Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Simon McGrath who was substituted by Councillor Matthew Willis. 

A declaration of interest was made by Councillor Sheri-Ann Bhim in relation to West Barnes Ward application 21/P4063 and Wimbledon Park Ward application 21/P1780 (Items 10 and 11)advising that her employer had worked for these applicants. Councillor Bhim advised she would recuse herself from those items, and Michael Butcher would stand in as a substitute. 

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 28th April 2022 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

The Committee noted the amendments and modifications to the officer’s report.  The Chair advised that items would be taken in the following order: Items 10, 11,14,8,13,15,9,12,16,17,18 and 5. For the purposes of the minutes, the items are minuted in the published agenda order.

Application No: 21/P1459

Ward: Hillside

Recommendation: GRANT Advertisement Consent, subject to Conditions

Deferred to next meeting

Application No: 21/P2570                             

Ward: Cricket Green

Recommendation: Grant advertisement consent subject to conditions

This item has been withdrawn from the agenda

Deferred to next meeting

Application No: 21/P2571                           

Ward: Cricket Green

Recommendation: Grant planning permission subject to relevant conditions and a s106 agreement for highways alterations/adoption.

This item has been withdrawn from the agenda

Deferred to next meeting

Application No: 21/P3952  

Ward: West Barnes

Recommendation: Grant prior approval subject to conditions.  

The Planning Officer presented the report and brought to members’ attention that the application was a prior approval rather than a planning application and page 66 of the report set out what the application could be assessed on. 

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

·         The elevation images do not fully reflect the impact to the environment  

·         Gardens enjoyed by the residents will be reduced in size  

·         Parking space would need to be used to accommodate the crane used during construction 

·         Construction would make any fire risk more apparent 

·         The Objector expressed concerns that there was only one fire escape staircase available and this would risk the safety of residents 

·         The fire risk support statement states that the balcony poses a risk 

·         Developers did not consult with residents 

·         The site is at risk of flooding as written in the environmental report 

·         The previous poor record of the developer would put lives at risk 

The Agent statement was read out by The Democracy Services Manager as follows: 

·         The application followed the approval of a similar two storey scheme last year which I was told is being implemented soon and work to start shortly  

·         Work delivery would be carried out by an experienced contractor in terms of airspace development  

·         It was not clear whether the two-storey scheme would have been considered and this application had been submitted to the council as a fall back 

·         Officers confirmed that the scheme is fully compliant and fell within the remit 

Councillor Page, Ward Councillor commented and raised questions on the scheme and mentioned that the scheme is under the permitted development order of 2020 and questioned whetherthe tenants were made aware or signed an undertaking about an outward wall when the flats were marketed.Councillor Page raised concerns that access to green space would be lost and stated thatindemnities should be in place as residents should not be out of pocket. 

CouncillorOliver, Ward Councillor commented on the lack of protection by the extension and if the application was approved, then conditions be put in places to ensure residents are not out of pocket. 

Councillor Bokhari, Ward Councillor focussed on fire safetynoting that it should be made clear there was a route to egress the building in an emergency.  Residents are concerned about the strength of the building. The lift would be disabled during the development and no consideration had been given to the elderly and disabled residents. Councillor Bokhari urged the committee to delay a decision on the application until the Fire brigade carried out fire risk analysis. 

The Planning Officer responded to members comments and questions and made points including 

·         Planning permission does not give the right to restrict work. Some of the requests are not planning considerations; however, conditions can be included to restrict work hours during the day, weekends and bank holidays, not unusual times 

·         Loss of green  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Application No: 21/P3990

Ward: Village

Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to conditions.

Deferred to next meeting

Application No: 21/P4063

Ward: West Barnes

Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to conditions and s.106 legal agreement 

Councillor Bhim recused herself from the Chamber for this item and Councillor Butcher was present as substitute. 

The Planning Officer presented the report. 

The Committee received a verbal representation from two objectors who raised concerns: 

·         The land should be used as open space and sports as previously agreed under the 2009 appeal decision (ref. 08/P1869); they are under the impression assurances was previously given that LESSA sports grounds would be approved and maintained for junior sports 

·         Residents who bought their homes with the proposed site use for sports had been misled 

·         Bellway developers had not robustly consulted with residents, clubs, or schools for the land to be used for junior sports 

·         Bellway had fenced off the land and made it inaccessible for several years to extract profit and should not be permitted to do this 

·         Sporting groups had expressed interest in using the land and set out costed and viable proposals, fully supported by Sports England, but these had been refused by Bellway Homes 

·         Brownfield sites should be developed before greenfield sites are considered 

·         The application if granted should be referred to the Secretary of State as recommended by Sports England 

·         The prevention of loss of green space should be protected for the future generations of young people 

·         A proposal had been summitted by Surrey Cricket Club to use the space at a cost of Ten thousand pounds and annual maintenance would cost Four thousand pounds. 

