Application number: 18/P2619      Ward: Dundonald

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to completion of a S106 Agreement and conditions

Granted Planning Permission subject to completion of a S106 Agreement and Conditions in the Officer’s report and additional Conditions imposed by the Committee and detailed in the Minutes

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a part three / part four storey residential building comprising 32 self-contained flats (6 x studio, 11 x 1 bed & 15 x 2 bed)

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional conditions in the Supplementary Agenda; Modifications 2.

The Committee received verbal representations from two objectors, who made points including:

·         The proposal is too big and entirely out of character  with the area. In the past there have been attempts to declare this area as an area of distinctive quality

·         The entrance should not be in Edna Road, but should be in Bushey Road. Do not understand why it is in Edna Road as this is a narrow cu-de-sac.

·         There were problems previously when this site was a garage with no access to Bushey Road. This proposal will create a dangerous traffic black spot

The Applicant’s Agent made points including:

·         We have worked closely with Merton Officers to provide much needed private and affordable homes

·         Some residents on Edna Road support this scheme as it will be much better for them than the garage

·         In response to concerns about massing, one storey was removed

·         The scheme does not cause any breaches to daylight or sunlight, and will improve the local environment

·         The development will be car free. The primary access will be Edna Road, but as the development is car free this will result in fewer car visits than the Car Sales and Service business received

·         The design will improve Edna Road as a new turning head will be introduced

The Committee received a verbal presentation from Ward Councillor Anthony Fairclough, who made points including:

·         There is a need for affordable homes, but not at any cost.

·         The Density of this development is nearly double that recommended by the London Plan

·         Parking and Traffic on Edna Road will be increased as there will visitors, contractors and delivery vehicles visiting the site.

Members asked why the access to the site was on Edna Road. The Transport Planning Officer replied that Bushey Road was a very busy road with a 40mph speed limit, and this was done to reduce conflict. The scheme is permit free so traffic from the site will be low. The Car Showroom does not generate significant movements at peak times.

Members asked about the previously refused scheme for the site (2007) and how this proposal has overcome the previous reasons for refusal. Officers explained that the previous scheme used Bushey Road for access and parking was proposed on that scheme. The current scheme is permit free and so has less impact. It should also be noted that this previous scheme was a number of years ago, and that the current scheme must be judged on its own merits.

Members asked about the Zip Car Scheme, and whether there is a problem with these cars being left on Edna Road. The Transport Planning Officer replied that the Zip Car Flex Scheme aims to keep their cars moving as much as possible. If there are problems Officers can ring the operators and the cars are moved.

Members asked about the density of the proposal. Officers acknowledged that this scheme has a density above the recommendation in the London Plan but explained that in the officers view this did not cause any harm as the development is of good design, each unit had access to outdoor space, the development is set back from the road and there is landscaping.

Members asked about vehicle movements in Edna Road as these will be increased by demand for internet shopping deliveries when the scheme is occupied.  The transport Planning Officer explained that the trip rates are determined from a national database which includes all service vehicles. Edna Road does have the capacity to deal with these deliveries.

Members asked about the number of affordable units, and that the viability assessment suggests that there could be 2 more affordable units in this development. Officers asked Members to note that the developer already had a provider on board for the affordable units, and that this was proposed as 10 units. Members asked for a ‘claw-back mechanism’ to be added to review this provision in the future.

Members asked about noise and the potential for pollution from Bushey Road, but Officers explained that the development is set back from the road and has landscaping to the front.

Members noted that the site meets all cycle requirements and has lifts for residents use.

A member commented that the area does not have any space for deliveries, and that even if it is permit free people will always find a way to obtain a permit. It is not too near the station, it is too dense, there is a lack of parking, the CPZ only works half of the time.

A motion to refuse the application by reason of the application’s bulk and massing was proposed and seconded. This was not carried by the vote

A further motion to refuse the application by reason of the application being contrary to Merton policies CS20 and DMD3 was proposed and seconded. This motion was not carried by the vote.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions and S106 agreement.

In addition the Committee agreed that a clawback mechanism should be imposed on the scheme. The details of this should be delegated to the Director of Regeneration and Environment