Application No: 22/P3385

Ward: Colliers Wood  

Recommendation: Grant variation of condition and Deed of variation to S106 agreement

The Planning Officer presented the report.

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

Cllr Mike Brunt raised points including:

·       Would like it guaranteed that a full environmental study of both sides of the river was undertaken to ensure the ecosystem was not disturbed by the construction of the bridge.

·       Requested that lighting for residents on the bridge was kept low and that something was in place to stop skateboards and e-bikes from coming straight from the bridge.

·       Concerned with the construction period and wanted to know if it was possible for construction to be accessed from the roundabout on Meratun Way, through part of the Sainsburys site, as residents on Station Road have had enough due to ongoing construction in the area.

Councillor John Braithwaite raised points including:

·       Supportive of the development due to the number of affordable homes.

·       Echoed points made by Cllr Brunt about construction access through Station Road and the effect of traffic, particularly on Abbey Road which was particularly dangerous during traffic.

·       Improved cycle and walking access would be welcomed whilst the site was built.

·       Overall happy with the scheme.

The committee received presentations from the agent, Giuseppe Cifaldi who raised points including:

·       The application was an amendment to the permission granted on 8 November 2022 for 42 Station Road.

·       Height, mass and general principle of development had already been found acceptable.

·       Since the application was accepted, the site was acquired by Clarion Housing Group and was an integral part of Merton’s Regeneration Programme.

·       There have been two consultation meetings with residents, most recently in April 2023, where many residents expressed interest in moving to Station Road and selected new homes based on their housing requirements and needs.

·       Approvement of the amendments would accelerate the regeneration of Eastfields.

·       If permission was granted it was anticipated that construction would be completed by November 2025 which allowed residents to move in 5 years earlier than originally planned.

·       Original scheme was granted with 40% affordable housing and only 11 family sized units. The section 73 application was required to change its tenure to an entirely social rented scheme which now provided 24 family sized dwellings.

·       Section 73 proposals were amended post submission to include an additional staircase in the northern block with amendments made inline with the governments consultation on fire regulations.

·       Other fire safety measures included fire evacuation lifts to both blocks, ventilation extraction lobbies, sprinkler systems throughout, fire doors and fire-resistant materials. Merton’s Build Control Officer confirmed the fire strategy as appropriate and in line with regulations.

·       The proposal continued to deliver a high architectural scheme with minor external changes in response to the reduced number of units which were found acceptable by Planning and Design Officers.

·       The development provided new affordable homes for resident who wished to move from Eastfields.

·       The proposal delivered a 100% social rented scheme with a voluntary decant for resident of Eastfields.

·       Removal of studio units for larger family apartments was in response to the need of more affordable family homes.

·       The revised plan provided a dedicated play area of 306 square meters, 300 square meters of playable landscape across the site, enhanced urban greening, an amended energy strategy to reduce carbon output, maintenance of the pedestrian footbridge and a car free scheme.

·       The native British trees had a longer and more enduring impact on the local habitat and was more conducive for wildlife.

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

·       Members found the bridge acceptable with the conditions attached to the previous application which addressed ecology concerns. This condition was still to be applicable.

·       They would like to place a condition which prevented people from riding through the site

·       Part of the road north of the roundabout was privately owned by Sainsburys so they would have to review whether it was feasibly to get a truck into the site via this route, but this would need to reviewed by the applicants architect and the highways team

·       They would place a waste management condition to ensure an appropriate system was in place. The plan was that waste was placed in a designated area which was collected and then the waste management team on site would return the emptied bins. The time frame for this would be arranged through the applicants waste management scheme and our waste operatives.

·       It was not a policy requirement to provide a cycling hub, only to provide secure accessible storage space.

·       There was a concern of the terrace going. The positioning was never great at the back of the building on the north side. The applicants were concerned that with more children there was an increased risk of accidents.

·       The applicant wanted to balance the quantity of trees with quality of trees. They planned to put in native British trees which needed more space amongst them, so although there were less trees they were of better quality. The trees would be semi-mature heavy standard sized trees as well as shrubs.

·       Details for Swift boxes was passed on to the applicant. They investigated whether hedgehogs were conducive to riverfronts and had an ecological management plan in place to ensure there was green uninterrupted space.

·       NPPF clause as stated on page 135 of the report would give the committee grounds to refuse an application if it was felt that there was a failure to maintain its standards, but justification would need to be considered.

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 bridge was an obligation from the first application and a requirement from the Council.

·       They have continued negotiation with the land owners and were happy for a condition to be included in relation to site access near the roundabout if this was possible.

·       Food waste bins would be provided.

·       A dedicated site office was not intended for this site and would be facilitated from High Path Estate, 5 walking minutes away. There was an existing operational office on the ground floor of High Path which would be maintained until a bigger office was available.

·       They intended to have a cycle hub which would be looked at further at a later stage of development.

·       There were 48 requests to move into the new apartments. If residents preferred a house they had the option to wait for when houses were available as Eastfields was developed.

·       The development would be 100% social rent that decants across Station Road, with no leaseholders or freeholders. Out of approximately 400 residents, 48 families expressed that they would like to move into Station Road. The move would be on a voluntary basis so it may be that those families did not require a car and preferred to be closer to transport links. Those with cars would have alternative choices.

·       They only retain the initial nomination rights to facilitate the decant of existing residents. Anything above that, Merton Council would have nomination rights for.

·       There would be 500 square meters of commercial space in Station Road so if management felt there was a need to have a presence there this would be considered. All reasonable endeavours would be explored to have an active cycle hub on the premises which would be a great fit.

·       They gave reassurance that some form of cycle calming installation would be put in place at the bridge.

·       With more families then planned in the original application and an increased risk of having children on the then planned terrace, they took a view that it was unsafe and would impact the apartments immediately adjacent and overlooking that roof terrace. Instead, they introduced a play trail at ground level in addition to the play space.

·       The play space was enhanced from what was previously deemed acceptable. The space increased from 200 square meters to 306 square meters and in addition had trail routes around the site. They were happy for a condition to be added to further discuss the like for like aspect of the play facilities.

The Chair moved to the vote on the Officers’ recommendation and the below condition which carried: Votes For – 10 , Against – 0 , Abstentions – 0.

CONDITIONS:

·       Waste collection would be managed through the waste management plan

·       Reasonable endeavours for a cycle hub infrastructure

·       Swift and insect boxes with further ecology measures to be included

·       EV parking to be provided for 1 of the 3 disabled parking spaces which would increase to meet demand

·       A detailed report on the play space facilities to ensure features are like for like

·       Submission of a management plan of the site office which details how residents would have access to support when needed

·       Appropriate gates for cycle access

RESOLVED: That the Committee GRANTED Planning Permission Subject to Conditions