Application number: 17/P1721      Ward: Abbey

Officer Recommendation: Grant Outline Planning Permission subject to s106 legal agreement and conditions.

 

Proposal: Outline planning application (with all matters reserved, except in relation to parameter plans) for the comprehensive phased regeneration of the High Path estate comprising the demolition of all existing buildings and structures; erection of new buildings ranging from 1 to a maximum of 10 storeys providing up to 1570 residential units (C3 use class); provision of up to 9,900 sqm of commercial and community floorspace (including replacement and new floorspace, comprising: up to 2,700 sqm of use class A1 and/or A2, and/or A3 and/or A4 floorspace, up to 4,100 sqm of use class B1 (office) floorspace, up to 1,250 sqm of flexible work units (use class B1), up to 1,250 sqm of use class D1 (community) floorspace); up to 600 sqm of use class D2 (gym) floorspace); provision of new neighbourhood park and other communal amenity spaces, including children's play space; new public realm, landscaping works and new lighting; cycle parking spaces (including visitor cycle parking) and car parking spaces (including within ground level podiums), together with associated highways and utilities works.

 

The Committee noted the officer’s report, the Supplementary Agenda – Additional Information and the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications. Officers drew Members’ attention to the revised overarching and estate specific heads of terms contained in the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications.

 

The Committee received an introductory presentation from  Officers, and verbal representations from 3 objectors, the Applicant, a Ward Councillor  and The Cabinet Member for Environment Regeneration and Housing

 

Representations by three objectors

 

Eve Cohen made points including:

·         This proposal will not enhance South Wimbledon

·         The Documents are confusing

·         This proposal is too high, and the massing too great – it will be a large monolith.

·         4 Storeys would be high enough

·         It is out of keeping with there rest of South Wimbledon with its Victorian and Edwardian housing

·         The proposal does not comply with Merton Policies

·         This is a missed opportunity

 

Cypren Edmunds, representing the High Path Residents’ Association made points including:

·         The proposal will result in a loss of 72 Trees, need to ensure that applicant does replace these trees

·         Must ensure that the London Mayor’s target of 50% affordable homes is achieved in the development

·         Must ensure that the design is meets aspirations

 

 

 

Caroline Muller-Carpenter made points including:

·         The development will overlook my property and cause a drastic loss of light

·         Don’t have any faith in the Day Light reports

·         Windows of residential lounges will have their light restricted

·         There will be a far reaching affect

·         The building heights on Merton High Street are excessive and set a precedent, the street will be darkened

 

Representation by Applicant:

 

Paul Quinn, Director of Clarion Spoke and made points including:

·         The 3 sites will be developed together over 10 to 15 years to deliver better quality homes

·         Clarion is working with all stakeholders

·         All affordable housing will be replaced

·         All current residents will keep their existing tenure

·         There will be an uplift in affordable rented property

·         The developments will generate a large amount in CIL (Community Infrastucture Levy, they will boost the local economy and create new jobs

·         The High Path development will cross subsidise the Ravensbury and Eastfields Estate regenerations

·         High Path was built 40 years ago, and this proposal allows us  rebuild quality homes

·         There have been over 25 Consultation events, and the DRP gave the development a green light

·         Traditional homes will front onto streets, with well defined open spaces, with every unit having some private open space. There will be a central park, many trees will be retained, 250 new trees will be planted.

·         High Path has long been identified for densification, and proposals are lower than the current 12 storey buildings

·         The proposal takes into account local heritage and meets all requirements for daylight and sunlight.

·         Parking will be rationalised, electric car charging points will  be provided, car clubs will be encouraged and cycle paths built

·         Significant social and economic benefits from the mixed balanced community created

·         The proposal is highly sustainable with a District heating system, water efficiency and Sustainable Urban Drainage

 

Officers answered points made by the Objectors:

 

·         With regards to trees, the application contains conditions requiring landscaping details and an Arboricultural Impact Assessment to be submitted

·         The High Path regeneration enables the delivery of regeneration at Eastfields and Ravensbury Estates. If it were on its own High Path could deliver more Affordable Housing, but the three applications are linked. The overarching Heads of Terms require a viability review to be undertaken. The GLA has no objections to the delivery affordable homes.

·         The Consultation time was extended, over 3000 letters were sent out and 30 site notices were displayed

·         The proposed buildings are to be built in traditional blocks on the historical grid pattern

·         The heights of the proposed buildings drops from the existing 12 storey buildings to 8 or 9 Storey around South Wimbledon Tube Station and Morden Road - these heights are not unprecedented

·         The London Plan encourages intensification around transport Hubs

 

 

Ward Councillor Katy Neep made points including:

·         The redevelopment of High Path is a once in a lifetime opportunity

·         Welcome the proposals to resolve overcrowding, and we need to ensure regeneration of the area

·         But this development only provides 16% affordable housing

·         Heights of the Buildings will dwarf the cottages on Morden Road

 

Councillor Martin Whelton made points including:

·         There is a  Housing crisis, and lack of affordable housing in London 

·         We need to intensify our house building, and build higher for more homes

·         We need to learn the lessons of the past, the current High Path estate was badly designed, and it is important now to have good design

·         This development will improve the lives of people who live in the Estate

 

 

The Committee discussed the application under the following headings:

 

Principle of Development and Land Use

 

In answer to Members Questions on Viability Assessments and funding arrangements the Council’s independent legal advisor gave following reply:

·         There has been an independent viability assessment for each of the three estate applications. These can be viewed to give a cumulative over arching effect or reviewed individually

·         Some grant funding is available but the bulk of funding is by the developer. The overall funding required by the three developments is £1 Billion. High Path will receive £21.4 Million in grant funding, Eastfields £15.7 Million and Ravensbury £6.4 Million. Further Grant Funding may be forthcoming for High Path Estate (unconfirmed at £60,000 per unit)

 

Members asked about Building heights of the proposal and noted that all the proposed buildings would be lower than the existing 12 storey towers. Details of lifts in the proposed 4 storey buildings would be a detail for reserved matters but there are policy options to support this.

 

Members asked if the proposed commercial units would improve the viability of Merton High Street. Officers said that hadn’t yet assessed this but suggested that the increase in population from the development would increase footfall in Merton High Street and the additional people employed in the commercial units would also add to this increase.

Members asked about the amount of Community Infrastructure Levy due on the development and noted that precise figures will not be known until further details of the development are set. CIL monies are not payable until the start of development.

 

Viability and Affordable Housing

 

Members commented that they wanted to see as much affordable housing as possible, and noted that the provision at this outline stage was below the Council’s target of 40% affordable housing subject to viability. However the Committee noted that under the Overarching Heads of Terms the developers were obliged to undertake review mechanisms of viability at each stage of the development this would provide opportunity for the Council to push for significantly higher levels of affordable housing, dependant on the new viability figures.

 

Members noted that the Council has informed the Developer that they want to see as much affordable housing as possible, and that the viability review mechanism would seek to clawback  funding to be translated into affordable housing.

 

Members asked why the report appears to show a net loss of affordable housing and noted that the table referred to was just showing the figures for phase one and not the whole development.

 

Members asked if the developer had taken future maintenance costs into account and will they be affordable. The Chair allowed Paul Quinn, from Clarion, to answer directly and he said that Clarion do design with service charges in mind and do consider how estates will be managed,  but it was too early to be clear on actual service charges.

 

Design and Heritage

 

Members noted that much of the design information, including Materials will be submitted and determined at the Reserved Matters stage.

Members asked about the developer’s policy on fire safety, and noted that this is not determined at this stage.

 

Members asked about the setting of St John’s Church in the proposed development and its relationship with the taller buildings. Officers explained that a lower level mews street is proposed that will allow for views of the front of the Church.

 

Members noted the condition on Archaeology that ensures that a written scheme of investigation is to be submitted prior to any demolition or development work onsite. Members spoke in detail about the local history of the area including Merton Priory.

 

Members asked if existing residents will get the chance to specify what type of property they receive in the new development. The Chair allowed Paul Quinn to answer and he replied that for phase 1, Clarion were negotiating with existing residents to determine their housing needs and preferences. This principle would be applied across the whole estate with affordable housing considered first.

 

Open Space and Biodiversity

 

One member commented that care should be taken so that ‘rat run’ road routes are not created across the proposed green spaces.

Another member commented that the green space to be provided was a very positive proposal and that access routes should be encouraged.

It commented on that All Saints recreation ground had not been taken into account.

 

Parking and Transport

Members noted that a more detailed assessment would be submitted as part of Reserved Matters

Members discussed the provision of parking in the proposed scheme and noted that existing residents will get a replacement space. However there are a lot of resident concerns regarding parking on the estate and in the surrounding roads. Members noted that if High Path residents want to have controlled parking this would be considered after reserved matters. Under the Heads Of Terms High Path residents will not get a parking  permit for any surrounding streets and if Residents on the surrounding streets want CPZ times extended then the developer will pay for this.

 

The Applicant was asked about current on-site garages and stated that most are too small for modern cars. The Committee noted that the amount of on-plot parking on the proposed development is a subject for reserved matters.

 

Members commented that the Street pattern of the proposal  is based on the historic grid, and reminded officers that they have to ensure permeable routes through the site, Members noted that the exact routes were for Reserved Matters.

 

Members commented that owing to the commitment to replicate parking for current tenants will have to provide more parking than is required in a 6A PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Levels) area.

 

Members asked the requirement for disabled parking would be met, and noted the Flexibility with disabled access and with being near to transport.

 

Additional Member Questions

 

Members asked about the impact of height on neighbouring buildings close to The Nelson Arms Pub and noted that there were potential overshadowing issues for number 21 Merton High Street. The Applicants had provided new details on this issue which were read out by Officers. In summary this stated that although a small graphical error had been made,  their model and data were in fact correct and there would be no significant harm to 21 Merton High Street from overshadowing.

 

Members then made  comments on the proposed scheme:

·         The Height at Merton High Street and Morden Road is a big increase but is acceptable

·         The development will be a high quality build

·         It will increase vibrancy on Merton High street

·         The current context of the High Path Estate does not add to the quality of the Merton High Street, this proposal will be positive

·         Encouraging to hear that there will be a higher density of housing around the transport hubs, there is justification in Planning Terms to do this.

·         Happy that the development respects the listed and locally listed buildings

One Member commented that he was unhappy with the level of affordable housing offered on the site.

 

RESOLVED

 

The Committee voted to GRANT outline planning permission subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, any direction from the Secretary of State, the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions.