Since the summer of 2022, we have been engaging with residents living in the vicinity of the old Mitcham gasworks site – listening to and helping to amplify the community’s views on a proposal by the developer, St William, to build hundreds of flats on the site.

 

At the pre-application stage, we attended St William’s so-called consultation event at St Mark’s Church and, shortly after, published an open letter to Merton Council:

 

Dear Merton Council,

Merton Green Party are aware of a (pre-application stage) proposal from St William to build housing on the Mitcham Gasworks site, and are in contact with a number of residents in the surrounding neighbourhood.

We and the residents understand that there is a need for more housing in the borough. However, the residents, whose lives will inevitably be impacted by the development of the site, are extremely concerned about a number of aspects of the proposal. Furthermore, they have received barely any communication from the Council and St William, making them feel disregarded and disrespected.

Understandably, residents are worried about the following:

(1) According to St William , there will be 625-650 homes, in buildings ranging from 4 to 10 storeys, and residents are deeply unsettled by the prospect of being overshadowed by towers, which are, notably, not in keeping with the character of the local area. They ask St William and the Council to consider a more sensitive development of up to 400 homes, with the height not exceeding that of surrounding buildings.

(2) Residents are anxious that the development will make the existing congestion worse.

In particular, parking in the area is already a significant problem and, whilst it is appreciated that St William proposes to incentivise active travel by providing over a 1000 secure cycle parking spaces and only 140 parking spaces, no one should be surprised if more than 140 households choose to own cars and expect to be able to park near their home. Residents would like to know how St William and the Council plan to address this.

Likewise, residents would like details of how St William and the Council plan to address construction road traffic, especially when the air and noise pollution on Western Road is already excessive, and there is a climate emergency which the Council is seeking to address through its carbon reduction plans for the borough.

In addition, although it is understood that it is not in St William’s gift to develop local public services – transport, healthcare, education, etc. – both St William and the Council need to appreciate that resources are already stretched and the addition of 650 households will exacerbate existing difficulties. Residents need reassurance that the Council and other relevant bodies such as TfL, the NHS, the emergency services, and local nurseries and schools are working together to think ahead and plan accordingly. We trust that this is being addressed as the Local Plan is finalised.

We would like to add the following:

(1) At St William’s ‘consultation’ event on 21st June, one of our members was informed that they are considering 35% affordable housing – specifically, a mix of social housing and shared ownership – but inflation means that this may have to be revised downwards.

We think that this is an unacceptably low percentage – not only because it is below the Council’s own target, but also in light of the fact that there are about 9000 households on the Housing Register.

St William also informed our member that social housing units are to be sold to a housing association like Clarion, and we urge the Council to follow a rigorous process when selecting a housing association. As the Council is well aware, there is widespread dissatisfaction with Clarion, not only in Eastfields, as investigated recently by the local and national press, but across the borough and the UK.

(2) The pandemic has brought increased home or hybrid working, and we believe that this makes equal access to high quality green spaces crucial. Hence, we think that a combination of houses and flats with private gardens and communal green spaces, not only flats with communal green spaces, should be provided.

We ask that St William and the Council immediately address the lack of communication with residents in the surrounding neighbourhood of Mitcham Gasworks. Similarly, should St William submit a planning application, we would like to see meaningful public consultation – the views of those affected, put front and centre.

We also request a response addressing the points raised in this letter.

Thank you for your attention. We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Merton Green Party

 

To our disappointment, neither St William nor the Council went on to make any great effort to start a proper dialogue with the community. Hence, the proposal was not revised in any significant way before being turned into a planning application, leading us to submit the following response:

 

