Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Linda Kirby

Councillor Ian Munn attended as a substitute for Councillor Kirby

No declarations of pecuniary interest were received.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Meeting held on 16 July 2015 be agreed as a correct record

Officer Recommendation:
The recommendations for each individual application are detailed in the relevant section of the reports.  (NB.  The recommendations are also summarised on the index page at the front of this agenda).

The published Agenda and modifications sheet tabled at the meeting form part of the Minutes

(a) Modifications Sheet: A list of modifications for agenda items 5, 7, 8, and additional drawings received since agenda publication, were tabled at the meeting.

(b) Oral representations: The Committee received oral representations at the meeting made by third parties and applicants/agents in respect of agenda items 6, 7, 8. In each case where objectors spoke, the Chair also offered the applicants/agents the opportunity to speak; and the Chair also indicated that applicants/agents would be given the same amount of time to speak as objectors for each item.

(c) Order of the Agenda– Following consultation with other Members at various times during the meeting, the Chair amended the order of items to the following -7,6, 8 & then 5.

RESOLVED: That the following decisions are made:

Officer Recommendation:

Grant Planning Permission subject to planning conditions and a S106 legal agreement.

Proposal: Demolition of Blossom House School (Use Class D1 - 2252 square metres) and all associated buildings and structures and redevelopment of the site with the construction of 13 houses (8 four bedroom and 5 five bedroom) with private and communal amenity space, 28 car parking spaces, 52 cycle parking spaces and associated landscaping. 

The Planning Applications Committee noted the Officers report, additional information and modifications to conditions in the modification sheet, the officer’s presentation, and verbal submissions from 3 objectors to the application, the applicant and a supporter of the application from the local residents association.

Members discussed their concerns that the development did not offer a contribution to affordable housing.  Officers explained that such a contribution was not supported by the viability assessment carried out earlier in 2015.  The Committee requested that in view of increasing property prices, an s106 obligation be added to the planning permission, if granted, to enable the local planning authority to request that a new viability assessment be carried out at the time of the developments completion, and that a contribution towards affordable housing be based on this later viability assessment.

Members expressed concerns about the design of the development and noted that the LBM Design Review Panel had given the development an Amber rating. Concern was also expressed, by one member, regarding the change of use of the site from education to housing and the bulk and massing of the development.

DECISION (Application 15/P1750)

The Planning Applications Committee GRANTED planning permission subject to conditions and an s106 legal agreement.

The conditions agreed are those in the report, subject to the amendments made in the modifications sheet, and the addition to the  s106 legal agreement  to instruct the applicant to carry out a new viability assessment at the time of the development’s completion, and that a request for a contribution to affordable housing to be based on this new assessment. The wording of this addition to the s106 legal agreement is delegated to Planning Officers.

Councillor Dean asked that it be recorded that he did not support this decision to permit the application.

Officer Recommendation:

Grant s.73 variation of condition subject to legal agreement in respect of affordable housing contribution

Proposal: S.73 application for variation of condition 2 (approved plans) attached to LBM Ref: 13/P3187 relating to the demolition of the existing detached house , and erection of 2 x 4 bedroom dwellings with underground parking.

The Committee noted the Officers report and presentation, and verbal submissions from an objector to the application.

Members noted that it was Officer’s opinion that the proposed variation to conditions represented minor changes and that following a change to national Planning Policy Guidance, contributions to affordable housing could now be sought from this development. Officers did not know whether the proposed chimneys were functional or decorative.

DECISION (Application 15/P1729)

The Committee GRANTED s73 variation of condition subject to legal agreement in respect of affordable housing contribution. Details of conditions are unchanged from the Officer’s report

Officer Recommendation:

Grant Planning Permission Subject to Conditions and S106 Agreement

Proposal: Refurbishment of existing Class B1 office building including recladding of front elevation to Hartfield Road and alterations to other elevations, reconfiguration of internal spaces, and erection of three additional floors (net additional 1,717sq.m of Gross Internal Floor space (GIA), reconfiguration of existing basement to accommodate plant and cycle parking with reduction in existing car parking.

