The Development and Planning Applications Committee of Merton Council met on Thursday 18 July 2019, discussing a range of planning applications. Key decisions included the deferral of an application for residential development at 43 Lancaster Road, the approval of a temporary kitchen facility at Willington School, and the approval of a new dwelling at 34-40 Lynx Avenue.

141 The Broadway

The committee considered an application for the demolition of the first and second floors of a building at 141 The Broadway, Wimbledon, and the erection of six new floors above to create 20 residential flats. The proposal also includes remodelling of the ground floor to retain a restaurant. The application had been deferred from a previous meeting to clarify whether the proposals had been to the Design Review Panel (DRP). Officers confirmed that a pre-application proposal had been reviewed by the DRP on three occasions, but the current planning application had not.

Objectors raised concerns about the sustainability of the landscaping proposals, the lack of design creativity, and the absence of affordable housing. They argued that the proposal was backward looking and did not align with the council's climate emergency declaration. Concerns were also raised about the location of the residential entrance, which was described as being 13 metres along the alleyway and not flush with the front of the building, as recommended by the Metropolitan Police and the DRP to enhance natural surveillance and safety. The lack of affordable housing was a significant point of contention, with objectors requesting six affordable homes for key workers.

The applicant's agent responded by highlighting the extensive work undertaken to improve the design and address issues raised. They stated that no affordable housing could be secured due to build costs and decreased sales values. Regarding the design, they noted that the DRP had given an amber light at a pre-application stage, which did not preclude planning permission. They also addressed sustainability concerns, mentioning solar PV panels, improved insulation, and potential for rainwater harvesting.

Following extensive debate and questions from councillors regarding waste management, privacy, and the police's design-out-crime recommendations, the committee voted to defer the application. This deferral was primarily to allow further consideration of the concerns raised about the residential entrance and its security.

Willington School

An application for the erection of an outbuilding to provide a temporary kitchen facility at Willington School was discussed. The proposal is for a temporary three-year period while internal alterations are made to the main school building. The facility would allow the school to continue providing hot meals on-site for pupils. The proposal also included extending a brick wall along the frontage and installing a timber fence to screen the modular building.

Objectors expressed concerns about noise and smell from the extraction units, the impact of increased traffic from food deliveries, and the potential for the temporary structure to become permanent. They also questioned why the school could not use existing facilities at a nearby girls' school.

The headteacher of Willington School, Keith Brown, and bursar Peter Lourd, emphasised the importance of providing hot meals for pupils' health and well-being, stating it was a departmental policy. They acknowledged the neighbours' concerns and assured that careful consideration had been given to minimising impact, with plans for a more permanent solution when finances permit. They also highlighted that the school was undergoing significant changes, including becoming a co-educational school.

Officers confirmed that the kitchen facility would be temporary for three years and that the site would be restored afterwards. They noted that environmental health legislation would apply to any noise or smell issues.

Councillor Holden opposed the application, citing concerns about noise, fumes, traffic, and the reduction of playground space. Councillor Lanning questioned the loss of recreation space and the long-term fate of the temporary structure. Councillor Dean argued that the application did not make sense, suggesting that the school should find space within its existing bounds and that this temporary consent could pave the way for a future permanent structure. Councillor Henry supported the provision of hot food for young people.

After discussion, the committee voted to approve the application, with two councillors voting against.

59 Colwood Gardens

The committee considered an application for the erection of a new dwelling at 59 Colwood Gardens. The proposal involved the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a four-flat development.

The owner of 64 Clarendon Road, whose garden backs onto the proposed site, objected to the plans. She stated that the submitted plans were inaccurate and that the proposal would triple the footprint of the existing building, setting a precedent for overdevelopment in the area. Concerns were raised about the impact on light into neighbouring gardens, disruption from construction, inadequate bin storage space, and the flats overlooking an infant playground.

The architect for the applicant, Spencer Adams, explained that the scheme had been reduced from an original proposal for five flats to four, with a smaller floor area. He stated that the development met national space standards and provided adequate amenity space. He addressed concerns about daylight, stating that the impact was within acceptable BRE standards, and that noise and disruption would be managed as a construction issue.

Officers confirmed that the scheme met national and London Plan standards for amenity space and that parking and bin storage could be accommodated. They also clarified that objections relating to massing and bulk could not be addressed by conditions, but that other concerns could be managed through conditions.

Councillor Henry questioned the surface water runoff condition. Councillor Merkin raised concerns about future occupants using the front garden for parking.

Following discussion, the committee voted to approve the recommendation, with an additional condition regarding the improvement of cycle storage facilities.

43 Lancaster Road

An application for the erection of a two-storey extension, single-storey rear and side extensions, a basement level, and a commercial roof space at 43 Lancaster Road was discussed. The proposal also included the demolition of a single garage and the formation of a new vehicle access onto Lancaster Road. The site is within a conservation area and the existing building is of local merit.

Objectors, including residents of neighbouring properties at 69 and 71 Church Road, raised concerns about privacy, particularly due to the removal of trees that provided screening. They requested an increase in the height of boundary walls and the relocation of the proposed garage to the other side of the house to preserve privacy and allow for tree retention. Concerns were also raised about the impact of construction traffic on the narrow road.

