Application number: 17/P2574         Ward: Figges Marsh

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to a section 106 agreement for affordable housing and carbon offsetting and relevant conditions.

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a building to create x 28 self-contained residential units with associated parking and landscaping

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation. The Planning Team leader drew members’ attention to the additional information in the Supplementary Agenda which included corrections to the table showing floorspace of the proposed units, which show that all units do meet minimum standards.

Objectors made comments including:

·         We do want this area to be regenerated but this proposal is overdevelopment with a very high density

·         Notification by Council not adequate and some representations missing from council website

·         There are four major objections:

·         Size and inappropriateness of building

·         Too high – will cut light and spoil outlook

·         Parking in the area already intolerable – 18 places insufficient

·         Risk from dust borne contaminants during construction

The Agent to the application made comments including:

·         The development will provide 28 high quality units in a sustainable development

·         Planning policy supports the change to the use of the land

·         Comments of the DRP taken on board and the number of units reduced

·         Will offer wider benefits to surrounding area

·         The Highways officer confirms that the proposal is acceptable

·         No sign that there would be a negative impact on residential amenity

·         The Developer is keen to bring forward as soon as possible

The Ward Councillor, Geraldine Stanford made comments including:

·         Appreciate modifications have been made to the original proposal, but not enough

·         The Committee should reject this application on height bulk and massing as it does not compare to existing buildings

·         It is adjacent to Cricket Ground Conservation Area.

·         Local streets are narrow and there are existing problems with parking, also there is a local Primary School that makes situation worse. This development would exacerbate these problems

The Planning Team Leader answered Councillor Questions regarding the following issues:

Employment Land:

Land is not designated as a Strategic Industrial Area, but it is covered by the Council’s policy on scattered employment. However Planning Officers have to balance this against the demands for housing in the borough and apply policies with some flexibility.

Design of proposed building:

The development does contain units with no amenity space and, owing to its ‘L’ shaped design, units without a dual aspect. However Officers feel that given recent Supplementary Planning Guidance from the Mayor of London that this is acceptable

Parking:

The decision on Parking should be based on Council Policy and analytical evidence. Up to date evidence from TFL says that car ownership in Merton is 64%. This development provides parking for 66% of residents. And provides 6 formal undesignated spaces

The actual number of parking spaces provide by the proposal would be 17 + 2 disabled spaces, making 19 in total. The PTAL rating is 3, and levels of car ownership do vary with accessibility to public transport. Also the units are not family units which may further reduce the car ownership rates. Officers have to base their assessment of parking on the evidence and balance all factors – in this case they are content that 2/3 parking is adequate for the development.  Officers would not suggest allocating space or putting any further regulation on the parking as this could result in unused spaces which would be an inefficient use of the land. Car owners can make their own choice about whether the proposed development meets their needs.

Planning Policies seek not to maximise parking but to promote sustainable forms of transport.

At both strategic and local level there is commitment to promote policies that stop the use of cars and promote sustainable forms of transport. This development provides a charging point for electric cars and generous cycle storage. Whilst the Mayor of London and Merton Council cannot enforce a move away from car usage we can do our best to promote sustainable transport.

Contaminated Land:

In reply to a question on potential contamination of the site, the planning team leader replied that the site was clearly used in past for commercial purposes, and there are conditions included to safeguard local environment if contamination is found. Planning Officers have taken advice from Council’s Environmental Health Officers and assume that the conditions they propose are adequate.

Viability Assessment

The viability of the development was assessed by expert viability consultants who were satisfied with it but have placed a recommendation in the heads of terms for the S106 agreement to ensure that the Council can capture any uplift in viability /profitability of the site in the future. There is currently a cash contribution offered. Planning Officers are engaged in robust negotiations to get affordable units on this site or receive a larger cash contribution.

if subsequent reviews of viability enable this to be delivered.

Design Review Panel (DRP)

Officers reminded the Committee that the DRP gave a red to a different scheme that was 38 units. The application before Committee now has only 28 units

Officers consider the housing mix of this scheme to be appropriate.

The Committee then made comments on the application and noted that there was clear unease with this proposal on several grounds:

• Local roads are old, narrow and residential.
• It is a compact streetscape and this development would loom over it.
• It is too big and too dense. 3 times standard density is brutal 
• There will be no mechanism for controlling parking on local streets and this development will exacerbate the existing problems.
• We do need flats but this development does loom large, and local parking is an issue.

A refusal was proposed and seconded on the grounds that the bulk and massing of this development was too great. The Committee then added that they had concerns about the design of the development in that it provides a number units with only a single aspect and a number of units with no amenity space. The Committee also stated that the proposal would exacerbate local parking problems in the surrounding streets. The Committee voted unanimously to refuse the application for these stated reasons.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to:

1. REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

·         The bulk and massing,  of the proposal are too great, contrary to LBM policies.

·         The design of the building provides single aspect units and units with no amenity space.

·         The development would exacerbate existing local parking problems.

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