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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor David Dean.

Councillor Tobin Byers declared an interest in Item 6 (Land formerly occupied by the Nelson Hospital, 220 Kingston Road, Wimbledon Chase, SW20 8DB (Phase 2, McCarthy & Stone site) (Ref. 13/P2192) by reason that he regularly undertook work on behalf of the applicant and indicated that he intended to leave the room whilst this item was discussed.

Officer Recommendation:
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2015 be agreed as a correct record.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 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 item 5 (Wimbledon Stadium, Plough lane) only and 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
item 5 (*) and item 8 (applicant only - responding to officer recommendation for refusal).  In each case where objectors spoke, the Chair also offered the applicants/agents the opportunity to speak; and the Chair also indicated that the applicants/agents would be given the same amount of time to speak as objectors for each item.

(*) For item 5 (Wimbledon Stadium, Plough Lane), the Chair indicated that the maximum number of objectors to be allowed to speak had been increased to 10; that only 7 objectors had requested to speak (for 3 minutes each), and therefore the applicant (or their representatives) would have up to 21 minutes to speak.

The Council also received oral representations at the meeting from the following Merton Councillors (who were not members of the Committee for this meeting) in respect of the items indicated below -

Item 5 – Councillors Charlie Chirico and Oonagh Moulton.

(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 - 5, 8, 7 & then 6.

RESOLVED: That the following decisions are made:

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

1. Proposal – Proposed demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 20,000 seat football stadium (initially 11,000 seat) with hospitality, crèche, café, and coach parking, pedestrian street, 1,273m2 retail unit, 1,730m2 squash and fitness club, 602 residential units with basement parking, refuse storage, 200 car parking spaces, 992 cycle parking spaces, and associated landscaping/open space and servicing.

2. Modifications – Officers introduced the report at length including the changes set out in the tabled modifications sheet, and also detailed some further minor changes as listed below.

2.1. Sport England – Proposed Extra Condition (page 1 of Modifications Sheet) – Officers explained that they did not support the extra condition proposed by Sport England which would impose requirements for community use of the proposed Squash and Fitness facility.

2.2 Head of Term 24 (page 2 of Modifications Sheet) – Officers explained that “Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan” should be added to Head of Term 24 (on page 250 of report)

2.3 Opening Hours (Stadium and Stadium shop) (page 3 of Modifications Sheet – Condition 20) – Officers explained that paragraph 18.64 on page 198 of the report should be amended so  that the opening hours were the same as that shown for Condition 20 (namely  0800 – 2200).

2.4 Extra Condition – Thames Water – Officers advised that the report should include the extra condition suggested by Thames Water with the wording shown in 2^nd paragraph on page 65 of report (starting “Development should not be commenced until: impact studies of the existing water infrastructure supply have been submitted to….” and ending “….this additional demand.”)

3. Wimbledon Park Residents Association (WPRA) Representations – Apology - Officers drew attention to the e-mail from the WPRA Chairman, Iain Simpson (previously circulated to Committee members) advising that (a) the letter (at para. 9.35 on page 85 of report) under the heading “Wimbledon Park Residents Association” which purports to represent the views of WPRA, was in fact a letter written by a resident who happens to be member of WPRA; and (b) the letter writer did not represent the views of the WPRA, only his own, and as such the letter should not carry the heading it does.  Officers apologised to Mr Simpson and the WPRA for this not being made clear in the report.

4. Oral Representations – Further to Minute (5) above, the Committee heard oral representations from 7 objectors including local residents and a Wandsworth Councillor (for 3 minutes each) and then heard from the applicant (and their representatives) for the same amount of time in total, namely 21 minutes.  As indicated in Minute (5) above, the Committee also heard oral representations from Merton Councillors Charlie Chirico and Oonagh Moulton (who were not members of the Committee).

4.1 Following the above oral representations from objectors and the applicant, officers clarified a number of points including -

(a) Coaches – A specific location for coaches to park after they had dropped off passengers at the stadium had yet to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

After consideration of item 5, at about 10.25pm, the Committee adjourned its discussions for about 10 minutes.

Officer Recommendation:
Approve discharge of condition 24 (Parking Management strategy) for Phase 2, attached to planning permission ref.12/P0418.

1. Proposal – Application to discharge Condition 24 (Parking Management Strategy) (PMS) attached to Planning Permission ref 12/P0418.

2. Declaration of Interest: Prior to consideration of this item, further to his previously declared interest, Councillor Tobin Byers  left the room while this item was discussed and voted upon.

3. Possible CPZ – Officers confirmed that the applicants for Phase 1 of the site had already made a contribution of £30k towards a possible CPZ (Car Parking Zone) in the area;  and that officers were currently awaiting feedback from Ward Councillors and residents regarding a possible CPZ.  Reference was also made to a petition seeking such a CPZ submitted at the last Council meeting.

4. Car Parking provision for visitors – Members expressed concern that the Parking Management Strategy (PMS) proposed only 3 visitor spaces for this Phase 2 development of the site, whereas the extrapolation of existing data shows that visitor space demand is likely to be for 8 spaces (para. 3,2 refers).

