Application Number: 15/P1569    Ward:  Trinity

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to completion of a S.106 Agreement and conditions

Proposal: Alterations and extensions to existing building to create 8 x 1 bedroom and 1 x 2 bedroom flats to upper floors and extension to existing ground floor retail units.

The Committee noted the officers report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda.

The Objector, representing Love Wimbledon and local businesses, made points including:

·         The application form is inaccurate

·         Local Businesses oppose this application

·         Cobden mews is an un-adopted road and the road surface is not maintained.

·         There is already a problem with illegal parking and fly-tipping on Cobden Mews and it does attract anti-social behaviour. Parking permits will make parking situation worse.

·         The waste storage proposed is not large enough

·         There are already issues with waste collections being missed in the area because of access issues

·         Construction Vehicles will not be able to access the site

Ward Councillor Abdul Latif made comments on behalf of residents including:

·         The site is too small for further extension

·         It will make traffic congestion worse and there are already insufficient parking spaces.

·         There is no room for vehicles to turn when delivering to the rear of the property

·         The waste collection already has problems because of access issues

·         There will be a loss of sunlight and privacy to the offices

Councillor John Sergeant spoke on behalf of Business people who were residents of his ward, and made points including:

·         The application is an overbearing addition to an overcrowded mews

·         The s106 car parking will make matters worse

·         Don’t believe that the rubbish arrangements will be suitable

·         The development at 100 The Broadway has set a very bad precedent

·         The officers report is inaccurate in reporting the objections received

·         It will be physically impossible to build this without the developers trespassing onto the land opposite

In answer to Members Questions Officers gave the following information:

·         The Planning process will not protect one business over another

·         Land interest and ownership is not a planning consideration

·         The installation of sprinklers is a building control issue

·         Any extractor units would require planning permission

·         Emergency services could park on the public highway if needed and access the building from the front. If the fire service was needed all points in the building are less than 45m from the adopted highway.

·         The existing residents bring their waste to the front of the building for collection . That system would continue

·         The existing shops use the public highway for deliveries

·         The site is in the Town Centre, so the recognised lack of amenity space is considered acceptable.

·         There are recognised difficulties with land ownership on this site, as it is not on Council ownership. Land owners can come together to enforce parking restrictions

·         It is unfair to compare this property to Grenfell Tower, this is only 3 storeys and brick built. Internal escape routes have to be in place to satisfy Building Regulations

Members commented that there was no evidence of fire risk or danger in the proposed property.

A Refusal was proposed and seconded for the reasons of unacceptable Bulk and Massing. However this was not carried, the Chair using her casting vote to vote against refusal

The Committee then voted on the Officers recommendation to approve planning permission. This was agreed, with the Chair using her casting vote to vote in favour of approval.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to completion of a S106 Agreement and conditions.