Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Dave Ward and David Dean

Councillor Stephen Crowe attended for Councillor Dean

There were no declarations of  pecuniary interest.

The Committee noted that Councillor Linda Kirby and Councillor Najeeb Latif had both Chaired recent Design Review Panel meetings. At these meetings neither take any part in the debate nor vote on the proposal

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2020 were  agreed as an accurate record.

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

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

Note: there is no written report for this item

Supplementary Agenda: Amendments and modifications to the Officer’s report, and an urgent report were published in a Supplementary Agenda. This applied to items 6,7, 8, 9, and 13

Order of the meeting – The Chair announced that the items would be taken in the  following order: 9, 8, 5, 7, 6, 10, 11 and 13

Application Number: 19/P2382      Ward: Merton Park

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to Conditions

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P2382 is: Granted Planning Permission subject to Conditions

Proposal: Erection of 1x 3 bedroom & 1x 2 bedroom single storey dwellings with associated landscaping

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

The Objector had registered to speak but had sent a statement instead, this was read by the Chair. The Objector asked the Committee to note that residents did not want this proposal to be built and that residents would be left, in the long term, with properties that they had objected too.

In reply to Members’ questions, the Planning Team Leader South said:

·         The access to the site is currently gated, various access rights are conferred on the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposal does contain a condition to upgrade the surface of the access road. However the planning process cannot get involved in all the access issues

·         The bin carrying distances to the collection point are all  acceptable

·         There is a condition on landscaping to cover the planting of new trees

·         The eaves height of the two bungalows is the same

A member commented that this application represents a clever split of the land compared to the previous application, and the height of the proposed units is more acceptable. Access issues have been dealt with, and the right of way issues can be dealt with separately.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Application Number: 19/P3904      Ward: Cricket Green

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to Conditions

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P3904 is: Deferred. Reasons for this will be detailed in the minutes

Proposal: Erection of hoardings to front of Fire Station for a period of 12 months

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

The Committee received a verbal representation from one objector, who made points including:

·         The hoardings enclose an excessive area, and should only enclose the building and not a large area of land as well

·         They have a damaging visual impact, damaging the uncluttered setting and preventing views of Vestry Hall

·         They fail to preserve or enhance the views in the conservation area

·         They are contrary to Merton Policy

In reply to Members’ questions the Planning team Leader South made points including:

·         The Hoardings do enclose land owned by the Council and not the applicant but the Council Property Management team have no objection to this

·         There are  concrete blocks within the hoardings as an additional measure to prevent illegal occupation of the site

·         Permission is sought for 12 months but the committee can debate the length of time allowed

·         There were guardians on site but this was when the building was under its previous ownership

Members made comments including:

·         Understand that on-site guardians would be expensive but these hoardings could be made more acceptable. For example the hoardings currently on the High Path Estate contain information panels showing the history of the site

·         The Building is beautiful but these hoardings are ugly

·         Do not think these hoardings are acceptable, if the applicant had sought advice they would not be so bad.

The Planning Team Leader South proposed that as the Hoardings have been installed without relevant permission, but that an application for the site is expected to come forward in the future, it would be reasonable to defer the Committee decision by 3 months in order to allow the applicant to improve the visual impact of the hoardings, for example by adding with history boards.

Members were concerned that if these improvements were not forthcoming than Council Officers would be sanctioned to take enforcement action.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to DEFFER Planning Permission whilst the applicant is allowed 3 months to provide visual improvements to the hoardings

Application Number: 19/P3836      Ward: Dundonald

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to Conditions

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P3836 is: Granted Planning Permission subject to Conditions

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of part two, three and four storey detached buildings comprising of 9 self-contained flats.

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

The Committee received verbal representations from two objectors to the application who made points including:

·         This is not high quality design, as required by the NPPF

·         The proposal would be dominant and oppressive for residents, in an area that is predominantly 2 storey buildings

·         It is close to a Conservation Area and the listed building Wimbledon Theatre

·         This proposal will result in the loss of two family homes, but none of the proposed units are 3 bedroomed, they are 1 and 2 bedrooms – which is against Merton Policy

·         The proposal is harmful and is not sustainable

·         The proposal would not fit into the area which is predominantly residential, the height and massing is too great. Would appear as a four storey building to the neighbours behind.

