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

110 Gladstone Road, Wimbledon, SW19 1QW

Application Number: 19/P1772                  Ward: Dundonald

 

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning permission subject to conditions

Decision:

PAC Resolved that application 19/P1772 is:

Granted Planning Permission subject to conditions

 

Minutes:

Proposal: Single storey flexible outbuilding, the garden outbuilding will replace the existing shed and be positioned to the rear of the garden facing back towards the principal dwelling. The outbuilding is to be used as a fitness room/ gym.

 

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the supplementary agenda

 

The Committee received a verbal presentation by one objector to the application, who made points including:

·         The density and depth of housing on Gladstone Road is different to other roads in the area

·         There is currently substantial development at specific properties in the area

·         I am concerned about the number of applications for outbuildings being submitted to Merton Council

·         The building is 15m2  making it more suitable for additional use rather than ancillary use.

·         The depth and height of this building will have a serious impact on my property

·         There is no material information from the applicant on the Merton Website regarding the impact on neighbours

·         The applicant has stated that they will use the outbuilding as a gym, and that it will be used at anti-social hour both early in the morning and late at night. This will impact on children’s sleep.

·         The positioning of this building and access makes it more attractive for additional use rather than ancillary use

 

In reply to the objectors comments the planning team leader made comments:

·         Confirmed that he had received the objectors emails

·         The application is for an ancillary outbuilding.

·         The roof height is higher than allowed under permitted development rights but the ridge is set away from the boundary

·         The application is not harmful

·         Conditions are applied that the use is ancillary, if this becomes anti-social then this can be reported to Environmental Health

 

In reply to members’ questions The Planning Team Leader North made comments including:

·         The application building will cover 35.6% of the Garden

·         There is no bathroom in the building

·         The building is to be used as a home gym which is a typical use of such outbuildings

·         Under permitted development rights a building with a height of 2.5m could be built without planning permission. This application is 3m high at the highest point and therefore requires planning permission.

·         Noise disturbance is covered by environmental health legislation, and can be reported to Environmental Health to investigate

·         The application is already ancillary to the main home, and so could be used for a family member to sleep in, but the use condition could be tightened to specify the use as home gym and storage only

 

Members made comments including:

·         Concerned about the size of this building and the amount of the garden it covers

·         Concerned about future usage of the building, this application sets a precedent

·         Support for the family having its own gym; we don’t know the family members circumstances

·         We have to consider this a gym but concern about size.

 

One member proposed that the use condition be tightened to limit use to that of a home gym and storage only. However another member spoke against this saying that it was unreasonable to limit the use of this outbuilding and that as long as it was being used ‘ancillary’ to the main home then the Committee should not seek to limit the use.

 

The Chair declared that she would take the vote for the Officer’s Recommendation as it stood without any amendments to the conditions, and that if this was not passed then amending the condition could be considered. The vote was taken and the Officer’s Recommendation, without any amendment to the condition was agreed.

 

RESOLVED

 

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Supporting documents: