PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 15 APRIL 2010 (7.15pm – 11.10pm) PRESENT: Councillor John Bowcott (in the Chair); Councillors Richard Chellew, David Dean, Maurice Groves, Marc Hanson, Philip Jones, Ian Munn, Geraldine Stanford, Peter Southgate and Gregory Udeh. ALSO PRESENT: Councillor Rod Scott Council Officers Environment & Regeneration Sam Amoako-Adofo (Planning Enforcement Team Leader), John Hill (Head of Public Protection and Development), Richard Lancaster (Senior Transport Planner), and Sue Wright (North Team Leader - Development Control). Corporate Services: Sharon Lauder (Legal Services); and M.J.Udall (Democratic Services)

1 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (Agenda Item 1) Councillor David Dean declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(1) & 4(2) (Applications 10/P0389 & 10/P0390 – Imperial Fields, & FC, Bishopsford Road, ) by reason that he knew both the Chief Executive and Chair of the organisation running the site. Councillor Maurice Groves declared an interest in Agenda Items 4(1) & 4(2) (Applications 10/P0389 & 10/P0390 – Imperial Fields, Tooting & Mitcham FC, Bishopsford Road, Morden) by reason that this site used to be in his portfolio as a Cabinet Member and that he had promoted the Hub (located on the site) over the last few years; and indicated that he intended to leave the room whilst the items were discussed. 3. Councillor Ian Munn declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(5) (Application 09/P2617 – Windmill Park (Former Windmill Trading Estate), 300-312 Commonside East, Mitcham) by reason that he had been appointed to Conservators by Council, but that he considered this not to be prejudicial interest. 4. Subsequently, during the meeting, prior to its discussion by Councillors, Councillor John Bowcott declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(11) (Application 09/P2346 – 41-47A Wimbledon Hill Road, Wimbledon, SW19) by reason that he had been Chairman of the Merton Design Review Panel which had considered these proposals, but that he hadn’t participated in the discussions or decision making; and indicated that he felt able to consider this application on its wider planning merits at this meeting.

1 All minutes are draft until agreed at the next meeting of the committee/panel. To find out the date of the next meeting please check the calendar of events at your local library, online at www.merton.gov.uk/committee or by using the contact numbers at the end of this volume. 7 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 15 APRIL 2010 2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3) Officers confirmed that the tabled modifications list didn’t relate to the Minutes of the previous meeting, but only included changes to planning applications (under agenda item 4 below). RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 March 2010 be agreed as a correct record. 3 TOWN PLANNING APPLICATIONS (Agenda Item 4) The published agenda and the modifications list tabled at committee form part of the Minutes. (a) Modifications: A list of modifications for items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 & 11 and additional letters/representations and drawings received since agenda publication, were tabled at the meeting. (b) Oral representations: The Committee received oral representations at the meeting (i) made by third parties and applicants/agents in respect of item 4, and (ii) made by objectors only in respect of items 8, 10 & 11. In each case where objectors spoke, the Chair also offered the applicants/agents the opportunity to speak; and the Chair also indicated that applicants/agents would be given the same amount of time to speak as objectors for each item. The Committee also received oral representations at the meeting from the following Councillors (who were not members of the Committee for this meeting) in respect of the items indicated below – Item 10 – Councillor Rod Scott. (c) Order of the Agenda: Following consultation with other Members at various times during the meeting, the Chair amended the order of items to the following – 6, 8, 10, 11, 4, 7, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 & 9, RESOLVED: That the following decisions are made: Items 1 & 2: Imperial Fields, Tooting & Mitcham FC, Bishopsford Road, Morden (ref. 10/P0389 & 10/P0390) 1. Declarations of Interest: - Further to their declarations of interest, Councillors David Dean and Maurice Groves left the room whilst these items were discussed and voted upon. 2. Period of Abeyance and Delegation – Officers - (i) referred to the early submission of both applications to Committee due the next meeting not being until June, and the applicants indicating that such a delay in deciding the planning applications could jeopardise their grant funding from Sport , Football Association etc (as outlined in paragraphs 1.2 on agenda pages 24 & 40); (ii) highlighted that, whilst the 21 day neighbour consultation had ended on 10 April 2010, the consultation period via the press regarding the site didn’t expire until 2 All minutes are draft until agreed at the next meeting of the committee/panel. To find out the date of the next meeting please check the calendar of events at your local library, online at www.merton.gov.uk/committee or by using the contact numbers at the end of this volume. 8 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 15 APRIL 2010 29 April 2010; and (iii) proposed that additional recommendations be added to each of the case officers reports on these two applications - (a) requiring that any permission be subject to a period of abeyance of 14 days; and (b) the Director of Environment & Regeneration be delegated authority to deal with any new representations that may be received arising from the above- mentioned press notice. The Committee agreed to consider the applications on this basis (and subsequently agreed both these additional recommendations as detailed below). 3. Consultation Representations from (a) Environment Agency; and (b) Greater Authority (GLA) – Officers drew attention to these representations, copies of which had been circulated via the Supplementary Agenda; and indicated neither had objected to either application, but advised that - (a) the Environment Agency had requested that an additional condition be added to any permission in both cases (and this had been included on the tabled modifications sheet); (b) the GLA had indicated that Merton could determine the applications as they deemed fit (and therefore any permissions granted would now not be subject to any Direction from the Mayor of London); and . (c) the GLA had asked that the applicant should note that further incremental increases in the footprint on the site were very unlikely to be acceptable. 4. Consultation – Other Representations – Officers outlined details of the two other representations received to date from neighbouring residents in Wandle Road and London Road, but indicated that their objections related more to the history of the site and the use of the stadium for sports and football, rather than to the current applications, and that their objections included concerns about the amount of parking provision on site, boundary treatment, impact on trees and the flood plain, traffic movements and noise/disturbance. Officers also indicated that they considered that the chances were fairly low that further representations would be received as a result of the press notice. 5. Boundary Treatment – Enforcement Action – Following the decisions regarding this site (detailed below), officers outlined the action taken in respect of the boundary treatment on Bishopsford Road, including that (a) a previous application had required the provision of fencing (and landscaping) along the Bishopsford Road boundary, but that a subsequent application had included provision of a new access road off Bishopsford Road; and (b) instead of the fencing being erected and later a part being removed to allow for the access road, officers had agreed with the applicants that the fencing be not be erected until after construction of the access road, but that in the mean time the boundary area be cleaned up.

3 All minutes are draft until agreed at the next meeting of the committee/panel. To find out the date of the next meeting please check the calendar of events at your local library, online at www.merton.gov.uk/committee or by using the contact numbers at the end of this volume. 9 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 15 APRIL 2010

Decision: Item 1 - ref. 10/P0389 (Imperial Fields, Tooting & Mitcham FC, Bishopsford Road, Morden) (A) Subject to (B) below, GRANT PERMISSION (i) subject to referral to the Government Office for London; and (ii) subject to the conditions set out in the officer case report and the tabled modifications sheet; (iii) subject to any new material planning consideration being raised as a result of the newspaper consultation, which expires on 29 April 2009 (see also (iv) below); and (iv) subject to a period of abeyance of 14 days (prior to any decision) in order to allow for any further representations that may be received arising from the above- mentioned press notice (see also (B) below); and (B) the Director of Environment & Regeneration be delegated authority to deal with any new representations raised further to (iii) & (iv) above (and to decide whether to grant permission, subject to the caveats outlined above). Decision: Item 2 - ref. 10/P0390 (Imperial Fields, Tooting & Mitcham FC, Bishopsford Road, Morden) Same as for Application 10/P0389 above. Item 3: Old Mission Hall, 62 Cannon Hill Lane, SW20 (ref. 09/P1957) Removal of Staircase to the loft – Officers confirmed that the current application removed the staircase to the unauthorised flat 5 in the loft, and that any future use of the loft space as a flat would be liable to enforcement action. Decision: Item 3 (Old Mission Hall, 62 Cannon Hill Lane, SW20) (A) Subject to (B) below, GRANT PERMISSION subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and subject to the conditions set out in the officer case report and the tabled modifications sheet. (B) Should the legal agreement not be completed by 30 June 2010, the application shall be REFUSED on the grounds set out in the officer case report and the tabled modifications sheet. Item 4: 59 Colwood Gardens, , SW19 (ref. 09/P2829) Windows - Separation Distances – Officers confirmed that the Council’s requirement for directly facing windows was 20m, but in this case the rear windows of the proposed development in Colwood Gardens were at angle to the rear windows of the newly constructed dwellings at 60A & 60B Clarendon Road (which didn’t have standard type windows at the rear) and were at distances between 11.5m – 14.5m; and officers were satisfied that this would not result in a loss of privacy, to an extent that would justify a refusal of planning permission on grounds of loss of amenity by reason of overlooking/loss of privacy. Decision: GRANT PERMISSION subject to the completion of a Section 106 4 All minutes are draft until agreed at the next meeting of the committee/panel. To find out the date of the next meeting please check the calendar of events at your local library, online at www.merton.gov.uk/committee or by using the contact numbers at the end of this volume. 