Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Dave Ward and Councillor Simon McGrath. Apologies were received from Councillor Joan Henry and Councillor Dennis Pearce attended as substitute.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 October 2021 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

The Committee noted the amendments and modifications to the officer’s report. The Chair advised that items would be taken in agenda order with the exception of Item 7 which would be heard at the end of the meeting.

For the purpose of the minutes, items appear minuted in the published agenda order.

Application: 21/P1851

Ward: Lower Morden

Recommendation: Refuse Permission

Proposal: ERECTION OF A TWO STOREY-FOUR BEDROOM DWELLING, AND A TWO STOREY-TWO BEDROOM DWELLING, INSTALLATION OF DRIVEWAY WITH PARKING, LANDSCAPING, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED WORKS

The Development Control Leader (South) presented the report.

The committee received a verbal representation from two objectors who made points including:

·         The objector obtained 113 signatures of petition and submitted to the Committee, 55 of these are parents and the rest residents

·         There was poor connectivity to the road

·         There was no arboriculture impact assessment

·         The Land is in flood risk zone 2 area

·         The application was not in-keeping with surrounding areas, land and layout

·         The proposal is contrary to DMO1 as it fails to meetopen space policies

·         There was failure to demonstrate adequate vehicle access

·         Concerns that the application could compromise access to the existing school.

The Applicant spoke in response and made points including:

·         The Applicant bought the land during lock down period, prior to that the land was used as a dumping site for refuse The Applicant had removed all fire hazards and used low level tools for maintaining the land

·         The site’s Open Space designation has been the subject of reassessment by Merton Council as part of its local plan review

·         The Applicants felt disappointed that the application had been expedited to committee without trying to resolve issues with them first and that the three reasons could have been addressed prior to going to committee

·         Concerns regarding waste collection could have been subject to planning conditions

·         The Applicant informed planning officers that the arboriculture reports would be provided

Councillor Sally Kenny speaking on behalf of Forest Hill School and residents, gave a verbal presentation raising the following concerns:

Councillor Kenny had paid a site visit and spoke about the right of access, which belonged to the school and the access road would not enable big vehicles that would need to carry materials to and from the site

-       The road leading to the site is part of a school street scheme to support health    and safety for children Councillor Kenny maintained that the healthy outdoor approach would be severely affected

-       Building a two storey building compromises privacy. A large tree would be impacted as the roots would be damaged by vehicles going over it.

-       In conclusion Councillor Kelly said that the area was unsuitable as a construction site in close proximity to schools and a residential area.

·         The Planning Officer responded that the application was not to change the site’s open space designation (this could only be done through the local plan process).

·         The Council had commissioned an open space study and findings had shown that the land was surplus to requirements and that the draft local plan no longer identified it as an open space. The land owner has right of access and there would be no impact on the highway. The Council attach conditions to require construction management plans to address the issues of vehicle access. 

The Development Control Team Leader (South) responded to councillors questions

·         Only  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

21/P2567

Village Ward

Recommendation: GRANT Planning permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Home extensions to the dwelling new front porch single storey rear extension and replacement outbuilding, landscape and dormal windows in the roof.

The Development Control Team Leader (North) presented the report

The Committee received verbal representation from one objector who made points including:

·         The proposal would reduce light to his property

·         No daylight or sunlight assessment document has been produced

The Applicants’ representative spoke in response:

·         The plan is to reinstate the property that was hidden by trees

·         Removal of trees on the boundaries opened up southern light to the property 20 Clifton Road, greatly improving their amenities and sunlight

·         The property is north facing so a sunlight study was not appropriate

: The Development Control Team Leader (North) responded

·         Home extensions did not usually require sunlight daylight studies

·         The light is gathered from the applicants’ site

·         An assessment has been set out in the report in relation to amenities

·         There was a tree application which is separate from the planning application

·         The site includes tree retention and proposal to plant more trees to create formal gardens.

Members commented on the proposal and were for the improvement of the property. Members’ sympathised with the loss of some light but felt this should not affect the application.

The Chair moved to the vote and it was

RESOLVED:

That the Committee granted planning permission subject to conditions.

21/P1863

Ward: Pollards Hill

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions and S.106 agreement to secure private waste collection

Proposal: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE DWELLING HOUSE AND ERECTION OF 7 X TWO STOREY DWELLING HOUSES

The Planning Officer presented the report

The Planner responded to members’ questions:

·         The scheme is not a major development

·         The planning officer said the developers optimised the site;

·         The development would not be cramped and provides family sized dwellings.

The Chair moved to the vote and it was:

 RESOLVED:

That the Committee granted planning permission subject to conditions and S106 agreement to secure private waste collection.

Application Number: 21/P1519

Hillside: Ward

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT Planning Permission, Subject to no objection from Thames Water and Conditions

Proposal: to fit 3D astral turf for football and rugby

The Development and Control Leader (North) presented the report

The committee received verbal representations from two objectors

·         The light columns are not retractable

·         The objector said that it made a mockery of the conservation area having a commercial property

·         Proposal would mean a loss of six thousand square metres of green space which would be replaced with steel, concrete and plastic

·         An added increase in traffic by churches, scout and school users and parking is already an issue

·         As there appears to be no business plan, council auditors should undertake a financial risk assessment and feasibility study to ensure no tax payers money is at risk in this project

·         A full environmental report should have been prepared before the application had been lodged

·         Section 6.5 of the revised drainage report says a full drainage survey has not been done and Thames Water has not yet accepted

·         Crowd and participant audible noise including signal whistle will be ongoing for up to six and a half days every week with no respite for residents

·         A noise impact statement should be undertaken

·         The six 15 metre lighting towers are over four storeys high and taller than all the surrounding residential buildings

·         The lights are not retractable and each require manual skilled intervention to lower them taking 45 minutes

·         The hinged towers would therefore more than likely be left up as permanent feature

·         Some properties affected by the towers has not been consulted

·         The lights will be used mostly in the winter

·         No testing has been done and glare calculations should have been done by the institute of lighting professionals

·         Concerns raised on the extra use and change in noise direction of the pitch

·         The council policies usually opposes restriction on impact, height

·         The application conflicts on council policies on impact and conservation

The Applicants’ spoke in response to objectors:

·         The primary purpose of the proposal is to enhance the sports facilities for the pupils of the school Merton and further afield to enjoy physical activities

·         The field due to daily use by pupils is in a state of degradation

·         The purpose is to use the field regularly for physical activities on site there are off sites that can be used but the journey time limits the PE time

·         There is within the application to hire the pitch in the evenings and weekends from 6-9pm week days and 9-6pm on Saturday and 9-1pm on a Sunday

·         Additional information will be provided to the planning department for the telescopic lights and height needed

·         The reason for the height is to reduce light spillage

·         Parking facilities are onsite and buses that service the school routes

·         Ask that consideration of the application be given to the wellbeing of the pupils

·         The draining survey is available and will be given to the Council

Councillor Daniel Holden gave a verbal presentation to the committee on behalf of the residents, the application site is within the Wimbledon West conservation area.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Application Number: 20/P3165

Ward: Merton Park

Recommendation:Grant Permission subject to conditions and s.106 legal agreement.

Proposal: REAR INFILL EXTENSION AT 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR LEVEL TO PROVIDE 1 FLAT

The Planner presented the report and brought to members’ attention that objections raised concerns on construction disturbance which officers noted.

The Committee received a verbal representation from two objectors who raised points including:

·         The residents agreed that the development presents an overpopulation of current site

·         Noise pollution and inadequate communal facilities with the added floor

·         There is a dispute with the developers with a resident regarding poor electrical works and flooring carried out on the top floor of the building, which should be addressed before any more work is carried out

·         The building has not been adequately sound proofed and should be addressed before further works

·         Summer sunlight will be restricted by the balcony as demonstrated by the balcony analysis

·         The issue of privacy as the balcony will overlook downstairs flats and reduce sky light

·         The development would disrupt users of essential services

·         There are no plans to improve the lift.

·         There is currently an issue with bin storage. Added units will produce more residences and impact on the bin storage capacity.

·         Fewer parking spaces will lead to parking in other residential areas

·         The Applicants spoke in response and made points including:

·         The Applicants have worked closely with Merton Council officers in the design, waste managementand all areas were addressed. A number of  changes were made from the original planning application

·         The new homes will comply with adopted standards in terms of space and amenities and overall quality.

·         The design team have fully updated Officers.

