Application Number: 21/P1780

Ward: Wimbledon Park

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and completion of a S.106 legal agreement.

The Planning Officer (North Team) presented the report.

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

·         The development would increase the population

·         The Objector felt the cumulative developments would amount to a thousand-person occupancy.

·         The Objector had been in contact with the council over a period of six years over any application to Rufus building site, to ensure that traffic would go down Wellington works

·         The Objector spoke of the large volume of construction vehicles that would pass by residents’ windows as there were no provisions for vehicle access via Wellington Works through the proposed Rufus business centre site

·         The Objector asked the Committee to delay the application until a ruling had been made on the adjacent site

·         The Objector asked that the application be refused under urban greening, bulk, height and social housing

·         The current Rufus proposal would have an impact on residents whose gardens are 3 metres from the site

·         The proposed building is five storeys higher than neighbouring buildings

·          Other developments in the area, had height restrictions and this should be maintained and in keeping with the area

·         The Objector believed that the development would be harmful to the local landscape and impact the River Wandle trail, which is an urban feature

·         The level of urban greening in the application did not meet minimum GLA standards

·         Affordable housing is low and only eight out of the 96 units are being considered for affordable housing

The Agent to the Applicant spoke in response and made points including:

·         The Objector described the development as a mixed-use office development centre and felt the proposal provides for attractive residential homes

·         The development has been identified as needed and is welcomed in the borough

·         Each home would be fulfilled in terms of amenities; light, balconies and shared space; eight of which are affordable housing

·         The scheme has no parking facilities other than disabled and a car club bay

·         The developers have worked closely with Planning Officers and made amendments to the report members have at present

·         The GLA did not object to a previous application which was higher in height, however the Applicant considered the current plans would be more in line with the area in Dawlish Avenue

·         The developers have taken into consideration the design and amenities for residents such as light, space and fire safety for the scheme

·         The scheme would be developed in an otherwise underutilised brown space

·         Developers knew about the objections on Wellington Works and they had looked at best practise and ways forward

·         Objectors had been in close contact with the GLA, Merton, future Merton and adhered to policy

·         The Officers report addressed the issues of sustainability, greening and flood risk

·         The vehicle route suggested by residents for the developers, would go against the London Plan

The Planning Officers addressed concerns by Objectors points including:

·         The Planning Officer said responses were contained in the modification sheet

·         Planning Officers had no powers on policies to serve on the adjacent site relating to access

·         Officers provided guidance to the developers earlier on in the process and asked them to do a feasibility report

·         The height of the structure is in keeping with similar structures alongside Wandle River area. 

·         A viability study had been carried out and the Planning Officer confirmed that there would be eight affordable housing units within the scheme

The Planning Officer responded to councillors questions:

·         The Planning Officer confirmed that the affordable houses would be in a block on its’ own

·         Planning Officers had been in touch with the councils environmental Officers who are aware of contamination on the developers’ site and adjacent site

·         Flood risks, design and proximity between other properties, were issues that could pose restrictions on three bedroomed homes built

·         The council no longer agreed density. Consideration is given to how close the development is to public amenities and other properties

Members made comments on the application. Members commented on access in terms of fire risk and location of the scheme to the road and direct access for the emergency services. Members raised concerns on balance on number of bedrooms and more affordable homes. Issues on contamination and safety. Members asked to defer the application pending further information.

The Team Leader (North) responded to members comments:

·         Having separated blocks for affordable and private house makes the scheme more attractive for Housing Associates to manage

·         Planning Officers could not place conditions on schemes having separate affordable and private housing

The Chair moved to vote and it was

RESOLVED:

That the Application be deferred to a future Committee Meeting, to allow members seek further information on financial viability, contamination and whether affordable housing could be amalgamated to the other building in the proposal.

.