Application Number:  17/P1086           Ward: Village

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Erection of a 4 bedroom detached dwelling house with accommodation at basement level and within the roof space together with the provision of associated car parking and landscaping and front boundary wall/railings and gates.

The Committee noted the officers report and presentation and the additional information contained within the Supplementary Agenda.

The Development Control Manager advised that as per the report the application had been refused following a previous refusal.

Objectors raised concerns including:

·         The proposal was disproportionate overdevelopment

·         The number, range and strength of objections should be considered

·         The proposal closely resembled the previous one which had been rejected

·         There was no mitigation for the reduction of sunlight

·         The proposal was larger than the previously rejected one

·         Loss of privacy and light

·         Issues with overlooking

·         The new proposal did not overcome the reasons for refusal

·         Solar panels included within the plan would increase the height further

·         The position in relation to number 10 St Marys Road

·         The failure to keep with the density/scale of other houses

The Applicant raised points including:

·         The Applicants were long-term Merton residents wishing to modify the property as a retirement property and they had met with the Planning Department on numerous occasions.

·         A substantial number of the objections were not regarding planning issues

·         In regards to consultation – there was a property who supported the application and the applicant had written to all properties regarding the plans after they had purchased the property however only one resident had responded.

Of the 13 conditions proposed, the Applicant agreed with 12, however noted that the requirement for an archaeological report had not been in any of the previous applications for that property and the site had already been lawfully cleared and boreholes dug. The Applicant therefore questioned the requirement for this condition. The Applicant was concerned that this would cause further delay and expense without any precedent for it.

The Development Control Manager responded that there had been changes since the last application and that  the report confirmed that one neighbouring property supported the application. The Development Control Manager advised that the property was within an Archaeological Protection Zone, but that the property had been well cleared and therefore the Committee should consider whether it would be appropriate to continue with the final condition.

Members asked questions on what the basis was for the APZ, loss of sunlight and the size and siting of the building.

The Development Control Manager responded:

·         It is a large zone and was historical for many reasons and that the APZ covered a large area.

·         Some sunlight would be lost however the previous application had more bulk at the back which had been reduced.

·         All the sites on the road were slightly different and the road is slightly sloped and therefore whilst the proposal was slightly higher, within the overall context of the street scene it was considered that it generally fit.

RESOLVED:

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions as detailed in the Officers’ report with the exception of Condition 13 which would be deleted.