4.1 Reference was made to the applicants surveys showing that there were on average 19 spaces available on surrounding roads between 15.30 and 17.30 (para. 3,2 refers).  Members expressed concern that visitors may be working and be unable to visit during these hours.  Officers pointed out that after 6.30pm, on-street parking was free; that there was a pedestrian crossing facility outside the hospital site; and that the development included a pick up / drop off point for visitors.

4.2 Members also expressed concern that the elderly residents of the phase 2 development may not be able to walk far and therefore (a) on-street parking a little distance away might not be appropriate, and (b) the number of visitor spaces on site needed to be increased, preferably to the 8 spaces. 

4.3 It was also suggested that if 8 spaces were to be assigned as visitor spaces, but subsequent actual demand was for less than 8 spaces, then the applicants could then come back and request the Council to reduce the number of visitor spaces.

5. Deferral – As indicated below, the Committee decided that, in the circumstances,  consideration of the proposals be deferred.

Decision: Item 6 - ref. 13/P2192 (Land formerly occupied by the Nelson Hospital, 220 Kingston Road, Wimbledon Chase, SW20 8DB)

That consideration of the application be DEFERRED to a future meeting in order that officers can seek to secure better provision of visitor parking spaces on site, with a target of 8 spaces if possible (as the extrapolation of existing data shows that visitor space demand is likely to be for 8 spaces).

Officer Recommendation:
Grant Permission subject to conditions.

1. Proposal – Demolition of the existing office building and erection of a part two, part three storey building to provide 6 x self-contained flats (comprising 2 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed flats) with associated parking, servicing and landscaping.

2. Extra Plans – Officers circulated two extra (coloured) plans to members showing (a) the current proposal in 3D perspective; and (b) the scheme recently approved for the site.  In response to queries, officers explained the differences between the two schemes.

3. Lost Refusal Motion - It was moved and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal would be of inappropriate bulk and massing contrary to Council policies.  The motion was lost by 6 votes to 4 (Councillors John Bowcott, Tobin Byers, Daniel Holden and Najeeb Latif voting for the motion.)  The application was subsequently approved as indicated below.

Decision: Item 8 - ref. 15/P152982 (The Old Library, 150 Lower Morden Lane, Morden, SM4 4SJ)

GRANT PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out in the officer case report.

Officer Recommendation:
Refuse Planning Permission.

1. Proposal – Erection of roof extensions.

2. Officers Report – Officers introduced the item, including why officers recommended the application for refusal, namely that, as detailed in the report, officers considered that “the proposed roof extension by virtue of its bulk, form, scale, design and roof profile would constitute an obtrusive and incongruous form of development that would detract from the appearance of the original building and be out of keeping with, and detrimental to, the visual amenity and character of the area as a whole”.

3. Representations from Councillor Katy Neep – In the absence of Ward Councillor Katy Neep, the Chair read out the Ward Councillor’s written submission supporting approval of this application (previously already circulated to Committee members).

4. Representations from neighbours – Officers confirmed that no representations had been received from neighbours/local residents regarding the proposals.

5. Discussion – There was considerable discussion of the proposals, including its corner site location; possible impact on the street scene and neighbours in Melbourne Road and Brisbane Avenue; the contemporary nature of the design; that one side of the development would face the Nelson Trading Estate rather than other residential properties; and the lack of representations from neighbours.

6..Approval Motion (overturning the officer recommendation for Refusal) - It was moved and seconded that the Application be approved subject to any appropriate conditions which may be agreed further to (B) below.   The motion was carried by 7 votes to 1 (Councillor Peter Southgate dissenting; and Councillors Linda Kirby and Geraldine Stanford abstaining).

Decision: Item 8 - ref. 15/P3587 (80 Melbourne Road, South Wimbledon, SW19 3BA)

(A) GRANT PERMISSION subject to appropriate conditions (to be agreed in accordance with (B) below)

(B) Delegation: The Director of Environment & Regeneration be delegated authority to attach any appropriate conditions to the planning consent for this Application.

(C) Reasons for not following Planning Officers' recommendation for refusal: The Committee disagreed with officers assessment of the visual impact of the proposal.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

RECEIVED

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

(i) 19 Laings Avenue, Mitcham, CR4 and 18 Morton Road, Morden, SM4 (para. 3.4 (a) & (b) ) – Councillor Philip Jones thanked officers for their response to his queries on these items and indicated that he would be investigating both further.

(ii) Land formerly occupied by the Nelson Hospital, 220 Kingston Road, Wimbledon Chase, SW20 8DB (Phase 2, McCarthy & Stone site) (Item 6 of this meeting’s agenda) – Councillor Peter Southgate advised that unexpected structures, including railings and poles/masts, had appeared on the roof on the new building on this site; and that photographs had been passed to Development Control (Leigh Harrington); and requested that the matter be investigated.

RECEIVED

See above Minutes on
(a) Item 4 (Town Planning Applications – Covering Report); and
(b) Item 5 (Wimbledon Stadium, Plough Lane, Tooting, SW17 0BL) (Ref. 14/P4361)