The applicant's agent, Gerald Manley, stated that the proposed extensions were discreetly located and would be finished in high-quality materials. He confirmed that a tree survey and arboricultural impact assessment had been conducted, and the council's tree officer supported the removal of a limited number of trees. He also noted that the removal of a section of the boundary wall would allow for off-street parking, which is rare for a family-sized house in the area, and would improve views of the property.

Officers confirmed that conditions could be added regarding a construction management plan and the details of the gates for the new vehicle access. They also noted that increasing the height of boundary walls or relocating the garage could not be conditioned as part of this application.

Councillor Southgate expressed sympathy for the concerns about the boundary wall and the impact on the public realm, but his attitude changed upon hearing that the gates would be open, allowing views of the house. He requested a condition that officers approve the proposed gates. Councillor Makin asked about the TPO (Tree Preservation Order) trees and their location. Councillor Dehaney questioned the glazed link and the necessity of altering the boundary wall.

The committee voted unanimously to approve the application, with several conditions added, including those relating to increased wall height with trellis or plants, a construction management plan, and the details of the gates.

96 Church Road

The committee considered an application for the demolition of existing business buildings at 96 Church Road and the erection of a four-storey block of 20 flats. This proposal followed an earlier refusal of a mixed-use scheme.

Officers noted that the current application would result in the loss of employment use, but stated that the vacancy rate on the adjoining business estate was significantly above the average for Merton, making it difficult to demonstrate harm from this loss. They highlighted that the proposals would deliver a significant number of new housing units, with 50% affordable housing for rent, exceeding council targets. The massing and design were considered appropriate, with similarities to a previously approved scheme on Church Road. Concerns about noise from the busy road would be addressed by conditions, and the design incorporated winter gardens for residents. The scheme provided no on-site parking but a survey indicated sufficient local capacity, and a car club membership would be offered. A loading bay would be incorporated into the design.

Objectors, representing residents of Sycamore Gardens, expressed concerns about the proposed four-storey height, which they felt was significantly higher than neighbouring properties and against London Plan policies. They were worried about overlooking and noise from roof terraces, and the lack of parking, particularly for families in three-bedroom properties. They also questioned the accuracy of the parking survey and the suitability of a proposed disabled parking bay.

The applicant's planning consultant responded by stating that the site could accommodate a four-storey building and that the transition in height would not harm the character of the area. He argued that the distance between the terraces and the rear properties provided reasonable privacy and that the parking survey had been accepted by highways officers. He also confirmed that a disabled bay would be secured through a Section 106 agreement.

Councillor Macon raised concerns about overlooking from the upper floors and suggested obscuring windows. Councillor Southgate noted the potential for 100% affordable housing if Moat Housing Association purchased the development. Councillor Ward suggested a condition for pram storage.

The committee voted unanimously to approve the recommendation.

110 Gladstone Road

An application for an outbuilding in the back garden of 110 Gladstone Road, to be used as a home gym, was discussed. The outbuilding would be constructed of timber with glazed panels and a green roof.

The objector, Kristy Noesche, raised concerns about the density and depth of housing in the area, the potential for the outbuilding to be used for additional rather than ancillary purposes, and the implications of fire regulations and potential use for sleeping. She also highlighted concerns about disturbance from use at antisocial hours as documented in the applicant's letter.

Officers stated that the building was intended for use by the homeowners and was considered ancillary to the main dwelling. They noted that environmental health legislation would cover any noise issues. They confirmed that the building's height exceeded permitted development limits, necessitating planning permission.

Councillor Dehaney questioned the facilities within the outbuilding and the potential for it to be used by visitors. Councillor Deane asked about the permitted development limits and whether the application would be rejected if the building were appended to the house. Councillor McGrath expressed concern about the size of the outbuilding, noting that it occupied 35.6% of the garden area. Councillor Henry supported the application for health reasons. Councillor Ward argued against additional conditions on the use of the outbuilding.

The committee voted to approve the recommendation, with a condition that the building be used as a home gym or storage only.

34-40 Lynx Avenue

The committee considered an application for the erection of a new semi-detached dwelling on the northern flank of an existing two-storey building at 34-40 Lynx Avenue, along with roof extensions on the enlarged building. The existing building currently provides four flats.

Objectors raised concerns about loss of privacy, outlook, design, insufficient car parking, and the impact on property values.

Officers described the location as highly sustainable with a high PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) score, indicating suitability for more intensive use. They judged that the proposed design would enhance the appearance of the existing building, which had little architectural merit. The separation distance from neighbouring properties in Hathalee Close was considered acceptable, and the impact on daylight and sunlight was within tolerances. The proposal retained four parking spaces, and officers considered there would be no meaningful impact on additional parking pressure locally due to the high PTAL score.

Councillor Southgate commented that the proposal was a vast improvement on the existing building and that the separation from Hathaway Crescent met minimum criteria. Councillor Christie also felt it was a vast improvement and saw no reason to object.

The committee voted unanimously to approve the recommendation.

The committee also noted reports on planning appeals and enforcement.