The Applicant spoke in response and made points including:  

·         The site had been unused for 22 years and it would be used for repurposing positive development  

·         The scheme would provide open spaces and recreational grounds for the public There would be provision of 41% affordable housing, that would benefit the borough and meet 12% of the housing target for Merton  

·         The housing would have accessibility and provide sustainable heating that would be low in carbon emissions as well as a percentage of wheelchair access for users 

·         The scheme would have an Infrastructure levy of 2.2 million and a Section 106 contribution of £1.2 million 

·         The Applicant and Council officers had agreed that the scheme would be used for mixed purposes and not solely for sports, providing housing and recreation such as two tennis courts and a play area  

·         The proposal would provide 44 affordable homes and met the urban plan with no risk of flooding 

·         The tennis club membership had increased, and the club had to close membership to adult players who wished to join the club, the current waiting list is 60 people; the scheme would provide more courts that could be used by members and the community who wished to pay and play and not pay an annual membership subscription fee. 

·         The Applicants asked The Committee to approve the application. 

The Chair noted representations from Ward Councillors. 

Councillor Oliver gave a verbal presentation to the Committee on the Planning Framework which consisted of three levels: 

National - Guidance from The Planning Policy Guidance was read out to the Committee to illustrate points  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Application No: 21/P1780

Ward: Wimbledon Park

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and completion of a S.106 legal agreement.

Councillor Bhim recused herself from the Chamber for this item and Councillor Butcher was present as substitute. 

The Development Control Team Leader (North) presented the report.  

The Committee received verbal presentations from one objector who made points including: 

·         The objector felt that the developers lack transparency and fail to maximise development in Merton 

·         Social segregation- social housing in one block and private residents in another would be discomforting  

·         Affordable housing should be redistributed across the development 

·         The costings of the development were high and the developer did not take into account key features such as height and bulk and the access link to Wellington Works, which affect residents 

·         The Developers had used costings from adjacent Hazelmere and not from Rufus site 

·         The Development does not enable any vehicle access to Wellington Works via Rufus Estate 

·         The excessive height was not in keeping with the local area and themaximum height should not be higher than other buildings 

·         The result of the radiation investigation which had been conducted had not been disclosed 

·         There will be a huge loss of light to existing homes 

·         Eight storey developments would look too much of an eyesore overlooking the park and the green space 

·         Consideration should be given to urban greening, the applicant should reduce the height of the building and increase green spaces 

·         400 people wrote against the proposal, whilst only one letter of support was received 

·         The application should not be granted, due to lack of urban greening consideration. 

The Applicant spoke in response and made points including: 

·         Members to note that the same objections were not considered to be material considerations by the previous Committee Members and Planning Officers 

·         Questions raised by the previous Committee contributed to the application being deferred as these were complex matters 

·         The previous application was deferred due to a lack of affordable housing 

·         Costings are contained in the account 

·         The contamination was a historical issue caused by floruim 232 previously used for gas mantles 

·         An accurate account of costs can only be achieved once remedial works are completed 

·         Financial viability assessments costs contain all estimated costs including construction and timelines; The Councill will get this looked at for viability 

·         The Applicant is aware that Members wish to see all contamination cleaned up 

·         The outward costs of building will affect the amount of affordable houses a developer can achieve; the outcome is based on actual and not estimated costs 

·         A late - stage review will be brought in if a percentage of affordable housing is not reached, the development will provide an entire block A for affordable renting 

·         Until all contamination clean-up is achieved the developer cannot give a full quota of affordable housing; a late - stage review will be carried out by The Councils experts 

·         The developer is ready to build more affordable flats from surplus revenue and these flats will be in block B to encourage integration 

·         The Councill has accepted the designs and the housing association want a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Application No: 21/P4421

Ward: Pollards Hill

Recommendation: Grant planning permission subject to relevant conditions.  

Deferred to next meeting

Application No: 21/P3950

Ward: Abbey

Recommendation: GRANT planning permission, subject to Conditions and S106 Agreement 

Deferred to next meeting

Application No: 21/P3215

Ward: Trinity

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and completion of a S.106 Agreement.

The Development Control Team Leader North Presented the report. 

The Development Control Team Leader North in response to members questions advised that: 

·         Regarding condition 19 in the modification sheet the amendment could be made 

·         In terms of the gap between the building it has been designed to stagger away from the property and the gap between the garage is 6 meters and the width between the access way is 3 and a half meters away from the flats 

·         In terms of harvesting rainwater this could be beneficial and the request could be taken away and officers would liaise with the applicant if the application was granted 

·         In terms of affordable units these were based on the western side of the building unit 4 and 8 in the report and only two can be provided as shown in the viability report 

·         There is dual aspect that affords good lighting. 

The Chair moved to the vote and it was  

RESOLVED  

That the Committee granted planning permission subject to conditions and completion of a S.106 Agreement. 

Application No: 22/P0479

Ward: Hillside

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to Conditions and S106 Agreement 

Deferred to next meeting

Deferred to next meeting

Deferred to next meeting

Deferred to next meeting

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The Committee noted the report.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The Committee noted the report.