Application Number: 20/P1412 & 20/P1672       Ward: Abbey

Officer Recommendations:

GRANT Planning Permission subject to S106 agreement and conditions.

GRANT Listed Building Consent subject to conditions.

RESOLVED that

1.    Application 20/P1412 be GRANTED Planning Permission subject S106 agreement and conditions.

2.    Application 20/P1672 be GRANTED Listed Building Consent subject to conditions.

Proposal: (1) Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide a part three, part four, part five storey block of 54 flats and a commercial unit (204 sqm) at ground floor level (comprising flexible A1 (excluding supermarket), A2, A3, B1 and D1  uses) and 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 four, part five storey block of 54 flats and a commercial unit (204 sqm) at ground floor level (comprising flexible A1 (excluding supermarket), A2, A3, B1 and D1 uses) and an associated landscaping, bin/cycle storage, parking, highway works and alterations to listed wall.

The Committee noted the report and presentation of the Planning officer, and the modifications contained in the supplementary agenda. 

Two objectors had registered to speak in objection and at the invitation of the Chair, made the following points:

·         The application would result in a loss of privacy due to overdevelopment.  The road was narrow and there would be limited parking.  The application conflicted with development plan policies.  The concerns of the committee in relation to the previous application for this site had not been addressed by the new application.

·         The application would have a negative impact on the Wandle Valley area and the historical value of Merton Priory.  The number of affordable homes proposed was too low and too many were single aspect.  The development would be overbearing and contrary to planning policy.

·         The impact of the proposed residential development on the Eddie Katz site should also be taken into consideration.

The applicant’s agent spoke in support, addressing the concerns of the objectors and outlining the benefits of the proposal.

The Development Control Team Leader (North) advised that there was no live application on the Eddie Katz site.  The listed building consent application in respect of the Priory wall had received no objection from the Council’s conservation officer.  He drew Members’ attention to the changes to the scheme and the previous reasons for refusal.

At the invitation of the Chair, the Senior Democratic Services Officer read out a written statement on behalf of Councillor Nigel Benbow, submitted on behalf of the ward residents.  The statement made the following points:

·         The new application still demonstrated height and mass and had not been scaled back enough since the previous application.

·         The area had historical links to Merton Priory and should be preserved.

·         There were concerns over the inclusion of a commercial unit, noise and pollution from Merantun Way, loss of light to residents on Station Road.

·         The forthcoming application at the Eddie Katz site should be taken into consideration.

In response to Member questions, the Development Control Team Leader (North) advised that:

·         The application was 16.5m at its tallest point, and the previous scheme was 19.5 at its tallest height.

·         The scheme had been subject to a viability assessment which had concluded that the inclusion of affordable housing was not viable.  Despite this the developer was offering 3 affordable units.

·         Although single aspect units are discouraged, it is difficult in a development of this size to not have any and this point was addressed in the officer report.

·         Each unit would have good natural light.  The light would be better on the south side than the north, however large windows and glazed doors were proposed to mitigate.

·         The appeal against the previous refusal was currently going through the process of being considered by the Planning Inspectorate.  If the current application was approved it would not prejudice the previous decision, and there had been no indication from the applicant that the appeal would be withdrawn.

·         Supermarket had been specifically excluded from the A1 commercial use and this had been agreed with the applicant.

·         The affordable units would be 3 3-bed social rented properties on the eastern side of the building, 2 at ground floor level and 1 at first floor above.

·         Overlooking was a matter of judgement.  The previous reasons for refusal did not include overlooking as a specific issue. 

Members made the following comments:

·         There was not enough difference between this and the previous scheme and there was concern that the issues had not been resolved.  Single aspect units were not reasonable and the number of affordable homes was too low.  The application should be rejected on the grounds of bulk, massing and height.  Current residents should be respected and also those residents who will live there in the future.  The site was a difficult site to develop.

·         The applicant had thought about how to address previous concerns.  Although it was regrettable that the number of affordable homes was so low, the viability has been affected due to the reduction in size of development.  It was welcomed that the applicant was still offering 3 social rented units despite it not being viable and therefore the application should be supported.

·         Although it was a shame that the number of affordable units was lower, if the Committee is minded to refuse bigger developments then it must accept that a smaller application will include less.  The application should be supported.

·         It was welcomed that the developers had taken previous concerns into consideration and therefore the application should be approved.

·         It was felt that the applicant had made changes to the application and the appearance of the wall would be improved by the application.  There were concerns over finding a registered provider willing to take such a low number of units on.  It was welcomed that the affordable units were 3-bed properties.

·         The applicant should be invited not to progress with the previous appeal as a gesture of goodwill in the event that Committee was minded to approve.

·         It was noted that the Committee did not have the authority to request that the applicant not progress with the previous appeal.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Chair called for a vote and it was

RESOLVED that

1.    Application 20/P1412 be GRANTED Planning Permission subject S106 agreement and conditions.

2.    Application 20/P1672 be GRANTED Listed Building Consent subject to conditions.