Application: 21/P4198

Ward: Colliers Wood

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and completion of a S.106 legal agreement.  

The Planning Officer presentedthereport

The Committeereceivedverbalrepresentationsfrom twoobjectorswho madepoints including:

•   That  the  first  application  had  been  rejected  for  failing  to  meet  minimum standardsfor bedrooms;the present applicationonlyprovideda corridorfor access and therewouldnotbeanimprovementin thelivingarea

•   Therearenoapplicationsliketheoneproposedandseparatingtheexisting gardeninto3 separate areas would set an undesirable precedent andis out of characterwiththesurrounding area

•   Theflatceilingin thelivingareafellbelowtheminimumheightof2.3meters andthenational requirementsetoutfor space

•   TheObjectorfeltthattheproposedsite wouldbeusedeffectivelyfor2 flats, one 3 bedroomanda 2bedroom.This wouldallowoccupationofa family whichwouldpreventthe needto separatethegarden

•   TheObjectorhadraised concernsto theCouncilsPlanningDepartmentthat theborder betweenhis houseandthesite  wasincorrect andthe application shouldnotbeapproved

•  The access to the binstoragewouldbesignificantly decreased

•   the  developers  did  not  add  in  a  third  flat,  the  objector  requested  that  a conditionshould be putin topreventthesale ofthe property ifconverted and rented as a 2-bedroom flatin future

•   Theobjectorstatedthatresidentswere concernedthatthedevelopmentwas based on financialgain,whilst limitingthelivingspace

•   TheObjectorraised concernsregardingthesewer,which wouldbeburdened withthe proposed development,statingthatthecompanyDyno-rodhadbeen calledout4 times inthelast12monthsdueto blockages

TheApplicant madepointsin responseincluding:

•   The Applicant had worked with  Planning  Officers  on  this  site  to  mitigate concernsraisedin theoriginal application

•   The property would be reinstate  to  proper  use  to  3  units  as  this  was previously empty,theunit would meetMerton’s building target

•   TheAgentreportedthatheightandmasselevationnotedbyPlanningOfficers wasconservativeandfittedin withpermitteddevelopment

•  Therearextensionwas minimalin relation to what existedalready

•  Spacerequirementswere metin accordancewith thePlanningPolicy

CouncillorAttawarreada statementonbehalfoftheresidentsin HarewoodRoad againstthe planningapplication.Councillor Attawarstated:

•  Residents hadraised concernsonsize,massandheight.

•  If the dwellingwas convertedinto 2 flats,thenit wouldbeadequate.

•  Havingfamily homes is moredesirablein Merton.

•  Therewere several inconsistencies especiallyin relationto binstorage.

•  The  Committee  should  consider  that  it  fulfils  the  policy  of  creating  good

housing for Merton’s residentsandnottargets.

•  TheDeveloper shouldreconsider thedesign

The Planning Officer responded to pointsraised:

•   ThePlanningOfficerconfirmedthatthesite ismakinguseofoptimumspace andmetminimumspacerequirements

•   Eachflatwouldhaveaccessto gardenswhichis uncommonin thiskind of development andwould notbeharmful to thearea

•   ThePlanswereassetoutin themodificationssheet.If TheCommitteewere to approve planning permission, thenthedeveloperscouldbeaskedto revisit theplans

Inresponseto questionsfrommembers,thePlanningOfficer advised:

•  Existingheadheightwouldbemaintained

•   Theremovalofchimneyswouldnotneedplanningpermissionandwouldbe coveredunder buildingcontrolregulations

•  Thedeveloperwouldneedto seektheneighbour’spermissionto carryoutthe

works relatingtotheremovalofa chimney

•   Iftheplanswerenotaccurateit wouldaffectthebuildingstyle andifmembers approvedtheapplication, developerswould be askedtorevisit the plans and designs.

TheChairmovedtothevoteandit was

RESOLVED

Thatthe applicationbegrantedsubjectto conditions and completion ofa Section 106 legal agreement