·         The footprint of the proposal would be 90% of the plot, so it would be double the footprint and height of the current building

·         Pleased to see the obscured glazing but it is not high enough

The Committee received a verbal presentation from the applicant who made points including:

·         The design takes reference from Wimbledon Theatre

·         The height is not unreasonable in this area

·         It is a highly energy efficient proposal, and is designed using the BRE light model

·         Accept that most developments will have some impact on neighbour amenity, but we did try to reduce the design and we did make changes

·         We are happy to increase the height of glazed screening to 1.8m  prevent any overlooking

In reply to Members questions, The Planning Team Leader North made comments including:

·         Wimbledon Theatre will not be affected by the construction, there will be a construction management plan by condition

·         Wimbledon Society did not comment on this application

·         The Height of the proposal would be a little higher than the height of the current chimneys

·         Scheme has been changed regarding the outdoor space it provides. Screening to 1.8m is proposed to prevent overlooking

·         There will be some impact to the neighbouring building to the South, but at the back. This is a Town centre location, and Officers have to achieve a balance when considering such applications

·         Officers acknowledge that the landscaping could be moved

·         The design is stepped in to minimise impact

·         These are market homes not retirement homes.

Members made comments including:

·         If looking towards the Broadway this is acceptable but if looking the other way down Russell Road it is inappropriate, but over time we will see more of this type of scheme

·         The 1 storey buildings will be completely overshadowed by this, and I’m concerned that 6 stories are allowed in the master plan

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

1)    Application Number: 19/P4266 &

2)    Application Number: 19/P4268           

Ward: Abbey

Officer Recommendations:

1)    GRANT Planning Permission subject to S106 agreements and Conditions

2)    Grant Listed Building consent subject to conditions

1.    PAC Resolved that Application 19/P4266 is: REFUSED Planning Permission. Reasons will be detailed in the minutes

2.    PAC Resolved that Application 19/P4268 is: Granted Listed Building consent subject to Conditions

Proposal: (1) Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide a part three, part five and part six storey block of 70 flats and a commercial unit (204 sqm) at ground floor level  (comprising flexible A1 (excluding supermarket), A2, A3, B1, & D1 uses) and an associated landscaping, bin/cycle storage, parking, highway works and alterations to listed wall.

&

(2) Listed building consent for demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide a part three, part five and part six story block of 72 flats and A commercial unit (204 sqm) at ground floor level (comprising flexible A1 (excluding supermarket), A2, A3, B1, & D1 uses) and an associated landscaping, bin/cycle storage, parking, highway works and alterations to listed wall.

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

The Committee received a verbal representation from an objector, who raised points including:

·         Residents are concerned by this application

·         The Planning Officer has made incorrect assumptions in their report – Station Road should not be classed as ‘urban’, it is a residential road and to describe it as urban is an incorrect representation of the character of the area

·         The application will reduce daylight and sunlight to Station Road

·         Station Road is a narrow road and not a thoroughfare, it will not be able to support 70 new units and their cars.

·         We are not opposed to development of the site but want to see family homes, not the current proposal that is mainly one and two bedroomed units

·         We understand that other applications in the area have had to reduce their height to 2 or 3 storeys to get Planning Permission

·         The Level of affordable housing is too low

·         Parents and Staff at new School will increase cars on this road

·         It is not a high quality design

·         Concerned about large commercial unit and excess refuse

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Applicant’s Agent, who raised points including:

·         All relevant Policies and guidance have been met by this application

·         All external Consultees have no objection including Historic England

·         It is High Quality Scheme

·         Want to Emphasis the changes that have been made since we started consultations on this scheme

·         The comments of the DRP and Urban Design Officer apply to the previous Scheme not this one

·         Overall there has been a 40% reduction in floor space since the previous application went to the DRP (Design Review Panel)

·         The amount of affordable housing has reduced as the size of the scheme reduced. The Council’s Viability Study supports this

·         A social rented 3 bedroomed unit is included

·         The CIL payments will be £1.4 million and £30,000 toward a new cycleway

·         Repairs to the Grade 2 listed Abbey Wall will be carried out as part of the scheme

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Ward Councillor Eleanor Stringer who raised points including:

·         Very aware of need for more housing, and I do not object to providing these homes, but a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Committee noted the report on recent Planning Appeal Decisions

The Committee noted the report on recent Planning Enforcement

The Committee noted the Supplementary Agenda and the Urgent Report Delegation of Planning Decisions. A member was concerned that the report did not give enough detail regarding:

·         what would happen if the Chair was unable to take part

·         what would happen if the Chair and Officers did not agree

However the Committee agreed that given the urgent nature of this report it should be agreed as it stood.

RESOLVED

A.   That Committee agrees to delegate authority to make decisions on the matters listed in paragraphs 7.2(a) to (o) of Appendix A to the Director Environment and Regeneration, in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee, in cases where, in his reasonable opinion, to delay the decision to the next quorate meeting of the Committee would be detrimental to the interests of the Council or the applicant.

B.   To agree that the Director of Environment may choose to delegate the authority delegated to him to the Head of Development Control should he consider it necessary and appropriate

C.   That this delegation be reviewed after six months or if the law is changed to allow Committee Meetings to be conducted virtually, on the assumption that in such circumstances, meetings of the Committee will be resumed, whichever is the earlier