Application Number: 17/P0296      Ward: Abbey

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject S106 agreements and conditions.

PAC Resolved that application 17/P0296 is:

Deferred for decision to a future PAC Committee. Details of the reason will be given in the Minutes.

Proposal: Redevelopment of site to create 20 x self-contained

flats within a six storey residential block with new frontage to ground floor commercial unit.

The Committee noted the officers report and presentation and the additional information in the Supplementary Agenda- Modifications. The Chair allowed the Committee extra time to read all of this additional information. The Committee then received verbal representations from three objectors, who shared the 6 minutes, and the applicant’s agent.

The Objectors made points including:

·         Many of the measurements used to compare this building to the CIPD building are incorrect, resulting in all the drawings being incorrect

·         Although prefer the yellow facing brick, do not think the overall design is not acceptable

·         The appeal on the previous proposal was decided before the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) was introduced

·         The landscaping proposals are not sustainable , and this is a missed opportunity to support the planting of trees

·         The Council says that it supports the planting of trees to curt pollution, but has failed to plant trees on the Broadway

The Applicant/Agent made points including:

·         This application has been to the Council’s DRP (Design Review Panel) and was supported providing substantive design changes were made to improve the balconies and brickwork, ground floor and upper floor. These changes have been made

·         The proposal is one storey higher than the scheme allowed by appeal, but it is still not as high as the CIPD building

·         Units will have access to private amenity space that meets London Standards. The Proposal meets Merton Sustainability Standards. The proposal will provide additional housing for the borough

·         The NPPF was introduced in 2012, way before the appeal scheme was decided

·         The plans and drawings are correct and accurate. Measurements in comparison to the CIPD building  were taken by a surveyor on-site. The CGI’s are visually verified and are 97-98% accurate

In reply to Member’s questions Officers made points including:

·         There is a Landscaping condition that secures tree planting.

·         Regarding the affordable housing provision of previous schemes; the 2014 application proposed 6 on-site affordable units, the 2016 application proposed 4 on-site affordable units.

·         The current scheme was assessed by the Council’s independent Viability assessor and the conclusion was that it was not viable to provide affordable housing on this scheme

·         In accordance with the Mayor’s Guidance a clawback mechanism is included in the Heads of Terms for this scheme, so that if viability increase then on or off site affordable housing provision will be made

·         The viability assessment takes full account of costs, and the assessment does show that the proposal is in fact in deficit

·         There are many reasons why provision of affordable units was viable on previous proposals but are not on this proposal including the fact that building costs rise as a building goes higher. Viability is assessed by an independent expert, but things do change and that is the purpose of the clawback mechanism to assess these changes

·         The applicant applied for housing on this site. Either housing or offices would have been acceptable to policy

·         The previously allowed application, could still be built, once an S106 was signed. This application had grey cladding and large garden balconies.

·         Receipt of CIL money  is a given

The Applicant answered a question regarding the DRP, and said that this application went as a pre-app, before design changes, including to the balconies, were made and received an Amber rating, but was not considered again following the design changes. He also confirmed that the previous scheme had not been to the DRP.

Members commented that:

·         Would like to see a Green from DRP before allowing as the scheme before us is still not good enough

·         Concern about lack of affordable housing from the scheme

·         Dislike the scheme, it is overdevelopment and out of character with the area, but note that the Inspector did not dismiss the appeal on design grounds and accept that an appeal against a refusal would be difficult

The Committee voted on the Officer Recommendation, but there was no majority to approve. The Committee then discussed reasons for refusal but did not reach a conclusion. As the committee had issues with the design, and there had been a lack of clarity regarding whether or not the application had been to the DRP, it was then proposed to defer the item so that an investigation into this could be reported on.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to defer this decision to a future planning committee so that further information regarding the consideration by the DRP can be sought