Application number: 17/P1602      Ward: Village

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission

subject to completion of a S.106 Agreement and

conditions

Proposal: Erection of a two storey extensions to existing residential care home to provide 7 additional en-suite bedrooms, internal alterations to provide improved communal areas, formation of new reception area and alterations to roof profile above former stable block and cottage and laying out of parking area

The Committee noted the officer’s report, presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications. The Committee noted that the Supplementary Agenda contained details of a report from the Applicant’s highways Consultants considering the report of the Objectors transport consultants.

The Committee received verbal representations from two Objectors to the proposal scheme and from the applicant.

The Objectors raised points including:

·         This application seeks a 26% expansion and will shrink the current garden area

·         No Bat survey has been provided

·         The Home already causes problems for local residents by increasing parking stress on their roads

·         Residents commissioned their own transport survey which shows that parking stress is at a level of 89%

·         The application is overdevelopment of a business in a residential area

·         The application is contrary to Merton Policies and to the new NPPF

·         It is overdevelopment in a Conservation Area and does not respect the conservation area.

·         Requires two trees to be removed, which will lead to overlooking

The Applicant made points including:

·         Abbeyfield is a leading not-for-profit organisation, and is committed to developing this site to provide much needed specialist dementia care.

·         We are aware of neighbours concerns around parking, we will manage this issue

·         The Design of the proposed scheme will compliment the existing building

·         We will manage the concerns of existing residents of the home

·         New landscaping will compensate for the loss of garden

·         The proposal will meet needs and ensure longevity for the home

In reply to Member Questions officers made points including:

·         The two trees to be removed are part of a well-treed boundary and are off the boundary. The Council’s tree officer has no objections to the removal of these two trees. There is a tree protection condition and we can ask for some enhancement to the screening if needed.

·         Lancaster Avenue is not an adopted road and the Council has no duty to maintain or monitor operation of the road. It is a private gated road, which is why the applicant had to carry out their own traffic and parking survey

·         Merton does not have a specific policy to increase bedrooms in supported care homes

·         There are no parking standards for care homes, Ambulances would take the best route

·         At the moment the home does not have a travel plan but one is proposed for this application, but this is different to discussions about extra traffic from additional rooms

·         Officers are content with the proposed % coverage of the site, there will still be garden space. However, if at some point in the future, further development is  proposed this may constitute over development

·         Emergency Vehicle access operates already via ,Lancaster Avenue. This road  is wide enough for such vehicles, including Fire Engines, even when parked on both sides. As it is a private Road it is up to residents if they want to do anything about this.

·         Transport Planning Officers believe that there are adequate parking spaces in the surrounding streets to cope with the net increase of 3 rooms.

The Chair asked the residents to clarify the situation of the Gate opening from Lancaster Road onto Lancaster Avenue. Residents confirmed that the gate opens automatically when any vehicle approaches

Members made comments including:

·         This application will increase staff and bedrooms at the home, but this increase won’t significantly increase the number of ambulances arriving at the home, it is the increase in visitors and their parking that will have a significant effect on parking in the area.

·         Although the Report says that there are parking spaces available in the area, it is human nature to attempt to park as close as possible, to go through the gates to Lancaster Avenue to attempt to park in the Home and then park on Lancaster avenue when the home parking is full.

·         Parking stress already exists in this area, so the increase in number of bedrooms will exacerbate these current problems

·         The area has a low PTAL rating and the majority of visitors will arrive in cars. Staff need to work 24 hours a day

·         The design of the building is horrendous

·         The proposal is overdevelopment and will exacerbate an already chaotic situation with parking in the local area

·         Given the figures provided in the report for Staff numbers and Staff who drive, and the fact that only 8 parking spaces are provided, members felt that this proposal would lead to increased number of visitors parking on the surrounding streets, thuis exacerbating the parking stress particularly in Lancaster Avenue

One Member commented to remind Members that Officers did not think that emergency vehicles would have a problem entering the site, that additional provision of rooms was required and that there were parking problems all over the borough, not just in this area.

A motion to refuse was proposed and seconded, for the reasons of not enough on-site parking leading to an exacerbation of existing problems on surrounding streets and the proposal constituting overdevelopment.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to:

1. REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

·         The development would exacerbate existing local parking stress

·         The development is 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