Application No: 22/P3686

Ward: Abbey

Recommendation: Grant Outline Permission Subject to conditions, referral to the Greater London Authority (under The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008)) and completion of the Variation to S106 Legal Agreement.

The Planning Officer presented the report.

 

The committee received presentations from two objectors who stated:

 

•         Demolition instead of refurbishment would not help global warming or local dust pollution as construction accounted for 45% of all CO2 emissions with 51% of all emissions from a home emitted before residents moved in.

•         Existing three and four storey apartments in High Path Estate could have an additional floor above with new installation.

•         49.6% affordable homes and the uplift in number of homes in the development was not enough to address the number of residents registered as homeless.

•         Shared ownership required a minimum annual income of £30,000 which wouldn’t help local residents in need.

•         Gas meter and flue would be built on the eastern flank of the resident’s wall and wrapped around the southern rear of the garden which encased the gas flue and external gas meters.

•         Site inspection stated the development was situated 107 meters from the resident’s home which was incorrect and updated in the modification document.

•         Development would be five storeys larger than the resident’s property and out of character for the area.

•         The daylight and overwhelming shadow document 22 concluded that 15 and 21 Merton High Street would have significant overshadowing and the development would directly overlook the gardens and windows of residential homes.

•         Despite numerous attempts to contact the developer, there has been no response.

•         The bulk, mass and height failed London Borough of Merton’s 2018 Estates Local plan Policy EPH8 as well as policy DMD2 2014 and Merton’s 2021 draft plan policy D12.3.

•         Main concern was with Plot 1 which would impact the property of the resident.

•         If the application was granted, they would engage the Member of Parliament from Richmond and Morden and request this was called into the Secretary of State or for a Judicial Review.

 

 

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

 

Councillor Eleanor Stringer raised points including:

 

•         There was a desperate need for regeneration of the development as well new homes in Merton, particularly affordable social homes.

•         The development would deliver 568 additional units, 227 of which were affordable.

•         Although the viability report suggested that the number of affordable homes could not be increased, they would be keen to have a condition to keep this under review.

•         Height was of concern to residents, particularly for those close by but on the whole the development seemed to be designed to have as low impact as possible on the surrounding area.

•         Impact on local economy, community and environment needed to be considered and provision of the community centre was welcomed.

•         The Urban Greening Factor fell short of the London guidelines so would like assurances that mature tree removal was limited with a condition which required mature trees to be replaced with mature trees if possible.

•         Impressed with the quality and design of the build in design phase one.

Councillor Mike Brunt raised points including:

•         Welcomed new homes in Merton, particularly near South Wimbledon Tube Station which provided good transport links for residents.

•         Despite the outdoor community space provided, there was an emphasis on St John’s Church to be the main source of community space which would not be enough considering the increase in properties and residents. More community space provisions and discussions with South Wimbledon Community Association and St Johns Church would be desired.

•         There was scope for more community provisions such as the use of the District Scout Association grounds.

•         Echoed the concerns of 21 Merton High Street as meters and flues were on the boundary.

 

Councillor John Braithwaite raised points including:

 

•         Happy to see the development going ahead and residents have been delighted with their new homes.

•         Would like to see an absolute minimum of single aspect units.

•         Due to the length of time for development, the existing residents should not be forgotten.

•         Happy with the cycle storage and would like to see this in the existing blocks.

•         Units already built seemed to have designed out a lot of anti-social behaviour.

•         Echoed points made with regards to community space.

 

 

The committee received presentation from the applicant Brian Ham who raised points including:

 

•         1.8 billion has been invested in the regeneration of High Path, Eastfields and Ravensbury Estates and to date delivered 155 new homes, all of which have been for either a High Path or Ravensbury Estate families.

•         The next 54 homes are well advanced, the first phase at Eastfields will begin soon as well as work on 113 homes at High Path.

•         High Path was the largest of the three estates and was crucial to the regeneration programme.

