Application Number: 18/P1947              Ward: Hillside

 

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions and S106 Agreement

PAC Resolved that application 18/P1947 is:

Granted Planning Permission subject to S106 Agreement and conditions

Proposal: Redevelopment of site to provide a mixture of class A1 (Retail), A2 (Financial and Professional Services) and C1 use (Hotel) involving the partial demolition of the existing building (facades fronting Wimbledon Hill Road and Alwyne Road to be retained) including erection of 5 storey rear extension and excavation of additional basement level.

 

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information and condition in the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications

 

The Committee received verbal presentations from two objectors, the Agent to the application and the Ward Councillor, David Simpson.

 

The Objectors made comments including:

·         The current owners have allowed this listed building to decay

·         This proposal is gross overdevelopment and will double the size and will destroy this heritage asset building

·         It is not compliant with climate change policies

·         The proposal will increase the risk of flooding as there is a delicate water balance in the area

·         The proposal will negatively affect the air Quality, noise pollution, quality of life and safety for local residents

·         The Police do not agree with the top floor reception as it will increase prostitution and drug dealing in the Hotel

·         This will not be a quality hotel

·         This Planning Application is incomplete and misleading

·         The Bank Buildings may currently be shabby but they are structurally stable and still look magnificent. They should be restored, but they do not need the amount of work proposed by this application

·         This application is against Merton’s Policies and will destroy a heritage asset

 

The Agents to the application made points including:

·         This is a fine building with a long history and this application makes best use of its key features

·         The use as a hotel is fully supported and will bring the building back into use

·         This application has been to DRP

·         The owners have looked at a number of uses for the building and we worked hard to find solutions. We are talking to boutique hotel groups as this is a quality offering

·         The roof is of innovative design, its form can be seen in the 3D views, this has been thought out and consulted on. We have looked at all the technical aspects and worked with Council Officers and members of the public

 

The Planning Team Leader replied to comments made by the Objectors:

·         The type of Hotel that will operate in the building is not a planning consideration

·         There have been extensive consultation, as detailed in the report. Impact on a heritage asset is a matter of judgement

·         Acknowledge that this is modern architecture

·         The Application will bring lots of benefits

·         The Flood Risk Engineer and Structural Engineer are both satisfied with the application

 

Ward Councillor David Simpson spoke and made points including:

·         I have opposed this development from the start

·         It will have a detrimental effect on the lives of residents in this quiet residential area

·         The Bank Buildings need sympathetic restoration not this 76 bedroomed hotel with no parking and no unloading area and no reserved pick-up point

·         The Access lane is inadequate. These are narrow residential roads – it is nonsense to suggest that there will be no vehicular impact

·         The newly built Premier Inn, on The Broadway, is not operating at full capacity

·         Police have concerns about another licence

·         If there was a real need for the hotel rooms, an Hotel Chain would already be involved, but they know that this site is not suitable

 

Members asked questions, and received replies from officers:

·         Police Comments have been noted and Condition 22 added to assist with security measures. CCTV will be installed

·         The main change made in response to DRP comments was a reduction in the height of the roof. The Scheme has always included a rear extension

·         The Highway Officer said that the roads are two way, a service vehicle can turn around and there is a loading bay for off-peak deliveries. Restrictions are in place between 8-9am and 2.45-4pm

·         There is no restriction on vehicle tonnage on any of the surrounding roads

·         Width of internal ground floor hallway is 4m. Reception is on the 4th floor

·         The two retail units will be serviced, as the existing units are, by putting their waste out at the front on collection day.

·         Emergency escapes will be covered by Building Control

·         The Council’s Flood Risk Officer has recommended several conditions that are included in the application

·         Traffic Officer: The site is highly sustainable and achieves a ptal rating of 6b; it is 300m from Wimbledon Station and so is unlikely to generate any taxi/car trips. There are on street parking restrictions from 8.30am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday.

·         The hotel expects deliveries to take place with a vehicle wait of 20 minute

·         The refused proposal had a ridge height  3.4m higher than existing on Alwyne Road, and 4.4m higher than ridge height on Wimbledon Hill Road.

·         The development is not large enough to require an Environmental Impact Assessment. The building is locally listed, but Historic England assessed the building as not meeting their criteria for full listing

·         The DRP gave the application an Amber, full details are in the Officer’s report

·         Both of the commercial units have A1or A2 use so could not sell cooked or hot food

·         Air conditioning units on the front of the building would require planning permission

 

Members made comments including:

·         It is against Council Policy to leave Commercial waste on the street, so it is not clear where the commercial units will store their waste

·         There are potential problems with the Basement and water levels

·         It is impossible to stop on yellow lines without getting a parking ticket. Extra Loading Bays are required

·         The Police do not agree with the 4^th floor reception. This is the wrong place for Reception

·         The design is too bulky

·         The new roof line is not sympathetic and so does not meet the requirements of Merton Policy DM D3 vii

·         This is a development in a Town Centre location and we need to continue to support Wimbledon Town Centre and increase business. The site is only 300m from Wimbledon Station. There is no issue with commercial waste, this is covered by condition, , it will not contain food and the units will deal with it in the same way that all commercial units in the Town Centre do.

·         Would like to propose a refusal on Bulk and Massing, the new roof is unsympathetic, there are issues with waste collection from the commercial units, there are unaddressed flood water issues and the police are not happy with the location of the reception

 

The Development Control Manager made points:

·         The Council’s flood Officer is satisfied with the application and the basement design

·         The Traffic Officers are satisfied with the application

·         The location of the reception is an operating decision and not a planning reason for refusal

·         Opinions on the height and size are subjective, when walking past the building you are unlikely to see the extension. There is a marginal rise in the height but this is set back

·         The materials used can be dealt with by condition

 

A motion to refuse the application was proposed and seconded. The reasons for refusal were:

·         The bulk and massing were too great

·         Contrary to policy DM D3 vii - Where the proposal incorporates a new or altered roof profile, ensure that materials are sympathetic to the original building and the surrounding area.

This motion was defeated by the vote

 

RESOLVED

 

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions and S106 agreement