The Planning Applications Committee noted the Officers report, additional information in the modification sheet, the officer’s presentation, and verbal submissions from an objector to the application, and the agent to the application

The Committee noted the concerns raised regarding the potential use of Beulah road for servicing the building and asked Officers to ensure that a different servicing option was agreed.  Members discussed the use of Hartfield Crescent and Hartfield Road for such servicing and noted that a scheme to cut into the pavement of Hartfield Road to form an inset loading bay, was being investigated.

Members asked about noise from new air conditioning, and Officers said that they could add a condition to control such noise.

Officers advised that the application needed to be referred back to the GLA before a decision could be issued, and that therefore the Recommendation in the report should be that Members resolve to approve the application subject to Stage II referral and no subsequent Direction to refuse being received within the proscribed timeframe from the GLA.

DECISION (Application 15/P1798)

The Planning Application Committee agreed to approve the application subject to satisfactory Stage II referral to the GLA

The Heads of Terms and conditions agreed are those in the report, subject to the amendments made in the modifications sheet, and the addition of the following condition:

That noise from any new plant within the building be subject to a noise condition to avoid nuisance to adjoining properties. The wording of this condition is delegated to Planning Officers.

Officer Recommendation:

Grant Variation of Condition 6

Proposal: Variation of Condition 6 (delivery times) – to allow vehicles to leave and enter the site between  0700 hours and 0900 hours Monday to Saturday but maintaining current restrictions on loading/unloading of lorries before 0900 hours on any day – attached to LBM planning permission 11/P2523 (dated 02/08/2013)

The Planning Committee noted the Officers report, the site visit detailed in the modification sheet and the Officers presentation.  The Committee discussed the application and the following points were made by members:

·         that the level of noise that would be generated by the earlier arrival time of lorries was at a significant level – and further information about these noise levels was required to assess the impact on residents

·         that it was possible that lorries would arrive before the proposed time of 7am and wait on the public road thus creating more noise nuisance

·         it would be difficult to enforce the new condition

·         that the noise levels measured by the Environmental Health team were not necessarily acceptable to all local residents

·         the previous reason for refusal had not been addressed by the applicant

Officers reminded members that the Environmental Health officer had said that their measurements showed that the noise levels were acceptable in the context of the local area. Officers proposed that the condition be allowed but on a temporary basis so that the actual experiences of local residents could be monitored, but members were of the view that Officers did not have enough capacity to monitor this effectively.

A motion for refusal was proposed by Cllr Dean and seconded by Cllr Garrod and was accepted by a majority vote. The reason for refusal given was the same reason that was given for the previous application to vary condition 6 (13/P2910) (Note: The quoted policy has been updated to take account of the introduction of the Merton Sites and Policies Plan in July 2014)

DECISION (Application 15/P0767)

The Committee REFUSED the application for the following reasons:

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed increase in the hours of permitted use of the site would not have a significantly adverse effect on the amenity of the locality by reason of noise generation and the proposal is therefore considered contrary to policies 7.15 in the London Plan 2011 and policy EP2 of the Council’s Sites and Polices Plan 2014.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

Report was RECEIVED

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

Councillor Munn reported on 21 Church Road (the Old Vicarage). He had reported the situation at this listed building over a year ago. He was concerned that it had taken nearly 12 months for an Enforcement Notice to be served; and that the unauthorised structure would still remain in place for a further 3 months. Cllr Munn was aware that there was huge pressure on the Council’s statutory enforcement team and was concerned that the Council’s ability to carry out such work should be kept under review.

Councillor Munn commented on the report regarding The Burn Bullock siteand raised the following concerns and suggestions:

• The external repairs to the building do not appear to be of a suitable quality, and he was concerned that there appeared to be little oversight of the works to the facades.
• Rubbish was being stored next to the Tudor part of the building – itself the subject of a further report from English Heritage.
• As this rubbish was from the building’s interior he was concerned that parts of the internal structure might be damaged.
• Internal and exterior repair works had been severely delayed necessitating a further application by the building owner to extend the permitted time period for completion.
• He said that it was essential that arrangements should be put in place to monitor the quality of the repair works – both internally and externally – and if the Council did not have sufficient internal resources to do this, then he suggested that competent consultants and/or the assistance of English Heritage staff should be employed.

Councillor Munn also reported on the situation at the Car Lot. He said that as this was still not empty, he thought that the unauthorised business is still being carried out, he requested urgent action to require that the Notice, which came into effect in August 2014, was complied with.

Report was RECEIVED