Application No: 23/P0329

Ward: Abbey

Recommendation: GRANT permission Subject to Section 106 Obligation or any other enabling agreement

 

 

The Planning Officer presented the report.

 

The committee received presentations from two objectors who stated:

 

·       The building would be two storeys too high, three times higher than the sheltered housing and twice the height of the buildings in Kingston Road.

·       Pavement at 3.9 meters would be too narrow.

·       Missed opportunity of Cycle Lane.

·       Merton highways and TfL stated that no reversing would be permitted from Kingston Road, the number of vehicle movement and the length of construction would be significantly increased.

·       The legacy of existing developments would be destroyed if this proposal was not amended.

·       Reference to the 2021 application should be considered invalid.

·       This development would not meet the values laid out in the Merton planning policy.

·       Brick cladding had been proposed instead of traditional hand laid bricks.

·       The applicant failed to listen to local residents.

·       The use of a pub should be included in the new development

 

The committee received presentations from Ward Councillor John Braithwaite and Councillor Mike Brunt.

 

Councillor John Braithwaite raised points including:

 

·       Although there was support for student accommodation, residents were concerned with the height and mass of the building. Residents would prefer if the development was reduced by at least one floor or set back further from Rutlish Road.

·       The governments published national design guide had not been taken into consideration.

·       The junction of Kingston Road, Rutlish Road and the Tram track remained one of the most dangerous in the area so a cycle lane would be beneficial.

Councillor Mike Brunt raised points including:

 

·       Emphasised and agreed with points raised in relation to the size and bulk of the building.

·       It the development was further back from Rutlish Road and Kingston Road it would reduce the impact.

·       Encouraged by the positive response to a cycle lane particularly if it went as far as Dorset Road.

·       An established community liaison group would be beneficial beyond construction.

 

The committee received presentations from the applicant, Jayne Knowles and the Managing Director Justin Elcombe who raised points including:

 

·       University Arts London was ranked number 2 in the world for art design education and has been part of the community for a long time with graduates that have been known internally.

·       Many students had long commutes to campus due to limited university halls which were spread across London, with the closest halls of residence currently in Streatham.

·       The University encouraged students from less affluent backgrounds into education, which was further supported with affordable accommodation.

·       The proposed 271 rooms allowed for all first-year students to be offered accommodation close to the college.

·       It has taken five years to identify this site.

·       The design would be highly sustainable and energy sufficient which evolved with the collaboration of planning officers, design panel, local councillors, local residents and local interest groups. The hope was for this to continue with a construction resident working group.

·       Apprenticeship training and construction jobs would be offered.

·       The pavement width on Kingston Road would be more than doubled from 1.7 to 4.5, the tram path would be widened and the building would be set back from two meters up to four meters. Rutlish Road increased from two meters to three meters.

·       There would be new tress and landscaping, improved access to the tram stop and a new independent convenience store and café.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Stephen Alambritis, Cabinet Member for Transport, to address the committee who raised points including:

 

·       Merton Council installed segregated cycle tracks at numerous locations.

·       TfL stated that the widening of Kingston Road would be a benefit and supported the proposal.

·       The new pavement width would be wide enough for shared use space or a segregated cycling facility, which would be beneficial.

 

In response to questions raised, Planning Officers advised:

 

·       The previous application was not determined, and no Council decision was made although it did reach a point where the application was largely supported.

·       The suggestion of a Cycle Lane to the frontage was supported by transport colleagues and as the applicant indicated a willingness, officers were happy to look into this further.

·       There were measures and safeguards within Section 106 which ensured that the cost of rent would be carried out in a way that was recognised in the industry and could be reasonably controlled.

·       The Council Highway Authority and Transport Planner raised concerns of reversing in from Kingston Road. This could be addressed by a pre commencement condition that no development would be permitted until a plan was agreed. Planning was required to limit the impact of construction as far as reasonably possible, but it was not a area where they could reasonably refuse permission if mitigation could be put in place. A conversation took place with Future Merton who were satisfied that this could be resolved via a condition.

·       A condition could be included to further enforce that students were not allowed cars whilst in their halls.

 

The Chair invited the applicant to respond to clarify details raised within questions from the committee.

 

The applicant informed the committee of the following:

 

·       The highest point of the building would be on Kingston Road and then scaled down to be in scale with houses on Rutlish Road.

·       A condition to address construction concerns would be supported. At the earlier stage of construction, it would be likely that vehicles could be turned around onsite and other solutions were possible as construction progressed.

·       A construction residents association group would help to minimise disruption to residents and keep residents informed.

·       TfL did not object to the method of construction and it was agreed that there would be no uploading or offloading from Kingston Road.

·       The bathroom doors within the accommodations would open inward to avoid door clashing.

·       The university allocated timeslots for parents to drop off and pick up students. For international students, the University offered a collect and drop off service from the airport to the student halls.

·       There would be a designated area for service deliveries to help avoid deliveries on residential roads.

·       The tenancy would prohibit students from owning a car whilst in their halls which the University would enforce. If students did not comply, they would be asked to leave.

 

In response to a suggestion that a cycle lane be included to the frontage of the site, Officers will engage in discussions with the applicant and Transport Planner to identify whether this can reasonably be provided, prior to the issuing of a permission.

 

The Chair moved to the vote on the Officers’ recommendation and the below condition which carried:

 

Votes For – 8, Against – 2, Abstentions – 0.

 

·       Copies of the tenancy agreements were to be shared to provide assurance that everyone was signed up to not owning a car in the area, which would exclude students with disabilities.

·       A pre commencement condition that no development would be permitted until a revised Construction Management Plan was agreed, to overcome the concerns identified by the Council’s Transport Planner in regard to construction vehicles reversing into Rutlish Road from Kingston Road.

·       A construction resident and ongoing community resident group be established.

·       Details of provision of bat boxes and any details of enhancements that could be made for hedgehogs if feasible

·       No heavy machinery on a Saturday but if there was a need the applicant would apply for an exemption which would be reviewed by officers.

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee GRANTED Planning Permission Subject to Conditions