Apologies for absence were received from Cllr McGrath with Cllr Galea in attendance as substitute.

There were no declarations of interest.

·       26 April 2023

·       15 June 2023

·       20 July 2023

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the following meetings were agreed as an accurate record:

·         26 April 2023

·         15 June 2023

·         20 July 2023

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 No: 23/P0455  

Ward: Raynes 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 one objector who stated:

·       They were not against the development but was opposed to the scale which would impact traffic and neighbours.

·       Although they were aware that the site was in need of development the scale felt like an unnecessary overdevelopment.

·       Even though consideration was given to the impact on traffic and neighbours they haven’t fully addressed the reality of having a school for 180 children with specific learning needs who were likely to be dropped off to school.

·       Many residents work from home so consideration would be needed during construction.

The committee received representation from the applicant Michael Wood who raised points including:

·       The proposed development was for a SEN school facility which specialised in the needs of neurodiverse children between the ages of 9yrs old and 13yrs old.

·       The development provided additional community facilities and 9 new homes.

·       Merton’s School Places Strategy identified a growing need for SEN placements.

·       The development was specifically designed as a middle school and would be co-educational to help with the current shortfall of available places, particularly for girls with neurodiverse challenges.

·       The scheme included a ministry hub.

·       The 9 apartments would help fund the development and contribute to the Council’s housing needs.

·       The proposal was compliant with all local, regional and national policies.

·       The NPPF required planning authorities to give great weight to the need to create and expand educational provisions.

·       The design of the scheme was carefully thought out and aspired to compliment the adjoining successful development.

·       They appreciated the concerns raised by neighbouring residents around loss of light and overshadowing. The application included a detailed daylight and sunlight assessment and amendments were made based on recommendations.

·       NPPF Para. 125 encouraged flexibility when applying the BRE guidelines, particularly Brownfield sites and sustainable locations.

·       To address traffic and transport, the school promoted sustainable modes of transport and had a car free model with no parking facilities onsite.

·       There would be improved drainage performance on the site, increased green spaces and was overall was a development which contributed to the character of the street scene.

·       They intended  to be a considerate construction build and would want to periodically have check-ins with the community so that concerns could be addressed. There would be no objection for a condition to establish a  resident liaison group

In response to questions raised by the committee, Planning Officers advised:

·       In relation to light there was daylight, sunlight and a sense of enclosure to consider which were all assessed in slightly different ways. Daylight and sunlight above the church was assessed as acceptable and met the guidelines on the upper floors. The second and third floors did not necessarily meet the guidelines but there were good mitigating factors for why the BRE guidelines should be applied flexibly, as outlines in the BRE guidelines para. 125. It would be unreasonable for a development not to come forward which was of the same scale as an existing property. In relation  ...  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.