Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Joan Henry.

Councillor John Dehaney attended as her substitute.

Councillor David Dean was present at the start of the meeting but had to give his apologies during the meting and left during the discussion of Item 5, which was the first Item considered. Accordingly he did not vote on any of the items.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair will announce the order of Items at the beginning of the Meeting.

A Supplementary Agenda with any modifications may be published on the day of the meeting.

Note: there is no written report for this item

Supplementary Agenda - Modifications: Amendments and modifications to the Officer’s report were published in a Supplementary Agenda - Modifications. This applied to all items on the Agenda. This was published on line on the day of the meeting and paper copies were distributed to all present at the meeting (The Committee and members of the public). The Chair allowed 10 minutes reading time before each item, to give all attendees the time to read the relevant sections of the Supplementary Agenda.

Order of the meeting – The Chair announced that the order of items taken at the meeting would be: 5, 6 and 4

The Committee received an introductory presentation from the FutureMerton Programme  Manager, who made the following points in relation to all the three estate applications:

·         All three applications are for  Outline Planning Permission, and will include

Parameters for size and scale, the application for Ravensbury Estate also contains scale, layout and access details. All other details are Reserved Matters.

·         The decisions made by Committee on these Outline Applications will be referred to The Mayor of London and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

·         Reserved Matters will cover details such as Access (for High Path and Eastfields), the exact number of units, exact number of bedrooms, the mix of tenure, materials, car parking, and children’s play space.

·         If approved at this meeting all three sites will return to Committee at Reserved Matters stages. Prior to that the developer will be required to engage with residents and infrastructure providers. The DRP will be re-consulted at reserved matters stages where this relates to design.

·         The regeneration of High Path Estate is the most financially viable of the projects and will fund the regeneration at Ravensbury and Eastfields Estates. The S106 legal agreement  will include over-arching Heads of Terms, detailed in the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications, to achieve this linkage.

·         The information published in the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications, updates members on the Policies which guides these applications

·         The proposed Wimbledon to Sutton Tram service will impact the High Path Estate if the proposed South Wimbledon spur is built.

Application number: 17/P1717   Ward: Figges Marsh/Longthornton

Officer Recommendation: Grant Outline Planning Permission subject to s106 legal agreement and conditions.

Proposal: Outline planning application (with all matters reserved, except in relation to parameter plans) for the comprehensive regeneration of the Eastfields Estate comprising the demolition of all existing buildings and structures; erection of new buildings ranging from 1 to a maximum of 9 storeys providing up to 800 residential units (C3 Use Class); provision of up to 275 sqm of flexible commercial non-residential floorspace (flexible Use Classes A1 and/or  A2 and/or A3 and/or A4 and/or B1 and/or D1 and/or D2 Use Classes); provision of new public open space and communal amenity spaces including children’s play space; new public realm, landscaping works and new lighting; cycle parking spaces (including new visitor cycle parking) and car parking spaces (including within ground level podiums), together with associated highways and utilities works.

The Committee noted the officer’s report, the Supplementary Agenda – Additional Information and the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications. Officers drew Members’ attention to the revised overarching and estate specific heads of terms contained in the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications.

The Committee received an introductory presentation from  Officers, and verbal representations from Councillor Suzanne Grocott and The Cabinet Member for Environment Regeneration and Housing.

Councillor Suzanne Grocott spoke representing residents and made points including:

·         There is a current community at this estate

·         The proposal will double the number of units and is very high

·         The number of affordable units will reduce

·         Leaseholders will lose amenity space

·         Residents may lose their gardens

·         Concerned about loss of greenery

·         There is no space for a decant of current residents

Councillor Martin Whelton spoke as Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Housing and Environment and made points including:

·         Estate was built in 1965 and is now very energy inefficient

·         Current Estate is very poorly laid out

·         Could be considerably enhanced by providing more new homes

·         Increase in housing density is very important as we need more new homes to meet shortage in London

·         This estate can be better in the future

The Committee discussed the application under the following headings:

Principle of Development and Land Use

In answer to Members Questions, officers gave the following replies:

·         The retail provision is 275m², this will be flexible, but is the size of a small supermarket

Members commented that they welcomed this scheme and are pleased that current tenants will be rehoused in a unit that is the size they now need, and not in a  like-for-like unit. Pleased that current tenants and Leaseholders will get new homes at ‘Decent Homes’ standard. They also welcome the proposed new design, feel that Clarion has done well.. The current estate is inward looking, unconnected and the green space is desolate and not used.

Viability and Affordable Housing

Members asked if the redevelopment of  this estate will have to wait until the more viable estates have been redeveloped? Officers replied that the under the S106 agreement the applicants have to provide a reasonable delivery of this estate, it will not have to wait for the other estates to complete.

One Member commented that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Application number: 17/P1721      Ward: Abbey

Officer Recommendation: Grant Outline Planning Permission subject to s106 legal agreement and conditions.

