Application No: 21/P4063

Ward: West Barnes

Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to conditions and s.106 legal agreement 

Councillor Bhim recused herself from the Chamber for this item and Councillor Butcher was present as substitute. 

 

The Planning Officer presented the report. 

 

The Committee received a verbal representation from two objectors who raised concerns: 

 

·         The land should be used as open space and sports as previously agreed under the 2009 appeal decision (ref. 08/P1869); they are under the impression assurances was previously given that LESSA sports grounds would be approved and maintained for junior sports 

·         Residents who bought their homes with the proposed site use for sports had been misled 

·         Bellway developers had not robustly consulted with residents, clubs, or schools for the land to be used for junior sports 

·         Bellway had fenced off the land and made it inaccessible for several years to extract profit and should not be permitted to do this 

·         Sporting groups had expressed interest in using the land and set out costed and viable proposals, fully supported by Sports England, but these had been refused by Bellway Homes 

·         Brownfield sites should be developed before greenfield sites are considered 

·         The application if granted should be referred to the Secretary of State as recommended by Sports England 

·         The prevention of loss of green space should be protected for the future generations of young people 

·         A proposal had been summitted by Surrey Cricket Club to use the space at a cost of Ten thousand pounds and annual maintenance would cost Four thousand pounds. 

 

The Applicant spoke in response and made points including:  

 

·         The site had been unused for 22 years and it would be used for repurposing positive development  

·         The scheme would provide open spaces and recreational grounds for the public There would be provision of 41% affordable housing, that would benefit the borough and meet 12% of the housing target for Merton  

·         The housing would have accessibility and provide sustainable heating that would be low in carbon emissions as well as a percentage of wheelchair access for users 

·         The scheme would have an Infrastructure levy of 2.2 million and a Section 106 contribution of £1.2 million 

·         The Applicant and Council officers had agreed that the scheme would be used for mixed purposes and not solely for sports, providing housing and recreation such as two tennis courts and a play area  

·         The proposal would provide 44 affordable homes and met the urban plan with no risk of flooding 

·         The tennis club membership had increased, and the club had to close membership to adult players who wished to join the club, the current waiting list is 60 people; the scheme would provide more courts that could be used by members and the community who wished to pay and play and not pay an annual membership subscription fee. 

·         The Applicants asked The Committee to approve the application. 

 

The Chair noted representations from Ward Councillors. 

 

Councillor Oliver gave a verbal presentation to the Committee on the Planning Framework which consisted of three levels: 

 

National - Guidance from The Planning Policy Guidance was read out to the Committee to illustrate points The Local Plan is specific on use of open space  

Regional –. Open spaces should be protected and expanded. 

Local – The current plan has been adopted and states that new housing will occur on previously developed land. 

 

Councillor Page reminded the Committee why the application existed which is sports use and to note that the Cricket club who had summitted an application was found unviable by Bellway homes. Sport England noted that the criteria for sporting financial viability placed on clubs and consortiums was unreasonable.  

 

Councillor Bokhari expressed concerns at the developer’s failure to keep promises of the land for sports use. There were issues with flood risks, roads in West Barnes, West Way and Green Way had experienced flooding.  Residents spoken to were adamant that green spaces could not be lost. 

 

The Planning Officer clarified to the Committee in relation to Councillor Bokhari’s point on carbon emissions reduction, that the site was in green field so there were no carbon emissions currently, although the planning policy through building control, only required a certain amount of improvement when developing. Carbon reduction in the creation of new builds would be significantly less. 

 

In response to Members question the Planning Officer advised that: 

 

·         In terms of land cost, this would be a proportion of the site coverage amounting to half of the site 

·         In relation to community access 500 hours requirement is not enforceable as the S106 was never implemented because Kings College did not proceed with the application, this relates to the previous application and is historic. This current application poses no time limit. 

·         In terms of capital viability, the capital funds are of a sufficient level for the bidder to deliver on their offer, are available 

 

 

In response to Members further questions the Planning Officers advised that: 

 

·         S106 set out in the report shows there is no contribution from Bellway to a third-party use 

·         In relation to the electrical charging point capacities, planning cannot act ahead of the policy to provide a greater provision of car charging points 

·         There is no time limit in identifying delivering a sporting use of the plan pitch strategy, this would be a material consideration 

·         In terms of the cost implications on affordable housing, this is not a planning consideration  

·         Flooding to the south should be less, the applicant can be encouraged to do more and there is no policy to impose more than what has been proposed in the application 

·         The tennis court would be pay per play as part of green space and the space would provide a range of needs for the community 

·         In relation to the site used as sporting facilities two points were taken from Merton’s playing pitch strategy, The Council consulted with Sports England and other governing sporting agencies and meetings are ongoing about it’s delivering 

Two recommendations are: 

·                     G4 – That sites need ancillary unchanging pavilions 

·                     G5 – That sites need pitch drainage 

Merton’s playing pitch study contains costings based on Sports England’s provision 

 

The Planning Officers wrote to the sporting organisations for costs in August 2021 and a further chase in December 2021 as a result of the number of representations on the application doubting the engagement of the sporting bodies. 

The question on green space loss being set as precedence was not considered as a planning consideration and The Head of Development Management advised Members to consider the application on merit. 

 

Members commented on the proposal noting the provision of positive housing and also expressing concerns that the appropriate use of the site should be for sports.  

 

The Chair put to the vote on the officer’s recommendation within the report and it fell.  

 

RESOLVED: 

 

The Committee agreed to:? 

1. REFUSE the application for the following reasons:? 

That the loss of open spaces  and potential sporting facilities outweighs the benefits that the proposed scheme would bring. 

? 

2. DELEGATE to the Director of Environment & Regeneration the authority to make any appropriate amendments in the context of the above to the wording of the grounds of refusal including references to appropriate policies? 

 

 

The Chair requested that his vote to grant the application be recorded.