Three two-storey homes at Land rear of 2-28 Bickley Street, London SW17

What was proposed

The application sought three two-storey dwellings with bin stores, cycle parking and landscaping, arranged as a car-free scheme.

“The proposal seeks planning permission for the erection of 3 x two-storey dwellings with associated bin stores, cycle parking and landscaping. The development is proposed as a car-free scheme with no dedicated on-site spaces proposed.”

“At ground floor level, the proposed dwellings (Units A, B and C) each have independent access to their individual units from a shared pedestrian route running along the southern edge of the site. Unit A is a three-bedroom 6-person unit (a family sized dwelling) with a Gross Internal Area (GIA) of 116 sqm, Units B and C are two-bedroom 4 person dwellings each with a GIA of 89.1 sqm.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The backland site was a hard-surfaced former vehicle-storage area behind Bickley Street, beside residential, commercial and listed buildings.

“SITE DETAILS: The application site measures approximately 0.04 hectares and comprises a rectangular parcel of backland to the rear of Nos. 2 to 28 Bickley Street. The site is privately owned and is currently in temporarily use as a private car park for the storage of vehicles associated with a car sales business located on London Road, Mitcham. The site is hard surfaced and does not contain any buildings or structures.”

“The surrounding area is characterised by a mixed land use context, comprising both residential and commercial uses. To the north lies the former Granada Cinema building (now known as Gala Bingo Club Tooting), which is a Grade I listed building. To the south are Nos. 2 to 32 Bickley Street (even numbers), which are two-storey terraced dwellings. To the east is a private access road serving the site and properties on Nos.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A 2014 application for two apartment blocks was refused because of amenity-space, overlooking, daylight and outlook concerns.

“The most relevant and recent planning history for the site is outlined below:”

“2014 (2013/2743): Refused: Erection of a two-storey apartment block containing 2 two- bedroom apartments and a four-storey apartment block adjacent containing 6 two-bedroom apartments, all with associated landscaping. The site is to be accessed from Bickley Street. Reasons for refusal: The proposal fails to provide a sufficient quantum of private amenity space or communal amenity space that is considered usable.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the temporary vehicle-storage use could be replaced and the revised homes would provide suitable accommodation while addressing earlier concerns.

“The principle of residential development on the site is considered acceptable. Whilst the site is currently used for the storage of vehicles associated with a wider car sales business in Mitcham, the evidence demonstrate that this use is informal, ancillary and operates on a temporary meanwhile basis, rather than as an established or active industrial use.”

“The proposal would deliver the provision of three residential units, including a family- sized dwelling, making efficient use of a brownfield site located within an area of excellent public transport accessibility. The dwellings would provide an acceptable standard of internal and external accommodation for future occupiers.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Council consultees raised no objection subject to conditions covering ecology, drainage, waste, noise, contamination and archaeology.

“Council’s Ecology Officer: No objection, subject to conditions requiring the submission and Council approval of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Landscape and Ecology Enhancement and Management Plan. The Ecology Officer is satisfied that the proposal meets the requirements of mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain. Given that the scheme comprises three residential units intended for private ownership, it is not feasible for the Council to monitor the site.”

“Council’s Waste Officer: No objection is raised to the proposed bin store capacity, as it accords with the SPD. However, the SPD requires unobstructed access to all containers. The submitted plans show that the food caddies obstruct access to the recycling bin, and that one of the 90-litre refuse bins obstructs another. This issue can be resolved through the repositioning of bins within the store.”

Officer report

What residents objected to

Residents objected to overdevelopment, neighbour impacts, narrow access, waste arrangements, construction risks, heritage effects and the loss of vehicle storage.

“Highway Safety, Access and Servicing • Objection to reliance on narrow access route • Inadequate provision for emergency, servicing and refuse vehicles • Concerns regarding increased traffic, parking stress and vehicle conflict • Potential pedestrian and highway safety risks • Existing parking and traffic pressures…”

“Refuse and Servicing Arrangements • Doubts over practicality of private waste collection • Lack of clarity on refuse access arrangements • Risk of poor waste management, vermin and disturbance…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor Osborn addressed the committee for local residents, raising access, waste, ownership, heritage and archaeological concerns.

What members discussed

Members asked about bedroom windows, fire access, overlooking and waste, while officers explained the proposed safeguards and arrangements.

“In response to a fire engine being unable to pass through the alleyway, the Area Team Manager (East Team) confirmed that although a fire engine would not be able to access the site, which would instead be done from Bickley Street, fire hoses could run through the alleyway to the site.”

“In relation to overlooking, Members asked about the distance measurement between the windows on Bickley Street and this development site. In response, the Area Team Manager (East Team) confirmed that it was between 9.1 and 9.4 metres.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted six in favour, two against and one abstention.

“Prior to a vote, the Chair noted that an informative could be added in relation to the local amenity society being informed about archaeological inspections, as referenced by Councillor Osborn.”

“RESOLVED – (6 for, 2 against and 1 abstention) that planning permission be granted as set out in the report, noting the additional information as set out in the late items of correspondence paper and with an informative to be added in relation to further archaeological investigations at the site being shared with the Tooting History Group.”

Minutes