Application number: 17/P2023         Ward: Raynes Park

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Demolition of all buildings on site, comprising a builder’s yard with associated office and sheds along with 2x residential units, and redevelopment of the site to provide a terrace row of 3, 1 bed, single storey residential units with accommodation in the roof space together with landscaping, cycle storage and refuse storage.

The Planning Team Leader presented the report and additional information provided in the Supplementary Agenda which was noted by the Committee.

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

The objectors raised residents’ concerns including:

·         The development would be disproportionately detrimental

·         The proposal is in a conservation area

·         The information misrepresents the effect of the size and height of the proposal to neighbouring properties

·         The overshadowing report is out of date

·         The proposal would damage enjoyment of neighbouring residents’ garden

·         Overlooking which would lead to loss of light and privacy

·         The outlook would be restricted from the first floor living space

·         The limited distance to the flank wall

·         The low ceiling heights

·         There would be limited natural light

·         There would be poor outlook

·         There would be poor quality communal space

·         Other uses for the site had not been thoroughly assessed

The Applicant’s Agent made points including:

·         The site could be accessed by emergency vehicles

·         The application complied with standards in relation to light

·         Due to the size and location of the site no other uses for the site would be viable

·         There would be no harm to the conservation area

·         The proposal would be an improvement on what was currently on the site

The Planning Team Leader gave an overview of potential other uses for the site and reasons why these would not be viable and advised that the materials were thoughtful and modern and there was no overriding reason why they were required to be identical to others in the area. The Planning Team Leader advised that there was space for storage of refuse containers and to allow movement on collection days.

Councillor Adam Bush made points including:

·         The design is inconsistent with surrounding roads

·         There would be a negative effect on the character of the conservation area

·         The application should be refused under policy DMD4

·         The proposal would be a visual eyesore

·         The plot of land was unsuitable for three houses and would be an overdevelopment

·         The design was insufficient and did not provide enough amenity space

·         The design was below the London standard and in contradiction of DMD2 A4

·         The standard of accommodation would be poor with its’ enclosed nature, poor ventilation and poor light

·         The proposal failed on various planning policies and should be refused

Members Questions

A Member asked that the visual amenity of the current site was a concern and asked if any evaluation had suggested that the view would be obstructed by the proposal?

Officers responded that the judgement had been that it would not be unduly intrusive.

A member asked if the amenity would be reduced, would there be adequate light and would the light be obscured by the proposal? Officers responded that following negotiations the proposal had been reduced and remodelled to a thoughtful layout and that the level of afternoon sunlight should be good and that any shadow on the ground created wouldn’t result in such areas as to breach the guidelines.

A member asked for confirmation that the application was in a conservation area, what the minimum size for a 1 bedroom property was, whether the land was employment land and where the bin collection point would be. Officers responded that the proposal was in a conservation area and that the land is a scattered employment site. Officers advised that the minimum levels for a 2 person dwelling is 58 square metres and the proposal would have 62 square metres and officers demonstrated on the plans where the bin collection points and access for collection vehicles would be.

A member asked for clarification on the increase in height of the proposal from the current site; officers advised the wall proposed would be 2.5m high which did constitute an increase. Officers advised that it would change the outlook however there would be changing levels rather than one mass.

A member referred to the bicycle racks being moved into the amenity space to allow for emergency vehicle access at the front and asked if the amenity space was large enough to be able to also incorporate that? Officers responded that the amenity space was over and above what was considered appropriate and even if it was lost the proposal would still be considered acceptable.

Members made comments on the proposal including:

·         Employment land should be protected

·         Consideration should be given to the rhythm, siting and massing of the proposal as it was in a Conservation area

·         The area was not on the roads and therefore could not be the same style as the roads nearby

·         There is a housing issue in London and housing needs to be provided

·         The visual amenity currently is poor and will improve with the proposal

·         The proposal did not fit with DMD2

·         The interior space and the exterior are not ideal

A motion to refuse on the grounds of design, overdevelopment, loss of amenity and inappropriate for a conservation area was proposed and seconded and put to the vote.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to:

1.    REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

-       The proposal constituted an unneighbourly overdevelopment and would harm the visual amenities of neighbouring residents, and;

-       The proposals by reason of their design, size and siting would be detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area.

2.    DELEGATE to the Director of Environment and Regeneration the authority to make any appropriate amendments in the context of the above to the wording of the grounds of refuse including references to the appropriate policies.