24/P0778

The siting, design, scale, form and massing of the two storey side extension and rear dormer, combined with the raising of the parapet wall on the flank elevation and the design of the parapet between the addition and the original dwellinghouse results in a visually obtrusive and unsympathetic form of overdevelopment which erodes the character and appearance of the host site and surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CS14 of the Merton Core Planning Strategy (2011) and policy DMD2 of the Merton Sites and Policies Plan (2014)

Due to the absence of information regarding the boundary treatments towards the rear and accurate drawings of the dormers, the development is considered to potentially create a sense of visual intrusion and be overbearing to the detriment of the residential amenity of nearby occupants, in particular, occupiers of 109 Lyveden Road. The scheme is contrary to, in particular, policies DMD2 and DMD3 of Merton's Sites and Policies Plan (2014)

In the absence of exact detailing of the boundary treatments that have been erected on site, the scheme in its current form has not demonstrated that it positively contributes to the visual amenity of the streetscene, contrary to in particular DMD2 of Merton's Sites and Policies Plan 2014

Both flats, by reason of substandard layouts and undersized kitchen, living and dining spaces as well as the lack of the demonstration of functionality, fails to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation. This results in an unsatisfactory standard of accommodation to the detriment of the amenities of occupiers of Flats 1&2. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies London Plan 2021 policy D6, Merton Core Strategy 2011 policies CS 9 & CS.14 and Merton Sites New Neighbour Notification Householder Prior Approval and Policies Plan 2014 Policy DM D2

The application has not considered safety and security issues, as such officers consider that the proposal in its current form does not address the objectives of policy DMD2 of Merton's SPP in terms of crime prevention and secure design

In the absence of a satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment that includes assessment on potential impact and structural integrity of the culverted river, it has not been demonstrated the scheme would safeguard the risk of flooding in the locality. The proposal is contrary to, in particular, London Plan policy SI 13, Merton Core Strategy (2011) policy CS16 and Merton Sites and Policies Plan (2014) policies DM F1 and DM F2

The application has failed to demonstrate that the development secures a net biodiversity gain of 10% or any relevant exemptions. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policy G6 of the London Plan 2021 and Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021)

The applicant has failed to provide a soft-landscaping scheme, thereby failing to comply the objectives set out in G5 of the London Plan 2021

In the absence of a completed S106 undertaking to ensure that the occupiers of both additional units are prevented from being able to obtain parking permits for the Controlled Parking Zone, the proposal results in an increased demand for on street parking, resulting in a detrimental impact on highway and additional parking pressure locally and be contrary to the Mayor and the Council's commitment to reducing car usage and promoting more sustainable forms of transport. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy T6 of the London Plan 2021, Policy DM T1, T2 and T3 of the Sites and Policies Plan 2014 and Policy CS20 of the Core Planning Strategy 2011