Application Number: 19/P3814       Ward: Hillside

Officer recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, completion of a S106 Agreement, and conditions

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 19/P3814 be GRANTED Subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, completion of a S106 Agreement, and conditions.

Proposal: Demolition of existing building and erection of a new building comprising two basement levels, ground floor, and nine storeys above for the provision of Use Class B1 Office space with ancillary leisure and café facilities (Total GIA 8,638sqm), creation of vehicle servicing bay.

The Committee noted the report and presentation by the Planning officer, including the additional information set out in the supplementary agenda.

Two objectors had registered to speak in objection and at the invitation of the Chair made the following points:

·         The proposed building was too high and would tower over three conservation areas and there was no policy justification for such a high building.  There were concerns over the issue of carbon reduction and that designing out crime had not been addressed.

·         The height of the building was out of keeping with the heights of buildings in the surrounding area and would be the tallest building in Wimbledon.

·         The building would sit on a busy narrow corner and there were concerns over safety due to the width of the footpath and the increased traffic movements associated with the proposed development.

The applicant addressed the points raised by the objectors and outlined the consultation which had taken place and the changes which had been made to the design in response to comments received.  He highlighted the measures taken to address carbon reduction targets and the benefits the proposal would bring to the area both in terms of design and support to the local economy.  He was followed by a representative of Wimbledon Business Improvement District who spoke in support of the application who addressed the benefits the development would bring to the local economy.

The Development Control Team Leader (North) addressed the points raised by the objectors and highlighted the relevant planning policies in relation to intensification of office use and design.  Officers felt that the proposal was in keeping with current and emerging policies and that the height was acceptable in this location due to the high quality design.

At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Daniel Holden addressed the meeting on behalf of the residents in objection.  He was concerned that the Wimbledon Masterplan had been referred to in the officers report despite it not yet having been adopted by the Council.  He felt that the proposal represented overdevelopment on the site and was contrary to a number of planning policies.

In response to questions from Members, the Development Control Team Leader (North) advised that:

·         The width of the pavement was not known, although the layby was designed to be dual use.

·         The Designing out Crime officer would only be consulted if officers felt it necessary, and it was not felt to be in this case.

·         Although the Wimbledon Masterplan had not been adopted by the Council, it was an emerging policy which had been through extensive consultation and therefore officers had to give it limited weight when making their recommendations.  Whilst the proposed building was taller, it was felt that the policies and guidance supported tall building in this area.

·         Cycle storage was in two locations in the ground floor and first basement with both short and long stay spaces.

·         One on street tree was proposed for removal and additional soft landscaping was proposed.

·         A condition was proposed to mitigate flood risk during and post construction.

The Transport Planning Officer advised Members that a width of 2.5m was required for HGV vehicles to pass and a minimum of 1.8m was required for the cycle route.

At the invitation of the Chair, Members made the following comments:

·         The current building was unattractive and although the applicant had worked hard to bring a proposal which was improved, there were a number of issues for concern.  The cycle route which passes by the proposed building, the bus station opposite, the position of the layby and the width of the pavement were all a safety concern and there would not be enough room for social distancing or a pram or wheelchair to pass safely.

·         The congregation of approximately 200 employees on a narrow corner in the event of a fire evacuation was not acceptable.

·         There were concerns over getting such a large number of cycles in and out of the building easily.

·         A building of this height should not be built within 20m of people’s homes and the application should be refused on the grounds of height and massing, with a new application submitted which addresses the safety concerns and removes the layby.

·         Although the proposed offices would be useful for the area and boost the economy, it was felt that the building was too tall and benefits could still be delivered with one less storey.

·         There were concerns that the planning officers were relying on an un-adopted Masterplan for the area; the overall height of the building was too tall; in relation to the flood risk and should be refused.

·         There were concerns over height and road safety and would like to see those issues addressed.

·         The building was too high and the Masterplan had not yet been agreed by full Council and therefore the application should be rejected.

·         Small, medium and large businesses in Wimbledon should be supported to bring jobs and footfall to Wimbledon.  The building was not perfect but had been given a green rating by the Design Review Panel and therefore the application should be approved.

·         Tall buildings were not inherently bad and that Wimbledon was a major commercial hub with a need for good quality office space.  The draft Masterplan had been through extensive consultation and it was reasonable to refer to the document.  The application should be approved.

A motion to refuse the application on the grounds of bulk and massing was proposed and seconded.  The Chair put the motion to a vote and there were 4 votes in favour, 4 against and 2 abstentions.  The Chair used her casting vote and voted against the refusal and the motion was lost.

The Chair then moved to a vote on the officer recommendation and it was carried with 5 in favour, 4 against and 1 abstention*.

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 19/P3814 be GRANTED subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, completion of a S106 agreement and conditions.

*NOTE – Following conclusion of this item, it was brought to the Clerk’s attention that one Member appeared to raise their hand twice on the substantive vote.  The Clerk advised the Chair that for clarity Members should confirm their vote.  This took place at the end of the meeting and the decision was confirmed with 5 votes in favour, 4 against and 1 abstention.