Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to conditions.

1. Proposal - Demolition of existing dwelling house and erection of a detached two storey dwelling house with accommodation at basement level and within the roof space together with the provision of off street parking, erection of front boundary treatment and associated landscaping.

2. Light Impact studies – Officers explained that there were two sunlight and daylight impact studies –
(a) one independent study from residents which concluded that the proposals marginally failed to meet the BRE guidelines; and
(b) a more in depth study from the applicants which concluded that the proposals met the BRE guidelines

2.1 Officers explained that
(i) they were satisfied that side window of No.6 St Mary’s Road (which was not the main window to the room concerned) facing No.8 met the BRE guidelines as regards overshadowing; and
(ii) the study from the residents suggested that there would be marginal overshadowing in the garden between 4pm/6pm in the summer.  Officers accepted that there may be a small impact but considered this was not sufficient to withhold permission.

3. Consultation period – In response to objectors concerns in their oral representations that the officer report had been compiled before the end of the consultation period and before all objections (including the residents independent light impact report) had been submitted, officers referred to the pressure from Government to consider applications within tight timescales and the use of the tabled modifications sheet to provide late updates.  Officers  also confirmed that, if appropriate due to the significant nature of late information submitted, officers would recommend on occasions that consideration of an application be deferred to a future meeting.  (Officers made no such recommendation in this case.)

4. Location of No.10 St Marys Road – Reference was made to No.10 St Mary’s Road as built having been constructed in the wrong position and that this was currently being investigated by the Enforcement Team (para. 7.6 refers). 

4.1 A member sought confirmation that an allegation that the applicants for Nos. 8 & 10 St Mary’s Road were the same, was not a planning issue.  Officers confirmed that this was not relevant to the consideration of the current application for 8 St Mary’s Road.

5. Discussion – There was considerable discussion about the proposals, including the above light impact studies. Members expressed concern about the adverse impact of the proposals, particularly due to their bulk and massing, on the adjacent property at No.6 St Mary’s Road; and concern about the relatively narrow width of the site, the proximity of the proposed development to No.6; the proposed new building being overbearing for No.6, and being an overdevelopment of the site.

6. Refusal Motion:  It was moved and seconded that permission be refused as detailed below.  The motion was carried by 5 votes to nil (Councillor Linda Kirby abstaining).  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/P2556 (8 St Mary’s Road, Wimbledon, SW19 7BW)

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

(i) The bulk and massing of the proposals;

(ii) The proposals would be contrary to -
(a) Policy DM D.2 of the Merton Sites and Policies Plan (July 2014); and

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

(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 considered that the officer report had given insufficient weight to the appropriate Council policies.