Apologies for absence were received from Cllr McGrath with Cllr Galea in attendance as substitute.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 2023 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

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 number: 23/P1640

Ward: Wimbledon Town and Dundonald

Recommendation: Grant Permission Subject to Section 106 Obligation or any other enabling agreement

The Planning Officer presented the report.

The committee received presentations from one objector who stated:

•       The upward development was inconsistent with the height of surrounding houses and impacted the conservation area. The development on 51 Princess Road was limited to two storeys for this reason and fitted the street scene well.

•       Despite proposing a car free agreement numerous residents would still be able to park at the back in the private car park which only has 6 numbered bays. This would push existing non car free residents onto the road, generating additional parking pressure in the area.

•       The summary of the daylight report stated non-compliance of BRE recommendations with respect to window 55 at 33 Princess Road, which was a bedroom window of the neighbouring house and therefor considered a principal room. In addition, all eight neighbouring properties lost daylight which was unacceptable.

•       No assessment of structural suitability or resident safety was completed.

•       Those who would benefit from the development were involved in the cladding crisis.

The committee received representation from Ward Councillor Cllr Anthony Fairclough who raised points including:

•       The lack of a five year land supply was a failure and made it difficult to refuse applications although it was not impossible, as shown in para 7.18 of the report.

•       Based on NPPF para 120, Mertons policy CS14 and DMD2I an explanation on if and why the application showed consistency with prevailing height, how it contributed to Merton centres place and identity and if and how it related positively to the surrounding properties. If not, the application may not be consistent with planning rules and falls within the exception described at 7.1.8 and should be rejected.

•       Would like to hear if the development had a negative impact on neighbour amenities such as loss of light, quality of life conditions, visibility and noise to existing and neighbouring properties as per DMD2 of the policy plan.

•       As per DMD2A13, how are these being met.

The committee received representation from the applicant Kate Matthews who raised points including:

•       Proposal will provide high quality dwellings in a highly sustainable location and accord with many local plan policies.

•       The team engaged in preapplication discussions to discuss the proposed set back and to overcome the previous reasons for refusal.

•       There were other four storey blocks in the area and the set back proposed ensured no harm to the streets scene or setting to the nearby conservation area.

•       The southern side of Princess Road had a fragmented character which gave height variation, which this proposal would be consistent with.

•       Given the presence of other four storey blocks, they believe the proposed height would be appropriate. The significant setback of 2.7m from the front bay played a part in making the application acceptable and ensured the development didn’t appear too dominant on the street scene.

•       The proposed set back was guided by the approved scheme at 19 Princess Road. This would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Officer Recommendation: That Members note the contents of the report.

The report was noted.

Cllr Billy Hayes raised a query in relation to contaminated land at an old substation site which had been there for a while and asked for there to be a paper trail to confirm that questions had been asked and answered.

The chair of the committee confirmed that this would be done, and an email would be sent to committee members with an update.

Officer Recommendation: That Members note the contents of the report.

The report was noted.