Proposal: Outline planning application (with all matters reserved, except in relation to parameter plans) for the comprehensive phased regeneration of the High Path estate comprising the demolition of all existing buildings and structures; erection of new buildings ranging from 1 to a maximum of 10 storeys providing up to 1570 residential units (C3 use class); provision of up to 9,900 sqm of commercial and community floorspace (including replacement and new floorspace, comprising: up to 2,700 sqm of use class A1 and/or A2, and/or A3 and/or A4 floorspace, up to 4,100 sqm of use class B1 (office) floorspace, up to 1,250 sqm of flexible work units (use class B1), up to 1,250 sqm of use class D1 (community) floorspace); up to 600 sqm of use class D2 (gym) floorspace); provision of new neighbourhood park and other communal amenity spaces, including children's play space; new public realm, landscaping works and new lighting; cycle parking spaces (including visitor cycle parking) and car parking spaces (including within ground level podiums), together with associated highways and utilities works.

The Committee noted the officer’s report, the Supplementary Agenda – Additional Information and the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications. Officers drew Members’ attention to the revised overarching and estate specific heads of terms contained in the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications.

The Committee received an introductory presentation from  Officers, and verbal representations from 3 objectors, the Applicant, a Ward Councillor  and The Cabinet Member for Environment Regeneration and Housing

Representations by three objectors

Eve Cohen made points including:

·         This proposal will not enhance South Wimbledon

·         The Documents are confusing

·         This proposal is too high, and the massing too great – it will be a large monolith.

·         4 Storeys would be high enough

·         It is out of keeping with there rest of South Wimbledon with its Victorian and Edwardian housing

·         The proposal does not comply with Merton Policies

·         This is a missed opportunity

Cypren Edmunds, representing the High Path Residents’ Association made points including:

·         The proposal will result in a loss of 72 Trees, need to ensure that applicant does replace these trees

·         Must ensure that the London Mayor’s target of 50% affordable homes is achieved in the development

·         Must ensure that the design is meets aspirations

Caroline Muller-Carpenter made points including:

·         The development will overlook my property and cause a drastic loss of light

·         Don’t have any faith in the Day Light reports

·         Windows of residential lounges will have their light restricted

·         There will be a far reaching affect

·         The building heights on Merton High Street are excessive and set a precedent, the street will be darkened

Representation by Applicant:

Paul Quinn, Director of Clarion Spoke and made points including:

·         The 3 sites will be developed together over 10 to 15 years to deliver better quality homes

·         Clarion is working with all stakeholders

·         All affordable housing will be replaced

·         All current residents will keep their existing tenure

·         There will be an uplift in affordable rented property

·         The developments will generate a large amount in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Application number: 17/P1718  Ward: Ravensbury

Officer Recommendation: Grant Outline Planning Permission subject to s106 legal agreement and conditions.

Proposal:

Outline planning application (with layout, scale and access for approval, expect in relation to parameter plans for height) for the regeneration of the Ravensbury Estate (on land to the west of Ravensbury Grove) comprising the demolition of all existing buildings and structures; erection of new buildings ranging from 2 to 4 storeys providing up to 180 residential units (C3 Use Class); provision of replacement community centre (up to 160 sqm of Use Class D1 floor space); provision of new public realm, landscaping works and new lighting; cycle parking spaces (including new visitor cycle parking) and car parking spaces, together with associated highways and utilities works. Landscaping works are also proposed to the east of Ravensbury Grove and along Hengelo Gardens.

The Committee noted the officer’s report, the Supplementary Agenda – Additional Information and the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications. Officers drew Members’ attention to the revised overarching and estate specific heads of terms contained in the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications.

The Committee received an introductory presentation from  Officers, and verbal representations from an objector, the Applicant  and The Cabinet Member for Environment Regeneration and Housing

Christopher Holt, speaking on behalf of the Ravensbury Grove residents made points including:

·         Majority of residents are against this development. It is over densification

·         The area is a Flood Area, the Environment Agency cannot afford to object. Increasing the footprint will increase the possibility of flooding

·         At four storeys high the  massing is unacceptable.

·         This application will reduce the quality of Ravensbury Village

Paul Quinn, Director of Merton Regeneration, Clarion Housing Group, made points including:

·         The Orlit homes were declared deficient in1984, Clarion want to replace them with high quality homes

·         50% of the homes provided will be affordable

·         There have been 13 consultation events with residents

·         The development received a ‘green’ from the Design Review Panel

·         None of the proposed buildings are higher than the current Ravensbury Court building

·         The proposed buildings will be brick built, respect heritage, and will be sustainable

·         Flood measures are in place

·         Parking levels will accord with London Standards

Officers made the following points in answer to the objectors comments:

·         600 consultation letters were sent out, and the consultation time was extended,  5 replies were received

·         Flood risk has been an important consideration, and new properties have been designed to be above ground and to cope with surface flood water via a void system. Sustainable Urban drainage schemes are planned across the site, the Environment Agency are satisfied with these arrangements. Full details are in the Officer’s report

Councillor Martin Whelton made comments including:

·         Welcome this development as the sub-standard Orlit homes need to be replaced

·         Reassured by view of the Environment Agency

·         No evidence to say that residents are opposed to this development when only 5 representations were received

The Committee discussed the application under the following headings:

Principle of Development and Land Use

Members asked about the timescale and if it was in line with development at High Path? Officers replied that Phase 1 should start this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.