The Chair confirmed that, as stated on the agenda, the meeting would be filmed and broadcast via the Council’s web-site.

None

None

Officer Recommendation:
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2015 be agreed as a correct record.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on15 January 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 the modifications sheet tabled at committee form part of the Minutes.

(a) Modifications Sheet: A list of modifications for items 5, 6, 7 & 9and additional letters/representations and 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 items 5, 6, 7 & 10 (objector only).  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.

The Committee also received no oral representations at the meeting from other Councillors (who were not members of the Committee for this meeting.

(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 -
9, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 12 & then 13.

RESOLVED : That the following decisions are made:

Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to conditions.

1. Proposal: Erection of part single, part double storey end of terrace building to the side of 27 Cannon Hill Lane with accommodation in the roof space and basement with a single storey rear extension and rear roof extension constructed to the existing dwelling house and provision within the existing and proposed floor space of five flats (2 three bedroom flats, a single one bedroom flat and 2 two bedroom flats) with five off street parking spaces accessed from Cannon Hill Lane.  (See also below about the number/size of flats proposed.)

2. Number/size of flats proposed – It was noted that the applicant in their oral representations had referred to the proposal as including 2 three bedroom flats; whereas in the report –

(i) the proposal (on page 11) and the text in paragraph 3.1 (on page 12) referred to the proposal as including -
(a) a single three bedroom flat,
(b) a single one bedroom flat; and
(c) 3 two bedroom flats; whereas

(ii) the table in paragraph 3.1 (on page 12) referred to the proposal as including -
(a) 2 three bedroom flats,
(b) a single one bedroom flat; and
(c) 2 two bedroom flats.

2.1 In the circumstances, the Chair requested the applicant’s representative to clarify the number of three bedroom flats actually included in the proposal.  The applicant’s representative confirmed that the proposal included 2 three bedroom flats, and the plans of the basement at the rear should have been amended to show two bedrooms (not just one). 

2.2 Officers advised that if the proposal was now considered to include 2 three bedroom flats, then any approval would need to be subject to the submission of revised plans showing the 2 three bedroom flats.

3. Shared Garden - Extra Condition – Reference was made to the proposal for 3 of the 5 flats to share the same garden space.  Officers confirmed that there would be a need to impose a condition requiring submission of plans/details showing the proposed sharing arrangements for the amenity space prior to any occupation of the development. 

3.1 It was noted that some of the amenity space would be accessed from Springfield Road.  Officers also confirmed that the condition could be amended so to cover any security/access arrangements in this regard.

4. Split Level Flats – Officers confirmed that some of the flats would be split level and outlined the proposed configuration/layout of the flats within the new development.

5. Discussion – Member expressed various concerns about the proposals including the stacking arrangements for the flats; the internal circulation within the building, the disorganised nature of the development; the proposed sharing and access arrangements for some of the outdoor space, the loss of a family house; and the site/area not being appropriate for this sort of development.

6. Refusal Motion:  It was moved and seconded that permission be refused on the on the grounds shown below.  The motion was carried by 8 votes to 1 (Councillor Philip Jones dissenting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to conditions.

1. Proposal - Demolition of the existing garage and the erection of a 5 bedroom detached house on land to the side of 111 Coombe Lane with accommodation at ground floor, first floor and in the building roof space and including the felling of seven of the existing trees on the site.

2. Site Location – Officers outlined the location of the application site on land between the properties at 109 and 111 Coombe Lane including that the application site includes -
(a)  a 1m wide section of the existing garden of 111 Coombe Lane including part of the site of the existing garage (due to be demolished); and
(b)  a separate adjacent 6m wide plot of vacant land which has gates to Coombe Lane and was surrounded by 2m high timber fencing, and which was designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and also as Green Corridor/Green Chain.

2.1 Officers also explained that the side boundary of the application site was separated from the side wall of 109 Coombe Lane by a distance of 6m; and that this land provided a 4m wide landscaped area and a 2m wide public footpath; and that whilst this land was not part of the application site, the application did include proposals to fell two trees located on this land.

3. Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) Designation – Officers highlighted various sections of the report (including para’s 7.3-7.9) explaining why a departure from the Local Plan’s designation of part of the application site as MOL might be justified, and suggested that the designation of this land as MOL was an anomaly.