10 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 15 APRIL 2010 Agreement and subject to the conditions set out in the officer case report and the tabled modifications sheet Item 5: Windmill Park (Former Windmill Trading Estate), 302-312 Commonside East, Mitcham (ref. 09/P2617) Decision: The Committee APPROVES the discharge of Condition 4 (slab levels) as set out in the officer case report and the tabled modifications sheet. Item 6: 1 Durham Road, West Wimbledon, SW20 (ref. 10/P0250) 1. South Elevation (facing Coombe Lane) – Various Members complimented various aspects of the proposal, including the quality of the front and rear elevations, but Members expressed concern about the appearance of the south elevation facing onto Coombe Lane Officers advised that south elevation was staggered and wasn’t a sheer vertical elevation, but also indicated that the south elevation had to take account of the fact that it would face the new large Waitrose development being constructed on the Thames Water site on the opposite side of Coombe Lane. 2. Corner Site - Members noted the current proposal faced onto Durham Road and expressed concern that proposed development appeared not comply with the Council’s guidance in relation to corner sites, and to not recognise the site’s importance as part of the entrance into the town centre of . 3. Refusal Motion - It was moved and seconded that permission be refused on the grounds shown below The motion was carried by 9 votes to nil. Subsequently the Committee also agreed (B) below. Decision: Item 6 (1 Durham Road, West Wimbledon, SW20) (A) REFUSE permission on the grounds that the proposal, due its design, (a) fails to complement the character and local distinctiveness of the adjoining townscape; and (b) fails to recognise and reflect this corner site’s importance and setting as a gateway into Raynes Park; all contrary to Policy BE.22 of the Adopted Merton Unitary Development Plan (October 2003). (B) Reasons for not following Planning Officers' recommendations for permission: The Committee considered that insufficient weight had been given to the significance of this corner site for Raynes Park. Item 7: 100-106 Haydons Road, Wimbledon, SW19 (ref. 09/P2621) 1. Use of the Haydons Road Recreation Ground and parking - Councillor Ian Munn expressed concern that the report submitted to this April meeting didn’t include the information he had requested at the previous meeting regarding the usage of the Recreation Ground for 5-a-side football, bowls and cricket, particularly during the April/September period., and its effect on parking in the area, particularly in Haccombe Road, which was adjacent to the application site (as outlined in the 5 All minutes are draft until agreed at the next meeting of the committee/panel. To find out the date of the next meeting please check the calendar of events at your local library, online at www.merton.gov.uk/committee or by using the contact numbers at the end of this volume. 11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 15 APRIL 2010 relevant Minute on agenda page 14). 2. Officers drew attention to the additional information on parking etc included in paragraph 5.2 on agenda page 165. It was noted that this didn’t include information on usage of the Recreation Ground. However, officers indicated that, in the context of the current application to increase the size of the retail unit from 173sqm to 307sqm and reduce the number of parking spaces from 12 to 6 on the site for residents, they considered that any increase in parking demand could be accommodated and would impact mainly on Haydons Road, with little significant impact for Haccombe Road. 2. Effect on other nearby shops – Members expressed concern at the effect of this proposal for a larger retail unit on other shops in this parade, especially if it were to be occupied by national retailer. Officers advised that this shopping parade was not identified in the Unitary Development Plan as a designated local neighbourhood parade. Members also referred to the concerns expressed by the Regeneration Partnerships Team about the effect of this proposal on other nearby shopping parades (as detailed in paragraph 5.4 on agenda page 166). 3. Lost Motion for Refusal - It was moved and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of other nearby neighbourhood shopping parades contrary to Policy S.6 of the Adopted Merton Unitary Development Plan (October 2003). There were 5 votes for and 5 votes against the motion. The motion was lost on the Chair's casting vote (Councillors Richard Chellew, David Dean, Marc Hanson, Peter Southgate and Gregory Udeh voting for the motion). The Application was subsequently approved as indicated below (Councillors David Dean, Marc Hanson and Gregory Udeh dissenting.) Decision: Item 7 (100-106 Haydons Road, Wimbledon, SW19) GRANT PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out in the officer case report. Item 8: 17 Homefield Road, , SW19 (ref. 09/P2837) 1. Proposed Side Dormer –In response to the oral representations made by objectors, officers confirmed that - (i) the previous refused applications had related to larger and different types of dormers (as detailed in the officers report in paragraph 4); and (ii) the proposed side dormer would be less visible as one got closer to the building, but that clearer views would be obtained from further away down Homefield Road towards the Ridgway. 2. Members expressed a number of concerns about the proposed side dormer including that (a) it would be over large and inappropriate for the street and would affect a lot of properties in the Conservation Area; (b) this was a high profile building and the side dormer would visible from much of Homefield Road

