Author Archives: mitchamcricketgreen

Probity of Merton’s planning decisions at breaking point

We have thought long and hard about whether to write this blog. Bear with us as it is a long one and it raises issues that go to the very heart of our charitable purpose. How can we care for and champion our neighbourhood if we cannot trust our local authority and the decisions it makes? The relationship between a council and its community is precious. Each depends on the other and not just at election time.

Planning decisions over new development regularly strain relationships and so they should. These are some of the the most important decisions a council can make, with consequences that last for generations. This is why their probity – the quality of having strong moral principles, honesty and decency – is so important.

Perhaps the most testing of all planning decisions are those which involve a local authority deciding on its own planning applications. This has been the case with four planning applications for housing development from Merantun, a development company set up by, run and staffed by Merton Council. The elected members and professional officers involved need to be seen to operate to the highest standards. At the Planning Applications Committee of 16 July 2020 in full public view on Merton TV and YouTube they fell short.

It’s important to establish from the outset that we’re supportive of Merantun being set up. It can play an important role in extending the ways in which Merton Council can improve the quality of development, provide affordable homes and generate resources for investment in public services. This requires it to be tasked to do more than generate income for the council so it can contribute to the full range of Merton Council’s public service objectives.

It’s also important to pre-empt critics who may suggest that as a local civic society we’re anti-development and disinterested in the affordable housing crisis. Nothing could be further from the truth. In Merton Council’s latest planning policy review we put forward no fewer than nine sites for housing development within 900m of the historic cricket ground. We support a significant increase in the number of affordable homes being built in the neighbourhood.

This brings us to some of the planning policy issues about the schemes put forward by Merantun for the former Canons nursery and Raleigh Gardens car park. We have written extensively about these in previous blogs but the headlines bear retelling.

It is Merton Council’s planning policy for 40% of new homes to be affordable and that these should be provided on the development site unless there are “exceptional” reasons. Currently, only 17% of new homes being built in Merton are affordable. Merantun has the opportunity to close the gap. So far so good. The reality is different. Merantun’s four developments are providing 43% fewer affordable homes than policy requires, and putting them all on one site, Elm Nursery car park. Instead of setting the standard the Council’s own development company is bending the rules.

The other planning issues with Merantun’s schemes for The Canons and Raleigh Gardens are legion. More than half the windows of Glebe Court residents facing Raleigh Gardens will no longer meet official guidelines for daylight. Merton’s current Tree of the Year, a magnificent Pagoda tree on the former Canons nursery, will lose half its canopy and if it survives it will be hard pruned for the rest of its life. The quality of the study of how the development impacts on the The Canons and Park Place is so poor it failed even to address the key view from the Grade II* Canons house across the site.

These are just some of the reasons why the plans should have been refused. After all, the same Planning Applications Committee has recently stood its ground and turned down major developments on both Benedict Wharf and the Tesco site by the A3. It also has a good record with some smaller schemes, repeatedly defying its own officer recommendations to deliver a much better standard of development at the Cricketers flats and rejecting the “cattle shed” plans for a Mitcham market canopy.

Something was different at this Planning Applications Committee when Merton Council’s own planning applications were in the frame. Here’s how:

First, everyone watching must have been confused to hear councillors expressing their clear opposition to the plans but still voting for them. Councillor Dehaney could hardly have been clearer that he didn’t support the applications – “I am going to vote for the application but that is not because I entirely agree with it……that area in The Canons I go there regularly should not have been touched at all, the houses should not have been built there but I will support the application…..not because I agree” and “I think that’s a wrong decision mind you I don’t say I am going to vote against it but I don’t agree with it, building on Raleigh Gardens car park”.

Watch Councillor Dehaney say it, on The Canons and on Raleigh Gardens.

Councillor Henry made an impassioned plea to respect what she called “Mitcham values” in expressing opposition to the plans for The Canons – “Although I will support this application but to be honest with you I lived in Mitcham for 30 years, I really love Mitcham and I think definitely we are taking away some of the values of Mitcham. I know we desperately need houses……but I think we are over pressuring ourselves to find accommodation by using up very small spaces…..I will go along with this application but it is not something in my heart I think I really really want to do because, as I say, especially where The Canons is that’s a heritage that’s of value that’s really…..Mitcham value…..that should restore for our young people to grow up and see what Mitcham used to be like…I hope that what we are doing we will not regret it”.

Watch Councillor Henry’s passion for Mitcham values on The Canons.

Both Councillor Henry and Councillor Dehaney voted in support of both developments.

We’re not naive. We understand how political whipping works. We understand that councillors, like MPs, generally vote according to political loyalties and are frequently told how to vote in return for their political allegiance. Except, that what might be accepted practice in a Council meeting is forbidden when it comes to planning decisions. These must be based only on planning issues. As the Local Government Association’s guidance to councillors states “The process should leave no grounds for suggesting that those participating in the decision were biased or that the decision itself was unlawful, irrational or procedurally improper.” Watch the clips linked to above and judge for yourself whether it appears that behind the scenes influences are at play.

We invite readers to ponder what might lead someone to say one thing and then vote in another way.

Second, these planning applications were not prepared by disinterested professionals. Merantun’s Director of Design and its Head of futureMerton are one and the same person. The same is true of Merantun’s Managing Director and Merton Council’s Assistant Director, Sustainable Communities. These are Merton’ Council’s most senior officers responsible for both planning policy and planning decisions. They have a patchy record in separating out their roles and have appeared badged as one when performing the role of the other. The Assistant/Managing Director also chairs the Steering Group for the £5m Lottery funded project for The Canons.

Despite clear tensions between the project to open up and restore The Canons grounds and Merantun’s development plans to close off and build over parts of the same historic landscape there were no comments on the planning applications from Merton Council’s Greenspaces team. We wonder why. As we spoke at the meeting we are also aware that both these officers were present in their Merantun roles behind the scenes of the Committee on Zoom. This is despite Merantun’s views being publicly represented by two consultants. No other developer is offered the privilege of fielding four people at a Committee discussion. Zoom also offers the facility to privately message other participants during a meeting.

Third, the role of Merton’s planning officers is to support and advise the Planning Committee. They should not be advocates for the development. This is central to their professional integrity. Merton Council has a variable record on this front but the performance on Merantun’s scheme was a masterclass in steering thoughts in one direction. Seemingly at every turn and in response to seemingly every question we observed the officer accentuating the positive on behalf of the development. Even Merantun’s own consultants were more up front in acknowledging tensions and issues with their plans.

Listening to the Planning Officer it was as if Merton’s Design Review Panel was aching to give both schemes a green light and that Panel members would be the first to move in.

In reality both schemes were subject to their sharp criticism – “too busy, intense and slightly military in feel” (The Canons) and “overdevelopment” (Raleigh Gardens) – and were rated amber.

Time and again the Planning Officer justified significant breaches of planning policy – including on trees, affordable homes, parking and building mass – as if they were everyday minor breaches which are regularly permitted. Other breaches were simply ignored.

Fourth, it is a tenet of planning law that each planning application must be considered “on its merits”. Yet, with Merantun the Committee was presented with a special note explaining that the provision of affordable homes on one site was dependent on the success of all four applications. As Councillor Southgate rightly noted, this “web” made it hard to separate the decisions. The contradictions were laid bare in the Planning Officer’s somewhat threatening Alice in Wonderland observation that “each scheme must be considered on its merits but there are consequences if one of the schemes falls at this evening’s Committee meeting” – watch here and ponder.

Fifth, the agenda of the Planning Applications Committee generally adapts on the evening to the level of interest and controversy about the proposals being considered. Those with the most go first. Except when it comes to Merantun things appear different. More than four hours after the meeting began, approaching the witching hour and after consent had been granted to three of the four Merantun schemes, the Committee turned its attention to Raleigh Gardens car park. This was the most controversial scheme of the evening and had attracted three times more objections than any of the other Merantun proposals. The inevitability of how a decision on the fourth Merantun scheme would go was palpable.

Shock, dismay, anger and despair are just some of the emotions that have been shared with us by local people who have followed these plans and been in touch.

On the immediate issue of whether Merantun’s plans should proceed we are exploring all avenues available to us. The Secretary of State has powers to call in the applications and make a final decision. We have asked him to do this. There are also legal questions over how these decisions have been made and questions about the performance of some elected members and professional officers.

But these are details. The real issues raised by this sorry tale are more profound. Trust and probity are essential to the vital relationship between a council and its community. In the way it has handled planning decisions on its own housing developments Merton Council has lost acres of ground on both. It is going to have to work hard to recover and demonstrate itself fit to work with its local community in the important planning and other decisions which lie ahead.

You can read a summary of our call-in request here.

You can view the full discussion of both schemes on Merton TV via the links below. Let us know what you think of what you see and hear.

