Application No: 15/P2830    Ward: Wimbledon Park

Recommendation: GRANT permission subject to S106 Legal agreement and Conditions

Proposal: Demolition of existing house and erection of a pair of two storey 5/6 bed semi-detached houses with accommodation at basement and roof levels

The Planning Applications Committee noted the Officers report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda- Modification sheet which included an additional and an amended plan. In addition the Committee noted verbal representations from 3 objectors to the application, and a verbal representation by the applicant.

Objectors raised points including:

·         Scale, mass, visual impact of proposal unacceptable

·         Proposal is 2 ½  times bigger than existing property

·         Fails to relate to the rhythm and density of current streetscene

·         GGIs produced by the developer are misleading

·         The development would obscure the views of Wimbledon Park

·         Basement prolongs construction time

·         The Basement Impact Study is very basic and doesn’t focus on the impact of development on the slope

·         Parking will be lost

The applicant asked members to note that they had worked closely with Planning Officers and several large amendments had been made as part of the process. Officers asked members to note that the proposed development was considered to preserve the characteristics of Lambourne Avenue; with a large gap between the proposed flank wall and the corner, the houses set no further forward than the existing house, and stepping down in height following the topography. Transport Planning Officer added that the developer had accepted the restrictions to visitor parking.

Members asked Officers to clarify the visual impact of the development on the basement of Number 5 Lambourne Avenue. Officers said that as the proposed development sat to the north of No. 7 it would have no overshadowing or loss of sunlight.  Members asked about a point raised by the first speaker – that the new development had a volume 2 ½ times bigger than the existing house. Officers replied that yes the proposed development was much bigger but that it sits in a plot that is much bigger than neighbouring plots and this had been taken into account when assessing the scheme. Members asked about the claim by the speaker that the CGI produced by the applicant was misleading. Officers explained that the proposed development did sit above road level but the corner element had the same ridge height as the existing house, that the proposed roof design had a hip roof form and would slope away from the front elevation rather than the existing gable that projects vertically, and this would  assist in reducing its presence in the street scene.

Members asked about the impact of the development on the Conservation Area. Officers replied that they considered that the key attributes of this part of the Conservation Area had been preserved in particular the long, wide gap and view of Wimbledon Park, which is a key characteristic of Lambourne Avenue in relation to the Conservation Area.

Members asked about the proposed basement and whether the slope stability had ben considered, following comments made by one of the objectors. Officers stated that the Council’s structural and Flood engineers were satisfied with the proposed basement subject to conditions.

Comments were made by members regarding the proposed development:

·         Councillor Holden said that it was very bulky on a prominent site

·         Councillor Bowcott said that that the size was overbearing and he criticised the crossover arrangement

·         Councillor Southgate said the design was derivative and the proposal does not make any contribution to the CA

·         Councillor Abigail Jones said that the site can support this development and that the gap between houses is smaller elsewhere on the street and that the characteristics of the CA were not affected by the development.

A motion to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Holden and seconded by Councillor Southgate. The reasons for refusal were given as the scale, mass and bulk of the proposal being overbearing on the street scene and that the proposal did not make a positive contribution to the conservation area. The Committee voted on the motion to refuse, and the motion was carried by 5 votes to 4 with one abstention.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to:

1.            REFUSE planning permission on grounds relating to the following -

(i) The scale, mass and bulk of the proposal would be overbearing on the street scene

(ii) Impact on the Conservation Area - the proposal makes no contribution to the conservation area

2.            DELEGATE to the Director of Environment & Regeneration the authority to agree the detailed grounds of refusal, including any appropriate amendments, additions and/or deletions to the proposed grounds/policies.