4. Trees – Officers outlined what trees would be felled to enable the development and what trees would be retained.  It was noted that some of the trees to be felled were covered by Tree Preservation Orders.  Officers explained the condition/type of trees concerned and proposals for replacement trees...

6. Refusal Motion:  Members expressed concern that building on MOL would set an unacceptable precedent; and also that in relation to the felling of trees, the proposed benefit from the development would not outweigh the loss of amenity.  It was moved and seconded that permission be refused on the on the grounds shown below.  The motion was carried by 7 votes to 1 (Councillor Abigail Jones dissenting).  Subsequently the Committee agreed that officers be delegated authority to agree the detailed grounds of refusal

Decision: Item 6 - ref. 14/P2600 (111 Coombe Lane, Raynes Park, SW20 0QY)

(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 development would be on Metropolitan Open Land; and
(ii) the loss of protected trees contrary to Council policy

(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.

Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to S.106 Obligation and conditions

1. Proposal - Demolition of existing house and erection of a four storey block of 8 flats (2 x 3 -bed, 4 x 2-bed, 2 x 1- bed) with basement parking.

2. Previous Appeal – Reference was made to a previous application for a 3 storey block of flats on the site which had been dismissed on appeal by an Inspector in 2011 but only because the lack of a Section 106 Agreement, the Inspector finding the proposal acceptable in terms of design, impact on neighbours and additional traffic generation.  Officers confirmed that the only external difference between the current application and the earlier application was the addition of a recessed 3^rd floor. 

3. Impact on Salisbury Road - Officers confirmed that at 3^rd floor level, no balconies were proposed at the rear facing properties in Salisbury Road; and that due to the distance between the proposed development and the properties in Salisbury Road, there would be no loss of daylight or sunlight to those properties.

Decision: Item 7 - ref. 12/P1012 (3 Cranbrook Road, Wimbledon, SW19)

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and subject to the conditions set out in the officer case report and the tabled modifications sheet.

Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to S.106 Obligation and conditions.

Decision: GRANT PERMISSION subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and subject to the conditions set out in the officer case report and the tabled modifications sheet.

Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to S.106 Obligation and conditions

The Chair referred to the consultation exercise about the cottages on the site being possibly included on the local list of historically important buildings (as detailed in para’s 7.6 -7.8, which had been updated on the tabled modifications sheet) and suggested that in the circumstances consideration of the application should be deferred pending the outcome of the consultation.  As indicated below, the Committee agreed with this suggestion.

Decision: Item 9 - ref. 14/P3856 (34-40 Morden Road, South Wimbledon, SW19 3BJ)

That consideration of the application be DEFERRED to a future meeting.

Officer Recommendation:
That the Merton (No.665) Tree Preservation Order 2014 be confirmed, but be modified by a correction to the reference on the map referred to under Schedule 1 of the Order to read W1 rather than T1.

The Committee received oral representations at the meeting from an objector to the proposed confirmation of this Tree Preservation Order.

In response to concerns raised by the objector, officers confirmed that
(a) the Council’s Tree Officer considered that it was appropriate to make an Order to protect this area of woodland; and
(b) if the Order were to be confirmed, it would be still be possible for an application to be made for removal of an individual tree within the area if, for instance, a tree was diseased.

Decision: Item 10 - Tree Preservation Order (No.685) at Milk Depot, 53 Gap Road, Wimbledon, SW19

RESOLVED: That the Merton (No.665) Tree Preservation Order 2014 be confirmed, but be modified by a correction to the reference on the map referred to under Schedule 1 of the Order to read W1 rather than T1.

Officer Recommendation:
The Merton (No.666) Tree Preservation Order 2014 be confirmed without modification.

RESOLVED: That the Merton (No.666) Tree Preservation Order 2014 be confirmed without modification.

After consideration of item 11, at about 8.55pm, the Committee adjourned its discussions for about 10 minutes, in order to give Members further time to read the officer report on item 14 below (Land formerly occupied by the Nelson Hospital), which had only been published earlier the same day.

Officer Recommendation
Approve discharge of condition 24, Parking Management strategy for Site 1 (Local Care Centre).

Reason for Urgency

At its meeting in September 2012, the Planning Applications Committee (PAC) granted planning permission for the above development subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions.  Condition 24 required a Parking Management Strategy be submitted and approved for each phase of the development and members resolved that the Parking Management Strategy details be brought back to committee for decision.

