Application Number: 16/P2971     Ward: Lavender Fields

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to completion of a section 106 agreement and conditions

Proposal:  Demolition of existing building and the erection of a part 3 storey, part 4 storey (with setback) residential block comprising 14 x residential units, provision of 8 on-street car parking spaces (subject to traffic management order) and 20 cycle parking spaces

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information and amended conditions in the Supplementary Agenda.

The Planning Officer reported that this application was originally brought to the Planning Committee in April 2017, but Members decided to defer their decision so that the application could be referred to the DRP (Design Review Panel). However the applicant withdrew the application from the DRP Agenda, and has now submitted an amended application with changes made to the design of elevations. There is no mandatory requirement for applications to be reviewed by the DRP. The Planning Officer reminded members that there had been a full discussion of the proposal at the Planning Applications Committee in April 2017.

The Objectors raised residents’ concerns, including:

·         Comparisons with Noble Court are not valid as that is smaller and set back from the highway

·         There has been a lot of public opposition to this application

·         This application fills the plot, will cause overshadowing and relies on parking bays on the street.

·         The amendment are not effective and should have changed the skyline of the application design

·         Design does not relate to the rhythm of the surrounding streets

·         The site is not in a Conservation Area but it is in an area defined as of interest in the area Character Study

·         An initial complaint submitted to Merton Council has never been answered

·         The development does not meet London Policies – it will result in loss of light and privacy for its neighbours, and will be oppressive

·         Residents are not against development of this site, but not this design

The Applicant commented that this application was policy compliant and would deliver much needed homes in Merton.

In answer to points raised by objectors the Planning Officer said:

·         The matter of an ongoing complaint should not prevent Members from deciding on the application before them

·         The local Grid Iron Terraces are not statutory heritage assets

·         Church Road contains diverse and tall buildings. The proposed building is slightly lower than the ridge of the block opposite.

·         Residents are concerned about the large brick area facing Hawthorne Avenue, but this will not be viewed directly from their homes

Councillor Ross Garrod spoke and raised points including:

·         The Developer has ignored recommendations

·         I have personally received many objections to this development

·         The main concerns are still applicable despite amendments; the height, it not being set back, the mass, the footprint is far bigger than the existing buildings,

·         Appreciate that the address is Church Road but it will have big impact on Hawthorne Avenue with the bike stores, refuse collection and entrances all on this road. Planners have ignored this impact

Councillor Ian Munn spoke and raised points including:

·         It is an Attractive design but it is in the wrong place

·         The character in this area is low rise, this is up to twice the size

·         Fails to relate positively to the site

·         Only 7m from Hawthorne Avenue neighbours, and will affect their privacy and enjoyment even with obscure glazing

·         Policies to protect such sites are DMD2(i),CS14, DMD2(vi)

In answer to comments regarding Employment lost at the site, the Planning Officer asked members to note that the site had been marketed as a commercial site for 16 months with no offers received, and under NPPF (National Policy Planning Framework) guidance a local authority should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.

In answer to Members questions regarding affordable housing, the Planning Officer explained that although the Council sought 40% affordable housing in such developments.But an independent viability review of this application has said that 3 units on a shared ownership basis, which equates to 21%, is acceptable, or a cash in lieu payment of £312,000.

In answer to Members questions regarding the density of development in relation to its PTAL (Passenger Transport Accessibility Level) of 2, Planning and Transport Planning Officers believed that in these particular circumstances this was acceptable.

The Planning Officer outlined the parking situation that had been discussed at the April meeting; there were 8 on-site parking spaces for the 14 flats and 9 on-street parking bays would be created, Officers believed that the local roads had the capacity to support this.

Members disagreed on the bulk, height and massing of the building, with some saying it was acceptable and others saying that the proposal was too large for the site and would have an unacceptable impact on residents in Hawthorne Road.

Members also expressed the view that this was a very attractive high quality  design, that would raise the design quality on Church Road, and that housing was needed in the borough.

Members expressed disappointment that the developers had withdrawn the application from the DRP process.

Whilst accepting that more housing was needed, a motion to refuse for reasons of height, bulk, massing and siting was proposed but refused by the vote.

The Committee then voted on the Officer’s recommendation to grant Planning Permission.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to grant permission subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement and conditions.