Application Number: 19/P2383      Ward: Cricket Green

Officer recommendation: Grant Outline Planning Permission subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions.

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 19/P2383 be REFUSED.  The reasons for refusal will be set out in the minutes.

Proposal: outline planning application (with all matters reserved) for the redevelopment of the site comprising demolition of existing buildings and Development of up to 850 new residential dwellings (class c3 use) and up to 750 sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (class a1-a3, d1 and d2 use) together with associated car parking, cycle parking, landscaping and infrastructure.

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 8.28pm to allow planning officers to resolve technical issues.  The meeting resumed at 8.38pm.

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

One objector had submitted a written speech and the Senior Democratic Services Officer read this out at the invitation of the Chair.  Another resident had registered to speak in objection and at the invitation of the Chair addressed the Committee.  The following points were raised by the objectors:

·         The number of homes proposed and potential numbers of additional residents would have a negative impact.

·         The access to the site and local amenities are poor.  The trams are overflowing at peak times and parking provision was not realistic.

·         The proposal would be a departure from the current local plan policy and therefore needs to demonstrate that it is suitable, so there are grounds for refusal.

·         The visual impact was negative and would harm the conservation area.

·         The proposal represented overdevelopment.

The applicant addressed the Committee and responded to the points raised by the objectors.  He outlined the background to the site and the extensive consultation which had taken place.  He felt that the design was of a high quality and would provide almost one year’s supply of new homes.  There is a requirement for the Council to maximise density on brownfield sites and the previous application for fewer homes was not deliverable.  He outlined the benefits of the scheme, including affordable housing, environmental improvements and reduced HGV movements.

Councillor Owen Pritchard had submitted a written statement on behalf of the residents and this was read out by the Senior Democratic Services Officer.  He recognised the need for new homes and supported the repurposing of the site from industrial usage to residential.  However, he felt that the proposal for 850 new homes would detract from the sense of place that the conservation area brought and create congestion and air quality problems.  He felt that the Mayor of London’s intervention was ill advised and that 600 homes would be closer to the optimal development than 850.

The Chair asked Members if they had any questions relating to the change of use from industrial to residential.

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

·         If the site remained as commercial/industrial use, officers would need to balance the job creating opportunities with the environmental impacts.

·         The draft London Plan indicated an increase in Merton’s housing target from 411 to 918 units per year.  The current London Plan makes clear that the objective is to optimise the housing output from sites, which was a judgement taking all other planning policies into consideration.  It was felt that the benefits of the proposal outweighed the loss of the waste site.

·         The scheme was considered by the Design Review Panel a number of times and explained the remit and Panel’s comments.

·         Conditions had been proposed to address decontamination of the land as part of the construction.

·         Just because a building is tall, it will not necessarily have a negative effect and it is often the management of the building which contributes to a successful sense of community.

·         The report included an indicative mix of units, 2% of the houses would be 3 bed homes and over 100 units would be 3 bed flats and it was stressed that the application was outline.  14 houses would have private gardens.

Members made the following comments:

·         A proposal for housing, including affordable housing, was welcomed for this site, however it was felt that the buildings are too tall and the development too dense particularly in such a low PTAL area and does not meet the housing mix set out in planning policy.  The proposal would also impact on the conservation area, which has a village feel.

·         There was a concern that the original application for 650 units had been rejected by the GLA who had determined that there should be more units on the site; and that if the Committee rejected the application the application would come back to the Committee again due to the GLA requirements being imposed on it.

·         There was a concern that the Committee was being forced into a position by the GLA and it was felt that the Committee should be able to indicate what it felt was an acceptable density for the site.

·         It was felt that due to the proposal being outline, approving the recommendation would enable discussions to continue with the GLA and the developer to reach an agreement over an acceptable density for the site; and that if the full application was not considered to be acceptable it could be rejected at that stage.

·         There was also a concern expressed that by approving the outline application for 850 units, this was giving tacit approval to that density when a full planning application was submitted.

·         It was felt that the application was not up to standard, there was not a good enough mix of housing and should be rejected on the grounds of bulk and massing.

In response to Member comments, the Development Control Team Leader (South) advised that the Committee was being asked to pass a resolution which would then be passed to the Mayor of London.  The Committee could only refuse this application if the Mayor of London feels that the decision of the Committee is acceptable.

The Chair summarised the concerns raised by Members and the decision to be made.  There was a discussion around reasons for refusal and the Development Control Team Leader (South) clarified on what grounds the Committee could refuse the application if it was minded to do so.  Members asked that the minutes note the Committee’s concerns that the indicative housing mix did not include enough family sized homes and there was insufficient garden and amenity spaced proposed.

A motion to refuse the application on the grounds that the applicant had failed to satisfy the Committee that the outline application could deliver a scheme, by virtue of its likely height, bulk and massing, that would not do harm to the visual amenities of the area and to the local conservation areawas proposed and seconded.  The motion was put to a vote and was carried and it was

RESOLVED that

1.    Planning Permission for Application 19/P2383 be REFUSED on the grounds that the applicant had failed to satisfy the Committee that the outline application could deliver a scheme, by virtue of its likely height, bulk and massing, that would not do harm to the local conservation area.

2.    Authority to finalise the exact wording of the refusal be delegated to the Development Control Manager, after consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.