Apologies for absence were received from Cllr McGrath with Cllr Hicks in attendance as substitute, Cllr Willis with Cllr Galea in attendance as substitute and Cllr Whelton with Cllr Neaverson in attendance as substitute.

Cllr Hicks declared the following declarations of interest in relation to application 21/P2900:

•         Member of The Wimbledon Society since October 2022 and maintained regular contact with many resident associations including Wimbledon Union Residents Association. Cllr Hicks has been kept up to date with all their views, submissions and opposition to application 21/P2900.

•         Ward Councillor for Hillside which is highlighted within the report as a potential beneficiary of the proposed scheme.

•         Member of the Liberal Democrats, who as a group strongly opposed application 21/P2900. As a member of Development and Planning Applications Committee (DPAC), Cllr Hicks has not taken any part in campaigning or discussions on this application. There was however, before the elections last year and before becoming a member of DPAC, a mention of Cllr Hicks in a bio which described Cllr Hicks as supporting local Liberal Democrats campaigns to keep Wimbledon Park from being concreted over, get step free access installed at Raynes Park and prevent intrusive inappropriate developments in the area. However, mindful of her position in DPAC, she has not engaged in campaigning against the proposal. Cllr Hicks has attended site visits and read the papers with an open mind.

Cllr Bhim declared the following in relation to application 21/P2900:

•         For a period of time until August 2022, Cllr Bhim worked for Thorncliffe who were instructed on application 21/P2900. However, Cllr Bhims employment did not cross over with work on application 21/P2900. Legal officers have been informed of this prior to the meeting.

Andrew Swaffer (Senior Associate, Sharpe Pritchard) informed that as legal advisor for the meeting, he had carefully considered the information provided and was content for both Cllr Hicks and Cllr Bhim to continue to determine application 21/P2900.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 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 number: 21/P2900

Ward: Wimbledon Park and Village Wards

Recommendation: The Head of Development Management and Building Control Jon Berry be authorised to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the Heads of Terms (secured through S106 Page | 2 agreement) and conditions set out below subject to referral to the Greater London Authority (under The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008). The exact terms of Heads of Terms and Conditions are delegated to the Head of Development Management and Building Control to approve in consultation with the Chair of the planning application committee.

The Planning Officer presented the report.

The committee received presentations from two objectors, one in support and one in objection.

The presentation in support of the application raised points including:

·       The All England Tennis Club had enough money to do the job properly and were experts at risk management.

·       As they were a global brand, building houses was unlikely.

·       They have a great social conscious.

·       There would be great public benefits, particularly as the development would be done is phases and likely to be completed in three to four years’ time.

·       The current proposed location was the best place for the development.

·       A local business which generates profit should be supported.

·       Over 6000 people took part in the park tour, with the majority in support of the project.

·       Challenges such as 10,000 lorries would occur, but over four years this would equate to 20 lorries per day.

The presentation in objection of the application raised points including:

·       Supported by 15 societies and resident associations around Wimbledon as well as two local MP’s, they cared about protecting the environment and green spaces from commercial developers.

·       The development was aggressive and inappropriate.

·       Merton Council and Wandsworth Council received over 2000 individually written letters of objection.

·       Over the 8 years of development, landscape would be bulldozed and levelled, hundreds of trees felled, habitats for protected creatures would be destroyed and never return.

·       40,400 lorries would be used.

·       All of the above would be for just 2-3 weeks of tennis per year. This would not be sport and recreation but would be commercial entertainment.

·       Wimbledon was already the only grass court grand slam in the world, this expansion would not change this.

·       No special circumstances could justify the destruction, the environment was much more important.

·       Officers report overrules expert advice from Merton’s own conservation officer and environmental consultant. The report also ignored expert submissions that biodiversity and urban greening had been grossly overclaimed by the developer. The harm would be substantial.

·       As required by Merton’s Design Review Panel and Local Planning Inspectors, the park needed a visionary and more sensitive approach.

·       The developer could make promises as they did in 1993 to not develop but look at what was now happening.

·       Loved the tennis and wanted it to succeed but this was not the way.

·       The outcome of the application would have consequences for the preservation of green spaces across London and the country.

The committee received representation from Ward Councillor Jill Hall who raised points including:

·       The application was detrimental to the community and the applicant did not make a clear case for the overdevelopment of the land.

·       38 grass courts, 28 meter tall 8000 seat stadium with new courts built with concrete base rims was out of keeping with the pastoral landscape.

·       Green spaces were needed to allow residents and local wildlife to breath freely.

·       Building on the land would be an environmental disaster.

·       The environmental impact assessment failed to address reasonable alternatives as required by legislation and was contrary to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Application number: 23/P2431

Ward: Raynes Park

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to Conditions 

This item was deferred.

Application number: 23/P2123

Ward: Raynes Park

Recommendation: GRANT Advertisement Consent Subject to Conditions

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.