The Development and Planning Applications Committee of Merton Council met on Thursday 11 January 2024, granting planning permission for two developments and noting reports on planning appeals and enforcement cases. The committee approved an application for additional units at Burlington Gate, 42 Rothesay Avenue, Wimbledon Chase, SW20 8JU, a penthouse flat extension at 3 Lansdowne Road, West Wimbledon, SW20 8AP, and prior approval for additional floors at 310-356 Grand Drive, Raynes Park, London, SW20 9NQ.

Burlington Gate, 42 Rothesay Avenue, Wimbledon Chase, SW20 8JU

Planning permission was granted for an application at Burlington Gate, 42 Rothesay Avenue, Wimbledon Chase, SW20 8JU, subject to conditions and the conclusion of a Section 106 agreement. This development involves the addition of new units and alterations to communal spaces.

Residents expressed concerns that the developer had not engaged with them since pre-application discussions in 2019, and that the proposed changes would significantly reduce communal space, negatively impacting the standard of accommodation. They highlighted that the existing home was built before London standards were introduced, meaning residents have no private outdoor space. Objections also centred on the proposed landscaping on the east side of the building not being a replacement for lost communal space, and that the proposal to the east was more akin to a bus shelter than a replacement for the conservatory and sunnier rooftop space. Residents also raised issues regarding the freeholder's lack of engagement and financial management.

The applicant, John English, countered that the application proposed a new 120 square metre roof terrace, almost double that of a previous application, and 91 square metres of ground floor amenity space, with over 84% receiving at least two hours of direct sunlight. He stated that the application would provide new flats with more private amenity space and that an unused area on the north of the site would be refurbished and landscaped. He also noted that the existing roof was in disrepair and not a safe or friendly environment for children and residents.

Planning Officers advised that while there could be some additional noise disturbance from the side amenity space, it was not considered to be of material harm. They also clarified that the area to the north of the development would be solely accessed by the closest block and that no additional space was created. Regarding play space, they noted that this would only be required for ten or more units, and while an area could be reorganised, the rooftop was not a designated play space. Officers also confirmed that as a minor application, a statement of community involvement was not required, but that the committee had to assess the application based on planning policies regarding amenity space.

Following extensive discussion, the committee voted to grant planning permission with several additional conditions and informatives. These included the implementation of a Resident Liaison Group, including Ward Councillors, to organise quarterly meetings. The landscaping for ground amenity spaces would be reviewed by this group, with reasonable endeavours to meet resident requirements. The applicant would also make reasonable endeavours to look into installing a stair lift for accessible roof access. The proposed rooftop space would be implemented with a glass unit capable of holding the same number of tables and chairs as currently exist, unless otherwise stated by residents. If requested by the resident liaison group, a play area would be implemented at the back of the site. A new condition was added to ensure the garden land to the north of the smaller block is accessible to all residents, and Condition 7 was amended to include a five-year period for planting replacement, physical landscaping and play equipment in perpetuity, and a resident engagement or liaison plan.

Penthouse Flat 11, 3 Lansdowne Road, West Wimbledon, SW20 8AP

The committee granted planning permission for an upper extension to Penthouse Flat 11, 3 Lansdowne Road, West Wimbledon, SW20 8AP, subject to conditions.

The applicant, Stephen Sexton, argued that the recommendation for refusal was based on the upper extension resulting in material harm to the character and appearance of the building, conservation area, and street scene. He highlighted design features intended to reduce height and visual impact, including sinking the extension into the floor below. He also stated that surrounding properties were not in the conservation area and that the extension would be set back significantly, making it invisible from Lansdowne Road and the Ridgeway. He contrasted the current application for a 400 square foot ensuite bedroom with a previously refused scheme for two buildings with eight two-bedroom apartments.

Planning Officers acknowledged that visual impact was a matter of judgement and that while some views from directly in front of the building would be partially visible, they also considered wider views and the design's appropriateness. They noted that the proposal would benefit a single unit and that the building would become taller than others in the local area. Officers felt the proposal would look out of character, although they conceded that other councils had allowed similar developments. They also noted that the development would be visible at night due to glazing.

The committee voted to refuse the officer's recommendation, with members disagreeing that the proposed development would have a negative impact on the appearance of the host building and surrounding area. Planning permission was granted with conditions including a standard time limit, a samples and materials condition, a drawing numbers condition, implementation of a construction management plan, and a standard construction times and days restriction.

310-356 Grand Drive, Raynes Park, London, SW20 9NQ

Prior approval was granted for the addition of two floors to the building at 310-356 Grand Drive, Raynes Park, London, SW20 9NQ, subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement.

Ward Councillor Sally Kenny raised concerns about inadequate repairs and maintenance, which she believed would be exacerbated by the addition of two floors. She highlighted a two-year-old leak and slow progress on repairs, as well as the frequent replacement of the communal door lock. Residents also questioned how the developer would manage the addition of 12 new flats and sought assurances on communication, access, and protection during works.

The applicant, Thomas Rumble, stated that the proposal for 12 one and two-bedroom apartments was on brownfield land and benefited from permitted development rights. He noted that parking surveys indicated no undue parking stress, supported by the London Plan's encouragement of car-free developments, and that the Council's Highway team had no objections. The scheme included a two-tier cycle rack provision for 12 spaces and contributions towards local cycle hire schemes. He explained that the lower additional floor matched existing levels and had been previously approved, while the upper floor formed a mansard roof designed to be consistent with the local area.

Planning Officers advised that while maintenance of the existing building was not part of the application, there was scope to improve waste management through a planning condition. They agreed to refer concerns about the building's state to the Building Control Team. They also noted that outside communal space was not a planning consideration under the prior approval process.

The committee voted to grant prior approval with additional conditions and informatives. These included a waste plan incorporating internal waste storage in kitchen units, consultation with councillors on cycle rack locations, cycle credits to be in perpetuity, and a construction and engagement plan including fortnightly written communication with existing residents. An informative was added to encourage tidying and cleaning the front of the development.

Planning Appeal Decisions and Enforcement Cases

The committee noted the report on planning appeal decisions. Councillor Aidan Mundy, Chair of the committee, advised that he would write to the inspector to highlight 17 cases and report back to the committee if needed. The committee also noted the report on planning enforcement, with a security and health and safety concern raised regarding 7 Watery Lane, where works were completed without planning permission. Jon Berry, Head of Development Management and Building Control, agreed to refer this matter to the Enforcement Team.