Apologies for absence were received from:

Councillor Abigail Jones

Councillor Najeeb Latif

There were no declarations of pecuniary interest.

Councillor John Bowcott made a statement to inform the Committee that he Chaired the Design Review Panel meeting that considered Items 11 on this agenda but he did not take part in the debate or vote on the proposal

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2016 are agreed as an accurate record, with the correction that Councillor Laxmi Attawar was present at the meeting as a substitute for Councillor Abigail Jones.

Officer Recommendation:
The recommendations for each individual application are detailed in the relevant section of the reports.

The published Agenda and Supplementary Agenda tabled at the meeting form part of the Minutes:

a.     Supplementary Agenda: A list of modifications for agenda items 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 and 15 were published as a supplementary agenda.

b.     Verbal Representations: The Committee received verbal representations detailed in the minutes for the relevant item.

c.      Order of the Agenda – The Chair amended to order of items to the following: 11, 5,7,8,10,6,9,12, 13,14 and 15

Application Number: 16/P1812                 Ward: Village

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to Conditions

Proposal: Erection of a part single/part two storey rear extension, a gable ended rear roof extension and rear dormer window, installation of new window to front elevation, new hard landscaping to front garden, new front wall and gates and new landscaping to rear garden.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the supplementary agenda. The Committee received verbal presentations from two objectors, the agent to the application and Ward Councillor Hamish Badenoch.

In reply to points raised by objectors and members the Planning Manager said:

·         Daylight and sunlight studies were not required because there was adequate space between the buildings, and asked members to note that  the previous refusal was based on bulk and massing, which had both been addressed in this scheme

·         In reply to the objector who said that his window was marked incorrectly by the applicants architect  he said that this was so far from boundary that it did not make a difference

·         The changes made since the previously refused scheme will reduce the impact of the proposal on both neighbours

Members commented that the current scheme did reduce the impact on the neighbouring property at number 2A but did not reduce the impact so much on number 6, and it was the silhouette of proposal that was of concern.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Application Number: 16/P1317                 Ward: Raynes Park

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions.

Proposal: Redevelopment of land involving demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a retail park (Class A1 - 13,736 sq.m internal floorspace), with café/restaurant units (Class A3 - 1,193 sq.m internal floorspace) landscaping, associated car parking (334 spaces), cycle parking (100 spaces) and new pedestrian access from Bodnant Gardens.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information presented in the Supplementary Agenda.

In response to Member Questions, Officers explained:

·         Active car charging points are those that are connected and operational but that passive charging points have the correct cabling but are not yet operational.

·         Tfl have no plan to provide  a bus stop on site, they are proposing improvements but to the main highway in the area.

·         Kingston Council have notraised objections.

Members commented that they were concerned about:

·         The loss of the Clock Tower – it is locally listed and a heritage asset

·         Air Quality in the area

·         Lack of public  transport to the area from other parts of LBM

·         The design of the proposal is poor with bland modular units facing inwards.

Members noted the overwhelming support for the development from local residents from The Carters Estate, who welcomed the employment prospects and new pathway, and the local Raynes Park High School, who welcomed the work experience opportunities.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, any direction from the Secretary of State, the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions

Application Number: 16/P1620                 Ward: Wimbledon Park

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to Conditions and signed S106 Legal Agreement

Proposal:  Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 2x semi detached dwellinghouses with basements

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda. The Committee received a verbal presentation from an Objector and from the Agent to the application.

The Planning Officer, in answer to Objectors comments, explained:

·         that the application has been assessed as being acceptable in planning terms in relation to the neighbour’s amenity, including light levels.

·         the development was too small to require a contribution to affordable housing

·         The existence of a covenant was not a material planning consideration

In answer to Members Questions, the Planning Officer answered:

·         The distance between the proposal and its neighbour was 2m

·         Occupiers of the new number 57 would have an off street parking space and would therefore not get a parking permit. Occupiers of the new number 59 will not have off street parking, owing to the retention of the Magnolia Tree, and will therefore be able to apply for a parking permit.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the completion of a signed Section 106 Legal Agreement and conditions.

Application Number: 16/P3430                 Ward: Colliers Wood

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to section 106 agreement for Affordable housing, permit free and conditions.

Proposal: Erection of three x 4 storey buildings and one x three storey building each with a lower ground floor to provide 74 residential units (5 x studios, 18 x 1bedroom, 34 x 2 bedroom and 17 x 3 bedroom flats) (use class C3), 29 car parking spaces and 126 cycle parking spaces, associated landscaping and children's play space.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and the additional information in the Supplementary Agenda. The Committee received verbal presentations from an Objector and the agent to the application.

In answer to residents concerns Officers suggested that more robust security fencing could be requested by Condition, and that high quality acoustic fencing could also be requested by Condition.

In answer to objectors comments regarding loss of privacy the Planning Officer said that at no point does the development breech separation standards.

Members asked about the removal of Japanese knotweed, and Officers commented that certification could be requested by Condition.

Member asked about the status of the site in relation to the Wandle Valley Regional Park Policies. Officers explained that the site had been left in a poor condition with little biodiversity and the proposal would improve this situation and increase the green linkages in this area.

