motion to refuse was proposed and seconded on the same grounds as previously:

·         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.

And added further concerns:

·         It uses too much of the garden

·         Applicant has looked at the previous refusals and presented his compromise, the Committee does not want to be forced into accepting a compromise

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

·         As per the previous reasons for refusal under the previous application

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