Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Hicks and Cllr Johnston with Cllr McGrath and Cllr Brunt in attendance as substitutes.

In relation to item 5 of the agenda the following declarations were given.

Cllr Whelton declared that he was the Chair of Mitcham Common Conservators and the potential undertaking of S106.

Cllr Bhim declared that her employer was engaged by an affiliate of the site, but she has not engaged or been involved in such work and approached the application with an open mind.  

In relation to item 7 of the agenda, Cllr Willis declared that the property was owned by two party colleagues of himself and Cllr McGrath. They confirmed they would approach the application with an open mind and judge the application solely on planning grounds.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 April 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

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: 22/P3620

Ward: Cricket Green & Lavender Field

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, conditions and completion of a S.106 legal agreement or any other enabling agreement? securing below Heads of Terms

The Planning Officer presented the report.

The committee received representation from two objectors who raised points including:

• The application failed on many fronts and contained contradictions as outlined in their written objections.
• They supported the initial development on the Brownfield site, but this changed when the proposal changed.
• The development would damage the character of Mitcham Village forever.
• The standards fell below the basic standards to live and failed to meet official greening standards.
• More than 35% of the homes should be affordable and would not make a difference to local residents in need of homes.
• Merton’s Urban Design Officer agreed that the development was out of place and overbearing.
• The detailed design was poor, service bays conflicted with pedestrians and views would be impacted.
• A fifth of the homes would only have windows on one side. The developer’s analysis showed high risk of overheating yet acknowledged that residents would be forced to keep their windows closed for noise and security reasons. Some homes would require mechanical ventilation despite these being banned from the Local Plan.
• Overshadowing of neighbours, the urban greening score of 0.4 fell short. The new targets for biodiversity net gain seem to have been ignored.
• The removal of contaminated land would only be addressed after planning permission was approved.
• Fears expressed from water, fire and TfL were unresolved.
• The development was too high, too dense, too badly designed and failed to meet basic standards.
• When completing a local survey, no one within 100m of the site supported the plans. No one supported the plans at the public meeting held by their local MP or the local community markets. Record numbers of people signed a petition against the plans.
• Mitcham had a village feel with low rise developments which would be lost if the application was approved.
• They wanted new homes that met local needs and for the site to be cleared up.
• The other half of the site was successfully developed, this part of the site should be a new urban park for everyone.
• They need to know that the tower blocks would be safe in the event of a fire and that the sites contamination was addressed.
• London Fire Brigade requested changes to the staircases and evacuation plans but nothing was done.
• Academics found worrying impacts on public health on other contaminated gas work sites by the same developers, a repeat in Mitcham needed to be avoided.
• The structured decommissioning resulted in a fire outbreak and gas leaks made residents ill. Firm plans were needed to show how they would make the site safe, and the contamination removed before planning permission was given.
• Mitcham needed high quality and affordable housing. They deserved a better proposal and delivery of what the community deserved.

The committee received representation from the applicant Ashley Spearing who raised points including:

• The new Chancellor emphasised a focus of housing delivery on Brownfield sites. Berkeley Group was the only major homebuilder in the country to focus on Brownfield land, which included the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Application number: 24/P0395

Ward: Hillside

Recommendation: Single storey front extension, mansard roof extension, installation of rooflights, alterations to elevations involving demolition of existing garage to front

The Planning Officer presented the report.

The committee received representation from two objectors who raised points including:

• The photographs were very different from what they have seen themselves.
• The biggest concern was not with the front or the rear but with the length of the middle single storey section with its glass roof. This was essentially being extended to a storey house on the boundaries of several neighbourly gardens.
• There were misleading statements in the planning submissions. The extension was not small or replacing the existing glass roof like for like. It was almost 6metres high with a disproportionately expanded built cubic capacity.
• It was built directly on the rear boundary of the house. The angles mentioned in the report seemed incorrect as it was measured from a higher level in the garden then what they had.
• The building would tower over the rear gardens of several houses negatively impacting amenity, with front windows overlooking the rear part of some gardens.
• The mid-section was disproportionately overbearing, large in capacity and directly affected neighbours.
• 11 residents submitted objections with concerns that have gone unanswered or been ignored.
• This was not a single storey development based on law definition. To allow planning would be to accept a false premise as it was a two storey development.
• The development was a 12metre long, 2 storey building with a mass volume which was 81% greater than the mass which it would replace.
• The public had a different view to the conservation officer.
• There would be a 251 cubic metre increase which had significant impact.
• The tree was beautiful, mature and dominant in the landscape. The British Standard referred to by officers stated, as a default position, that the structure should be located outside of the root protection area which would not happen in this case. The tree would be at risk.
• The development would be overbearing, excessive in size, scale and height.

The committee received representation from the applicant James Andrews who raised points including:

• They were not developers and wanted this to be their family home.
• The house existed since 1935 and been in its current form for more than 30 years.
• The proposal allowed them to renovate the property while creating a three bed house which was in keeping with its setting. Three bedroom houses were in short supply.
• It was difficult to design as the property was long and thin with windows at both ends and on top. For everyone’s privacy, most of the light had to come from above which restricted the use of the space and how they could place the rooms within it.
• To solve the space issue, they planned to expand the existing loft space towards the front of the house into a bedroom.
• They loved the character of the house and have taken great care to preserve it which included the replacement of the existing failing roof with a new slightly taller one set back from the boundaries. The replacement roof design reduced light pollution and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Application number: 24/P0737

Ward: Wimbledon Town and Dundonald Ward

Recommendation: Erection of single storey side and rear extensions

The Planning Officer presented the report.

As there were no questions from members, it was proposed and seconded to move straight to a vote on the officer’s recommendation.

The Chair moved to the vote on the Officers’ recommendation: Votes For – 10, Against – 0, Abstentions – 0.

RESOLVED: That the Committee GRANTED permission subject to conditions.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

To be discussed at the next meeting.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

To be discussed at the next meeting.