Application No: 22/P1940

Ward:  Colliers Wood

Officer Recommendation:  Grant Permission subject to conditions and s.106 legal agreement

Proposal: Erection of roof extensions to the three residential blocks which comprise Bennetts Courtyard to provide 17 x self contained flats (comprising 9 x 1 bed and 8 x 2 bed flats)

The Planning Officer presented the report.

At the end of the presentation, the Financial Viability Officer spoke to advise that having looked at the application, including the build costs whereby some savings had been identified and the sales values which were considered fair and reasonable. The profit level of 20% was reduced to 17.5% in line with previous work undertaken on the scheme. The design fees and sales and marketing fees had also been reduced. Following consultation with officers the CIL amount had also been reduced. The residual land value of £518,000 therefore resulted in a surplus of £468,000.

The Conservation Officer spoke to advise that the buildings were on the local list. The initial application was not deemed to be enhancing, the new design within the current proposal followed through the initial design and extended it upwards by one storey, which preserved the original qualities and did not detract from the conservation area.

The Committee received presentations from an objector who made points including:

·         This application is taller and broader and has additional flats to the initial application

·         The proposal is within a conservation area and within a heritage area

Councillor Cooper-Marbiah, Ward Councillor spoke to acknowledge the progress made to the application and raising concerns that the property was within a conservation area, the potential disruption to residents and noted there was no affordable housing proposed and would not address the need for more family housing in Merton.

The Applicant spoke in response and raised points including:

·         The amendments made to the application had addressed the Conservation Officers’ concerns

·         The scheme had been subject to independent viability specialists assessments

·         The Council’s sustainability officer had confirmed the proposal met the standards and no carbon offset was required

·         The scheme would deliver 17 new homes in the Borough

In response to the comments received within the presentations, the Planning Officer advised that whilst disruption couldn’t be used as a reason for refusal, this was a common occurrence across the Borough and could be controlled as far as reasonably possible. There was an affordable housing offer of £470,000. There are no family sized proposals however this was due to matching the setup of the existing building.

In response to questions from Committee members the Planning Officer and Conservation Officer advised that:

·         The money could be requested as a cumulative sum and spend on affordable housing in any way we saw fit, such as affordable rent or intermediate rent or an on site provision of 2 shared ownership properties.

·         If there was a rooftop extension the impact should be minimised and conditions can be placed – condition 15 requiring a construction management plan and condition 8 and 9 were included in terms of reducing disruption and would be looked at through the condition discharge process

·         The height of the building now is acceptable within the context of other developments within the area

·         The applicant would be free to make any further application in the future and the Council could grant or refuse permission based on the impact.

·         Local Planning Authorities are permitted under the legislation to take into account multiple applications in certain circumstances, for instance where there is a contiguous boundary, adjoining applications within a specific period of time and also which come under the same land ownership and can take account of those at a later stage to then take forward the affordable housing provision from this application to ensure that the total after a second application ends up providing the right amount as if the two storeys were applied for now.

·         The Committee could if so minded, include a clause within the legal agreement that any future development would invoke the full affordable housing requirements.

·         There would need to be a financial viability assessment of any future application as a whole development

·         Whilst this group of buildings had received an award from good design, the Conservation officer did not believe this would detract from the design of these buildings and would remain lower than the buildings nearby to the site, some of which were within the same conservation area. It was the officers’ view that one storey being added with the same materials and design would be acceptable and would retain its’ good design

·         Cleanliness of the halls inside could be conditioned to ensure no ambiguity

·         A residential management plan for existing residents could be requested from the Applicant as part of a condition – this could be in consultation with ward members.

Committee members commented on the application, noting the conservation officers’ comments and the difficulty of the tilted balance situation.

Members expressed concerns about the impact on residents and agreed that additional conditions should be included to make it clear that the financial viability assessment for any future storey addition consider the property as a whole, a residential management plan be included to include cleanliness and timelines and an update would be brought to Planning Committee on this and that construction hours be limited at the weekend.

The officer recommendation was put to the vote including the additional conditions and it was

RESOLVED: That Permission was GRANTED subject to conditions and s.106 legal agreement

The Chair did not participate in the vote on this application.