No apologies for absence were received.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2024 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

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/P3164

Ward: Hillside

Recommendation: GRANT Planning permission subject to conditions

The Chair informed the committee that this item was deferred from the meeting on 15 February 2024 due to further assessment of the late representation on Heritage. Further assessment took place and officers confirmed that the application could proceed with the previous recommendation for approval.

The Planning Officer presented the report.

The committee received representation from one objector who raised points including:

·       Design and materials were impractical and failed to respect the architecture of the building.

·       Flat 17 respected the character of the building and went unopposed.

·       Not echo friendly, extensive use of south facing glass would require high energy air conditioning.

·       Took away light and privacy. The slop gave flat 17 light and a view which this extension would take away.

·       The updated light assessment looked wrong.

·       The layout was impractical with inaccessible gaps between the extensions and the main building walls. Flat 15 below suffered 3 years of ingress through the gaps. Future repairs would be impossible like they use to be from Flat 17.

·       The ingress put flat 18 in breach of their lease; they were asked to fix it before negotiations on new works but they sought permission anyway.

·       Concerned about the load aspects and amenity of neighbours.

·       They reserved their rights under the lease which allowed them to stop any acts detrimental to the aesthetics, character and structure of the building or property of others.

·       Suggested a compromise for the current application to be refused, once the breach in the lease was fixed, they would then provide a revised proposal to residents which addressed concerns. They would then be likely to receive a receptive community response.

The committee received representation from Ward Cllr Hicks who raised points including:

·       Flats 17 and 18 were fortunate with a terrace the size of a room. The proposed flank wall would be hard up against the white wall.

·       The flat 17 extension had a big window facing onto the terrace to catch the light from over the wall and did not infringe on flat 18.

·       Tonight’s application was designed to sit hard up against the wall and was considerably taller. If built, flat 17 would not look out of their window to open space and sky. The light would be reduced, and they would lose the sense of openness and seclusion that they had currently.

·       The applicant would retain all of their sun and sky whilst taking it away from their neighbour.

·       The materials chosen were out of sync of the building.

·       A symmetrical extension on the other side of the terrace would suit the building without damaging the amenity of the next door neighbour and was why the application should be rejected.

The committee received representation from Ward Cllr Holden who raised points including:

·       Shared concerns raised by residents.

·       The application should be refused on design grounds. Design was subjective and although the report suggested that the application brought balance and was acceptable, he argued that this was only an opinion and requested that they considered their comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

·             Appendix 1: Merton’s Local Plan -  post hearings consultation on Main Modifications

·             Appendix 2: Schedule of Main Modifications

·             Appendix 3: link to interactive Policies Map

·             Appendix 4: sustainability appraisal of Merton’s Local Plan Main Modifications

Tara Butler presented the report.

The committee received representation from Ward Cllr Neaverson who raised points including:

·       At 19 storeys tall Britannia Point dwarfed over the rest of Colliers Wood, Visible as far as Streatham and Sutton, its scale was out of keeping with the local character.

·       Considering the needs for homes in London, constructing them on this site was common sense. What was not common sense was building something even taller than the current tower. The original Local Plan agreed with this, but the Planning Inspector now wished to see the height limit removed. Ward Councillors and over 650 residents who signed a petition fundamentally disagreed.

·       There should be no building taller in Colliers Wood then the current tower.

·       Defining a places character seemed nebulous but was something many believe was precious.

·       People wanted to feel part of their community.

·       Resident should have reasonable requests listened to, especially when it created a structure that would tower over the community for decades.

·       They did not say to building nothing but building something taller than the existing tower would further undermine what makes Colliers Wood special. It would rob homes and the local primary school of sunlight and worsen the wind impact felt around the tower.

·       A resident was recently blown down by the winds outside of the tower. No one should feel scared walking around the town centre.

·       Decisions at the site mattered, they needed to get things right and encourage developments that enhanced and respected the character and environment of the community.

·       An explicit limit on the height of new buildings was an obvious and unambiguous way to support this.

The committee received representation from Ward Cllr Cooper-Marbiah who raised points including:

·       Strongly believed it was wrong to close the height restrictions on future buildings.

·       Collier Wood was a fantastic place to live, work and learn. There was nowhere quite like Colliers Wood in London.

·       Streets were steeped in history, had charming low-rise blocks and housing with its own local heritage which led to a village like centre, giving Colliers Wood a unique community feel loved by residents and visitors.

·       The Planning Inspectors proposal to remove the 19 storey clause would rob Colliers Wood of its identity and heritage.

·       A further Britannia Point would further worsen the dangerous wind impact felt around the tower by pedestrians and cyclist and would cast shadows on homes, businesses, cafes and shops. This would affect day to day lives and the economy.

·       Sustainability and climate change must also be a focus of the committee.

·       The close proximity of the Wandle River which, in a floodplain, was also of concern due to the potential impact on neighbouring properties.

·       Britannia Point was of out character with the low-rise nature of the neighbourhood. No one would approve such a structure today so why would they allow another 26 storey twin building right next to it.

·       It was not just Ward Councillors who felt this way, the local MP and almost 700 residents all vehemently opposed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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.