1)    Application Number: 19/P4266 &

2)    Application Number: 19/P4268           

 

Ward: Abbey

 

Officer Recommendations:

1)    GRANT Planning Permission subject to S106 agreements and Conditions

2)    Grant Listed Building consent subject to conditions

 

1.    PAC Resolved that Application 19/P4266 is: REFUSED Planning Permission. Reasons will be detailed in the minutes

 

2.    PAC Resolved that Application 19/P4268 is: Granted Listed Building consent subject to Conditions

Proposal: (1) Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide a part three, part five and part six storey block of 70 flats and a commercial unit (204 sqm) at ground floor level  (comprising flexible A1 (excluding supermarket), A2, A3, B1, & D1 uses) and an associated landscaping, bin/cycle storage, parking, highway works and alterations to listed wall.

&

(2) Listed building consent for demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide a part three, part five and part six story block of 72 flats and A commercial unit (204 sqm) at ground floor level (comprising flexible A1 (excluding supermarket), A2, A3, B1, & D1 uses) and an associated landscaping, bin/cycle storage, parking, highway works and alterations to listed wall.

 

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda.

 

The Committee received a verbal representation from an objector, who raised points including:

·         Residents are concerned by this application

·         The Planning Officer has made incorrect assumptions in their report – Station Road should not be classed as ‘urban’, it is a residential road and to describe it as urban is an incorrect representation of the character of the area

·         The application will reduce daylight and sunlight to Station Road

·         Station Road is a narrow road and not a thoroughfare, it will not be able to support 70 new units and their cars.

·         We are not opposed to development of the site but want to see family homes, not the current proposal that is mainly one and two bedroomed units

·         We understand that other applications in the area have had to reduce their height to 2 or 3 storeys to get Planning Permission

·         The Level of affordable housing is too low

·         Parents and Staff at new School will increase cars on this road

·         It is not a high quality design

·         Concerned about large commercial unit and excess refuse

 

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Applicant’s Agent, who raised points including:

·         All relevant Policies and guidance have been met by this application

·         All external Consultees have no objection including Historic England

·         It is High Quality Scheme

·         Want to Emphasis the changes that have been made since we started consultations on this scheme

·         The comments of the DRP and Urban Design Officer apply to the previous Scheme not this one

·         Overall there has been a 40% reduction in floor space since the previous application went to the DRP (Design Review Panel)

·         The amount of affordable housing has reduced as the size of the scheme reduced. The Council’s Viability Study supports this

·         A social rented 3 bedroomed unit is included

·         The CIL payments will be £1.4 million and £30,000 toward a new cycleway

·         Repairs to the Grade 2 listed Abbey Wall will be carried out as part of the scheme

 

The Committee received a verbal representation from the Ward Councillor Eleanor Stringer who raised points including:

·         Very aware of need for more housing, and I do not object to providing these homes, but a large number of residents are concerned about the height, massing and loss of light caused by this scheme.

·         The amount of affordable  is too low at less than 10%

·         Recognise that changes have been made to the design and proportions

·         An early and late stage review are both necessary

·         Heritage has to be recognised in construction and design

·         A proper archaeological investigation should be carried out

·         This area is the centre of a lot of development and local infrastructure must be improved so I was pleased to see the improvements to the highways and cycle path

 

The Committee received a written  representation from Ward Councillor Nigel Benbow, read to the meeting by the Chair, who raised points including:

·         I was initially in favour of redevelopment of this site but this proposal is too high and the massing too great. It will have a major impact on the current residents of Station Road

·         I  think the gap between the Wall and new building would turn into a rubbish magnet

·         The new building at 40 Station Road is more suitable in terms of scale and appearance

·         Why did Residents not receive a letter, and why did the consultation begin just before Christmas during the General Election period?

 

The Planning Team Leader North reminded the Committee of points including:

·         The Building is set away from the listed Wall and Historic England Are content with the application

·         The Council’s viability assessor report  supports the provision of affordable homes

·         The original application was reviewed by the DRP and changes have been made following their comments. Including reducing the number of units

 

Members asked officers about the Single Aspect units. The Planning Team Leader North answered with some clarification provided by the Agent, and said that there were 22 single aspect units with 19 of these being North Facing. The Planning Team Leader North explained that this site was a difficult shape and the originally proposed long thin units had been replaced by the current proposal but that had resulted in a number of single aspect units.