The Parking Management Strategy for phase 1 has recently been received following negotiation between Council officers and the applicant.  Phase 1 is due to open imminently and the details are therefore being reported to Committee as an urgent item so as to enable their review and a decision to be taken by members in advance of the new local care centre opening in April.

1. Reason for Urgency - The Chair had approved the submission of this report as a matter of urgency for the reasons detailed below –

At its meeting in September 2012, the Planning Applications Committee granted planning permission for the above development subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions.  Condition 24 required a Parking Management Strategy be submitted and approved for each phase of the development and members resolved that the Parking Management Strategy details be brought back to Committee for decision.

The Parking Management Strategy for phase 1 has recently been received following negotiation between Council officers and the applicant.  Phase 1 is due to open imminently and the details are therefore being reported to Committee as an urgent item so as to enable their review and a decision to be taken by members in advance of the new local care centre opening in April.

2. Parking Management Strategy: Review – Officers highlighted various aspects of the report including that the Parking Management Strategy would be subject to an initial  review 6 months after its introduction.  Officers confirmed that the review would include consideration of the amount of the parking allocated for hospital staff and patients respectively, and could possibly include considering whether there was a need to decrease parking for hospital staff and increase parking for patients.

3. Sheridan Road – Parking Spaces – Various members referred to a previous suggestion that under-utilised on-street parking spaces in Sheridan Road be used as parking provision for Nelson Hospital site; and that there was no reference to this option in the proposed Parking Management Strategy.  Officers undertook to update Councillor Philip Jones regarding this option.

4. Patient Information Leaflet – Reference was made to various GP surgeries being relocated to the Nelson Hospital site and the need for patients to be made aware of the parking and vehicle drop off/pick up facilities at the site.  Officers drew attention to the proposed provision of a patient information leaflet and its circulation to all Merton residents (as detailed in para. 6.6 of the Strategy on agenda page 15).  Officers noted a request from Councillor Tobin Byers to see a copy of the leaflet.

5. Travel Plan – Officers confirmed that the permission for development of the site was subject to a condition requiring that a travel plan be approved prior to the opening of the development.  Officers undertook to advise Councillor Peter Southgate of progress on the travel plan.

Decision: Item 14 - ref. 14/P4301 (Land formerly occupied by the Nelson Hospital, 220 Kingston Road, Wimbledon Chase, SW20 8DB)

APPROVE discharge of condition 24, Parking Management strategy for Site 1 (Local Care Centre) as set out in the officer case report.

Officer Recommendation:
That Members note the contents of the report.

41-47 Wimbledon Hill Road, SW19 – Officers undertook to advise Councillor Daniel Holden on the progress of this appeal (on which a decision was still awaited).

RECEIVED

Officer Recommendation:
That Members note the contents of the report.

(a) Burn Bullock PH, 315 London Road, Mitcham, CR4 (para.’s 2.04 & 3.4) – Officers advised that it was difficult to advise on the time scale for legal action in this case; and that any potential prosecution would take a minimum of 6 months, but undertook to keep the Committee advised of progress.

(b) 25 Malcolm Road, Wimbledon, SW19 (para. 2.03) – Officers confirmed that the possible direct action referred to in the report could include putting a charge on the property (if the Council itself carried out remedial works to the land).

(c) 5 Manship Road, Mitcham – Councillor Geraldine Stanford referred to previous enforcement action at this property including preventing the building of an extension; and advised of local residents concerns about works at this site, including a builders skip being on the road outside the property for some 10 months, but that she had been advised that the skip was allowed to be there.  Officers undertook to provide the Councillor with an update.

(d) 29 Denmark Road, SW19 - Councillor Daniel Holden raised concerns about builder’s materials being left all over the site, including on the road and the possibility of  a tree preservation order.  Officers advised that the issue of builder’s materials had already been passed to the Highways Section, but undertook to provide the Councillor with an update.  Officers also referred to the difficulty of protecting front gardens, even in conservation areas, without the introduction of an Article Direction.

(e) Wimbledon Windmill Tea Rooms – Councillor John Bowcott referred to brickwork at the site being rendered white following permission for works including the use of matching bricks and repointing.  Officers undertook to provide the Councillor with an update.

RECEIVED

See above Minute on Item 4 (Town Planning Applications – Covering Report)

-------------