Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for a single storey roof extension to create a third floor. First, second and third floor rear extension. Refuse and secure cycle stores to the rear boundary.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a  Carlyle Road resident:

      i.          Firstly: Contradicting the excellent work done and the impressive vision shown in both the Local Area Plan and Mitcham’s Corner Framework:

a.    The proposed building does not meet the requirements for any new development to "create altered or new roof profiles that are sympathetic to existing buildings and the surrounding area" which "do not unacceptably overlook, overshadow, or visibly dominate neighbouring properties." According to the Mitcham’s Corner Framework, "building heights along the north western edge of the site “should reflect those of the adjacent 1-17 Carlyle Road”.

b.    Neither does it offer "coherent structures that reinforce the unique quality of the area... through well-designed architecture, developed in a sensitive and sustainable manner and built to the highest quality".

c.    It was of an inappropriate mass and scale and the development exacerbated the impact of an already ugly office building. It certainly does not protect and enhance the character of a Conservation Area right next to the city centre.

     ii.          Secondly: The negative effect on immediate neighbours:

a.    The terrace opposite would lose light and be significantly overshadowed, since the houses were 2.5 storeys high and this development will be 4 storeys.

b.    Loss of privacy because of the ‘bird’s eye view’ created by the additional 4th ‘penthouse’ floor. The office building was often open outside normal office hours and workers would have a clear view into neighbour’s bedrooms.

c.    The new rear extension overlooks/overshadows the Protected Open Space at Grasmere Gardens' lawns.

d.    Its scale will adversely affect the subsequent redevelopment at Henry Giles House, where the aim is to be in sympathy with surrounding rooflines.

   iii.          Thirdly: Negative environmental and community impact:

a.    The pandemic made it clear that fewer offices would be needed in future, so this extra office space in a residential area was superfluous and ill-located.

b.    The development would reduce on-site parking and lead to additional traffic, access and parking issues.

c.    It would detract from a largely residential community recently revitalised by a new play park and traffic pinch point, making the area safer and more family friendly.

d.    If the longer-term plan is to convert to residential use under permitted development rights, the issues over mass and scaling, loss of light and privacy, poor design, and adverse effects on the community would be more urgent.

   iv.          Believed the planned proposal would constitute a kind of ‘test case’ for whether the bold vision and high standards of the Local Area Plan and Mitcham’s Corner Framework are adhered to in practice, and such a large and ugly development, if approved, would potentially set a precedent for a poor standard of design and build.

 

Mr Hopwood (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:

      i.          Condition 15: Require passive provision for electric vehicle charging points so the number or points could potentially be increased in the future.

     ii.          Require details of the mast location during construction.

 

The amendments were carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to restrict Class E use to offices and café (not nursery etc).

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:

      i.          the planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report;

     ii.          delegated authority to officers, in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following additional conditions:

a.    Condition 15: Require passive provision for electric vehicle charging points so they could potentially be increased in future;

b.    Require details of the mast location during construction;

c.    restrict Class E use to offices and café (not nursery etc).