Former Canons nursery discussion

Raleigh Gardens car park discussion

Merantun developments put Merton Council planning probity to the test

Merton Council set up its own property development arm, Merantun, in 2017.

Its first four schemes include controversial developments on both Raleigh Gardens car park and the former Canons nursery. You can see what we thought of the schemes in earlier blogs for Raleigh Gardens car park here and the Canons nursery site here. They don’t make for pleasant reading.

Despite the controversy Merantun is pressing ahead.

Its first planning applications are to be decided by councillors on the Planning Applications Committee next Thursday 16th July.

Given Merton Council is both developer and local planning authority it is a major test of the probity of planning decisions in Merton.

The challenge is made even greater by the fact that two of Merton Council’s most senior officers – the head of Future Merton (responsible for planning policies) and the Assistant Director for Sustainable Communities (responsible for the Planning Division and for Future Merton) – are Merantun’s Director of Design and Managing Director respectively. Merton’s Chinese Walls must be particularly robust.

Merantun has made only small changes to its original plans for Raleigh Gardens car park. This is despite evidence that they are in flagrant breach of Merton’s own planning policies, will dominate the skyline, and will result in only 45% of Glebe Court’s windows facing the new development meeting official guidelines for daylight and a shocking 29% being “subject to noticeable losses”.

None of these issues are addressed by changing a pitched roof into a flat one. Any faith which we might have had in the architects is further undermined when the original planning documents hailing the importance of a “distinctive pitched roof” for “referencing the common roof form seen on Mitcham’s high streets and adjacent residential buildings” and for “creating variation” and a “suitable façade proportion” are so easily set aside.

The changes to the scheme for The Canons are even more limited. This is despite the immense sensitivity of a development site located in historic ground and between listed mansion houses (The Canons and Park Place).

The development will create significant conflicts with the ambitions of the £5m Lottery-funded programme currently underway.

Even Merton Council’s own Design Review Panel described it as “too harsh and clunky” and “too busy, intense and slightly military in feel”. We still can’t quite believe the blank elevation shown in the image is still being put forward.

Adding insult to injury is recent confirmation that the original arboricultural report was flawed and that the magnificent Pagoda tree – Merton’s current Tree of the Year – will have to lose one third of its canopy and not be allowed to grow any larger to accommodate the development.

It is also of great concern that Merton Council is gerrymandering its own policies on providing affordable homes.

These require at least 40% of the homes being provided on each site to be affordable and state that affordable homes should only be provided on other sites in “exceptional circumstances”.

Instead Merantun is proposing just 22.5% of the 93 homes will be affordable and they will all be put on one site (Elm Nursery car park). This is the behaviour we sometimes see from profit-motivated private developers. It is unconscionable that Merton Council is even putting this forward let alone that it might give the green light to such a distortion of its own planning policies.

The papers before the Planning Applications Committee even admit that no legal mechanism has been found to bind one part of Merton Council (Merantun) to deliver affordable homes to another part of Merton Council (local planning authority) and that this “presents challenges”.

Councillors are encouraged simply to overlook this fundamental problem when deciding on the planning applications and told it “should not be an impediment”. We trust they will see through this approach.

We know it will be hard for Merton Council to refuse planning permission for a Merton Council development. Given the massive shortcomings in what has been put forward we cannot see that it has any other option. Merantun needs to be setting the standard and it simply must do better.

Read our latest views:

Development of Raleigh Gardens car park – June 2020

Development of former Canons nursery – June 2020

Merton Heritage Strategy review risks being a paper exercise

Merton Council has published a draft Heritage Strategy to 2025. It should provide a basis to protect, manage and celebrate our diverse heritage and for Merton Council to demonstrate a strong commitment to its future.

We’ve welcomed the intent of a Strategy while asking for more evidence that the lessons have been learned from the weak delivery of the current Strategy agreed in 2015.

Regrettably in our experience the existing Heritage Strategy is all but invisible in discussions with Merton’s planners and those responsible for the local authority’s land and buildings.

Merton Council has delivered on only two of the ten commitments in the current action plan where responsibility lies outside the heritage team. The former Mitcham fire station has been sold off, the Borough Character Study remains unfinished and delivery of The Canons project is already a year behind schedule. There is little value in a Heritage Strategy which is all but ignored by its authors.

