Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to conditions.

1. Proposal – Demolition of the existing four bedroom detached house and the erection of a replacement five bedroom house with garage and ancillary storage building.

2. Design Review Panel (DRP) – Officers advised that the revised proposals for the development had only been circulated to DRP members for comment , and not submitted to a formal  DRP meeting (as detailed in para. 5.11) as the DRP met far less frequently than this Committee, and there was a need to expedite consideration of the application without waiting for the next DRP meeting and referred to the statutory periods for consideration of applications.

3. Article 4 Directions – Officers referred to concerns raised by an objector in their oral representations and by the John Innes Society that the officer report didn’t refer to the two Article 4 directions that covered the Merton Park Conservation Area (as detailed in the tabled Modifications Sheet).  Officers explained that the Directions referred to minor development matters, whereas the current application was completely different (being a major redevelopment proposal) and therefore this issue shouldn’t delay its consideration.

4. Discussion – Members expressed a number of concerns about the proposals including the following
(a) the proposed modern design being out of character and harmful for the Conservation Area;

(b) the adverse effect of the design on the street scene and nearby locally listed buildings;

(c) the existing house was one of a row of three of similar 1950’s design and the proposal would be out of keeping with the other two;

(d) the existing house was an attractive building with many years life, and its unnecessary demolition (and replacement by an entirely new building) would have a considerable carbon footprint;

(e) it was difficult to see that the proposal had Arts & Crafts features as claimed by the applicant’s representative in their oral submission; and

(f) the proposed modern design might well be suitable for a different location, but not the application site.

5. Refusal Motion:  It was moved and seconded that permission be refused as detailed below.  The motion was carried unanimously.  Subsequently the Committee agreed that officers be delegated authority to agree the detailed grounds of refusal and also agreed (C) below.

Decision: Item 12 - ref.15/P1218 (20 Sheridan Road, Merton Park, SW19 3HP)

(A) subject to detailed grounds of refusal being agreed in accordance with (B) below, REFUSE permission on grounds relating to the following -

(i) The proposal development would not be appropriate for the Conservation Area, and, by reason of its inappropriate design, would be out of character and would be harmful to the Conservation Area, including nearby locally listed buildings and the street scene.

(ii) The proposals would result in the loss on an existing attractive  building with many years life without there being a suitable replacement.

(iii) The proposals would be contrary to -
(a) Policy DM.02 (Design considerations in all developments) and PolicyDM.04 (Managing heritage assets) of the Merton Sites and Policies Plan (July 2014);

(b) Policy CS.14 (Design) of the Merton LDF Core Planning Strategy (July 2011); and

(c) Policy 7.6 (Architecture) and Policy 7.8 (Heritage Assets) of the London Plan.

(B) Delegation: The Director of Environment & Regeneration be delegated authority to agree the detailed grounds of refusal, including any appropriate amendments, additions and/or deletions to the proposed grounds/policies.

(C) Reasons for not following Planning Officers' recommendation for permission: The Committee disagreed with the views in the officer report regarding the appropriateness of the proposed new house for the Conservation Area.