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: