Application Number: 17/P3135    Ward:  Abbey

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

Proposal: Demolition of existing office building and construction of a new five storey office building (Class B1 use) together with associated car/cycle parking and landscaping

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the supplementary agenda regarding the Design Review Panel’s consideration of the current application.

The Objectors made points including:

·         Although the design is better than the previously refused scheme, it is still not suitable in this ‘family’ area of Wimbledon

·         It is still 3m taller than the existing building

·         The CIPD building should not be used to justify this proposal, which should not be justified by bad planning decisions in the past

·         It will set a precedent

·         The design of the rear, with open terracing overlooking neighbours, is abominable.

·         This design is still taller than other 5 storey buildings in the area and should not be taller than the Antoinette Hotel.

·         The proposal is against everything that residents want and will cause overlooking to the residents behind.

The Agent and Architect to the application made points including:

·         The 2014 mixed use development could still be implemented but this application takes account of residents concerns regarding the residential element of that application.

·         Since the 2016 refused scheme the applicant has appointed new architects to redesign the scheme. They have taken on board the DRP’s concerns.

·         After public consultation the height of the building has been lowered again and reduced by a further 4m. The bulk height and massing of the refused scheme has been addressed

·         An area of shared workspace for use by local community is to be considered

·         The current building on the site is not sustainable and of low quality. This new building is highly energy efficient to BREEAM outstanding standards

·         The proposal contains a basement which allows the area to be larger than the extant scheme.

·         The building has an active frontage

·         The stepped terraces will be planted to scree and prevent overlooking

The Ward Councillor was going top speak but on declaring that he had a financial interest in a property close to the application site he withdrew his speech. 

In reply to Members Questions the Development Control Manager made points including:

·         Application is similar in height to previously approved scheme

·         Plant room on top of the building is 1.7-1.8m tall

·         The allowed scheme had 9 housing units wrapped around the back. Employment space is important in this town centre location. Conditions could be added to prevent the office space being converted to residential.

·         Car parking is considered adequate given the location, the entrance is from the main road and a car lift forms part of the application.

Members made comments including:

·         This application is an improvement on the previously refused application in terms of balance, proportions and materials but it is still too high, and is out of proportion with its neighbouring buildings and its location. It is wrong to compare it too the CIPD building. It is surrounded by much lower buildings; Holy Trinity Church, The Polka Theatre, shops and others.

·         The proposal is too deep and too high and does not take notice of the buildings around it. It is an improvement on the refused scheme but the applicant should go back to the allowed 2014 scheme.

·         This proposal detracts from the Holy Trinity Church it is opposite

·         This proposal is too large, and is not appropriate for this end of the Broadway.

A Refusal was proposed and seconded for the reasons of unacceptable height, size, bulk, and massing of the proposed building and the Design does not relate to neighbouring buildings

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to:

1.         REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

·         Unacceptable height, size, bulk, and massing of the proposed building

·         Design does not relate to neighbouring buildings

2.         DELEGATE to the Director of Environment & Regeneration the authority to make any appropriate amendments in the context of the above to the wording of the grounds of refusal including references to appropriate policies.