Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Bhim with Cllr Neaverson in attendance as substitute and Cllr Dan Johnston with Cllr Caroline Charles in attendance as substitute.

There were no declarations of interest.

To Follow

Minutes from the previous meeting to be reviewed at December’s meeting.

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/P2170

Ward: Merton Park

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:

·       Since preapplication in 2019, the developer only engaged with the Merton Planning Department and not with the families at the development.

·       The Planning committee previously refused the application due to reduced communal space which would result in substantial adverse impact on the standard of accommodation to existing residents.

·       Residents deserved to keep the communal space, the proposal demolished the conservatory space and reduced rooftop space.

·       As the existing home was built before London standards were introduced, they do not have any private outdoor space.

·       The proposed landscaping on the east side of the building was not a replacement for lost communal space as it already existed and was in use.

·       Section 7.6.5 of the report stated the area was shaded throughout much of the day and therefor not considered to have high amenity value.

·       The proposal to the east of the development was more like a bus shelter and not a replacement for the roof conservatory and sunnier space of the roof terrace.

·       The north side of the site already existed, and no amount of comprehensive landscaping would make this better than it already was.

·       The privacy of families on the ground floor of both blocks would be negatively impacted by the increase of use.

·       The proposed development traded the home they had for a couple of benches and potted plants.

·       The Resident Management Company had taken care of Burlington Gate since the mid 90’s. The original freeholders took no active role during those years and their relationship with residents were of disregard and disinterest. Out of frustration, owners contacted the resident management company for help.

·       Ground rent was collected randomly, sometimes every 5-6 years in lumpsums causing financial stress.

·       The freeholder was a stakeholder in major maintenance projects whose permission was required for certain changes, but due to a lack of engagement, the estate management treated the freeholder as a absent freeholder who needed to be worked around.

·       In 2018, the resident management company decided to accumulate a reserve fund. They were aware their options would be limited by the need to obtain planning permission with an uncooperative freeholder, but they did not expect it to become this complicated.

·       This was the latest of several applications with significant errors, omissions, and misleading statements. The developer claimed cost savings for residents based on insulation improvements above the communal areas of the building. This would amount to several pounds per year and no measurable change for residents.

·       There was no notification or coordination with residents since the development of this plan in relation to estate management.

·       The freeholder failed to respond to recommendations made by Merton Council to communicate with residents regarding building plans and to be transparent and respectful of opinions. The freeholder has never engaged or offered to invite feedback from residents.

·       None of the residents would benefit from the building works or want it to go ahead.

The committee received representation from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

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 report was noted.

The chair of the committee advised that he would write to the inspector to highlight the 17 cases and report back to committee if needed.