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

Flat 18, Sovereign House, 1 Draxmont, Wimbledon, SW19 7PG

Application number: 23/P3164

Ward: Hillside

Recommendation: GRANT Planning permission subject to conditions


The Planning Officer presented the report and highlighted that they received late representation from the Conservation Officer who was not consulted on the application. The Planning Officer read out the representation that was received.


The committee received representation from two objectors who raised points including:


·       11 of the 17 residents objected to the application.

·       Inappropriate design and material which gave visual unappealing symmetry, they did not agree with comments in the report related to visual enhancement.

·       The applicant planned to build on the main wall of the building which was owned by the freeholder. The freeholder had not given consent and would not until terms were agreed.

·       The rear terrace layout was inconsiderate and impractical. For 3 years the neighbour below had experienced leaks.

·       The development would infringe on the light and privacy of neighbours.

·       The lease clause confers their right to stop any detrimental impact to the character of the building.

·       The property was left empty and unoccupied for 20 years.

·       Application failed to respect the style and architecture of the building which should be preserved.


The chair invited the applicant to make representation, the following was raised:


·       The applicant inherited the property and was an architect by profession. The applicant would downsize to live at this property and was committed to high quality construction.

·       Pre-application advise was taken and the plans were discussed with the applicant’s neighbour.

·       A daylight study was completed without being requested. Feedback was that there would no impact but taking on feedback from neighbours a further assessment was done which stated there would be minimal impact on the terrace and adjoining room.

·       A structural engineer attended the property to assess the existing fabric.

·       New additions to the rear were to be light weight glazed structures to further reduce any impact.

·       There was a solar addition to improve sustainability.

·       Overall quality of the proposal was acceptable based on studies and assessments.


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


·       Matters which related to leases of the property were not material planning considerations. As set out in the report, matters for consideration were impact on the character of the building, impact on the area and neighbouring amenities and matters to help control the building process.

·       In relation to the late comments received from the Conservation Officer, design and visual impact was a matter of judgement. Concerns were raised around design issues but there was no mention of harm to the conservation area or neighbouring listed buildings.

·       The applicant completed a daylight sunlight assessment which concluded there was no breach to the BRE guidelines. The floor plans showed the development did step in away from the shared wall so officers were satisfied.

·       The building itself did not sit within the conservation area.

·       Solar panels would be placed on the flat roofs of the extensions. This was not conditioned as there was no requirement for such environmental benefits.


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 applicant had not yet looked at the mechanical elements but there was provision to offset the resident’s requirements. The applicant had thought to extend the power to the block and this continued to be an open conversation.


Due to the late submission from the Conservation Officer, it was proposed that the item was deferred to allow time to consider the submission. The proposal was seconded.


The Chair moved to the vote on Deferral: Votes For – 10 , Against – 0, Abstentions – 0.


RESOLVED: That the Committee DEFFER to a future meeting.


Supporting documents: