Application number: 18/P2224      Ward: Dundonald

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission

subject to completion of a S.106 Agreement and

conditions

Proposal: Demolition of two semi-detached dwellings and erection of a three storey building (with basement) comprising 4 x 2-bedroom flats, 3 x 1-bedroom flats and 1 x studio flat together with associated landscaping.

The Committee noted the officer’s report, the Planning Inspectors appeal decision from the previous application, the officer’s presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda

The Committee received verbal representations from two objectors to the proposal and Ward Councillor Anthony Fairclough.

The Objectors made points including:

·         There are now 229 signatures on a petition against this application

·         The application is a clear breach of Merton Council Policies

·         The new NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) says that old buildings should be used in  a more sustainable way, and not just demolished

·         These Victorian homes have heritage value and should not be lost

·         The application is not well designed

·         The proposed basement is over 80% of the application site and therefore contravenes Merton’s own policy on Basement development

·         This was previously refused on grounds of scale and massing

·         The new NPPF says that proposals should be visually attractive and can be refused for poor design. This application is a poor design and is ugly.

·         The application contains single aspect flats, also in contravention of Merton’s policies.

The Ward Councillor, Anthony Fairclough made points including:

·         The Inspectors Decision is not the only material consideration

·         This application breaches Merton Policies and the previous reasons for refusal are still valid

In response to Members’ questions the Planning Team Leader (North) replied:

·         The Design and Scale of the application has been tested and found to be acceptable against Merton Policies by the Planning Inspector

·         The Inspector dismissed the appeal on the previous application only on the grounds that a legal agreement on parking and being “permit free” was absent.

·         This application included a signed S106 agreement that covers all parking issues, but in all other matters is the same as the previous scheme.

·         All matters of design and scale were found acceptable  by the very recent Planning Inspectors decision. This is given weight in the Officers Recommendation.

·         New NPPF was a material consideration. Whilst it does talk about design it also talks about using Brownfield sites, such as this one. It also talks about housing provision and supply

·         The Merton Basement Policy does talk about 50% of the garden area being a maximum for basement size but this is geared towards basements being built under existing properties. This application is a new build and therefore the 50% figure is not given as much weight as it is much easier to build a basement on a new build when taking the development site as a whole.

·         The Scale of the basement was tested against Merton Policy  and then considered by the Planning Inspectors appeal decision, therefore we know that this has already been considered and accepted..

·         The reasons for refusing the Previous identical application did not mention the scale of the basement.

·         The Roof material is Zinc, which will start off as a light grey colour and then darken.

Members made comments including:

·         The Inspector viewed this property almost a year ago, and took 4 months to publish decision. This application was made in May 2018, and the NPPF was updated in July 2018. The new NPPF supports the previous reasons for rejection.

·         Important to preserve the Victorian Heritage, we previously rejected on scale and mass but not specifically on the scale of the basement

·         Considering the Inspector only dismissed the Appeal on the lack of an S106 for parking, we can assume that he had no concerns regarding the scale and mass of the proposal.

·         The only new consideration is the new NPPF, but we need to be very clear on how this changes the proposal

·         These existing properties do have architectural value and this is protected by the NPPF section 127

·         Concern about the scale of the basement

·         Members should consider the housing need in the borough, these 1 and 2 bedroomed flats are needed

The Chair Commented that the Basement had not been included in the past reason for refusal, and that it was officer’s advice not to include new reasons for refusal in cases that had already raised no concerns from the Planning Inspector. He advised that Members needed to be confident that their reasons for refusal overrode the past decision.

A motion to refuse was proposed and seconded, for the same reasons as the previous application and also with reference to the new NPPF and its promotion of Sustainability with reference to keeping and renovating the existing houses. This motion was defeated by the vote.

The Committee then voted on the Officers recommendation to Grant Planning Permission and this was carried. Councillor Dean requested that the minutes should record that he voted against granting planning Permission.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions