Application number: 23/P1621

Ward: Lower Morden

Recommendation: GRANT PRIOR APPROVAL subject to conditions s106 agreement

The Planning Officer presented the report.

The committee received representation from Ward Cllr Sally Kenny who raised points including:

•         Repairs and maintenance were inadequate and would be made worse if two additional floors were added.

•         Residents received a letter today which stated that the planning meeting would be on 24 February 2000. Residents accepted the year 2000 was an error but as it stated 24 February, they thought today’s meeting would be cancelled. Once residents were made aware that the item would be heard today it was too late for them to attend.

•         The leak in the block was ongoing for 2 years which was poor. Scaffolding was currently in place to address this but not many workers have been seen.

•         It took two years to address resident concerns of stair nosing. Although now complete it was worth noting how long it took.

•         The communal door lock had to be replaced at least three times in one year which suggested materials used were inadequate.

•         Residents felt that the communal cleaning areas were done inadequately and to a poor standard.

•         How would the developer cope with the addition of 12 new flats.

•         Residents wanted to know what steps would be taken to keep them informed at every stage of the process, how would they access their homes, how will they be protected during the works.

•         It took four to five months to deal with waste management issues.

The committee received representation from the applicant Thomas Rumble who raised points including:

•         Proposal was for an addition of 12 flats, a mix of one and two bedroom apartments.

•         The site filled Brownfield land and benefited from the permitted development rights, granted under part 20 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) which allowed the addition of floors above the existing building. These rights were further supported by the London Plan and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

•         Prior approval considerations were reviewed in the officer’s report.

•         Two parking surveys completed in 2021 and 2023 demonstrated that the proposal would not cause undue parking stress, further supported by the London Plan which encouraged car free developments. The Councils Highway team also had no objections.

•         The scheme would provide a two tier cycle rack provision which offered 12 spaces, available to existing and proposed tenants on site.

•         A £10,000 contribution would be provided for the provision of cycle hangers in local area.

•         A £3.600 contribution would be made for the Councils local e-bike cycle hire scheme.

•         The lower of the two additional floors would match the existing three levels and was previously approved by the Council via prior approval earlier in the year.

•         The upper additional floor formed a mansard roof to be pitched on its sides. The setting of this floor broke up massing and ensured the external appearance was appropriate and more consistent with the local area.

•         The proposed extension was further supported by the site’s neighbourhood parade location.

•         The scheme allowed for a proportionate and well designed roofscape in addition to the already approved single storey addition below.

•         All flats met space standards and were dual aspect.

•         Improvements to refuse would be secured via the suggested refuse and recycling condition, the Councils Waste Services Officer was content with the proposals.

•         The building was sited away from residential properties and therefor, in relation to neighbouring residential amenities, they met and exceeded the conventional management criteria.

•         The freeholder would do all they could to minimise disturbance during construction. A construction logistics plan and working method statement were required as part of the suggested conditions.

In response to questions raised by the committee, Planning Officers advised:

•         Maintenance of the existing building was not considered as part of the application however there was scope to improve waste via a planning condition which would secure a requirement for the Councils waste officer to be consulted and if there were any breaches on the approved plan, enforcement action could be taken. Hopefully this would give reassurance that there would be an improvement for existing and new residents.

•         Officers agreed, as an action, to refer concerns around the state of the building to the Building Control Team.

•         Officer’s considered potential improvements which but had not considered painting the building. This could be an option subject to the applicant’s agreement.

•         The cycle hanger locations were not yet fixed but ideally, they would be kept on the highway, providing it did not result in the loss of car parking space. The indicative proposals were to place the cycle hangers on St Mary’s Avenue or near the Co-op which was where they also proposed placing the e-bikes.

•         Structural integrity of the building was covered by building control which would require separate approval.

•         Outside communal space was not a planning consideration under the prior approval process.

•         Cycle credit was newly introduced, they would need to look into what would happen if the money was not used.

•         The proposal created new units which would be a consideration for members although it was not necessarily a criteria for prior approval.

•         Prior approval did not include affordable housing provision, if this was a full planning application, they would be able to secure affordable housing. The governments drive for prior approval was to create new housing.

•         The transport officer informed the committee that the provider of the cycle credit would inform the Council on how they would manage the credits.

•         In relation to cycle credits, the consent was time limited and conditions and or agreements needed to meet certain tests. One of the tests was whether the requirements were necessary to make the development acceptable. If full use of credits were not used it could be argued that the full requirements were not necessary to make the development acceptable. Conditions would have to be tightly controlled and relevant to this particular development. The hope was that all of the credits would be used but if they were not, it was unknown whether they could be used in a broader area. The Chair confirmed that they would need to explore the policy further to gain full benefits.

•         Removing the time limit for cycle credits would need to be looked into further. Prior approval time periods were set nationally however, if strictly limited to this development, it was possible for the condition to stay in place in perpetuity.

•         Cycle hanger placement was outside of this application, but officers would note the comments and include ward councillors at the correct stage of the process.

The Chair invited Cllr Kenny to respond to clarify details raised within questions from the committee.

Cllr Kenny informed the committee of the following:

•         It was required as part of the London plan to provide all residents with adequate waste with no overflowing.

•         Queen Mary Avenue Road was a narrow road which was always congested. If the Cycle racks were placed there it would cause traffic.

The Chair invited the applicant to respond to clarify details raised within questions from the committee.

The applicant informed the committee of the following:

•         The internal height within the flats would be 2.4 metres and was consistent with the height of the flats on the lower levels in the existing building.

•         There may be an aspiration to undertake some work to improve the appearance of the existing building, but this was not part of the proposal. At present the building was a mix of brick and render so would be consistent with the existing image. They would agree to an informative to encourage the idea.

•         Agreed to a condition that as part of the submission of a waste plan, to include internal waste storage as part of the kitchen units as standard.

•         Prior approval regulation stated that there needed to be floor to ceiling heights that were the same as the rest of the building.

•         There was a construction logistics plan condition which could be expanded to include a requirement for engagement from the developer with residents during the construction process. They agreed for there to be fortnightly engagement.

•         A condition already existed which stated no work on Sundays and Bank Holidays. On Saturdays, the only time allowed would be from 8.00am to 1.00pm.

The Chair agreed to look further into providing best practice for developers regarding resident engagement.

The Chair moved to the vote on the Officers’ recommendation with the following additional conditions and informatives: Votes For – 9, Against – 0, Abstentions – 0.

CONDITIONS:

•         Waste plan to include internal waste storage in the kitchen area of the new builds.

•         Councillors to be consulted on where the cycles racks would go as part of the consultation process.

•         Cycle credits to be in perpetuity.

•         Construction and engagement would include a clear plan which included, at minimum, written communication with existing resident’s fortnightly.

INFORMATIVES:

•         To tidy and clean the front of the development.

RESOLVED: That the Committee GRANTED Prior Approval subject to conditions and S106 Agreement.