Application No:  22/P0533

Ward:  Raynes Park

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

Proposal: Demolition of re-fabricated storage building to rear and the erection of a two storey rear extension to provide enlarged commercial floorspace (storage space for existing restaurant) at ground floor and a 1bed flat at first floor level, with rear facing balcony

The Planning Officer presented the report drawing the Committees’ attention to the modifications sheet.

The Committee received presentations from two objectors who made points including:

·         There were concerns regarding reduction of natural light

·         Privacy would be affected and there would be an increase in noise

·         The ground floor extension is now listed as commercial and so could be used as additional seating

·         The number of deliveries to the property would increase and this would increase noise

·         The second storey would look out of character and disproportionate to nearby properties

·         The access way would now be a main entrance to the new property, how do deliveries and post delivery persons find the property

·         The refuse is shared with the side restaurant and it is not clear whether it has been agreed to close in this

Councillor Willis, Ward Councillor spoke to note that para 7.4.2 of the report and 7.4.8 – Environmental Health concerns had led to an acoustic report but did not cover the adjoining property. Impact on neighbouring amenity and expressing concerns. There had been no noise impact assessment.

In response to the comments received, the Planning Officer advised that in relation to the obscure glazing this would prevent the majority of views out but the level of overlooking was felt to be low. However it wouldn’t be unreasonable to add as an condition that these windows be shut. The space met with the relevant standards in terms of floor area and light penetration. Urban design guidance encourage frontages onto the main road however whilst this is desirable this must be taken into context with the rest of the development.

In response to questions from Committee members, the Planning Officer responded:

·         There isn’t an air conditioning unit within the proposal currently and the addition of one would require a planning application

·         It is not a requirement to supply details on fire safety (this comes under building regulations) but this would be required by building control

·         If a heat pump were proposed this could be provided however Planning are only able to enforce a 19% reduction in carbon dioxide levels, anything over that would be under building control

·         A condition could be added for noise insulation to the neighbouring properties – there have been discussions between the applicant and Environmental Health regarding this however environmental health have not raised any objection

·         There would be a marginal loss of morning sunlight but officers do not deem this to be significant

·         The existing restaurant already has bins on site and any issues would likely be existing but this might require additional bin storage or frequency of collection – a condition could be added to require details of the waste management for the restaurant as well as the residential unit

Committee members commented on the application, noting the bulk in a small space, was short on windows and expressing concern regarding the impact on neighbours. Members expressed concern about the fire escape route from the property which was not clear.

The officer recommendation was put to the vote and it fell. Members therefore proposed reasons for refusal and voted on refusal for those reasons.

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

RESOLVED:

1. That the Committee REFUSED the application for the following reasons: 

The proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site to the visual detriment of the character and appearance of the area. There would be inadequate standards of amenity and a harmful impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

2. That the Committee DELEGATED to the Interim Director of Housing and Sustainable Development 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