 

The Agent reminded the Committee that the proposal was policy compliant, and that all the single aspect units were studios and 1 or 2 bedroomed units, and that all met relevant standards and the Mayor’s guidance,

Members were concerned that the single aspect units went against their aspirations for developments in the Borough.

 

A Member asked the Planning Team Leader North to confirm the Agents assertion that the provision of single aspect units does conform to the Mayor’s Guidance. He replied that the guidance does say that single aspect units, particularly North facing, should be avoided, but that other factors can be taken into account. This is not specific to Merton Policy and a balanced view must be taken. This is an awkward site, the original design for the site was not well received by DRP. The proposal now before you is considered by Officers to solve the previous issues and is now considered acceptable by Officers, and is not in breach of the Mayor’s Guidance.

 

In reply to Members Questions The Planning Team Leader made comments including:

·         He could confirm that no external consultee objected to the application

·         He could confirm that the level of affordable housing offered was supported by the Council’s own viability assessment

·         There are two communal outdoor spaces on the roof, the boundaries are soft planting and glazing

·         All windows are double glazed and Officers have considered the proximity to Merantun Way. The design is set back as far as possible

·         The Climate Change Officer is happy with the scheme, and the carbon shortfall is covered by the S106

 

Members asked about parking and the ptal rating of 3. Officers replied that as there is currently parking available on Station Road, the parking bays provided by this scheme will formalize this arrangement. Officers confirmed that a ptal of 3 is considered suitable for encouraging sustainable transport options.

 

Members noted that the Officers report contained details of the pre-app design, which received comments from the DRP. Members noted  that the design of the proposal before them  had been changed since the DRP comments and that this new design had not been before the DRP.

 

Officers could not say  how many single aspect units had been in this previous design, or how many rooms in current design don’t achieve BRE standard for daylight and sunlight.

 

Officers confirmed that this proposal was not as high as the highest part of the new Harris Academy

 

A member asked about the DRP comment regarding the application being too close to the listed historic wall, and Officers confirmed that the proposal had been moved slightly further back, away from the wall, following discussions with Historic England

 

One Member commented that he understood the concerns regarding this application but that it does meet standards, it is clear that the site is a difficult shape, and Historic England was content with the application, he would, however, have liked to see more affordable housing.

 

Another Member commented that this application could be improved in many ways. He was concerned about the height, and the narrowing towards the eastern end which was in danger of looking ridiculous. There is a problem with the number of single aspect units, and the mix of units is a long way from our ideal. The density figure is high considering the poor ptal rating of 3. It is overdevelopment and too high, something more modest would have been more suitable. He said he was pleased with the development at 40 Station Road. These views were supported by another member who said that it was a poorly scaled building, it did not provide good quality homes, and there were concerns about the daylight and sunlight to the single aspect units and neighbouring properties to the north

 

A motion to refuse the application was proposed and seconded and carried by the vote.

 

The Committee were then asked to consider the Listed Building Consent, which sought approval for the impact of the proposal on the setting of the  listed wall and for  works to the listed wall, which had been found acceptable by Historic England. Members were very concerned that by giving listed building consent they would in some way be giving consent to the main application, just refused. Officers explained to members that this was not the case but suggested as an added assurance that the Chair and Vice Chair be party to the relevant drawing details outside of the meeting.

 

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to:

1.    REFUSE Planning Permission for  Proposal 1 -19/P4266  for the following reasons:

·         Height, Bulk, Mass and Scale are all too great

·         The Proposal does not respond positively to its siting, and rhythm

·         Proportion of single aspect units is not acceptable

·         Too tall in its context, and overly dominant

·         Loss of daylight and sunlight to neighbours

 

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

 

 

RESOLVED

 

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Listed Building Consent for Proposal 2 – 19/P4268, subject to conditions, with the added action that Planning Officers confirm further relevant details with the Chair and Vice Chair