6 All minutes are draft until agreed at the next meeting of the committee/panel. To find out the date of the next meeting please check the calendar of events at your local library, online at www.merton.gov.uk/committee or by using the contact numbers at the end of this volume. 12 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 15 APRIL 2010 (c) it would break the symmetry of the building (d) it appeared to contravene the Council’s conservation area policies and design guidance (e) the existence of another inappropriate dormer nearby didn’t justify allowing this proposed side dormer 3, Design Guidance – Officers confirmed that the proposed rear dormer wholly conformed with design guidance but that in relation to the side dormer, it was matter of judgement as to the extent one would view it as cutting across the roof silhouette and whether that was to such a degree that it could be considered to be sufficient grounds for refusal. 4. Members objecting to the application confirmed that their concerns related only to the side dormer, not the proposed rear dormer. 5. Refusal Motion - It was moved and seconded that permission be refused on similar grounds as for previous application 09/P02077 (see paragraph 4.1 on agenda page 180), subject to revised wording in line 2 so as to read “would detract from the existing symmetry”, as shown in (A) below The motion was carried by 8 votes to nil. Subsequently the Committee also agreed (B) below. Decision: Item 4(8) (17 Homefield Road, Wimbledon Park, SW19) (A) REFUSE permission on the grounds that the proposed side dormer roof extension, due to its form, scale, siting and design, would detract from the existing symmetry of the small terrace of houses, failing to complement the design of the original building or the terrace as a whole and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Wimbledon West Conservation Area; contrary to Policies BE.1 and BE.24 of the Adopted Merton Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) and the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Extensions, Alterations and Conversions (November 2001). (B) Reasons for not following Planning Officers' recommendations for permission: The Committee considered that the officer recommendation failed to give proper weight to the prominence of the side dormer which made it unacceptable. Item 9: Land R/O 22-24 Norman Road, Wimbledon, SW19 (ref. 09/P2889) 1. Other nearby development – Officers advised that the design of the proposed new dwelling at the rear of 22-24 Norman Road was identical to - (a) the terrace of three houses at the rear of 28-34 Norman already constructed to the north of the application site; and (b) the terrace of four (unbuilt) houses at the rear of 16-22 Norman to the south of the application site, for which planning permission had previously been granted. 2. Overlooking – Officers drew attention to the design measures incorporated into the proposed new dwelling at the rear of 22-24 Norman Road to protect privacy and prevent visual intrusion (as outlined paragraph 7.5 on agenda page 193) (and that similar measures had been incorporated in the other constructed and proposed

7 All minutes are draft until agreed at the next meeting of the committee/panel. To find out the date of the next meeting please check the calendar of events at your local library, online at www.merton.gov.uk/committee or by using the contact numbers at the end of this volume. 13 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 15 APRIL 2010 dwellings at the rear of Norman Road referred to in (1) above.) 3. Refuse Storage – Officers confirmed that there would be space at the front of the proposed new dwelling (fronting onto Grove Road) for the storage of refuse bins. 4. Amenity Space – Members noted that the proposed new dwelling would have private amenity space of 47sqm (in the rear garden) which was only slightly below the Council’s standard of 50sqm. 5. Separation Distance - Officers advised that the separation distance between the proposed new dwelling at the rear of 22-24 Norman Road and existing residential properties in Norman Road - (i) was less that the Council’s recommended standard of 20m; but (ii) was slightly greater than that between the proposed adjoining (unbuilt) house, already permitted at the rear of 22 Norman Road, and existing residential properties in Norman Road. 6. Refusal Motion - It was moved and seconded that permission be refused on the grounds shown below The motion was carried by 5 votes to 4 (Councillors John Bowcott, Ian Munn, Peter Southgate and Gregory Udeh dissenting). Subsequently the Committee also agreed (B) below. Decision: Item 9 (Land R/O 22-24 Norman Road, Wimbledon, SW19) (A) REFUSE permission on the grounds that the proposed development of one dwelling house would result in a cramped form of development with insufficient provision for refuse storage and inadequate separation distance between the existing residential properties in Norman Road and the proposed new house contrary to policies BE.15 and BE.22 of the Adopted Merton Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on New Residential Development (September 1999). (B) Reasons for not following Planning Officers' recommendations for permission: The Committee considered that insufficient weight had been given to the cramped form of development and inadequate separation distance. Item 10: 21 Richmond Road, Wimbledon, SW19 (ref. 09/P2654) First Floor