Agenda item
10 Pitt Crescent, Wimbledon Park, SW19 8HS
Application number:
24/P0916
Ward: ?Wimbledon
Park?
Recommendation: Grant
permission subject to conditions
Minutes:
The Planning Officer presented
the report.
The committee received
representation from two objectors who raised points
including:
- This was not a family
home, non-family members come and
go.
- An outside laundry
was created that could only be entered from outside of the house
through a side door.
- Questioned why an
elaborate office was required for a house that was not a family
home but an open shared site.
- Number 8 and Number
10 formed one site.
- There were no
buildings in the area beyond 30 square metres. If permitted, it
would set a precedent.
- Was supposed to be a
home office but was now a self-contained accommodation which was
not a permitted development.
- If the applications
were looked at in their entirety previously, it would not have come
to committee and should not be considered as an acceptable
development.
- Applicant also owned
Number 8 and it was improbable that they
needed the extra space for a family of 4.
- Do not have evidence
of other people living on the premises but this was outside the
permitted development.
- No other properties
in the area had living accommodation at the end of their
gardens.
The committee received
representation from Cllr Jil Hall who raised points
including:
- The building
constituted overdevelopment and was far too big for the allocated
plot.
- Initially built as
garden offices but were now self-contained accommodation which was
in breach of the planning rules.
- Understood that a
condition of a legal agreement could be issued so that the
accommodation could not be rented out but how would this be
enforced. Notice of a planning enforcement inspection would be
given which would allow for arrangements to be made to make it look
as if the accommodation was being used by family
members.
- This was a separate
self-contained living accommodation that was being used and rented
out on a commercial basis, which set an awful precedence for the
area.
- The application did
not meet the requirement set out in the Merton Council Small Site
Toolkit.
- The applicant made
changes in the knowledge that it could be used as an unlicensed
HMO.
In response to questions raised
by the committee, Planning Officers advised:
- Conditions were
attached previously to similar applications, but they now used
legal agreements which held more weight and was self-reenforcing.
They could take enforcement action and if required, a legal
injunction.
- A local planning
authority could impose a condition which necessitated certain
enforcement processes, which the applicant could appeal against. A
legal agreement would be harder to challenge as the applicant would
be a signatory who knew the exact terms and it would not be imposed
by the local planning authority like a condition. The legal
agreement carried greater weight then a planning condition with
potentially more severe penalties and there was a general
willingness from courts to enforce S106 agreements. Due to the
nature of this application, a legal agreement felt necessary and
would be defended if further evidence was received of the agreement
not being complied with.
- The sanction
available for the breach of a legal agreement was an injunction
action taken by the courts.
- Enforcement
complaints were received and been responded too. A planning
contravention notice was served to seek more information and some
of the enforcement challenges were challenged by the landowners.
This was part of the reason they felt that a legal agreement was
required, which the applicant has agreed to. Normal evidence were
logs kept of arrivals and where possible footage, which was
received but they were trying to put themselves in a different
situation.
- The S106 agreement
went with the land and building as approved. As
long as the building was there the S106 would apply. The
lifetime of the S106 would match the lifetime of the
development.
- Previously, if a
building was constructed without the correct consent, the local
planning authority would have to enforce within 4 years or it would become immune. The government has
changed this to 10 years which means they were well within the
enforcement time. Before, if an outbuilding was constructed for
residential purposes it had to be ancillary and still does, but
ancillary used to require shared facility, such as a bathroom, that
was missing from the outbuilding and provided by the main house.
This became complicated over the years due to case law which
allowed outbuildings to be ancillary with the full set of
facilities. This has made it more difficult to police which has led
to the situation of what was being proposed today was as good as
they could do due to the lack of clarity and the need to assess on
a case by case basis. When visiting the premises, it had a gym
instead of a bedroom but could essentially have all facilities and
be ancillary.
- Officers were unsure
when the development was built but to the best of their knowledge
it was at least a year ago.
- In relation to a
query on damages, the legal advisor informed members that the
normal remedy would be an injunction and if that wasn't complied
with the landowner could ultimately be jailed. Damages would be
unlikely here as very difficult to assess - they are more
appropriate where for instance sums due under an agreement aren't
paid/works are undertaken in default by the Council following a
breach of an agreement.
- It was acknowledged
that there was not a clearly defined boundary between the two
sites but they were ultimately two
separate properties and would be judged on the merits of two
individual applications.
- In terms of
neighbouring amenity, there would be an increase to intervisibility
between the outbuilding and neighbours on either side. It was
slightly more intrusive and as highlighted within the report, this
was a relationship tested at an appeal and was now considered
acceptable. The boundary fencing did provide some
mitigation.
- If this was an
application for an independent dwelling on each property, the
officer’s recommendation would be for refusal. The current
recommendation was very much based on this being ancillary and
people living on the site as one unit so there wouldn’t be
excessive noise. If this was for two more dwellings at number 8 and
10, they would be asking members to refuse planning
permission.
- Officers served a
planning contravention notice with extensive questions which were
answered. Inaccuracies would be an offence, they have to be factored into the balance
of next steps which was to bring before members with the associated
legal agreement.
- As there were two
dwellings, the lack of a boundary would not be sufficient for an
inspector to look at the overall impact and would be treated
separately on the basis that a fence could be put up and if under
2meters it wouldn’t require planning permission. Officers
have taken their approach as they believe that at appeal they would
be treated as two separate units in association with two separate
dwellings.
- Each application was
treated on their individual merits so both applications would not
need the same outcome but with similar application there would have
to be a material reason on why one was allowed and the other was
refused. Officers felt that there was not a strong enough reason to
win at appeal if one was refused and the other granted
permission.
- If refused, there was
a risk that an inspector may consider conditions to be sufficient
rather than a legal agreement. There was a willingness from the
applicant to sign the legal agreement. If one was refused, they
could submit details of the approved application and argue that it
was a material planning consideration.
- As part of the
appeals process, the planning inspector would allow planning
officers to put forward conditions which could be similar to the legal agreement.
The Chair moved to the vote on
the Officers’ recommendation including the legal agreement:
Votes For – 8, Against – 2, Abstentions –
0.
RESOLVED:
That the Committee GRANTED permission subject to
conditions and legal agreement.
Supporting documents: