Application No: 21/P1780

Ward: Wimbledon Park

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

Councillor Bhim recused herself from the Chamber for this item and Councillor Butcher was present as substitute. 

The Development Control Team Leader (North) presented the report.  

The Committee received verbal presentations from one objector who made points including: 

·         The objector felt that the developers lack transparency and fail to maximise development in Merton 

·         Social segregation- social housing in one block and private residents in another would be discomforting  

·         Affordable housing should be redistributed across the development 

·         The costings of the development were high and the developer did not take into account key features such as height and bulk and the access link to Wellington Works, which affect residents 

·         The Developers had used costings from adjacent Hazelmere and not from Rufus site 

·         The Development does not enable any vehicle access to Wellington Works via Rufus Estate 

·         The excessive height was not in keeping with the local area and themaximum height should not be higher than other buildings 

·         The result of the radiation investigation which had been conducted had not been disclosed 

·         There will be a huge loss of light to existing homes 

·         Eight storey developments would look too much of an eyesore overlooking the park and the green space 

·         Consideration should be given to urban greening, the applicant should reduce the height of the building and increase green spaces 

·         400 people wrote against the proposal, whilst only one letter of support was received 

·         The application should not be granted, due to lack of urban greening consideration. 

The Applicant spoke in response and made points including: 

·         Members to note that the same objections were not considered to be material considerations by the previous Committee Members and Planning Officers 

·         Questions raised by the previous Committee contributed to the application being deferred as these were complex matters 

·         The previous application was deferred due to a lack of affordable housing 

·         Costings are contained in the account 

·         The contamination was a historical issue caused by floruim 232 previously used for gas mantles 

·         An accurate account of costs can only be achieved once remedial works are completed 

·         Financial viability assessments costs contain all estimated costs including construction and timelines; The Councill will get this looked at for viability 

·         The Applicant is aware that Members wish to see all contamination cleaned up 

·         The outward costs of building will affect the amount of affordable houses a developer can achieve; the outcome is based on actual and not estimated costs 

·         A late - stage review will be brought in if a percentage of affordable housing is not reached, the development will provide an entire block A for affordable renting 

·         Until all contamination clean-up is achieved the developer cannot give a full quota of affordable housing; a late - stage review will be carried out by The Councils experts 

·         The developer is ready to build more affordable flats from surplus revenue and these flats will be in block B to encourage integration 

·         The Councill has accepted the designs and the housing association want a separate door entrance for renters 

·         Everyone shares amenities and all door entries are the same; parking is nearer to the social housing area 

·         The developer is providing energy efficient homes in line with climate change and it would be cost effective for tenants 

·         The Applicant advised there would be provision of jobs and housing on clean land. 

The Development Control Team Leader (North) responded and made points including: 

·         The applicant had carried out further bore hole investigation and the information is contained in the committee agenda 

·         The links to Wellington works whilst examined at pre planning stage is not considered as a mandatory requirement for the developers 

·         There are 8 affordable housing in block B which is considered a positive and the housing association wrote about the benefits necessity for it 

·         Scale and massing in the Northeast corner of the recreational ground and the scale is accessible 

·         Homeownership is welcome and will come out in the S106 agreement 

The Development Control Team Leader (North) responded to Members questions including 

·         In terms of the viability assessment there was some discrepancies challenges in cost and the report notes this; the council has applied their figures within the assessment 

·         The late and early-stage review captures the developer to submit to the council financial sales of flats after 75% of completion 

·         The legal agreement secures the affordable housing and not the housing association; it is also important to attract registered users and to have them on board 

·         The lack of three beds stems from the size of the site compared to the north side site which were able to deliver 3 bedrooms; the housing association confirmed the need for 3 bedrooms for social renting 

·         The site is in the flood risk zone 

·         In terms of the security fencing boundary treatment is being conditioned the officers can take this away and liaise with developers  

The Development Control Team Leader (North) responded to further  questions and advised that: 

·         In relation to the contamination this is not a material planning consideration 

·         In terms of access for fire vehicles via the under cross to be made wide enough, it would not be necessary for the vehicle to go right up for access; building control would take this on board; a fire safety report submitted has been conditioned  

·         In terms of ownership of the access track, a management company would maintain the track 

·         Conditions have been built in to maintain the green wall and it is enforceable, residents can call the council to complain if it was not beingmaintained 

·         In terms of mitigating linkage risk, the plans show the conditions and S106 could have more conditions built in if there were concerns on antisocial behaviour and cost 

·         If housing providers show no interest in taking on managing affordable housing, the unit would be turned into a financial contribution and evidence of why there was no uptake must be provided by the applicant 

·         There is a condition attached to the site they have to provide the turning point for refuse truck.  

·         In terms of access to the rear track fire and refuse vehicles can access in an emergency the road is privately owned and cannot be fully relied on 

·         In terms of the petition request the application must be looked at on its merits; the access is not related to the site. 

Members commented on the report noting the separate blocks for affordable housing, whilst this was not welcomed it was recognised that it was the social housing providers preference. The new possibility of providing more affordable housing was noted. Members expressed concern on radiation and recognised that further tests would be going ahead. 

The Chair moved to the vote and it was  

RESOLVED: that the Committee Granted Permission subject to conditions and completion of a S.106 legal agreement.