The Heritage Strategy places a welcome emphasis on the opportunities for collaboration with voluntary organisations and community groups with an interest in heritage. This sits awkwardly with Merton Council disbanding Merton Heritage Forum in January leaving no other means to collaborate available. The Merton Heritage Forum shambles is perpetuated by officers now claiming it has “not been disbanded” and confirming that doing so results in “no direct costs savings”. The truth is the Council meeting in January decided to “dissolve” the Forum and deleted it from Merton’s constitution.

Delivery of the Heritage Strategy at a time of tight public spending requires ever more attention to the ability of Merton Council to partner with other organisations. With the shining exception of the Heritage and Local Studies Centre, our general experience is one of a top down, uncommunicative organisation which offers little respect for local knowledge and is often absent from the heritage scene.

One example is that it is harder to secure participation of Merton Council owned buildings in Mitcham Heritage Day every year than working with any of our volunteer-run partners. The experience of trying to partner on The Canons project funded by the National Lottery has been head-bangingly frustrating over nearly 10 years, to the point of turning volunteers away.

As a result we have asked Merton Council to progress with the Strategy only when it can provide a clear corporate commitment to heritage, practical mechanisms for collaboration, and an ability to be a good partner. Without these in place the renewed Strategy will be a paper exercise.

We’ve also suggested a more robust approach with a much briefer document supported by principles, a delivery plan and success measures which can be used to judge progress. This should be supported by clear mechanisms for delivery and review and a visibly enhanced corporate commitment from all parts of Merton Council to our heritage.

You can read our full response to Merton’s draft Heritage Strategy here.

Replacing Mitcham Bridge

Mitcham Bridge on Bishopsford Road is the historic gateway to Mitcham across the River Wandle.

You can still see the remains of the old ford on the upstream side. It is located in an important green corridor linking Ravensbury Park and the National Trust’s Watermeads and supports the Wandle Trail.

It is a year since the bridge was closed by flooding while repair works were underway.

Eight months later Merton Council decided that the only way forward was to demolish and build a new bridge. Demolition is underway and Merton Council invited comments on two options for the design of the new parapets last month. We have teamed up with Wandle Valley Forum and Mitcham Society to respond.

The future of Mitcham Bridge is much more important than the design of its parapets.

It is an historic location and it is important that this heritage is recognised and protected. The current bridge carries parish markers as the river is the parish boundary. We have asked that these are incorporated into the new bridge.

There are opportunities for interpretation to tell the story of the area and we’ve offered to work with Merton Council on a project to deliver this.

The works also provide an opportunity to better connect Ravensbury Park and the new bridge should support a wider pavement and make space for those on bikes.

Crossing the new Mitcham Bridge should be an event. We’re asking Merton Council to be more creative and recognise the Wandle through some public art, such as images of a heron or trout rendered in decorative wrought iron railings.

We’ve asked Merton Council to demonstrate how the new bridge will meet the legal requirement to preserve and enhance Wandle Valley Conservation Area. It also needs to support the Catchment Management Plan for the Wandle by enhancing the river’s natural flow, naturalising its banks. reducing shadowing, benefiting wildlife and protecting the water from pollution and silt.

Building a new bridge is a rare and special event. We deserve the best for Mitcham.

Take a look at our joint submission – Bishopsford Road bridge.

Sparrowhawk Yard flats return little improved

The former Sparrowhawk Yard overlooking Three Kings Piece is a classic brownfield site which can benefit from development.

It is also an unfortunate example of how developers bring forward schemes that are too large for their site and don’t fit into the local area.

A four storey scheme for 29 flats was recommended for approval last year by Merton Council officers. Fortunately, the Planning Applications Committee held firm against its impact and were vindicated on appeal when the Planning Inspector concluded it would harm the “character and appearance” of the area and was in conflict with Merton’s Local Plan.

We might have expected Merton’s officers to have reached this conclusion earlier.

Undeterred the developers have returned with a scheme for 25 flats that is only marginally smaller and which suffers from many of the same design flaws that led to the previous refusal.

The new proposal is welcome for having some more design detail and improving the quality of the flats as living accommodation but it still falls well short of what’s required for a sensitive site adjacent to the Conservation Area.

The impact on Three Kings Piece could be significant but no images have been provided despite its importance to the planning decision.

The scheme is also based on parking assumptions that include the illegal fly parking on registered Town Green along Commonside East.

We have interrogated the assumptions that result in no affordable homes being provided and found them wanting. They fail to include any estimate of the cost of affordable homes and simultaneously claim to have been prepared “with regard to” and “not in accordance with ” the professional surveyor standards known as the “Red Book”.

We are asking Merton Council to reject the scheme.

Read our representation.