•         Changes were made to the original master plan to address challenges such as climate emergency, economics of building new affordable homes, housing policy, construction inflation and house price instability.

•         To add further value changes such as fossil fuel free energy systems and an increase in the number of affordable homes were included.

•         The proposal was designed to retain many of the master plan principles which included access and movement strategy, the layout and street network, open space and public realm strategies and principles of high quality architecture and landscaping.

•         The main revisions involved an amended scale and massing strategy with a net uplift of 568 homes.

•         The Merton Regeneration Programme would now deliver nearly 3300 homes and allowed for existing residents to be rehoused earlier which included all social and affordable rent homes.

•         Chronic overcrowding has been addressed. An example of a 6 person family who lived in a one bedroom flat would now be placed in a three bedroom duplex during phase 1.

•         40% of the additional homes were affordable with the majority in the social rent tenure.

•         Energy Efficiency measures connected to a district heat network, powered by air source heat pumps would deliver fossil fuel free energy.

•         The proposal brought an opportunity to build additional affordable homes, improve the financial viability for Eastfields and Ravensbury and would allow existing residents to be rehomed quicker.

•         Of the 600 homes from the original High Path Estate, approximately 40% were sold through Right to Buy. Such homes could not be counted as affordable which left only 60% which could be offered as affordable homes.

•         A lot of time was spent considering the pros and cons of regeneration as opposed to demolition. Demolition was the option which provided viability for high quality efficient affordable homes.

 

 

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

 

•         The regeneration of High Path Estate was not only critical for improved housing conditions across the whole programme but also to provide a pipeline of new housing over the next 10 years.

•         The approved master plan provided a network of well designed streets for walking and cycling throughout the neighbourhood.

•         The new park was welcomed for residents of the estate and for the whole of South Wimbledon which provided pleasant walking routes between South Wimbledon Tube Station and Harris Academy at Merton Abbey Mills.

•         Supported the cycle parking made available for residents and encouraged more EV charging points.

•         Transport contributions would be requested towards healthy street improvements in and around the estate

•         The most recent tube station to go step free was Moorgate in 2022 and the next station was Knightsbridge in 2023.

•         Step free access was wanted for South Wimbledon Tube Station. These plans provided funding for a feasibility study for a second entrance to South Wimbledon Station, leading to step free access.

 

In response to questions raised by the committee, Planning Officers advised:

 

•         This was an outline plan application for phases 4-7 of the development and the reserve matter would be submitted in 2026/2027

•         In 2018 the Council adopted an estates local plan after working alongside Clarion for five years. Clarion reviewed their homes across Merton to ensure homes were of good sustainability standards and fit for the future which highlighted homes which could not reasonably be brought up to those standards.

•         Officers acknowledged and confirmed that the objections from 21 Merton High Street were received and responded to in the Modification sheet.

•         Site one did join the neighbouring property and planning officers assessed the impact on the north of the proposed site and south of Merton High street

•         Plot 1 of the development, which joined 21 Merton High Street, would extend its height by 2.5 meters. Assessments on daylight, sunlight, overshadowing, height and massing was undertaken and concluded that the 2.5meter height increase did not have a significant impact on the adjoining property.

•         Site visits were conducted over a 6-month period to review the adjoining flank wall and gas meter. This was viewed as a reserve matter related to party wall matters and was not a planning consideration, although officers recognised its importance.

•         The existing community centre would be replaced at phase two of the development and would be extended to meet modern facilities. Whilst there would initially be a loss of space, a temporary provision would be provided until the permanent one was ready. Up to 750 square meters of community floor space was proposed to accommodate and replace St John of the Devine Church space.

•         The proposals accorded with the London Plan Policy S1 and the Core Planning Strategy Policy CS13.

•         The urban green factor, based on The London Plan G5, was 0.30 and short of the target of 0.40. When making a balanced decision other factors such as open space created in the public realm needed to be considered.

