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

8 Pitt Crescent, Wimbledon Park, London, SW19 8HS

Application number: 24/P0924

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:

 

  • Evidence of current use indicated that the outbuilding was used as a separate dwelling and relying on a legal agreement to ensure proper use would be inappropriate.
  • The development for No8 and No10 should be considered as a single site as the applicant and family were the same. The back building was accessed separately to the main dwelling via a shared keypad gate erected between the two houses.
  • The applicant treated this as a single site despite two applications made.
  • Point 313 of the officer’s report in relation to self-use, this was evidence that could be disagreed with as opposed to a fact.
  • The utility room was actually a bedroom, the building had separate access from the road, enclosed by a 6ft fence and accessed through a separate keypad operated gate. The gate was removed for the inspection and replaced 2 days later, evidence of this was sent and acknowledged by Planning.
  • Couple have lived there for 18+ months and come and go separately from the main house which has been seen on camera. They move through the garden from No10 to No8.
  • Have already mentioned the independent laundry for usage by a number of households at No10.
  • The applicant runs a building company and knows the building rules and regulations but has ignored them.
  • Should not fall on residents to observe compliance with a legal agreement they are unaware of.
  • Requests that the committee view the unlawful back builds in conjunction with a major land development of the main house at No8, including a huge basement.
  • The reluctance of a party wall agreement created doubt of compliance of a legal agreement.
  • The combined site of No8 and No10 constituted a major overdevelopment for purely business purposes.
  • What was built was not permitted development and consists of a living accommodation which was not there before, the first development of this type in Pitt Crescent.
  • The building was in breach of planning regulations and should not have been allowed to progress to this stage. Retrospective planning permission was not acceptable.
  • Despite resident concerns raised in August 2022, the garden brick building at No8 and No10 was still used as living accommodation. Enforcement action did nothing.
  • Amenities were impacted due to noise and smoking.
  • Lack of due process and transparency with local residents they felt frustrated and misled with no assistance from Planning Officers.
  • There was a conflict of interest as the applicant was an employee of Merton Council.
  • The applicant owns a building company and knows what was and what was not permitted development
  • Have no faith in a legal agreement.
  • The use of the house was not for a family dwelling but to double the size of the existing dwelling, adding a sub-basement and roof space; why do they need all this space, it was purely a development for rental income via an HMO.

 

The committee received representation from Cllr Jil Hall who raised points including:

 

  • Understand this was a complex issue and appreciated the work taken by Planning.
  • The garden properties were being used separate to the owners for rent and created an unlicensed HMO.
  • Neither had an appropriate address, not subject to Council Tax or separate utility bills although being used as separate living accommodation.
  • Could imagine the owner of No8 renting out the property and advising the renter on what to do if a planning officer came to visit. If this was done, Merton Council could not stop this.
  • Very difficult to enforce.
  • No10 do access the house to use the laundry room. This had outside access at the side but no further access to the house, did this make it ancillary?

 

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

 

  • The conflict of interest was why the application came to committee to be heard in public.
  • The approach taken by officers would give the strongest possible position should enforcement reach the court.
  • Both facilities were capable of being lived in independently.

 

The Chair moved to the vote on the Officers’ recommendation including the legal agreement: Votes For – 7, Against – 3, Abstentions – 0.

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee GRANTED permission subject to conditions and legal agreement.

 

Supporting documents: