Application Number:19/P2387                  Ward: West Barnes

 

Officer Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, completion of a S.106 legal agreement a S.278 agreement and conditions.

 

PAC Resolved that Application 19/P2387 is: Refused Planning Permission, subject  to any direction from the Mayor of London. The Reasons will be detailed in the Minutes

Proposal: Demolition of the existing buildings at 265 Burlington road and 300 Beverley way and erection of two blocks of development ranging in height between seven and 15 storeys and comprising 456 new homes, of which 114 will be one beds, 290 will be two beds and 52 will be three beds. 499sqm of b1(a) office space will be accommodated at ground floor level along with 220 car parking spaces, 830 cycle parking spaces, a realigned junction onto Burlington road, hard and soft landscaping and associated residential facilities. The application also includes minor changes to the layout and configuration of the retained Tesco car park

 

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in Supplementary Agenda – Modifications. The Planning Team Leader South reminded Members that recent guidance had suggested that the emerging London Plan should be given moderate weight when assessing schemes such as this.

 

The Committee received verbal representations from three objectors.

A representative of Raynes Park High School made points including:

·         Tall buildings are against policy

·         The proposed 12 storey block is only 18m from the school boundary and 33m from the nearest classroom.

·         There will be constant shadowing of the school’s design classroom. This will affect pupils learning as light levels will be variable.

·         Research shows that natural light is of benefit to student progress

·         Department of Education advice on classroom design gives priority to natural daylight

·         We are sensitive to the need for housing but this application is too close to the school

A representative from a local Business made points including:

·         Good Vehicle access is essential to local businesses

·         The station and level crossing already affect our business

·         The level crossing is a major source of congestion as it causes long traffic queues. This traffic will also block access to the proposed development

·         Measures to improve this congestion, such as a stacking lane, have not been incorporated into this proposal

·         This development should encourage local businesses but it does not

A local resident made points including:

·         I understand the need for housing but do not support this proposal, as it is not of a suitable quality

·         The use of a podium for parking creates a poor interface with the street

·         The DRP gave an earlier version of the proposal a red and commented on the podium, but this proposal still includes the podium and design and quality is not  improved

·         There are numerous quality issues with the design of the units from the dual aspect to the balconies that will be windy, lacking in privacy, unsafe and useless

·         Only 12% of the units are three bedroomed, 33% less than the London Plan

·         492 letters of objection were received by the Council

 

The Committee received a verbal presentation from the Applicant’s agent who made points including:

·         This proposal will provide 465 new homes with 40% (171 units) affordable, and the other 60% for market rent. The independent viability assessment said that only 24% should be offered as affordable but developer choose to provide 40%

·         The developers understand the problems and factors in the area, but few affordable homes were built in Merton in 2019 and in order to provide more the Committee must accept the height of this proposal

·         The new London plan supports brownfield sites such as this, and the Mayor has given strategic support to this scheme

·         Recent call-ins to the Secretary of State have supported proposals similar to this one where the need to provide housing has been given great weight

·         The site is not constrained by immediate residential neighbours and performs well for maintaining daylight and not overlooking. It responds positively to its surroundings

·         The Scheme has changed in response to the views of the DRP, the Council, the GLA and local stakeholders

·         The scheme use high quality materials including brick, as noted by the GLA

·         The height was amended following a meeting with Raynes Park High School. There are numerous example across London of such schemes next door to schools. The nearest school buildings are 34m away and the performance for daylight, sunlight and overlooking is good. WE will continue to meet with the school

·         The Developers are aware of the traffic issues and level crossing. The Councils Traffic Officers and TfL have considered the proposal and have no problems.

·         The existing site has the same level of parking that could be used now

·         The Development will generate a CIL payment that can be spent on local services and local transport

·         The scheme meets local, regional and national planning policy and provides affordable housing

 

The Committee received verbal representations from three Ward Councillors. Councillor Stephen Crowe representing the residents of Raynes Park made points including:

·         There are no similar tall buildings in this area. The London Plan requires tall buildings to be of high quality design. The original application received a red from the DRP, but the proposal has hardly changed

·         There were nearly 500 letters of objection

·         This development would have an impact on traffic and congestion in the area, and would cause overlooking

·         The density is 27% higher than the density matrix in the London Plan, and the housing mix does not comply with Merton Policy. The development is not policy compliant

 

Ward Councillor Eloise Bailey representing the residents of West Barnes made points including:

·         We are not against development of this site in principle, but it must be right for this area. Planning policy says development must be in keeping and add to quality of the area, but how can a 15 storey block be in keeping with the existing 2 storey buildings

·         There is a huge strength of feeling that this development is not in keeping with the surrounding area, and the DRP gave it a red; the experts agree with the residents. The scheme did not go back to DRP.

·         The representations have been removed from the website so I have to trust the report.

·         Redrow have listened and made some changes to the plans and affordable housing, but they haven’t listened enough.

·         If the affordable housing can be changed, what else could be improved?

 

Ward Councillor Hina Bokhari representing the residents of West Barnes made points including:

·         This development is damaging and does not have enough positives

·         Hundreds of residents have objected

·         West Barnes does not have the infrastructure to cope with this development; step free access is needed at Motspur Park and Raynes Park stations, a new level crossing is needed, an extra medical centre is needed, local schools need extra classes. Local facilities are already struggling.

·         Residents are worried by the environmental impact, loss of trees, there will be more traffic and more idling, there is a flood risk.

·         The S106 monies should be focused and spent in West Barnes, its not enough to say there will be a few extra buses.

·         The 220 car parking spaces are not enough.

 

In reply to the points raised by the Objectors and Ward Councillors the Planning Team Leader South made points:

·         He referred Members to page 89 of his Agenda report, where there is consideration of the relevant guidance and policies that apply to Tall Buildings. He explained that there has to be judgement in balancing these policies.

·         He referred members to page 97 of his Agenda Report which covered loss of light to surrounding buildings. He continued that the Department of Education Guidance relates to  new build and does not apply in this situation

·         The Density guidance in the London Plan is being modified so the housing density matrix will no longer apply.

·         The emerging London Plan says that we should no longer be prescriptive about the Housing mix. We have our own plan from 2014 that has to weighed against the emerging plan, that will be adopted by spring 2020

·         There will be substantial CIL monies which will be available for local facilities. There are strict regulations governing contributions

 

In reply to Members Questions the Planning Team Leader South made points including:

·         It is rare for 40% affordable housing to be offered in a development. The actual rent figures charged would need to meet relevant criteria to ensure affordability used in London wide guidance

·         The closing of the level crossing depends on the frequency of the trains. Traffic modelling has been examined by TfL and Merton Highways officers, and no overall concerns raised. It is accepted that there the proposal will have some local impact but there is a requirement for improvements at the nearby junction and pedestrian improvements

·         The site is outside the limits of Crossrail 2 safeguarding, but was identified as a potential Crossrail 2 worksite. However there is no formal safeguarding of the site that would preclude a decision being made. Members must consider what is proposed and not speculate on what might happen in the future regarding delivery of Crossrail 2.

·         The affordable housing would be located in core A and core B but not the upper floors of Core B

·         2%, i.e. 9 units, are single aspect. All face east

·         There is an office/meeting space of 103m²  available for residents as a community space

·         Officers do not take issue with the proposed housing mix being different to the Merton preferred mix given the imminent adoption of the London Plan. Planning Officers and Housing Officers have instead focussed on the provision of family sized social housing as advised by the LBM Housing Officer.

·         The high density taller buildings proposed could be considered as a reasonable way to achieve regeneration of this area. The area has previously been identified as an area of regeneration as it has good transport links. This application will fund improvements to the bus services in the area.

·         The development provides playspace that meets the requirement for toddlers, and children. It does not provide space for teenagers and so a contribution for this is sought, which can be used to provide facilities in the future

·         The development does not meet the on-site carbon saving target, so Planning Officers are bound to seek financial mitigation. This does not mean that the scheme does not have good environmental credentials

·         Details of the heating fuel will be in the Energy Statement

·         There are a number of refuse points on the site.

 

Members made comments including:

·         Developments of this high density would be expected close to transport hubs, with a ptal rating of 5 or 6. This location, with a ptal of 2 is not appropriate for this density

·         Disappointing that there is no environmental statement

·         There are serious  traffic problems in the area associated with the level crossing. This development would add to those issues

·         There is not enough amenity space in the development, It will not be a good place to live. The first/ground floor will have no life, it will not be a good place for families

·         The DRP gave the original application a red, the developer should have gone back to the DRP with this application. This application is still poor quality design

·         The development does not meet or respect the Merton Council recommended housing mix

·         There has been no account taken of the DRP’s comments. There is no rationale for the height of the blocks

·         The Development is out of keeping with the area. This density should be car free and close to a transport hub

 

A member spoke to support the development:

·         There is an undeniable housing crises across London, with targets about to increase.

·         We are offered 40% affordable housing from this development only because of its size

·         There are significant concerns about this development, but the positive points for this development are the 450 units and the 40% affordable housing it provides

 

A motion to refuse was proposed and seconded.

 

RESOLVED

 

The Committee voted to:

 

1.    REFUSE Planning Permission subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, for the following reasons:

·         Bulk, Mass and Height of the proposed development is too great

·         Traffic, Access and Parking

 

 

2.    DELEGATE to the Director of Environment & Regeneration the authority to make any appropriate amendments in the context of the above to the wording of the grounds of refusal including references to appropriate policies