Application Number: 21/P0119

Ward: Hillside

Recommendations: GRANT Planning Permission Subject to Conditions and S106 Agreement

 

 

Proposal for a full redevelopment of the site

 

The Development Control (Team Leader North) presented the report

 

The Committee received a verbal presentation from two objectors who made points including:

 

-       The proposal will provide no affordable housing

-       The Met says the layout is unsafe and recommends change

-       No fire risks reports submitted

-       It would result in loss of light in several dwellings

-       There would be loss of trees

-       Construction work would cause protracted disturbance

-       The proposed development breaches planning policies

-       Would like a more policy compliant design

-       The planning officers’ report has not been updated since then to include the lighting report

-       The report admits breach of policies, yet on the other hand the report agrees the plans to go ahead

-       The application would result  in loss of privacy

 

The Applicant spoke in response and made points including:

 

-       The Applicant had worked closely on the designs with the Planning Officers and supports report

-       The Applicant says that the proposal has positive characteristics of the area and amenities that’s provided for residence to live in

-       The Applicant stated that current planning policy is clear in making sufficient use of land in sustainable locations to ensure the delivery of new homes

-       The site is just outside Wimbledon in an urban area just outside the train station and walking distance to shops

-       The Applicant said that 60% of new homes over the years has come from small land

-       The proposal has reached a balance and considered impact to residence amenities and use of space

-       The application has a positive impact on street scape

-       The nature of the building has been carefully appraised in context of the neighbouring buildings in relation to trees

-       The plan shows the layout in terms of lower elevation and it is in keeping with the plan

-       The plan sets out boundaries with neighbours

-       The Applicant has provided Sunlight and Daylight

-       The proposed scheme shows overlooking of sight there is no overlooking as windows used will be glazed

-       The Applicant has signed up as be seen be green energy efficient

-       The majority of the unit will be car free  and will have electric charging points and the plans sets this out in full

-       The scheme has the approval of the highway department

-       The scheme will make an important contribution to Merton’s housing target

 

Council Daniel Holden gave a verbal presentation to the Committee stating that the proposal is too big for the scheme and would contribute to loss of light and gardens would be overshadowed.  He had concerns that the scheme will have a detrimental impact to neighbours to loss of amenities. The scheme has failings of planning policy DM2.  The scheme had no affordable housing contribution.

 

The Development Control Team Leader (North) responded to points raised adding that the application had an independent viability report reviewed by Merton Council viability consultants which concluded that the scheme cannot provide affordable housing.  The application was submitted with the viability report.

 

With regards to the parking provision the existing plan has provisions for parking. The new London Plan came into effect after the scheme was submitted and the proposal provides electric charging points and 2 x disabled parking spaces. A balance has to be met and the proposal would provide less than 1 space per unit.

 

With regards to the fire statement, again the scheme was submitted prior to that requirement however officers have requested a condition to be included for the applicant to submit one prior to commencement of works.

With regards daylight sunlight issues, professional opinions differs in the report between the Applicant and third parties. Relating to window impact, a judgement has to be taken by officers in terms of the impact.

In regards elevations to neighbouring windows there is a reduction in terms of overlooking and the balconies have been set back.

The London Plan sets out that small sites should be utilised as set out in the report.

 

In response to members further questions, The Team Leader advised that the S106 agreement will capture heads of terms.

The viability has been looked at by the Councils and independent assessors in relation to cost and they are aware of the plans and what is proposed.

 

National Policy applies in providing guidance to daylight/sunlight issues under paragraph 125c of the NPPF. The balance on this scheme was deemed acceptable and the application was judged in that context.

The scheme is replacing an early 20^th century building. The late stage review is done on 75% is sold, the late state review is to be secured within the legal agreement.

From within the daylight and sunlight report the terms are accurate and this is from both reports from the Applicant and independent in terms of window testing if they retain over 80% of daylight and they are satisfied under the BRE guidance then this comes into effect.

 

Members commented on the proposal and made points including:

 

-       The absence of affordable housing.

-       Concerns regarding the impact on neighbouring properties

-       Credibility in loss of profits by providing affordable housing

-       Concerns regarding the height of the proposal

-       in the proposal was not in-keeping with the current surrounding buildings

 

-       Good area in Wimbledon will be replacing an existing one three house building by 17 flats, there was regret in non-affordable housing

 

The Chair moved to the vote and it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Committee agreed to refuse the application for the following reasons:

 

Absence of affordable housing

Impact on neighbouring amenity of properties at Leeward Gardens and Bluegates

It should be ‘car free’ in support of recent adopted London Plan Policy.

Lack of a signed S106 Agreement for the heads of terms set out in the report.

 

The final wording of the reasons for refusal was agreed to be drafted by officers and then sent to the Chair and Vice-Chair for their authorisation prior to issuing the decision notice.