Merton Green Party Submission Re. Planning Application 22/P3620

1. In 2021, the site allocation in Merton’s Local Plan, as submitted to the Secretary of State, was 200-400 homes https://www.merton.gov.uk/system/files?file=0420mitcham20merton20local20plan20reg1920july21.pdf. This carries significant weight because it was the result of three years of public consultation and professional evidence gathering. By contrast, subsequent decision-making by Merton Council to increase the site allocation has not undergone any public scrutiny. Hence, the Council should be unsurprised at widespread consternation from residents who feel strongly that the plan to build 595 flats is inappropriate for the site and area. As the Council are aware, the sudden change made to the site allocation was contested at the Examination in Public. We ask that Council Officers and Planning Applications Committee give this point particular consideration and await the outcome of the Examination in Public before making their decision as to whether to approve the planning application.
2. The pandemic has brought increased home or hybrid working and we believe that this makes equal access to high quality homes and green spaces more important than ever before. To appreciate the latter, one need only reflect upon how our parks, commons, and other green spaces have become popular destinations and refuges since assuming a huge importance in many people’s lives during the lockdowns. In light of this, we think that a combination of houses, flats, private gardens, and communal green spaces should be provided. Moreover, we assert that it is unacceptable that over a third of the flats (35%) will be single aspect, and that every ground floor flat and those facing Western Road will have mechanical, as opposed to passive, ventilation because of the risk of overheating. This surely undermines the aims of the London Plan and Merton’s Local Plan. The former states, in Policy D6, that development should ‘normally avoid the provision of single aspect dwellings’. The latter states, in Policy D12.3, that ‘single aspect homes are strongly discouraged’.
3. We are deeply concerned that only 35% of the flats will be affordable (split into 70% social rent and 30% intermediate rent). This will have minimal impact on reducing the 9000/10,000 households on the Council’s Housing Register. In the current Local Plan, Policy CS8 states that there should be at least 40% affordable housing provision. The future Local Plan requirement H11.1 is for 50%. At the developer’s ‘consultation’ event on 21st June 2022, one of our members was informed by one of the architects that the project would not be financially viable if more of the flats were affordable. We believe that this is an unacceptable compromise when there is an overwhelming need for affordable homes.
4. At the developer’s ‘consultation’ event on 21st June 2022, one of our members was informed that the social housing flats are likely to be sold to a housing association ‘like Clarion’. Should the planning application be granted, we urge the Council to follow a rigorous process when selecting a housing association. As the Council is well aware, there is widespread dissatisfaction with Clarion, not only in Eastfields, as investigated recently by the local and national press, but across the borough and the UK.
5. We have spoken to many residents and all are deeply unsettled by the prospect of six tower blocks – four rising to nine storeys, and one of those reaching 40m high, which is twice the height of Mitcham Parish Church. We agree with residents that this is not in keeping with the character of the local area, and that the height of the new buildings should not exceed that of the existing surrounding buildings. In particular, we sympathise with residents in Portland Road whose gardens will be overshadowed beyond officially recommended levels. Likewise, there is concern that the presence of tower blocks will have an impact on the direction and speed of wind in the area, as such an effect is well-documented.
6. The developer’s studies state that potential volatile contamination may be present and has not been fully investigated to date, and that not only is previous clean-up work conducted on the majority of the site below the standard required for residential development, but also that the area of the recently demolished gasometer has not been cleaned up. We believe that this warrants further, rigorous investigation conducted by an independent, respected body.
7. The Urban Greening Factor in the plan is 0.31, whereas the London Plan has a target of 0.4 for predominantly residential developments. We argue that this development should be able to achieve a higher figure than the target, as it is on a brownfield site.
8. Parking in the area is already a significant problem and, whilst it is appreciated that the developer proposes to incentivise active and sustainable travel by providing a higher number of secure cycle parking spaces than parking spaces for motor vehicles, we anticipate that, between the estimated 1200 new residents, 135 parking spaces for motor vehicles will prove insufficient and serve to heighten existing tensions in the community. We certainly support a reduction in motor vehicle miles driven, but also understand that some people require the use of car or van, for various sound reasons, and that they expect to be able to park near their home.
9. We would like details of how the developer and the Council plan to address construction road traffic over the six years of the proposed project, especially when the air and noise pollution on Western Road is already excessive, and there is a climate emergency which the Council is seeking to address through its carbon reduction plans for the borough.
10. Although it is understood that it is not in the developer’s gift to develop local public services – transport, healthcare, education, etc. – both the developer and the Council need to appreciate that resources are already stretched and the addition of 595 households will exacerbate existing difficulties. We note that the developer has been keen to emphasise that the Community Infrastructure Levy will help in this regard. However, we think that this underestimates the complexity and timescale of the changes that would be needed to ensure equity of access to high quality local public services.

 

Notably, the planning application did not make it very far, with the Council stating that they thought it problematic.

 

Last September, Melinda Balatoni (left), Pippa Maslin (centre) and Chris Stanton (right) asked people at the inaugural Mitcham Village Market what they would like to see on the old gasworks site. Answers included: social housing; affordable family-sized homes, as opposed to flats; and a community space in which activities could take place and facilities could be provided, particularly for young people in the area.

 

 

St William has just submitted another planning application – the details of which we will post here shortly. From what we can see, the proposal is still far from what local residents think the area needs.