•         As per Section 106 Heads of Terms, officers would review the requirement for a feasibility test by TfL and if required all contributed funds would be spent on the development.

•         The London Plan has set guidance on moving to electrical cars but during the lifetime of the development things will change. Adding the infrastructure at this stage may mean that in 5-6 years’ time when technology has changed, the development would be set back which could impact viability. Maybe an informative or condition could be applied to ensure continuous monitoring took place.

•         Reserve matters would be brought back to members and would include matters such as layout, scale, appearance and landscaping.

•         Condition 19, Demolition and Construction Method Statements gave local authority a great degree of control to addressed concerns raised around dust, emissions and air quality. This condition also addressed noise impact and vibration. This has been complied with during phase 1 of the development.

 

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

 

The applicant informed the committee of the following:

 

•         Conversations with St Johns Church took place over a long periods of time and they were currently awaiting a response on their proposals which included a temporary solution as part of phase 3 and a long-term solution as part of phase 6 or 7. At bare minimum St Johns Church will get a replacement of what they currently have.

•         Community space would be at the East and West of the development as part of phase 2

•         Trees were planted five years ago for the site.

•         TfL have requested a contribution of £100,000 for the feasibility study at South Wimbledon Station. Before committing, they want clarification on the likelihood of matters progressing should the feasibility study be carried out and completed.

•         An office would be on the site.

•         For EV Charging, the power had been put into the infrastructure to meet increased demand. They have not placed all machines yet to avoid vandalism, unnecessary maintenance and evolving technology. The machine would communicate when demand peaked and can be monitored a year in advance of demand.

•         EV Charging points was part of a communal system. Costs of installation would be covered by the development.

•         In due course, 100% of the disabled parking bays would be EV powered.

•         They have not seen any details from TfL on how step free access would be implemented at South Wimbledon Station. It is unclear at this stage how feasible step free access would be.

•         Happy to include swift boxes.

•         EV charging would be included to 20% of disable parking bays from the outset and as demand increased they would increase the number of EV disable parking bays.

•         There would be rapid EV charging points although unsure on the percentage at this stage. The likelihood was that individuals would be using the EV charging points overnight but they would review the evidence and take it from there. The TfL report from 2021 identified around 12.5% of new cars registered in London in 2020 were electric vehicles. Providing 20% upfront still provided more than the predicted demand. Annual travel plan monitoring would also take place.

•         Due to the commercial construction industry, they could not give a guarantee on whether they would face the same challenges experienced with Ravensbury Estate. They were working hard to get the Ravensbury development back on track and were optimistic that there would only be a 4-month delay before completion.

•         30% of residents experienced overcrowding in their old properties, none will be overcrowded in their new properties when they moved in.

•         They planned for all residents with existing parking to have parking at their new homes.

•         The Design Framework was an element used to design the masterplan and would be used throughout the development to ensure compliance.

•         There would be an underground refuse system with large subterranean containers that allowed waste to be dropped through the top. There would also be separate food waste recycling stations available.

•         Although the development presented a different management challenge, work was underway to create a business management plan for the estate. Happy to share the management plan with the committee once available.

 

 

The Chair moved to the vote on the Officers’ recommendation with the following additional conditions and informatives: Votes For – 10, Against – 0 , Abstentions – 0.

 

CONDITIONS;

•         To move towards 100% EV charging bays, there would be a monitoring exercise to stay at least 1 year ahead of demand and a process to allow residents to secure EV charging units within a reasonable timeframe upon request.

•         That the submission of management plans be reviewed by the committee annually.

 

INFORMATIVES:

•         Access to the gas meter on 21 Merton High Street be reviewed as a reserve matter

•         On site office to also be staffed outside of normal working hours

•         Continued monitoring to address concerns raised around dust, emissions and air quality

•         Swift boxes to be included in the development

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee GRANTED Planning Permission Subject to Conditions and Informatives.