Application number: 19/P0883      Ward: Abbey

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and S106 agreement

Proposal: Erection of a two storey detached building with accommodation at roof and basement level comprising 13 flats (5 x 1, 6 x 2 and 2 x 3 bedroom flats) and associated works

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation.

The Committee received a verbal representation for one objector who made comments including:

·         We knew that there would be development of this site but this proposal is overdevelopment

·         Object to the extent of the digging and excavation required and the risks associated with this to my property owing to the soil type in the area. This was raised by the surveyor when I bought this property

·         I also object to the roof terrace, this will overlook and affect my privacy. If the Screening is high enough to block overlooking it will then block sunlight to my property

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

·         Please note that the applicant only acquired this site last year and was not involved in any previous activity at this site

·         We have worked with Merton Planning Officers to deliver an efficient use of the site

·         The proposal is for 13 units in a highly sustainable location, with a density that is acceptable according to the London Plan

·         To address comments made by the Inspector on the previous application, this application has no building at the rear of the site, all of this area is outdoor amenity space

·         All the 1 and 2 bedroomed units will be parking permit free. The 3 bedroomed family unit will get a permit, and to allow for this two on street parking spaces will be been created

·         Condition 16 requires the Secured by Design plan

·         There were no objections to the application from statutory consultees

In reply to the objectors comments the Building and Development Control Manager replied that all the relevant documentation had been submitted and assessed for the basement construction and no issues had been raised.

The Ward Councillor, Nigel Benbow, made a verbal representation to the Committee and made points including:

·         Why have previous concerns with the design and parking not been taken into consideration? Parking is very difficult on Hamilton Road

·         The development is still too large for Hamilton Road, and is out of keeping with the beautiful Victorian houses on this road

·         The description of the property as 2.5 storeys is misleading, the proposal has a basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and roof terrace.

·         The roof terrace will cause a loss of privacy to neighbours

·         The minimum distance between buildings should be 18-21m according to the London Plan – does this building achieve that?

·         The proposal shows 6 wheelie bins – this will not be enough

·         The development will not provide acceptable living conditions for residents

·         £40,000 developer contributions to affordable housing is not enough

·         This proposal is over-development

In reply to members’ questions the Building and Development Control Manager replied:

·         The Officers report presents a full consideration of the site in relation to Council Policy on Scattered Employment Sites. This site is problematic and Officers concluded that the site is unsuitable for employment land going forward owing to the predominantly residential nature of the area, and the size and access characteristics of the site itself. Also the Inspectors report on the previous application made no mention of the loss of the employment site. It is Officers view that if the Inspector had thought it was an issue she would have mentioned it.

·         Wheelie bins were an issue when the application was first submitted but amendments have been made and a larger refuse area is now included, it be up to site management to ensure that bins are put out

·         The application has been subject to an independent viability assessment and the recommendation of this assessment, that there is a contribution towards off-site affordable housing of £40,000, has been offered. There is no on-site affordable housing.

·         The previously refused application was for 9 units but they were of a different style and that proposal included another building at the back of the site  - which is not part of this application. This application is very different and the Officer’s report details how this scheme has addressed the Inspector’s concerns with the previous scheme.  This scheme has been amended during the application process.

·         The rules on distances between building, 18-21m, are applied to window to window distance to prevent overlooking. In this case there is no direct overlooking onto Merton High Street so this distance is not required.

·         The recommendations from the Metropolitan Police can be secured by condition if necessary. This will not cover all aspects as some are matters for future residents.

·         The Conservation Officer made comments relating to scale and alignment on the street  before amendments were made. The applicant addressed these issues and this enabled officers to recommend approval

·         Assume that the screening is of the usual height of 1.7m. This screening is now set back on the roof and will not be seen. Including the basement this is a 4 storey building with amenity space on the roof.

·         From the street the basement cannot be seen and so this proposal will appear as a 3 storey building with screening on the roof and is similar to the building next door. It would be incorrect to refer to the roof terrace as an extra storey.

·         We could add a condition to ensure soft landscaping at the rear of the development

·         Although Merton Policies advise against single aspect units, Officers recognise that it is not always possible to provide all dual aspect units on constrained sites such as this one.

·         The Council’s Flood Risk Officer and Structural Engineer are satisfied with the applicants proposed methods to prevent basement flooding

·         The Councils Sustainability Officer has approved the application

 Members made comments on the application including:

·         The Applicant has made a good job of the design and the illustrations look very nice, but this building will be 3 storeys at the front with visible screening on the roof which will give it the appearance of a 4 storeys at the front. With the basement this will be a 5 storey building.

·         The application has a number of single aspect dwellings but Merton Planning Policies seek to avoid single aspect dwellings and we should not accept them as they are against policy.

·         There are  issues around the employment land status of the site

·         The history of this site is not positive and yet this application is the biggest proposal of all

·         There is a sense that the developer is trying to cram too much onto the site. Although the density is acceptable this application does not fit the context of the streetscene

·         This is a very beautiful historic road, and although the applicant has done a good job this proposal is just too big and should be rejected on bulk and massing

·         There is shortage of housing in the Borough and the accommodation in this proposal will suit some people. We should make something of this site, we should accept the Officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission.

·         The scheme is against policy as it has single aspect accommodation, also it has no affordable housing and so will not assist with housing shortages, many people would not be able to afford such flats

A proposal to refuse for reasons of Bulk and Massing being too great, was proposed, seconded and carried by the vote.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to:

1.  REFUSE Planning Permission for the following reasons:

·           The Bulk and Massing of the Proposed building is too great in its setting/ streetscene

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