Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Billy Christie and Councillor Ben Butler attended as substitute. (Agenda Item 1)

There were no declarations of interest. (Agenda Item 2)

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th January 2022 are agreed as an accurate record. (Agenda Item 3)

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 the following order: Items 8, 9, 7, 5 and 6. For the purposes of the minutes the items are minuted in the published agenda order.  (Agenda Item 4)

APPLICATION NO. 21/P3635

Ward: Wimbledon Park

RECOMMENDATION GRANT Planning Permission Subject to Conditions

The Team Leader (North) responded to Councillors questions and advised that

·         The distance provided is 32 metres from the site to the Objectors property based on the plan

·         The Applicant had provided a new toilet facility for the units which is installed nearest to the road arches

·         Committee Members noted some of the concerns raised by the Objector had been addressed in the modification sheets

·         Members requested for a condition to be imposed that the windows were required to have opaque glass

The Chair moved to the vote and it was

RESOLVED:

The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to conditions in Officers report and an additional condition for obscure glazing for first floor side windows

App No: 21/P3402

Ward: Village

Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to Conditions

The Development Control Leader (North) presented the report.

The Chair moved to the vote and it was

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to conditions

Application Number: 21/P1780

Ward: Wimbledon Park

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and completion of a S.106 legal agreement.

The Planning Officer (North Team) presented the report.

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

·         The development would increase the population

·         The Objector felt the cumulative developments would amount to a thousand-person occupancy.

·         The Objector had been in contact with the council over a period of six years over any application to Rufus building site, to ensure that traffic would go down Wellington works

·         The Objector spoke of the large volume of construction vehicles that would pass by residents’ windows as there were no provisions for vehicle access via Wellington Works through the proposed Rufus business centre site

·         The Objector asked the Committee to delay the application until a ruling had been made on the adjacent site

·         The Objector asked that the application be refused under urban greening, bulk, height and social housing

·         The current Rufus proposal would have an impact on residents whose gardens are 3 metres from the site

·         The proposed building is five storeys higher than neighbouring buildings

·          Other developments in the area, had height restrictions and this should be maintained and in keeping with the area

·         The Objector believed that the development would be harmful to the local landscape and impact the River Wandle trail, which is an urban feature

·         The level of urban greening in the application did not meet minimum GLA standards

·         Affordable housing is low and only eight out of the 96 units are being considered for affordable housing

The Agent to the Applicant spoke in response and made points including:

·         The Objector described the development as a mixed-use office development centre and felt the proposal provides for attractive residential homes

·         The development has been identified as needed and is welcomed in the borough

·         Each home would be fulfilled in terms of amenities; light, balconies and shared space; eight of which are affordable housing

·         The scheme has no parking facilities other than disabled and a car club bay

·         The developers have worked closely with Planning Officers and made amendments to the report members have at present

·         The GLA did not object to a previous application which was higher in height, however the Applicant considered the current plans would be more in line with the area in Dawlish Avenue

·         The developers have taken into consideration the design and amenities for residents such as light, space and fire safety for the scheme

·         The scheme would be developed in an otherwise underutilised brown space

·         Developers knew about the objections on Wellington Works and they had looked at best practise and ways forward

·         Objectors had been in close contact with the GLA, Merton, future Merton and adhered to policy

·         The Officers report addressed the issues of sustainability, greening and flood risk

·         The vehicle route suggested by residents for the developers, would go against the London Plan

The Planning Officers addressed concerns by Objectors points including:

·         The Planning Officer said responses were contained in the modification sheet

·         Planning Officers had no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Application Number 21/P3163

Ward: Wimbledon Park

RECOMMENDATION Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and completion of a S.106 legal agreement.

The Development Control Leader (North) presented the report.

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

·         Concerns were raised on the proposed building height

·         The development would restrict sunlight and reduce amenities for residents

·         Concerns were raised that the station square would be in shadow most of the day

·         The application is for glass reinforced concrete and does not go with the surrounding heritage

·         The Objector felt that the office space proposed in the development is in excess of workforce levels, with more staff working from home

·         The proposal was not made known to residents until Friday

·         There are questions of its’ sustainability

·         DRP stated that the building would restrict daylight most of the day all year round

·         The development creates a dull, dark and cold look to the open spaces

·         Wimbledon already had adequate office space without the need for this application, considering current hybrid ways of working.

The Applicant spoke in response and made points including:

·         The building as it currently stands does not support grade A office space and cannot be adapted

·         The building would provide fabric first and eco-friendly, energy efficiency by the year 2030

·         The development would provide landscape features for wildlife to forage nest and roost

·         A new pedestrian link would be provided through to St Georges Road

·         The development would enable well over one thousand jobs, with the current construction providing ongoing jobs

·         Following the feedback from DRP, the Applicant had amended the design including lowering the height and providing sustainability in line with SDP

·         The development will boost the local economy

·         The scheme allows for safety to travel to work, with 340 cycle spaces that would be provided

·         The Applicant informed members that the design team had described that the building was ‘well designed and impressive’

·         The Planning department and GLA supported the scheme in line with SDP

·         70 letters from local residents and businesses had been received by the Applicant in support for the scheme, including Love Wimbledon

·         The application had satisfied daylight testing

·         There is an increase in demand for office space

·         The scheme would grow the office sector of Wimbledon

Ward Councillor, Councillor Daniel Holden, gave a statement opposing the application on behalf of the residents, residents’ associations and civic societies. Councillor Holden raised concerns on height restrictions and stated that the proposal was out of character to the Wimbledon rhythm. The building would be larger than any other building in Wimbledon. There were public amenities problems. The building would cast a shadow in the square giving an overbearing feel. Councillor Holden stated that the window design was out of keeping with the character of Wimbledon. Councillor Holden asked the Committee to consider rejecting the proposal under DMD1 and the issue of height, excessive bulk and rhythm.

The Planning Officer responded to Councillors points:

·         The building will be on the northern side of St Georges Road, which is the largest site of office  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Application Number: 21/P3562

Ward: Trinity

RECOMMENDATION GRANT Planning permission subject to conditions

The Development Control Leader (North) presented the report.

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

·         The application breached policies DMD2 and 3

·         The application plans contained discrepancies and inaccuracies

·         The plans were not clear The proposed works would have an impact on privacy

·          

·         The Objector said the scheme would affect the foot path and would contribute to a loss of amenities. A fence would be required to depict boundaries

·         The scheme will affect loss of sunlight

·         There is poor visual design

·         The application would have a detrimental impact on the Objectors property

·         The scheme is similar to a previously rejected application submitted in the past

·         The height and depth of the scheme had not been altered, which would cause a detrimental impact on the Objectors home

·         It was queried how a previously refused scheme could be brought back with a higher boundary wall

·         This was the fifth application and should therefore be refused.

The Agent to the Applicant spoke in response and made points including:

·         The applicants wanted to create a family home and were not developing to make a profit.

·         The scheme was to accommodate the Applicants growing family

·         The Agent to the Applicant drew members’ attention to two relevant previous planning application decisions; Noting that the 2012 appeal for the planning application had been dismissed.

·         The second application had been granted in September 2021, as the height was only 6.2m on the boundary line. A reduction of 0.3m was acceptable. Members were asked to note that the windows that would have affected the neighbouring property were bricked up

·         The current scheme would be 3.7m deeper and would not have any detrimental impact on the neighbouring property

·         Sunlight daylight assessments had been carried out and neighbouring properties would not be affected

·         Similar schemes had been granted on the same side of the Street.

The Chair announced that representations would only be received by Ward Councillors. Therefore, the statement from Councillor Benbow, would not be read out at the meeting but the written statement would be made available.

Councillor Ormrod made representations to the Committee on behalf of residents of South Park Road, and raised points including:

·         Similar applications submitted were refused, including an appeal.

• A further application had then been approved, with no cap on flat roof ridge, or conditions put on the application and similar to the refused previous application.
• The scheme would have an impact on neighbours’ homes and on surrounding homes on the corner of Wycliffe Road. Councillor Ormrod raised concerns on consideration for neighbours, which this scheme did not and which the DMD2 states should be the case under design.
• The application had failed to meet DMD2 in other areas proposed in the scheme.
• The designs were not in keeping with the surrounding area and the scheme would impact on neighbours lighting and privacy amenities. 
• The proposed scheme was large and overbearing and would be similar to a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

Planning Appeal Decision (Agenda Item 10)

The Committee noted the report

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

Planning Enforcement – Summary of Current Cases (Agenda Item 11)

The Committee noted the report

The Committee noted the report

At the close of the meeting and at the invitation of the Chair, the Committee agreed for the Chair to write an email on behalf of the Committee to the Planning Team Leader Jonathan Lewis, thanking him for his service to the council and best wishes on his retirement.

Supplementary Agenda Modification Sheet (Agenda 12)