Application number: 18/P3139      Ward: Trinity

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission

subject to completion of a S106 and conditions

Refused Planning Permission. The reasons for refusal will be detailed in the Minutes of the Meeting

Proposal: Erection of dormer windows to the roofs of blocks 3, 5 and 7 in connection with the formation of 7 self-contained flats (Class C3) within the existing roof space and erection of a single storey detached cycle store.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and information in the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications. Members noted the additional Conditions within the Supplementary Agenda that requested a landscaping scheme and that the proposal has been amended to provide additional bin storage and additional cycle storage.

The Committee received verbal representations from two objectors who raised points including:

·         A recent, similar, application at 5B Bewley Street was refused

·         The construction phase is going to be very disturbing for all current residents especially home workers

·         The number of new properties proposed is not sustainable, there is already high parking stress on Bewley Road which is not in a CPZ

·         This proposal is not aesthetically pleasing and the design does not provide enough ceiling height or floorspace. There will be noise issues from the new flats as there is  currently no insulation.

·         Adding flats in to the existing blocks will put pressure on the current management company.

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

·         Applicant has taken on board the comments made by residents and has reduced the size of the dormers

·         The proposed units will have a new floor build up that will provide high performance noise insulation between the current top floor flats and the new flats

·         Planning Permission cannot be withheld because of construction issues, but the applicant will adopt sensible working hours and attempt to control such issues

·         The proposal is car free, and a legal agreement will be signed to keep it car free.

·         The applicant has listened to current residents and has amended to provide additional bin and cycle storage, so that both are now in excess of that required by policy.

·         This is a windfall development of high standard accommodation that is in excess of space standards.

The Planning Team Leader North made points in reply to objectors comments including:

·         The scheme refused at 5B was a different case as it was one unit by itself and therefore the dormers could be regarded as unacceptable

·         There will be some construction noise but it will be controlled by the additional condition 9 in the Supplementary Agenda

·         Insulation will be covered by Building Control

·         The size of the dormers has been reduced

·         Parking is deemed sufficient

In response to Members questions Officers made comments including:

·         The properties meet minimum space standards but acknowledge that they are small flats, however the Dormers provide a good outlook from each flat.

·         Fire safety measure, such as sprinkler systems, will be captured by Building Controls

·         There is a lift to the current top flor but there is no plan to extend this to the new floor

In response to Members questions the Transport Planning Officer explained that Bewley Street was not in a CPZ and was unlikely to be in the future as there was no demand. There were currently restrictions on parking between 7am and 10am to stop commuter parking in the surrounding CPZ areas.

Members made comments about the ceiling heights of the proposed flats and expressed their concerns regarding the proportion of the floorspace that did not meet the required ceiling height standards. They noted that even though space standards were met, 25% of this floor space did not provide adequate ceiling height. Members expressed the view that this was unacceptable. A member expressed the view that this resulted in very small flats and that too many compromises had been made in the design of the flats.

One member felt that the flats were acceptable as they were small flats aimed at single people and would help to reduce the housing pressures across the borough.

A motion to refuse was proposed on the grounds that the application did not ensure the provision of quality living conditions, as required by Merton Policy DM D2 a) iv, because of the proportion of floorspace that did not provide full height ceilings.

This motion was put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to:

1. REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

• Owing to the reduced ceiling heights above a significant proportion of the floorspace, the proposed accommodation would not ensure the provision of quality living conditions as required by Merton Policy DM D2 a)iv

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