Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to conditions

1. Proposal - Change of use from a café (Use Class A3) to a community centre / training and educational use (Use Class D1).

1.1 It was noted that it was proposed that the new use would serve the Turkish community.

2. Existing Café – Some members expressed concern that the existing café (now closed) hadn’t been open when the Park had been in most use, like at weekends.  The owner of the café, who was present, advised that they had tried opening on 10 consecutive Saturdays but there had been little custom.

2.1 Reference was also made to the relatively short period for which the café had been marketed (para. 7.8 refers).

2.2 The applicant also confirmed that the proposed new use would not include a café function.

3. Toilet facilities – Officers confirmed that -
(a) the original planning permission for a medical centre, café and various other facilities on the site in 2006 had included a condition that the toilets associated with the café use would be accessible to members of the general public (such as users of the Park)

(b) a similar condition was proposed for any permission granted for the current application.

3.1 Members expressed concern that any such toilets facilities in the new community centre use be made available to members of the public for the longest hours feasible, and advertised as such.  Officers explained that the exact hours/availability of the toilets would be the subject of discussion with the applicants if permission were to be granted.

4. Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) – There was considerable discussion of
(i) the history of the site, particularly the planning permission for a medical centre, café and various other facilities granted in 2006 on this MOL site;

(ii) whether the proposed use was suitable for this site/location and whether temporary permission as recommended by officers would be appropriate; and
(iii) whether the proposed use was appropriate for an MOL site.

5. Refusal Motion:  It was moved and seconded that permission be refused as detailed below.  The motion was carried by 7 votes to 3 (Councillors Tobin Byers, Ross Garrod and Abigail Jones dissenting).  Subsequently the Committee agreed that officers be delegated authority to agree the detailed grounds of refusal and also agreed (C) below.

Decision: Item 8 - ref. 14/P4113 (Ravensbury Park Café adjacent to Ravensbury Park Medical Centre, Ravensbury Lane, Mitcham, CR4 4DQ)

(A) subject to detailed grounds of refusal being agreed in accordance with (B) below, REFUSE permission on grounds relating to the following -

(i) The proposed use is not appropriate use on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) since it is not a use associated with an appropriate use of the MOL itself.

(ii) The proposals would fail to meet the criteria for development of MOL as it fails to meet  the policy aim of Policy DM.01 of the Merton Sites and Policies Plan (July 2014), namely to protect and enhance open space and to improve access to open space

(B) Delegation: The Director of Environment & Regeneration  be delegated authority to agree the detailed grounds of refusal, including any appropriate amendments, additions and/or deletions to the proposed grounds/policies.

(C) Reasons for not following Planning Officers' recommendation for permission: The Committee disagreed with the recommendations of the officer report and in particular officers views on the application of Policy DM.01 of the Merton Sites and Policies Plan (July 2014) to this case.