Application No: 22/P2351  
Ward: West Barnes

Officer Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions and s106 legal agreement

The Planning Officer presented the report and noted that the Committee needed to determine if the reasons for the refusal of the previous application had been overcome.  The proposal was acceptable within planning terms.  At the time of assessing the application, sporting use of the entire site had not been shown to be achievable, due to funding gaps. 

The Committee received presentations from two objectors who made points including:

-       This was the same application resubmitted with minor changes

-       There were two proposals on the table, one from Surrey Cricket and a Cricketing Consortium, fully funded, and with the support of the ECB, Sport England and the RFU.

-       Sport England has said that as long as there is demand for the ground, it should not be considered for development

-       The Consortium have not received engagement from Bellway

-       There has not been further consultation with the community or interested sporting bodies

-       There is no evidence that increased use of other sporting facilities in the area is more beneficial that retaining this sports ground

-       The land has been fenced off and unavailable for use, the Consortium is keen to take a long lease, and believe long term sporting use is deliverable.

-       There is another development of 450 flats on a nearby site which meets the Council’s commitment to development in the area

Ward Councillors presented to the Committee and raised the following points:

-       Sporting and community use have to be proven to be undeliverable before any other use is considered

-       The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that sport is undeliverable, not on the objectors to show that it is.

-       There has been plenty of agreement to the development of the nearby Tesco site, and these new residents will need open space, if the LESSA fields remain, they will provide for this development as well

-       The application is substantially the same

-       There is no assessment of what additional funding would bring to the other sites

-       The Consortium has not had sufficient time to respond to plans, they believe they have the resources in place.  The timeline appears to be set by the developer which is not helpful to the Consortium

-       There needs to be more time for Councillors and residents to consider the offer from the Consortium.

-       The Council needs to show its commitment to sport.

The Applicant spoke in response and raised points including:

-       The revised application expanded the sporting facilities onsite and doubled the funding for sport off-site

-       The site has not previously been open to public use, it was a private club ground, therefore there is not loss of sporting use by the development.

-       There is a maintained commitment to 41% of the development being affordable housing.

-       Officers have agreed that this is a better plan, opening half of the site to public use and providing £1.8million in funding to sport within the borough

-       The applicant believes that the Consortium proposal is £500,000 short of the true cost of their proposal, there are no costs for flood prevention, cricket nets, and no evidence of a sponsor committing to this, or that funds are ready and available.

-       The applicant’s plan is fully deliverable, including sporting facilities and housing.

In response to the comments received, the Planning Officer confirmed that 456 units were permitted at the Tesco site, to be delivered over several years, rather an immediate delivery.  The planning team have to assess the applications on the basis of the evidence available at the time.  The land has not been previously available for public use, and neither Kings College or the Council took the s106 provision to use the land.

In response to questions, the Interim Head of Development Management and Building Control confirmed that an agreement was in place that if this application were to be granted, the previous decision would not be appealed, if all paperwork sorted before the 1 December deadline required to appeal the previous decision. If this application is declined, and appealed, it is likely that both appeals would be considered together.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the affordable units are contained with separate blocks, as shown on the plan.  The amenities will be available to all.

The spending plans for the contribution are indicative, the Council reserves the right put the money into other sporting facilities.  Bellway had approached the council to identify sites that needed upgrading.

The Environment and Regeneration Programme manager informed the Committee that in 2017, the playing pitch strategy began, with Sport England and others.  It last two years, the LESSA site was included in that consideration, and a further 6 months was added to allow proposals for the LESSA site to be submitted, the sporting bodies did not put forward proposals for the site, so while it may seem like little time has been in given in 2022, the site has been under discussion since 2017.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the NPPF gave a greater weight to the delivery of housing.  There is a tilted balance between economic, social and environmental considerations where a negative in one category must significantly outweigh the benefits. 

In terms of flooding concerns, the majority of the site is in Floodzone 1, at a low risk of flooding, the sports pitches have their own additional drainage and the surface water drainage strategy has been improved.  Modelling shows an overall reduction of risk.

Members commented on the application, highlighting that once the space is given over to development, it’s gone, and that’s an environmental negative.

Merton is at risk of presenting itself as a borough where applicants can simply resubmit duplicate applications and get them through with persistence.

The enhanced funding to sporting facilities in the area are welcome, it has always been a private site, not open to public use, so the site does assist in providing facilities to residents in the borough.

There is requirement for affordable housing, this site provides a good number of units, the proposal provides alongside housing, sport facilities for the wider community.

The borough needs more affordable homes, it can’t be said that the Council is committing to affordable homes for residents if applications like this are refused.

The recommendation was put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED:

That the Committee GRANTED planning permission subject to conditions and S106 agreement