Application No: 21/P1780

Ward: Wimbledon Park

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

TheDevelopmentControl Leader (North)presentedthereport.

The Committeereceiveda verbal representation from one objectorwho madepoints including:

•   The  independentassessors/  financial  viability  report  had  onlybeen  made availableto thepublic 36 hours priortothe meeting

•   The  report  contained  estimated  costs  which  were  high  and  missing  vital informationwhich thecommunity objectedtosuch as the hight,bulkand no roadlink toWellingtonworks

•   Theapplicationshould  notbeapproved  withoutan  independentassessor verifying theabnormalcostandsharingthis informationwith thepublic

•   TheobjectorspokeontheillegaluseofasbestosonRufusasthiswas a separate  site  to  that  of  Hazelmere.  The  contamination  risk  was  low,  yet inflatedcostswere given

•  Thedeveloperhadnotconfirmedwhatradiologicalremediationoccurredin

Hazelmere

•   Theobjectorsuggestedto theCommitteethattherebeanundertakingof surveyormeasurementworks carriedoutonthesitefora minimalcostand thattheremediationwork costshouldbemadeknownto membersofthe public

•   Theobjectorsuggestedthatto reachfullpotentialandmaximisedevelopment work in thearea,thedevelopers shoulddevelopRufus andtheadjacentsite.

•   ProvidingvehicleaccessthroughRufustoWellingtonWorkswouldachieve maximised development by providingsafe access

•   The  developers  design  access  statement  confirmed  providing  vehicular accesswasachievablebutwouldcost aconsiderableamount, theobjector stated this couldbemitigated by savingsfrom constructionandremediation

•  Theobjectorhadobtainedover350signaturesfora petitionfortheroadlink;

this wouldbebenefitablefor MertonCouncil interms ofdevelopmentand residentsin termsofroadsafetyandchildrenofMertonParkPrimary,by taking operational andconstructionvehicles out

•   Thedeveloperproducedananalysisroadlink,which theobjectorsaidwas flawed andthatthedeveloper didnotlook atotheroptions

•   Theobjectorsaidthattheproposalshouldberejectedandredesignedfor vehicle access safetytheagendanotes states this

•   Thescaleandmassofthedevelopmentwas notin keepingwiththeareaand theMertonurbanDesignOfficerhadstatedthatformandmassesdonot relatewell toadjacentdevelopmenttotheNorth

•  TheUrbanGreening,fellbelow theGLA threshold

•   The  objector  stated  that  height  should  be  reduced,  and  green  spaces increasedin considerationfor amenities.

TheAgentto the Applicantrespondedand madepointsincluding:

•   Inrelationtomattersraised atthepreviousCommitteemeeting,clarification wassoughtfor identifiedradiationcontaminationonewas for theincandescent mantelandradioworks addressedin 7.522 of the Officersreportsidentified contaminationlevels to Rufus site totheNortheast

•   The  Agent  to  the  applicant  was  confident  of  doing  remediation  works  to standard,ashisteamundertookremediationwork ontheadjacentsite to Rufus sohave acquired theknowledge

•   IntermsofcosttheAgenttotheapplicantstatedthatthecostingshadbeen directedto officersandthecosts analysis have now beenindependently assessedby professionaladvisorsto circa£1.8 million pounds andthecost of works on theadjacentsite Hazelmere costsis £3.99million

•   Thehighcostoftheremediationis reflectedin thecostofaffordablehousing thiscurrently dictates the amountofaffordablehouses inthe development. However,  thenumbers  ofaffordablehomes  will  be  reviewed  later  as  the development progresses. TheAgent to the applicant hopes the Committee is reassuredby themechanism

•   Inaddition,theaffordablehomeswillhavelowrentandnosharedownership, thecostofthedevelopmentis under£490,000

•   Servicechargeswillbekeptto aminimumaszerocarbonisreducing;details are highlightedin thereport containedin the agendapack

•   The  building  will  be  close  to  blue  badge  parking,  and  this  will  include affordableparkingto promoteintegration

•   Thebuildingwillbebuiltto ahighstandardandthereis nodistinctionbetween affordableand privatehomes hence eliminatingsegregation

•   TheAgentto the applicantconfirmedthatthe developmentwouldhaveaccess for emergencyservices.This concernwas raised bytheCommitteeatthe previousplanningcommittee

•   Thedevelopment addresses the LondonPlanfor 906 newhomes.Thesitewill provide energysufficientshottermtenantedhomes

•   Cleanupcostofcontaminatedsitewillberevisitedtoestablishhowmany moreaffordablehomes couldbeincludedin thedevelopment

The DevelopmentControlLeader(North)respondedto pointsraisedandadvised

Members that

•   Theviabilityreporthadbeenassessedbyanindependentassessor,partof theprocess wastoreducecostandthis wasincludedin thereport

•  Affordablehousingwas attached tothesameblock asprivateresidents

•   TheOfficeradvisedtheCommitteethatblockD shouldremain asitis, andthe housingproviderwillbein chargeofthe block,they delivered ontheadjacent site

•   Access to adjacentdoes not warrantvehicleaccess as this wouldresult inloss of units and potential floodrisks,whatis proposedis futurepedestrianand cycle access.

In responseto Members questions TheDevelopmentControlLeader(North)advised

In terms of services charges, thisrelatedtoserviceswithin thebuildingitself,such as lifts and hallways

In termsofcontaminationfigureswithin thereportthePlanningOfficerconfirmedthat thiswas presentfromthestart,thenew figuresquotedwas inrelationto theadjacent (Hazelmere)site and notthecurrentapplicationaspart of thelatestagereview that member receivedrecently

The costingswere subjectto investigativework justwithintheapplicationsite

The Planning Officerconfirmedthatthedesignof block Dwas differentandwill have its own separateenergy supplyapartfromtheother block

The PlanningOfficerconfirmedthatinvestigativeremediationworkis standardand willalways occur

The PlanningOfficerconfirmed, thatas part of thelate-stagereview,if therewere a reductionin thecost,thentherewouldbeclawbackoffundsthat wouldgotowards affordablehousing.

In responsetofurther questionsTheDevelopmentControlLeader(North)explained thatthe benefitof dual ventilation as opposedtosingle aspectis cross ventilation and light.

Membersmadecommentsontheapplication.   The developmenthadpotentialto provide  more  affordable  housing,  which  was  in  line  with  the  London  Plan.  The viabilityappraisalwasnotknown.It wasproposedandsecondedfortheapplication to bebroughtbacksothatthedeveloperscouldproduceanapplicationthatwas more forthcomingin viabilityandincludemoreaffordable flats.Membersaskedfor more informationon thecontamination

The DevelopmentControl Leader (North)advised theCommitteethat

The truecostscannot be realised untildevelopmentstarts, as a result,the costingsfroma neighbouringsite wassummittedtohelp demonstratecostings for siteremediation

Therewas nothingto bringbackto theCommitteeif the applicationwas deferred

Membersmadefurther commentsontheapplicationin relationtoaffordablehousing and costings.

As aresultofmemberscommentstheChairstatedthatasit wasthewillofthe

Committee thevotewouldbe todefer toa future meetingwith reasons

The Chairmovedtovote,andit was

RESOLVED:

ThattheApplicationbedeferredtoa future CommitteeMeeting,toallowmembers seek furtherinformation on financial viability,contaminationandwhether more affordablehousingcould bebuilt