Application: 19/P3772

Ward: Abbey

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and s106 legal agreement

RESOLVED that the application number 19/P3772 be REFUSED, the reason for the refusal will be set out in the minutes.

Proposal: Demolition of Existing Bank (Class A2) and Erection of a new residential block (Class C3) comprising 26 x self-contained flays with associated parking and landscaping.

The Committee noted the report and the plans presented by the Case Officer.  The Committee also noted the modifications contained in the supplementary agenda. The Case Officer provided updates on various matters relating to the amendments.

Two residents had registered to speak in objection and at the invitation of the Chair raised a number of point including the following:

·         the proposed block of flats was six stories high and would be located forward of Falcon House, which was four stories high. The development would be significantly out of scale with Falcon House;

·         the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the occupiers of Falcon House, in terms of, overlooking to habitable rooms,  and loss of light to windows on the northern elevation;

·         the development had only one staircase which would be a significant problem in the events of a fire;

·         no parking was provided other than four spaces which were reserved for blue badge holders;

·         it was recognised that more housing was needed nonetheless, however, housing that improves people's lives, in particular for wheelchair accessible and the vulnerable;

·         the proposed development does not offer affordable housing;

·         the poor quality development had a detrimental impact on the appearance of the area.

The applicant’s agent had registered to speak and addressed the Committee and responded to the points raised by the objectors.  He advised that following consultations with the Planning and Design Officers, concerns were raised in terms of the design. Subsequently, significant changes had been made to the scheme outlined in the report. He further advised that the original application was for 30 flats and this had been reduced to 26 flats. In addition, the parking in the immunity space had been improved considerably reducing down to three parking spaces only for disabled occupiers.

The Case Officer addressed the concerns raised by the objectors as follows:

·         in terms of lack of lighting to the south facing window, obscure glazing would be applied to the windows, therefore, it would still allow lighting;

·         the applicant had provided details to indicate that the one staircase to the proposed development would meet building control standards;

·         in terms of the parking, this was an area of virtually the highest public transport accessibility with bus route next to a train station;

·         it was clarified that the single aspect units would be either studio units or one bed, two person units.

Councillor Nigel Benbow had submitted a written statement on behalf of the residents and this was read out by the Senior Democratic Officer.  Whilst he welcomed the new residential development, he felt that the design and quality of the proposed planning application was poor and would not enhance the appearance of the building in the community.

Councillor Eleanor Stringer addressed the Committee on behalf of her ward, although she supported more homes to be built in her ward, she recognised that there was lack of  affordable housing and that Wimbledon was deemed to be one of the most deprived wards. 

In response to Members’ questions and comments, the Case Officer highlighted the following points:

·         in addition to the balconies, community amenity space was provided, therefore, not providing a private amenity space was acceptable and within the guidelines;

·         in terms of fire exits and sprinklers, this would be dealt with in the building control stage, however, this was included in the conditions;

·         in terms of only one staircase being provided, this would be addressed under building control standards.

A motion to refuse the application was put forward on the ground that the living conditions was deemed to be inadequate, the poor design and appearance of the building and the ground floor units’ proximity to the main street to the front.

RESOLVED that the application number 19/P3772 be REFUSED, on the grounds that:

a)    there was inadequate living conditions for the occupants;

b)    the poor design aspect and appearance of the building; and

c)    the ground floor units proximity to the main street to the front.