Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to conditions

1. Previous application – In response to Members’ queries, officers highlighted the differences between the previous refused application and the current application (for a raised decking area adjoining the west facing elevation of the outbuilding in the rear garden) including the reduction in height of the decking and the provision of planters, each including a trellis, alongside the boundary fences.

2. Use of the outbuildings – Officers confirmed that the alleged unauthorised use of the outbuildings at the property for the accommodation of students had been investigated and dealt with by the Council’s Enforcement Team but Officers emphasised that this issue was not part of the current application and was a separate matter.

3. Discussion – Various Members expressed concern that the revisions made to the scheme didn’t overcome the concerns regarding the previous application, including that someone standing on the decking, due to the slope of the land, would still be easily able to look over the boundary fencing into neighbouring properties, and therefore the loss of privacy for neighbouring occupiers wouldn’t be ameliorated.

4. Refusal Motion:  Following considerable discussion, it was moved and seconded that permission be refused on the same grounds as the previous application (as detailed in para. 4.1, agenda page 169 and in (A) below).  The motion was carried unanimously. 

4.1 However officers then suggested the grounds of refusal of this latest scheme needed to be revised to take account of the revisions included in the current scheme such as the reduction in height of the decking and the provision of planters, each including a trellis, alongside the boundary fences.  As indicated below the Committee agreed to this suggestion and that officers be delegated authority to agree the detailed wording.  Subsequently the Committee also agreed (C) below. 

5. Enforcement - Following the Committee’s decision, officers confirmed that possible enforcement action in relation to the decking would be looked at.

Decision: Item 10 - ref. 13/P1163 (336 Lynmouth Avenue, Morden, SM4 4RS)

(A) REFUSE permission on the same grounds as the previous application (as shown in quotes below) but subject to the wording being amended  to take account of the revisions included in the current scheme such as the reduction in height of the decking and the provision of planters, and also subject to (B) below -

“The decking area adjoining the west facing elevation of the existing outbuilding by reason of its design, size and siting enables users of the deck to overlook the rear gardens of neighbouring dwellings, resulting in a loss of privacy to the detriment of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, contrary to policy BE.15 of the Merton UDP (2003).”

(B) Delegation: The Director of Environment & Regeneration (in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair) be delegated authority to agree the detailed grounds of refusal, including any appropriate amendments, additions and/or deletions to the grounds/policy included in the previous refusal.

(C) Reasons for not following Planning Officers' recommendation for permission: The Committee considered that officers had given insufficient weight to the continued loss of privacy for neighbours under the revised scheme.