·         The Applicants are aware of the issue with waste and cycle storage and are addressing this. The current set up is fully compliant but will be much better when the work is complete

·         The Applicants consider both applications are sound on all planning grounds

·         The Applicants are willing to accept safeguarding conditions from the Council should the application be accepted

·         Building Regulations will ensure residents and amenities are preserved

·         The Applicants are committed to continuous consultation with residents.

·         The Applicant aims to deliver five new homes that have no impact to the existing neighbours and are fully compliant

·         Two residents also spoke in support of the application.

Planning Officers in response advised that:

·         The application has to be assessed on merit

·         There is other legislation that deals with the issues  of lift access should the lift fail and legislation to address noise pollution

·         There was a comment from the waste management team, who are happy with the arrangement being proposed

·         It is acknowledged that there is a historical issue with the waste collection but the current situation they are satisfied with

·         Car displacement should not be grounds to stop the application

·         Parking locally is subject to a CPZ, enabling parking permits to be restricted from the occupiers of the new flats in the event of permission being granted.

In response to Members questions, the Planning Officers advised:

·         Some of the conditions are standard.

·         Some conditions relate to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Application: 20/P3168

Ward: Merton Park

Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to conditions and s.106 legal agreement.

Proposal: SINGLE STOREY ROOF EXTENSION AND INFILL EXTENSION FOR THE CREATION OF 5 SELF CONTAINED FLATS

The planning officer presented the report.

The Committee received a verbal representation from two Objectors

·         Issues raised on privacy and overcrowding of the building

·         The current arrangements were not sufficient

·         The proposed bin storage is only marginally sized

·         Objector is not happy to go through a year of building construction

The Applicant responded

·         Planning cannot reasonably defend overlooking and members can come to a decision on this;

·         The planning process is fairly limited as to what it can consider. It cannot get involved in other legal arrangements that are not planning concerns.

The Chair moved to the vote and it was

RESOLVED:

That the Committee granted permission subject to conditions and S106 legal agreement.

Application Number: 21/P0119

Ward: Hillside

Recommendations: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to Conditions and S106 Agreement

Proposal for a full redevelopment of the site

The Development Control (Team Leader North) presented the report

The Committee received a verbal presentation from two objectors who made points including:

-       The proposal will provide no affordable housing

-       The Met says the layout is unsafe and recommends change

-       No fire risks reports submitted

-       It would result in loss of light in several dwellings

-       There would be loss of trees

-       Construction work would cause protracted disturbance

-       The proposed development breaches planning policies

-       Would like a more policy compliant design

-       The planning officers’ report has not been updated since then to include the lighting report

-       The report admits breach of policies, yet on the other hand the report agrees the plans to go ahead

-       The application would result  in loss of privacy

The Applicant spoke in response and made points including:

-       The Applicant had worked closely on the designs with the Planning Officers and supports report

-       The Applicant says that the proposal has positive characteristics of the area and amenities that’s provided for residence to live in

-       The Applicant stated that current planning policy is clear in making sufficient use of land in sustainable locations to ensure the delivery of new homes

-       The site is just outside Wimbledon in an urban area just outside the train station and walking distance to shops

-       The Applicant said that 60% of new homes over the years has come from small land

-       The proposal has reached a balance and considered impact to residence amenities and use of space

-       The application has a positive impact on street scape

-       The nature of the building has been carefully appraised in context of the neighbouring buildings in relation to trees

-       The plan shows the layout in terms of lower elevation and it is in keeping with the plan

-       The plan sets out boundaries with neighbours

-       The Applicant has provided Sunlight and Daylight

-       The proposed scheme shows overlooking of sight there is no overlooking as windows used will be glazed

-       The Applicant has signed up as be seen be green energy efficient

-       The majority of the unit will be car free  and will have electric charging points and the plans sets this out in full

-       The scheme has the approval of the highway department

-       The scheme will make an important contribution to Merton’s housing target

Council Daniel Holden gave a verbal presentation to the Committee stating that the proposal is too big for the scheme and would contribute to loss of light and gardens would be overshadowed.  He had concerns that the scheme will have a detrimental impact to neighbours to loss of amenities. The scheme has failings of planning policy DM2.  The scheme had no affordable housing contribution.

The Development Control Team Leader (North) responded to points raised adding that the application had an independent viability report reviewed by Merton Council viability consultants which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The Committee noted the report.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

The Committee noted the report.