Rear Window – Officers confirmed that this window, which faced existing properties in Cambridge Road, met the Council’s requirement for a minimum 20m distance between facing windows, partly due to the first floor being set back. Officers also advised that, because of this, it would be unreasonable to impose a condition requiring this window to be glazed or have limited opening. Decision: GRANT PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out in the officer case report. Item 11: 41-47A Wimbledon Hill Road, Wimbledon, SW19 (ref. 09/P2346 & 09/P2347) 1. Height – Officers advised that the proposed development would be a maximum of 2.3m higher than the Bank Buildings (a group of locally listed buildings numbering 8 All minutes are draft until agreed at the next meeting of the committee/panel. To find out the date of the next meeting please check the calendar of events at your local library, online at www.merton.gov.uk/committee or by using the contact numbers at the end of this volume. 14 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 15 APRIL 2010 37-47 fronting Wimbledon Hill Road) and that the part of the building closest to Alwyne Road would be lower than both Bank Buildings and, on the other side, Central House; and that the proposal would not qualify as a tall building as defined in the Unitary Development Plan. 2. Room Sizes - Officers advised that, whilst a few rooms were marginally below the Council’s minimum standards, this was more than compensated for by the generous size of other rooms in the flats concerned. 3. Lost Motion for Refusal - It was moved and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal would (a) fail to respect the height of surrounding buildings; and (b) fail to provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation due to inadequate room sizes and inadequate amenity space; contrary to Policies BE.22 and HS.1 of the Adopted Merton Unitary Development Plan (October 2003). The motion was lost by 5 votes to 3 (Councillors Richard Chellew, David Dean and Maurice Groves voting for the motion). 4. Councillor Ian Munn suggested that the Committee should next take a vote on whether it wished to approve the proposed development rather than next considering whether it wished to defer consideration. Officers advised that it was open for the Committee to consider either course of action next. 5. Deferral - In the event the Application was subsequently deferred as indicated below (Councillors Ian Munn dissenting from the grounds for deferral.) Decision: Items 11(1) & 11(2) – ref. 09/P2346 & 09/P2347 (41-47A Wimbledon Hill Road, Wimbledon, SW19) (A) Consideration of both applications be DEFERRED to a future meeting in order that officers can discuss with the applicants, the Committee’s concerns in relation to the following matters – (1) the layout of flat 1; (2) the transition between the Bank Buildings and the proposed new building, and in particular the lift shaft and how it is treated ; and (3) the visual appearance of the new building, in terms of its materials, and how it sits with the Bank Buildings. (B) The provision of coloured images when the application is next considered by the Committee would be helpful in relation to (2) & (3) above. 4 MEETING BREAK After consideration of item 4(11), at about 9.55pm, the Committee adjourned its discussions for about 10 minutes. 5 TOWN PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS (Agenda Item 5) (a) 1 Caxton Road (Former Bendon Laundry Site), , SW19 (See April agenda pages 11/12 - Minutes of 11 March 2010 meeting) – Councillor David Dean referred to this building allegedly having asbestos. Officers confirmed that the 9 All minutes are draft until agreed at the next meeting of the committee/panel. To find out the date of the next meeting please check the calendar of events at your local library, online at www.merton.gov.uk/committee or by using the contact numbers at the end of this volume. 15 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 15 APRIL 2010 Health & Safety Executive and the Council’s Environmental Health Section were already involved and Development Control Officers would be discussing the site with Environmental Health officers. (b) Hall Place, 5 Church Road, Mitcham (Application 08/P2735) (paragraph 2.10 on agenda page 307) - Development Control Officers undertook to send Councillor Ian Munn a hard copy of the Inspectors decision letter. RECEIVED 6 PLANNING ENFORCEMENT – SUMMARY OF CURRENT CASES (Agenda Item 6) (1) Raynes Park Town Centre – Advertising Hoardings (around Raynes Park Station) (paragraph 3.1 on agenda page 311) – Officers advised that there are 17 hoardings around the Station, that 16 were owned by one company; that Discontinuance Notices had been served in respect of these 16 hoardings; that the company had appealed; and that, following an Informal Hearing on 30 March 2010, the Inspectors decision letter had just been received which indicated that 13 of the 16 appeals had been dismissed. (2) Brown & Root Tower, Colliers Wood – Officers advised that a Section 215 Notice had been served requiring the owners to clean up the site of weeds and rubbish, secure the premises and undertake repairs of the flank walls; and that the owners had indicated that an appeal had been made against the Notice which would be heard in the Magistrates Court. RECEIVED

10 All minutes are draft until agreed at the next meeting of the committee/panel. To find out the date of the next meeting please check the calendar of events at your local library, online at www.merton.gov.uk/committee or by using the contact numbers at the end of this volume. 16