Local developments
Vice-Chairman's Objection to Bellway's Application 20/P3237
On Behalf of Raynes Park and West Barnes Residents Association I submit this Objection to Application 20/P3237.
We submit that the P/A is in conflict with Policy DM 01 Open Space of Merton 's Sites and Policies Plan July 2014 and Policy CS 13 of the Core Strategy July 2011 and also the Merton Open Space Study of 2010/11, on the grounds that no assessment has been made which shows that the application site is surplus to the sporting provision needs of the Borough of Merton.
We submit that the proposals are also in conflict with the requirements of the National Policy Planning Framework and also Policy 7.18 of the GLA adopted London Plan, as well as the proposed site uses set out in LBM 's Consultation Local Plan October 2018 for the Former LESSA Sportsfield Site RP6.
We submit that this application cannot be considered only by reference to the proposals submitted on this occasion but needs to take fully into consideration the history and outcome of the previous planning application, P/A 08/P1869 .
That application was for 44 Dwelling Units, which was submitted by Doram ( who subsequently sold the land to Bellway ) in Feb 2009 . That was Refused by the Planning Application Committee (PAC) for Merton but the Appeal was Upheld in October 2009.
The key point to note is that this application was deemed to be an ' enabling ' application taking 16 % only of the original LESSA site for residential development to enable the remainder of the site ( apart from 5 tennis courts for RPLTC ) to be used for sports’ needs. It was anticipated at the time that the field would be used by a junior school for football, cricket or rugby. This was set out in detail in the Officer’s Report for the PAC meeting held on 15 Jan 2009. The extent of the land expected to be made available was defined in a drawing submitted with the Section 106 Agreement, very late in the day - 3 June 2009.
This drawing boldly describes the land as the SPORTS FIELD LAND.
It is worth repeating what Anthony Lyman, the Inspector, said in his Decision letter dated 1 October 2009 , in upholding the Appeal. I quote para 15 :
" the proposal would provide public open access to and through the site for the first time , substantially upgraded sport and recreation facilities to which an element of community use would be guaranteed and wider use of the landscaped amenity area and the children's playground . I consider that the improved recreational provision with increased public access would satisfy the requirements of PolicyL.7 ( ii ) "
The latter was Merton’s'prevailing Policy at the time.
It should be noted that the so-called " landscaped amenity area " was sealed off some years ago with a locked gate and there is no longer "public access" to it !
Merton Council has a housing target currently set at a perfectly reasonable level for the delivery of new homes each year . The target is set by the GLA, whish has a draft New London Plan. This would impose on Merton an increase in the target of about 200% !
Even the well informed Future Merton team at the Council regard this proposed hike as undeliverable . However, the New London Plan is not adopted and the suggested housing targets remain under consideration. The Borough of Merton has been able to ' deliver ' a little more than the target in recent years without the need to permit building on greenfield sites .
Conclusion
There are a number of problems with this application, not least the potential for flooding for the residents in the Greenway / Westway corner backing the application site. However the primary issue is, notwithstanding the need for more housing , whether 89 housing units along with the new access roadway should be permitted on the SPORTS FIELD LAND .
We have no doubt that in drafting his Decision Letter, Anthony Lyman not just assumed that the sportsfield would be used for sporting needs by a school or sports club ( without any time frame limit being set) but in a de facto sense , in upholding the appeal , made this CONDITIONAL.
Ten years later on it appears that Bellway Homes have , aside from one half-hearted attempt recently, opted to ignore the Inspectors conditional approval.
We therefore urge the Planning Applications Committee to treat these proposals with what they deserve - REFUSAL. Thank you for your time.
David Freeman Committee Member RP&WBRA
