There were no apologies for absence.

Declarations of interest were made by Councillor Thomas Barlow who informed the committee that he would not take part in the discussion or vote on item 5 of the agenda.

There were no further declarations of interest.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2023 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

Please note that members of the public, including the applicant or anyone speaking on their behalf, are expressing their own opinions and the Council does not take any responsibility for the accuracy of statements made by them.

The Committee noted the amendments and modifications to the officer’s report. The Chair advised that the agenda would be taken in the published agenda order.

Please note that members of the public, including the applicant or anyone speaking on their behalf, are expressing their own opinions and the Council does not take any responsibility for the accuracy of statements made by them.

Application No: 22/P1819

Ward: Wimbledon Town and Dundonald Ward

Recommendation: GRANT permission Subject to Section 106 Obligation or any other enabling agreement

The Planning Officer presented the report.

The committee received presentations from two objectors who stated:

·       Approving this development in its current form would do more harm than good.

·       Development was too high and would impact daylight and privacy on both sides of the station as well as impact mental health.

·       Merton’s Local Plan designates Wimbledon Chase as a neighbourhood parade and ‘not appropriate for tall buildings’. Merton Council’s tall building paper quotes ‘new developments should not significantly alter the skyline’ but this proposal would.

·       The application went against Merton policy CS14 and if approved would open the gates for future high-rise developments.

·       The development did not match the height of the existing parade so would ask the council to limit the height to match the existing parade.

·       Daylight calculation used central London allowances which were inappropriate for Greater London.

·       The development only offered 20% affordable housing.

·       The proposal did not meet DMH2 and H11.3 of the Councils building requirements.

·       The lack of step free access was unacceptable and went against London Plan Policy D5.

·       Pipe work was unable to cope with the volume of sewage in the area, the addition of 74 homes would make things worse. Only a sub analysis had been undertaken with no sewage calculations considered.

·       Size and bulk of the building was not in keeping of the area due to height, weight and style which also lacked quality.

·       Concerns were raised within the report such as ventilation, overheating and a single lift.

·       Residents were alarmed by the lack of sunlight caused by such a tall building.

·       The development had a high number of single aspect units with, for example, no windows in bathrooms with many on the first floor facing directly onto the railway embankment.

·       The Transport Officers Report highlighted concerns about resident safety during the build with a high risk to the public during the unloading of materials, particularly on the corner of Rothesay Avenue, Kingston Road and where the bus stop was.

·       There were safety concerns over where the temporary exit was proposed to be on Chaseside Avenue as the current pavement did not meet safety standards.

·       No feasibility study into how the new station entrance could be achieved without breaching safety standards or disruption to Chaseside Avenue residents.

·       Not safe for school children who would need to pass the construction site and for those who used school buses.

The committee received presentations from Ward Councillors Anthony Fairclough and Councillor Victoria Wilson who raised points including:

·       Para 2.16 of the report stated that Merton did not have a five-year supply of deliverable housing and an application could be resisted where the reverse effect of granted permission would outweigh the benefits.

·       The development would be at least three storeys higher and nearly double the height of the next tallest building. The NPPF stated that an application must respect the appearance, materials, scale, bulk, proportions and character of their surroundings. The report highlighted that planning officers were not keen on the height, bulk and massing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Application No: 23/P0329

Ward: Abbey

Recommendation: GRANT permission Subject to Section 106 Obligation or any other enabling agreement

The Planning Officer presented the report.

The committee received presentations from two objectors who stated:

·       The building would be two storeys too high, three times higher than the sheltered housing and twice the height of the buildings in Kingston Road.

·       Pavement at 3.9 meters would be too narrow.

·       Missed opportunity of Cycle Lane.

·       Merton highways and TfL stated that no reversing would be permitted from Kingston Road, the number of vehicle movement and the length of construction would be significantly increased.

·       The legacy of existing developments would be destroyed if this proposal was not amended.

·       Reference to the 2021 application should be considered invalid.

·       This development would not meet the values laid out in the Merton planning policy.

·       Brick cladding had been proposed instead of traditional hand laid bricks.

·       The applicant failed to listen to local residents.

·       The use of a pub should be included in the new development

The committee received presentations from Ward Councillor John Braithwaite and Councillor Mike Brunt.

Councillor John Braithwaite raised points including:

·       Although there was support for student accommodation, residents were concerned with the height and mass of the building. Residents would prefer if the development was reduced by at least one floor or set back further from Rutlish Road.

·       The governments published national design guide had not been taken into consideration.

·       The junction of Kingston Road, Rutlish Road and the Tram track remained one of the most dangerous in the area so a cycle lane would be beneficial.

Councillor Mike Brunt raised points including:

·       Emphasised and agreed with points raised in relation to the size and bulk of the building.

·       It the development was further back from Rutlish Road and Kingston Road it would reduce the impact.

·       Encouraged by the positive response to a cycle lane particularly if it went as far as Dorset Road.

·       An established community liaison group would be beneficial beyond construction.

The committee received presentations from the applicant, Jayne Knowles and the Managing Director Justin Elcombe who raised points including:

·       University Arts London was ranked number 2 in the world for art design education and has been part of the community for a long time with graduates that have been known internally.

·       Many students had long commutes to campus due to limited university halls which were spread across London, with the closest halls of residence currently in Streatham.

·       The University encouraged students from less affluent backgrounds into education, which was further supported with affordable accommodation.

·       The proposed 271 rooms allowed for all first-year students to be offered accommodation close to the college.

·       It has taken five years to identify this site.

·       The design would be highly sustainable and energy sufficient which evolved with the collaboration of planning officers, design panel, local councillors, local residents and local interest groups. The hope was for this to continue with a construction resident working group.

·       Apprenticeship training and construction jobs would be offered.

·       The pavement width on Kingston Road would be more than doubled from 1.7 to 4.5, the tram path would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Head of Development Management and Building Control presented the report and drew members attention to the location plan.

The Chair moved to the vote on the Officers’ recommendation which carried:

Votes For – 10, Against – 0, Abstentions – 0.

RESOLVED: That the Merton (No.784) Tree Preservation Order 2022 be confirmed without modification.

This item was deferred.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

This item was deferred.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

This item was deferred.

This item was deferred to July 2023.