Application Number: 17/P2668          Ward: Abbey

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Alterations and extensions to existing Merton Hall including partial demolition of the single storey hall and alterations and refurbishment to the retained main two storey building and erection of a new worship hall, café, foyer and meeting/group rooms.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and advised that additional information had been submitted, including a petition and additional comments from officers.

The Planning Officer advised of the reasons for the previous refusal in April and advised that the latest application had amended the design and that it would appear unreasonable to refuse the application on the basis of principle, the impact on local residents, biodiversity, traffic, parking or refuse issues as these matters had not formed the basis of the Council’s earlier reasons for refusal..

The Planning Officer commented that the Design and Review Panel had given a positive response to the application, had expressed their support for it and given it a green verdict, noting it had enhanced and improved the previous application.

Objectors raised concerns including:

·         The application would mean the demolition of a community asset;

• The application contravened planning guidelines (as outlined in the additional material submitted by objectors);
• Overdevelopment;
• Noise pollution;
• Traffic and parking issues;
• Loss of greenspace;
• There was no Heritage Statement;
• The Acoustic Report was irrelevant;
• There were only 3 car parking spaces proposed;
• The design was too big;
• The Elim Church currently did not have a café in their current building;
• Did the new application still come under D1 class usage;
• The loss of John Innes gift;
• The application had been submitted to Historic England and the response from them had not yet been received;
• The proposal was boring, bland and overdeveloped;
• The scale and design of the glass;
• The proposal would be taller than the retained façade;
• Glass is reflective and would cause light pollution;
• It would not fit with surrounding buildings;
• It would cause detrimental harm to the building and the adjacent buildings;
• Adopted planning policy DMC1 would be breached

The Agent to the Application raised points including:

·         Only the rear would be demolished

• The features of interest as listed in 7.8 of the report would all be retained
• The proposal would be a much needed clean up and improve the external area of the building
• The Independent Design and Review Panel had considered the proposal and given it a green verdict
• Parking surveys had been undertaken
• The proposal was lower than surrounding houses
• Amenity had been taken into consideration
• The green area would be narrower but allow for enhanced planting
• In regards to the loss of a Community Asset – there was no change of use, there would be more space and all current users would still be able to use the facility.

A representative from the Elim Church raised points including:

·         The Church was vibrant and was part of the heritage of Wimbledon

• The Church served the community faithfully including providing the Food Bank which 4210 local people had used over the last year.
• 183 tonnes of food had been donated to the local Food Bank.
• There were various activities at the Church such as Brownies, Parent and Toddler Groups, Counselling, Pilates.
• The space could be hired by the Community.

The Planning Officer explained how the applicant had sought to compliment the design and made a number of additional comments including:

·         There had been conditions regarding noise however these could be refined and reviewed.

• The design was a matter of judgement
• The property was locally listed but not statutorily listed

Councillor Michael Bull made points including:

·         There were concerns on the design

• In regards to aesthetics there were major changes to the appearance
• The application had not been substantially changed since April
• The design was incongruous with the original building
• Overdevelopment
• Had the change of use for the Café etc been taken into account
• The property was locally listed
• 350 formal objections and petition of 000’s was unprecedented
• Local residents are opposed to the application
• Noise pollution
• Loss of greenspace
• Parking issues had not been addressed

Members asked questions regarding the local listing, privacy, outlook/views, the potential for a nursery in the back, noise concerns, the listing status, parking and the comments from the Design and Review Panel.

The Planning Officer replied:

·         The features to which the local listing refers are being retained and there is no reference in that listing to the rear hall.

• As a rule new Housing developments require a distance of 20m for windows facing each other and this application exceeds that.
• If concerns remained about the distance between windows obscured glazing could be introduced.
• There are no policies to protect views and the proposal shouldn’t give rise to loss of light.  Officers considered that the proposal was not visually intrusive.
• The intention was that there would childminding during church services and also the use of the building for parent and child groups. D1 use does allow however for the lawful use as a nursery.
• Environmental Health had not raised any objections in regards to noise, however if the Committee felt there needed to be a decibel level defined that could be put in place.
• Two robust conditions had been prepared in regards to noise.
• The outlook for the cottage adjacent would change but it had been judged that it would have a harmful impact.
• The premises was located in a Level 5 area for Public Transport so was easily accessible.
• The premises is not in a conservation area.
• The features referred to in the local listing of the building would be retained.

Members made comments on the application including:

·         The view of the Design and Review Panel, noting that they had approved the design and that the previous grounds for refusal had been addressed.

• The design was slightly toned down but it was still bulky and there was too much glass
• It would not lose community use
• Frosted glass should be introduced so as to safeguard the privacy of householders nearby

The Transport Planning Engineer advised that should parking be an issue, residents could request a consultation in regards to a Controlled Parking Zone six months after the development should they wish to, however that was a Highways issue and not a Planning consideration.

RESOLVED:

A.    That the Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions in the Officers’ Report.

2. A condition be added to safeguard the amenity with the introduced of obscured glazing