Application number: 17/P2878    Ward: Village

 

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

 

 

Proposal: Erection of a new detached garage with basement car park and erection of a two storey side extension with basement games room.

 

The Committee noted the officers report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda. The Planning Team Leader introduced the application and stated that the Basement Car Park was not to be used for commercial purposes, would have parking for 8 cars and had a depth of 4.4m from ground to flor level. The House Basement would have a depth of 3.2m from ground to floor level.

 

The Committee received verbal representations from two objectors to the application, the Applicant’s Agent and the Ward Councillor Hamish Badenoch.

 

Leon Fattal, a local resident,  raised objections to the application including:

·         The application fails to meet Merton Council’s own Policy on Basement developments

·         There is no Basement Impact assessment as required by policy DMD2, and the application is not compliant with this policy

·         The proposal presents a serious risk of subsidence

·         There are uncertain ground water flows

·         The application will damage 14 trees on the site and 8 trees on  Neighbouring sites

·         The trees are an important part of the Conservation Area and are of significant amenity value

·         The new condition 21 will do nothing to prevent this

·         Why is there no Traffic Management Plan

 

Matthew McFeely, a lawyer representing local residents made points including:

·         Our expert reports raise serious concerns

·         The Officer’s report takes the view that nothing can be said by the experts employed by the objectors

·         It would be unlawful to grant permission based on the Officer’s report

·         There is crucial information missing, there is no Basement Impact Assessment and basic information, the depth of the basement, is missing

·         The only experts who meet the qualification standards to advise on subsidence are those employed by the objectors

·         There is no rational to proceed with this application, the Committee cannot accept the Officer’s report

 

The Applicant’s Agent made points including:

·         Application has been with The Council for 8 Months now

·         25 of the representations received come from the same three properties

·         All of the applicant’s surveys have been prepared by experts

·         The application will not impact on the Conservation Area or Listed Buildings

·         Trees will not be harmed, trees close to the site have been assessed. The application will result in an increase in trees, with native species being planted

·         Council Officers have no objections, Merton’s Basement Policy is clear and has been complied with

·         A detailed Basement Construction Method Statement has been submitted

·         Site Specific Flood Risk has been assessed as no risk

·         There are no recorded issues with surface water

·         Measures for mitigating flood risk are in place, and the fold risk officer has no objections

·         The Proposal will not impact on neighbours or the Conservation Area

·         All of the neighbour objections will be dealt with either by condition or through Building Regulations

·         All necessary information has been on the Council’s website since September

 

Councillor Hamish Badenoch made points including:

·         There are many holes in this application

·         Why was no Basement impact Assessment submitted despite the scale of the application?

·         Why does the report not make reference to the objectors’ expert reports?

·         Why is there no clear consideration of the potential for flooding?

·         Why is the Basement Impact Assessment only required after approval?

·         Why approve an application that does not meet Council policies DMD2 and SPD9?

·         If approved this will expose Neighbours and The Council to risk

 

Members’ Questions

 

Members asked does this application meet DMD2 and does DMD2 require a Basement Impact Assessment?

Officers replied that DMD2 does not actually request a Basement Impact Assessment  but does say what needs to be assessed, further details are required later in the process. The Development Manager added that the Basement Impact Assessment is a general term for a collection of statements. We have Hydrology, Geology and Construction Statements and Officers are satisfied with these. There is one final statement required and that is a detailed Construction Plan.

 

A Member Asked if there had been procedural unfairness with this application?

Officers replied that the Application was withdrawn from the February Meeting because there was one piece of information missing.

The Heights of the Basement have always been on the website.

Officers are satisfied that the procedure has been correct

 

A member asked what are the distances between the outside edge of the basement and the foundations of the listed building at number 21 Calonne Road, and Officers gave the figures as measured from the plans

 

A member asked why are two sides geological reports so different?

The Planning Team leader said he did not know but that Council Engineer has considered and is satisfied with the applicant’s expert reports.

 

A member asked what does London Plan say about max number of parking spaces?  Officers replied that London Plan seeks to limit parking spaces in order to limit car movement. This application is a special circumstance as the cars are a personal classic car collection being stored. There is an additional condition to make the use ancillary to the dwelling

 

A Member commented that care is needed as the application is so close to a Grade II listed building and asked why Officers were relaxed about ignoring the paperwork of the objectors

 

The Development and Building Control Manager replied:

·         The proposed basement is at least 4 to 5 m away from the foundations of the listed building.

·         The Council’s experts have looked at the impact of the scheme on hydrology, flooding and trees and they have no objections.

·         Still have to look at Construction, but this basement is independent in the garden.

·         If minded to approve the application, Member’s could delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Regeneration so that a legal view could be sought on the application process

·         The use of the basement is ancillary to the house

 

Members made comments including:

·         Landowners can use their land in any way that is compatible with planning policy and the law

·         If due process has been followed then there are no objections to this application

·         Support a process that there is a legal view on the application before final approval.

·         Concern that there is so much of a difference between the geological reports of the applicant and objectors.

·         Other London Boroughs require a Basement Impact Assessment  and Traffic Management Plan before consideration

·         It would be very difficult to enforce Domestic use, but there is no sustainable reason for refusal

 

RESOLVED

 

The Committee voted  to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions in the officer’s report and to delegate authority for the final decision to the Director of Environment and Regeneration in order that he can consider the legal issues raised.