Members commented that the developers had consulted residents and taken concerns on board, and that this development would provide much needed housing that met planning regulations

RESOLVED

The Committee voted  to GRANT Planning Permission subject to S106 Agreement and conditions

Application Number: 16/P3405                 Ward: Merton Park

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to Conditions

Proposal: Demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of a two storey detached dwelling house (plus accommodation in the roof space). Alterations to existing garage involving a replacement roof and new windows.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the supplementary agenda

Members commented that the openness of the area comes from the grass verges and not the presence of the Bungalow and therefore it cannot be argued that the bungalow is key to the openness of the street scene.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Application Number: 15/P4026                 Ward: Ravensbury

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to Conditions

Proposal: Rear roof extension in connection with the conversion of the

existing house into 1 x 3 bedroom unit; 1 x 1 bedroom unit and 1 x studio flat with provision of 3 parking spaces and bin store to the front of the property and cycle storage to the rear.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda. The Committee received a verbal presentation by an objector and the agent to the application.

Officers replied to issues raised by the objector and by Members:

·         There is no planning law or guidance to stop the room stacking shown in this design

·         Building Control guidance will cover issues noise transmission and so is not a planning issue

·         The proposed roof structure with hip to gable end and dormers has already been allowed on a previous permission and so could be built anyway

·         The proposal provides communal amenity space that far exceeds the minimum requirements

Members commented that they did not like to see the loss of a family home but that many previous refusals of similar conversions had then been allowed at appeal. Members felt that they could not therefore go against an application that met planning regulations, even though they would rather not have such conversions.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Application Number: 16/P2942                 Ward: Hillside

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to Conditions and S106 Agreement

Proposal: Refurbishment of the existing building including the recladding of the exterior of the building, erection of two additional floors and infilling of the surface level car park to create an additional 2,055sqm (Gross Internal Area) of office use (Class B1). Change of use and amalgamation of two ground floor units from A2 use (financial and professional services) to a single A3 use (café / restaurant). Reconfiguration of existing basement to accommodate plant with reduction in basement car parking

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda. The committee received verbal presentations from three objectors to the application, and from a supporter and the agent of the applicant, and from a ward councillor

The Objectors made comments, including:

·         The proposal is too high and too big for this important location in a Conservation Area

·         It does not respect the proportions of the original building

·         This area is a gateway to Wimbledon Town Centre, it is not the centre of the Town and  should not be compared to the Town Centre

·         The proposal is too bulky and will visually dominate its location

·         The proposal is out of character with its setting

·         There is heavy traffic congestion in the area

The Supporter and Agent made comments including:

·         The proposal will allow new employment opportunities

·         The proposal has strong environmental credentials – it will have green roofs, rain water attenuation, swift boxes and will be highly insulated

·         Amendments have been made to the ground floor doors and to the traffic islands

·         The current building needs refurbishment and this is a very high quality design

·         There is a shortage of office space in Wimbledon

·         Parking will not be increased as the development is permit free

·         The restaurant will be ‘high-end’ food

In reply to Councillor Questions, Planning Officers  explained the following points:

·         There will be only two business parking permits allowed for the building

·         Loading/unloading will take place outside Mansel Court and a Condition will limit this to vehicles smaller that 7.5 tonnes

·         Refuse Collections will take place at the front of the building the refuse lorries would pull up on double yellow lines, as they do for other businesses in the Town Centre

·         The Restaurant is class A3, which means it cannot supply take- out food

Members asked officers about The DRP’s views on the proposal and noted that it had originally received a red from the DRP and that following amendments DRP members had been re-consulted by email. The result of the email consultation was that the DRP still thought that the proposal was too high and too big. The Planning Manager reminded Members that the DRP was an advisory body and not a decision making body. Members commented that the views of the DRP were very useful in giving PAC Members confidence in their own judgement.

Members noted that there is no process for assessing economic viability for this type of application.

Members commented that good quality office space is needed in Wimbledon, but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Application Number: TPO no.698             Ward: Longthorn

Recommendation: That the Merton (No.698) Tree Preservation Order 2016 be confirmed, without modification.

The Committee noted the Officer’s report.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed that the Merton (No.698) Tree Preservation Order 2016 be confirmed, without modification.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The Committee noted the report on recent planning appeals and that there had been a recent success rate of 70%.

The Planning Manager informed the committee of a recent decision by the Government:

·         In 2017 if more than 10% of major applications are refused then a Planning Authority could be ‘designated’. This would mean that applicants would have the choice to send applications straight to the Planning Inspectorate for decision, thus bypassing the Planning Authority

·         In 2018 this rule would apply to all applications.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The Committee noted the report on recent and current Enforcement cases.

Please note that the Planning Applications Committee in March 2017 will be held on Thursday 23 March.

The Democratic Services Officer explained that a mistake had been made in the Agenda, and that what was actually proposed was to change the date of the Meeting in March 2017 to the 16 March. It was currently set for 23 March but this gave a very uneven gap between meetings.

The Committee noted the change and the democratic services officer said she would email to all to confirm the change.