Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Simon McGrath.  Councillor Kirsten Galea attended as substitute.

There were no declarations of interest.

Councillor Sheri-Ann Bhim informed the Committee that a declaration of interest in LESSA Sports Ground given at a previous meeting no longer applied.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 August 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 published agenda order.

Application No: 22/P2351  
Ward: West Barnes

Officer Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions and s106 legal agreement

The Planning Officer presented the report and noted that the Committee needed to determine if the reasons for the refusal of the previous application had been overcome.  The proposal was acceptable within planning terms.  At the time of assessing the application, sporting use of the entire site had not been shown to be achievable, due to funding gaps. 

The Committee received presentations from two objectors who made points including:

-       This was the same application resubmitted with minor changes

-       There were two proposals on the table, one from Surrey Cricket and a Cricketing Consortium, fully funded, and with the support of the ECB, Sport England and the RFU.

-       Sport England has said that as long as there is demand for the ground, it should not be considered for development

-       The Consortium have not received engagement from Bellway

-       There has not been further consultation with the community or interested sporting bodies

-       There is no evidence that increased use of other sporting facilities in the area is more beneficial that retaining this sports ground

-       The land has been fenced off and unavailable for use, the Consortium is keen to take a long lease, and believe long term sporting use is deliverable.

-       There is another development of 450 flats on a nearby site which meets the Council’s commitment to development in the area

Ward Councillors presented to the Committee and raised the following points:

-       Sporting and community use have to be proven to be undeliverable before any other use is considered

-       The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that sport is undeliverable, not on the objectors to show that it is.

-       There has been plenty of agreement to the development of the nearby Tesco site, and these new residents will need open space, if the LESSA fields remain, they will provide for this development as well

-       The application is substantially the same

-       There is no assessment of what additional funding would bring to the other sites

-       The Consortium has not had sufficient time to respond to plans, they believe they have the resources in place.  The timeline appears to be set by the developer which is not helpful to the Consortium

-       There needs to be more time for Councillors and residents to consider the offer from the Consortium.

-       The Council needs to show its commitment to sport.

The Applicant spoke in response and raised points including:

-       The revised application expanded the sporting facilities onsite and doubled the funding for sport off-site

-       The site has not previously been open to public use, it was a private club ground, therefore there is not loss of sporting use by the development.

-       There is a maintained commitment to 41% of the development being affordable housing.

-       Officers have agreed that this is a better plan, opening half of the site to public use and providing £1.8million in funding to sport within the borough

-       The applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Application No: 22/P0653

Ward: Merton Park

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

The Planning Officer presented the plan and recommendations, noting the addition of CCTV and lighting, higher fencing, increased electric charging to 5 of 12 parking spaces.

The Committee received presentations from two objectors who made points including:

-       The were concerns around the height of the fencing, 3m would be better for security

-       There were concerns around loss of light

-       There were concerns around loss of screening, there is currently ivy, the residents don’t want to look at 4m of steelworks, and would prefer green screening, such as tall trees along the length of the property line

-       There were concerns around noise coming from a 24 hour facility

The Agent for the Applicant spoke in response and raised the following points:

-       The company has built across London, the site is balanced and includes some housing

-       The upmost storey of the development has been amended to be set further back, the building height is the same as the exiting property

-       Security is important, since the garage on the site closed, there have been two instances of trespass, the proposed development brings back permanent use to the site and will prevent similar incidents in the future.

The Planning Officer responded to the points raised, and confirmed that the proposed building was set further back from neighbouring properties, with a reduced upper floor which should address lighting concerns.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Planning Officer confirmed that:

-       The building would have a more utilitarian look with treetops above. Part of the existing boundary wall would be retained.

-       There are issues around fast charging, which could need an additional substation, there is a willingness to investigate further.

-       It would be possible to apply condition to assess the feasibility of planting trees on the upper floors and/or a green wall.

-       There aren’t issues with a higher wall/fence along the length of the site, the existing building is higher than the proposed fence.

-       There are no windows from the new building overlooking neighbouring properties.

Members commented on the application and noted that the developer had been liaising with residents and made some adjustments.  The empty site had been a problem.

The application was an example to other developers.

With additional conditions to ensure a standard EV charging point in the disabled spot, 100% electric charging with fast charging where not unreasonable, 3.5m wall with hedgehog tunnels, greening, landscape and commitment to best endeavours to input a green wall and greenery of the upper tier, and a condition on fire safety as per building regulations, the recommendation was put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED:

That the Committee GRANTED planning permission subject to conditions and S106 Agreement.

The Interim Head of Development and Building Control presented the report on Galpins Road.

Members of the Committee noted the contents of the report, the ongoing work and £1million spent so far.

The Committee also noted a vote of thanks to all Council Officers for their work.

RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the contents of the report and gave a vote of thanks to Council Officers for their work.

The Planning Officer presented the proposal.  A statement from Ward Councillor, Councillor Brunt was taken as an informative.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Planning Officer made the following points:

-       There’s no maximum time to apply for the pursuit of best endeavours in finding a resolution, it could be tied to the development programme plan and say that the bridge should be in place by first occupation

-       The applicant could be asked to review and recost at each six month review.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee agreed the proposal with the conditions discussed, that the applicant should make best endeavours (rather than reasonable endeavours) to build the bridge within the lifetime of the development plan and report to the Planning Applications Committee every six months, in writing and in person when required, explain the mitigation against cost and informative of the points made by Councillor Brunt.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The report was noted.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The Interim Head of Development Management and Building Control provided a brief update, the item will be brought back in greater detail at a future meeting.