Merton Council

Home Home Merton Adult Education Home Home Jobs in children's social care Home Merton Means Business Home Wandle Valley Low Carbon Zone Home Safeguarding Children Board
How do I contact my councillor?

Agenda item

41 Cottenham Park Road, West Wimbledon, SW20 0SB

Application number: 18/P2234      Ward: Raynes Park

 

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

 

Decision:

Granted Planning Permission subject to Conditions

Minutes:

Proposal: Demolition of single dwellinghouse and erection of a semi-detached pair of 4 bedroom dwellings, with accommodation on four floors (two storey, with basement level and accommodation at roof level), with two off-street parking spaces with associated crossovers and terraces to the rear.

 

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation.

 

The Committee received verbal presentations from two objectors who made points including:

·         This is a serious overdevelopment of the site. A single storey building to be replaced by two 4 storey buildings

·         It is dominant and out-of-keeping with the area

·         It has a poor design and is visually intrusive

·         There should be a restriction on the use of the terraces, they should not be no social use

·         Site is more suitable for a single house

·         Not opposed to development, but this application is too intensive, there should be a more sympathetic development

·         The Parking spaces are insufficient for the size of the houses, and there will be an increase in traffic

·         Trees are being removed

·         The basement work will cause structural damage

·         Cottenham Park Road does have a character of its own

·         There will be no gap between the east wall and number 39

 

The Applicant’s architect made points including:

·         The proposal replaces a dwelling with no architectural merit with two environmentally sustainable houses

·         The design takes reference from local buildings

·         Amendments were made following comments from neighbours and Officers

·         The sloping nature means that 3 or 4 storeys are in keeping. The ridge height is designed so that they appear as 2 storey houses

·         Understand the concerns of neighbours but the applicant is experienced at building basements

·         There is ample parking

·         Concerns on the massing were addressed by reducing the upper floor and setting back

·         Not uncommon to have small distances between boundaries. Number39’s boundary is next to the garage

 

In reply to objectors comments The Planning Team Leader South said that there is an acknowledgement that the character of Cottenham Park Road is changing, and that the quality of accommodation exceeds housing standards.

 

The Committee received a verbal presentation from Ward Councillor Stephen Crowe, who made points including:

·         The existing property was built as a single storey bungalow so as to protect the amenity of other homes in the area, given the sloping nature of the site

·         This proposal is contrary to Merton Policy DMD2 in a number ways including; it does not protect visual intrusion, it does not relate positively to its surroundings, it fails to meet basement standards as the basement exceeds 50% of the garden

 

 

In reply to Members questions, Officers made points including:

·         The boundary distances are considered acceptable, amendments have reduced the visual impact of the proposal, and new homes are needed in the borough

·         The boundary with number 39 is mainly with the garage, the relationship between the two properties is staggered, with the upper floors set back.

 

Members commented that this proposal appeared to be overdevelopment of the site. A motion to refuse owing to overdevelopment was proposed and seconded. This motion was voted on but not carried.

 

Members asked about the basement size and whether it was over 50% of the garden. Officers explained that is was difficult to determine as the lower floor was not all basement owing to the level changes of the site, but that the amount of the site requiring excavation was roughly two thirds of the site. However, in Officers view there was no harm arising from this, drainage and technical issues were acceptable and precedent was not an issue.

 

RESOLVED

 

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

 

Supporting documents: