Merton Council

Home Home Merton Adult Education Home Home Jobs in children's social care Home Merton Means Business Home Wandle Valley Low Carbon Zone Home Safeguarding Children Board
How do I contact my councillor?

Agenda item

1 Lambourne Avenue, Wimbledon Park, London, SW19 7DW

Application number: 23/P1053

Ward: Wimbledon Park

Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions.


The Planning Officer presented the report.


The committee received representation from one objector who raised points including:


·       Unique site and the development was of concern to the whole community.

·       Appreciated that the development was scaled back but there remained concerns with regards to ensuring the protection of the sweet gum tree and further concerns of the proposed balcony on the first floor which would likely result in significant detrimental impact to at least 6 adjoining properties.

·       Given the unique location, the precedent set on Lambourne Avenue for balconies did not apply and they requested that the balcony was removed from the plans.


The committee received representation from the agent Reza Parizi who raised points including:


·       The application underwent consultation with Merton’s Planning Department and gained authority from various authorities including the Case Officer, Conservation Officer and Tree Officer.

·       The current design received no objections from the public during the recent consultation.

·       The existing property was structural unsound, the proposed design would positively contribute to the conservation area.

·       The design aligned aesthetically with existing properties and complied with both the London Plan and Merton Planning Policies.

·       There would be privacy screens on the first floor terrace and the Sweet Gum Tree would be protected.

·       The client and design team collaborated with the Planning Case Officer to ensure compliance. Examples of this were the removal of an outbuilding at the rear of the property and a reduction in the width and depth of the proposal.

·       The design offered a well configured living space and amenities with adequate parking.


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


·       The Tree Officer was involved with the application and the Sweet Gum Tree had a TPO (Tree Protection Order). Page 11 of the officer’s report outlined all protective measures and was dated 11 December 2023. The report highlighted minimal impact and officers were satisfied that the Sweet Gum Tree would be protected.

·       The balcony was reduced in width during negotiations. At first floor level the balcony would be set slightly in and have 1.7metre high screens to its sides. It was acknowledged that it would have some cross views to neighbouring gardens, but this would be at an oblique angle. The Sweet Gum could have some effect on visual impact during the summer but not during the winter months.

·       Obscured glass for first floor windows were fairly common. The officer felt that given the side on view to the property from the south and north, a fixed glazed window was appropriate. If members disagreed, it was possible to have high level high opening windows from 1.7metres from floor height.

·       Condition 21 addressed concerns raised in regard to air source heat pumps. Officers would expect details related to sound to be submitted on discharge of condition which would then be consulted on with the Environmental Officer to ensure that the proposal was acceptable.

·       If solar panels on the roof formed part of the plans, then it would also form part of the consent.

·       Condition 17 was removed as cycle parking was addressed in condition 16.

·       Concerns around asbestos would be raised on any planning decision notice. They would also draw this to the attention of the applicant and the role of the health and safety executive.

·       Officers could not confirm if there was obscured fixed glass at the side of the property on the first floor.

·       An informative related to the permeable materials on the drive was recommended on the modification sheet but as it was not clear, officers agreed to add one.

·       Officers agreed that having an opening to the window above 1.7metres was acceptable.


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


The applicant informed the committee of the following:


·       One of the windows to the side of the property was not obscured.

·       There would not be a design issue to have non fixed windows in the bathroom, this was a planning issue. If there was not a fixed window below 1.7metres there would be concerns of overlooking. To avoid mould, the property would be fitted with an air source heat pump and dehumidifier. They could make the top section above 1.7metres openable if this was preferred.


The Chair moved to the vote on the Officers’ recommendation with the following additional conditions and informatives: Votes For – 9 , Against – 0, Abstentions –1 .




·       That the Health and Safety Executive was referred to regarding asbestos


·       Update to the plan to allow for windows above 1.7metres to be non-fixed.


RESOLVED: That the Committee GRANTED permission subject to conditions.


Supporting documents: