There were no apologies for absence received.

There were no declarations of interest.

Councillor Linda Kirby made a statement to inform the Committee that she 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 28 May 2020 are 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 were published in a Supplementary Agenda. This applied to items 7, 8 and 10.

The Chair advised that the order of the agenda would altered and items taken in the following order:

Item 7, 8, 11, 9, 10 and 6.

For ease of reference, items are listed below in the order they appear in the agenda.

APPLICATION WITHDRAWN FROM THIS AGENDA

Application Number: 19/P4094      Ward: Ravensbury

NOTED that the item had been withdrawn and would be considered at a future meeting.

NOTED that the item had been withdrawn and would be considered at a future meeting.

Application Number: 19/P3746      Ward: Dundonald

Officer recommendation: GRANT variation of S106 agreement subject to the following:

a)    That in place of the provision of 10 affordable units on site the amended S106 Agreement provides for the payment to Merton Council of a financial contribution of not less than £266,468.

b)    That in place of the carbon off-set financial contribution of £34,951 a clause is added to secure as-built calculations to be submitted prior to first occupation of any residential unit.

c)    The applicant agrees to meet the Council’s costs of preparing (including legal fees) the amended S106 agreement; and

d)    The developer agreeing to meet the Council’s costs of monitoring the S106 obligations.

RESOLVED that a variation of S106 agreement in respect of Application 19/P3746 be GRANTED subject to the following:

a)    That in place of the provision of 10 affordable units on site the amended S106 Agreement provides for the payment to Merton Council of a financial contribution of not less than £266,468.

b)    That in place of the carbon off-set financial contribution of £34,951 a clause is added to secure as-built calculations to be submitted prior to first occupation of any residential unit.

c)    The applicant agrees to meet the Council’s costs of preparing (including legal fees) the amended S106 agreement; and

d)    The developer agreeing to meet the Council’s costs of monitoring the S106 obligations.

Councillor Dean advised that he would not be participating in the discussion or vote on this item and removed himself from the meeting for the duration of the item.

Proposal: Deed of variation to s106 agreement attached to London Borough of Merton planning permission 18/P2619 relating to the demolition of existing buildings and erection of a part three, part four storey residential building comprising 32 self-contained flats (6 x studio, 11 x 1 bed & 15 x 2 bed).

The Committee noted the report and presentation of the Planning officer.

In response to Members questions, the Development Control Team Leader (North) clarified the process for arriving at the value of the contribution in the S106 agreement for provision of affordable housing, which had been based on information provided by valuers in the viability assessment and the comments of the Council’s S106 officer had been incorporated.  The Development Control Manager clarified the process for clawing back any excess profit from the developer and that this was set out in the detail of the existing agreement.

At the conclusion of the debate the Chair called for a vote and it was

RESOLVED that a variation of S106 agreement in respect of Application 19/P3746 be GRANTED subject to the following:

a)    That in place of the provision of 10 affordable units on site the amended S106 Agreement provides for the payment to Merton Council of a financial contribution of not less than £266,468.

b)    That in place of the carbon off-set financial contribution of £34,951 a clause is added to secure as-built calculations to be submitted prior to first occupation of any residential unit.

c)    The applicant agrees to meet the Council’s costs of preparing (including legal fees) the amended S106 agreement; and

d)    The developer agreeing to meet the Council’s costs of monitoring the S106 obligations.

Application Number: 19/P3814       Ward: Hillside

Officer recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, completion of a S106 Agreement, and conditions

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 19/P3814 be GRANTED Subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, completion of a S106 Agreement, and conditions.

Proposal: Demolition of existing building and erection of a new building comprising two basement levels, ground floor, and nine storeys above for the provision of Use Class B1 Office space with ancillary leisure and café facilities (Total GIA 8,638sqm), creation of vehicle servicing bay.

The Committee noted the report and presentation by the Planning officer, including the additional information set out in the supplementary agenda.

Two objectors had registered to speak in objection and at the invitation of the Chair made the following points:

·         The proposed building was too high and would tower over three conservation areas and there was no policy justification for such a high building.  There were concerns over the issue of carbon reduction and that designing out crime had not been addressed.

·         The height of the building was out of keeping with the heights of buildings in the surrounding area and would be the tallest building in Wimbledon.

·         The building would sit on a busy narrow corner and there were concerns over safety due to the width of the footpath and the increased traffic movements associated with the proposed development.

The applicant addressed the points raised by the objectors and outlined the consultation which had taken place and the changes which had been made to the design in response to comments received.  He highlighted the measures taken to address carbon reduction targets and the benefits the proposal would bring to the area both in terms of design and support to the local economy.  He was followed by a representative of Wimbledon Business Improvement District who spoke in support of the application who addressed the benefits the development would bring to the local economy.

The Development Control Team Leader (North) addressed the points raised by the objectors and highlighted the relevant planning policies in relation to intensification of office use and design.  Officers felt that the proposal was in keeping with current and emerging policies and that the height was acceptable in this location due to the high quality design.

At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Daniel Holden addressed the meeting on behalf of the residents in objection.  He was concerned that the Wimbledon Masterplan had been referred to in the officers report despite it not yet having been adopted by the Council.  He felt that the proposal represented overdevelopment on the site and was contrary to a number of planning policies.

In response to questions from Members, the Development Control Team Leader (North) advised that:

·         The width of the pavement was not known, although the layby was designed to be dual use.

·         The Designing out Crime officer would only be consulted if officers felt it necessary, and it was not felt to be in this case.

·         Although the Wimbledon Masterplan had not been adopted by the Council, it was an emerging policy which had been through extensive consultation and therefore officers had to give it limited weight when making their recommendations.  Whilst the proposed building was taller, it was felt that the policies and guidance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Application Number: 19/P2383      Ward: Cricket Green

Officer recommendation: Grant Outline Planning Permission subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions.

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 19/P2383 be REFUSED.  The reasons for refusal will be set out in the minutes.

Proposal: outline planning application (with all matters reserved) for the redevelopment of the site comprising demolition of existing buildings and Development of up to 850 new residential dwellings (class c3 use) and up to 750 sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (class a1-a3, d1 and d2 use) together with associated car parking, cycle parking, landscaping and infrastructure.

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 8.28pm to allow planning officers to resolve technical issues.  The meeting resumed at 8.38pm.

The Committee noted the report and presentation by the Planning officer, including the additional information set out in the supplementary agenda.

One objector had submitted a written speech and the Senior Democratic Services Officer read this out at the invitation of the Chair.  Another resident had registered to speak in objection and at the invitation of the Chair addressed the Committee.  The following points were raised by the objectors:

·         The number of homes proposed and potential numbers of additional residents would have a negative impact.

·         The access to the site and local amenities are poor.  The trams are overflowing at peak times and parking provision was not realistic.

·         The proposal would be a departure from the current local plan policy and therefore needs to demonstrate that it is suitable, so there are grounds for refusal.

·         The visual impact was negative and would harm the conservation area.

·         The proposal represented overdevelopment.

The applicant addressed the Committee and responded to the points raised by the objectors.  He outlined the background to the site and the extensive consultation which had taken place.  He felt that the design was of a high quality and would provide almost one year’s supply of new homes.  There is a requirement for the Council to maximise density on brownfield sites and the previous application for fewer homes was not deliverable.  He outlined the benefits of the scheme, including affordable housing, environmental improvements and reduced HGV movements.

Councillor Owen Pritchard had submitted a written statement on behalf of the residents and this was read out by the Senior Democratic Services Officer.  He recognised the need for new homes and supported the repurposing of the site from industrial usage to residential.  However, he felt that the proposal for 850 new homes would detract from the sense of place that the conservation area brought and create congestion and air quality problems.  He felt that the Mayor of London’s intervention was ill advised and that 600 homes would be closer to the optimal development than 850.

The Chair asked Members if they had any questions relating to the change of use from industrial to residential.

In response to Members’ questions, the Development Control Team Leader (South) advised that:

·         If the site remained as commercial/industrial use, officers would need to balance the job creating opportunities with the environmental impacts.

·         The draft London Plan indicated an increase in Merton’s housing target from 411 to 918 units per year.  The current London Plan makes clear that the objective is to optimise the housing output from sites, which was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Application Number: 20/P0906       Ward: Trinity

Officer recommendation: GRANT Planning permission subject to conditions

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 20/P0906 be GRANTED subject to conditions.

Proposal: Demolition of car tyre shop (class b1) and the erection of three storey residential building containing 5 x self-contained flats (class c3).

The Committee noted the report and presentation of the Planning officer.

A resident had submitted a written statement in objection and at the invitation of the Chair, the Senior Democratic Services Officer read out the statement to the Committee.  The objector made the following points:

·         The proposal would overshadow would impact the light to the gardens adjacent and to the rear, and the proposed balconies would impact privacy of those properties.

·         The previous application had been refused and dismissed at appeal on the grounds of bulk and contrast to the existing roofscape.  The new application, although reduced, was still larger than the current building.

·         There were concerns over the location of the bin storage and the associated problems with noise and attracting vermin.

·         The roof terraces could cause a disturbance for neighbours if used for socialising and the noise from construction would impact on home working.  There was also a potential for damage to the adjacent property from construction.

At the invitation of the Chair, the applicant addressed the Committee and addressed the points raised by the objector, which he felt had been addressed by the amended application.  He felt that the obscure glazed screens would be sympathetic and neighbourly.

The Development Control Team Leader (North) responded to the points raised by the objector in relation to the previous planning appeal.  It was felt that the views across the boundary would be at an oblique angle and therefore acceptable.  The bin storage had been moved and the concerns over the design were for the committee to make a judgement.

In response to points made by the objector and questions from Members, the Development Control Team Leader (North) advised that:

·         The previous planning appeal had not been dismissed on the grounds of impact to 1 Tennyson Road or 275 Haydon’s Road, but on character and appearance.

·         Officers were of the view that a refusal could not be supported on the grounds of the shortfall between the applicants and officer’s measurements.

One Member commented that it was a good example of where an applicant had addressed the previous concerns of the Committee by bringing forward an amended scheme which would still provide housing.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Chair moved to a vote and it was

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 20/P0906 be GRANTED subject to conditions.

Application Number: 19/P2611      Ward: Village

Officer recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions and S106 Agreement.

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 19/P2611 be GRANTED subject to conditions and S106 Agreement.

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwellinghouse and erection of three-storey residential block with lower ground level, creating 4 x 3 bed flats and involving the removal of 2 x trees and alterations to existing access.

The Committee noted the report and presentation of the planning officer and the information contained in the supplementary agenda.

One resident had registered to speak in objection and addressed the Committee at the invitation of the Chair, making the following points:

·         The application had been invalidated due to incorrect certificates being submitted stating a different owner.

·         Objections had been received in relation to conservation, size of development, overshadowing, parking, and tree removal.

The applicant addressed the Committee and advised that the application had been reduced in size following discussions with officers.  It was not felt that the proposal would impact on the light of properties opposite and the correct notices had been served.  It was requested that the proposal be granted the same number of parking permits as the current development as the developer was not aware of any current issues with parking.

The Development Control Team Leader (North) responded to the points raised as follows:

·         New signed certificates had been received and were on the planning file and officers were satisfied with those.

·         The tree officer had recommended conditions to address concerns over tree removal.

·         As the proposal would result in a net increase in 3 bed units and in light of comments received relating to parking, officers had consulted the Parking Manager who had advised that there was pressure on parking in the area.  Therefore officers felt that the proposed car free development was reasonable.

Members made the following comments:

·         The proposal was excellent and should be supported and would provide needed housing.

·         There will still be space between neighbouring properties and the design fit well in the area.

The Chair moved to a vote and it was

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 19/P2611 be GRANTED subject to conditions and S106 Agreement.

Application Number: 19/P4208      Ward: Raynes Park

Officer recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions.

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 19/P4208 be GRANTED subject to conditions.

Proposal: Installation of basement swimming pool.

The Committee noted the Planning officer’s report and presentation.

Two residents had registered to speak in objection and at the invitation of the Chair, addressed the Committee making the following points:

·         Despite drainage provision being requested, the gardens of neighbouring properties had flooded.  There had not been a problem with flooding to these gardens in the past.

·         The applicant had exceeded the previous permission and flouting of planning guidelines should not be condoned.  There were also concerns over persistent noise, flooding, privacy and damage to trees and gardens.

·         The application should be objected on the grounds of not being compliant with policy DM D2.

The applicant addressed the points raised by the objectors.  The concerns raised had all been addressed by the amended application and through a number of conditions.  The applicant had worked hard to ensure that the application was in compliance with policy DM D2 and that the Council’s planning and environmental officers were satisfied.

The Development Control Team Leader (South) addressed the concerns related to flood risk and advised that the Council’s flood risk adviser had been consulted and it was felt that the concerns relating to noise could be addressed through condition.  In response to Member questions, he advised that

·         the applicant would be required to make changes to the parts of the construction which had not been authorised as part of the previous planning permission and officers felt that the scheme as proposed could be supported.

·         If the Committee was minded to refuse, it could also consider whether enforcement action should be taken.

A motion was proposed to refuse the application on the grounds of being overbearing and causing a nuisance to neighbouring properties.  The motion was not seconded.

One Member suggested that the application was not too different from the previous application and should be approved.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Chair moved to a vote and it was

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 19/P4208 be GRANTED subject to conditions.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The Committee noted the report on planning appeal decisions.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The Committee noted that there were no planning enforcement cases reported.