Mitcham Gasworks- how to object

Revised proposals for the development of Mitcham Gasworks have been submitted to Merton Council. The fundamental flaws of too many flats, too few affordable homes, going too high and having too little greenery remain.

On all the key points the revised plans are little changed from those rejected last year by local residents and ward councillors.

Read on for:

  • what local people want for the site
  • eleven reasons to object
  • how to make your views known – three different ways to get involved and contact your ward councillors

What local people want for Mitcham Gasworks

We support significant development of the site and backed Merton Council’s original proposals in the Local Plan for up to 400 homes, rising to no more than six storeys. At least half the homes should be truly affordable and the development should be co-designed with the local community as a natural extension to Mitcham Village. Instead the plans are for 579 flats, rising to nine storeys, with minimal affordable housing and a design which is alien to Mitcham.

We are working with local residents (see Mitcham Gasworks Community’s leaflet below) and the Mitcham Society to make sure Merton Council turns them down.

Eleven reasons to object

Character. The bland “could be anywhere” design combined with the sheer height, scale and bulk of the proposals has no local precedent and will fundamentally change the low rise character of Mitcham Village for the worse for ever.

Visual impact. The development will be visible from Mitcham Common and the evidence provided stretches credulity by claiming for all 21 views analysed that the impact will be “beneficial”, “neutral” or “none”. We are told the development “provides carefully articulated buildings that would provide visual interest” and we don’t believe it! There is a reason why the developer has still not provided any images of the proposals showing the full height of any of the nine storey tower blocks. There is also a reason why none of the 21 views analysed include the close up impact from neighbouring homes like those in Portland Road. If the developer is so confident in the scheme then what is there to hide?

Affordability. A bare minimum of non-market housing is being provided and the viability evidence required to justify fewer than half of the homes being affordable is riddled with dodgy assumptions. It concludes under all options that the development will make a huge financial loss, suggesting it has been written more to avoid providing affordable homes than an accurate assessment of the viability of the plans. The development will do nothing to reduce Merton’s housing waiting list and the vast majority of the new homes will be unaffordable given average incomes in Mitcham.

Greening. The amount of planting and green space provided falls short of the minimum requirements of the London Plan – an Urban Greening Factor of 0.4 is required and the developer admits the proposals only reach 0.38.

Nature. The plans fall nearly 10% short of the new legal requirement for all development to result in a 10% increase in biodiversity and rare Open Mosaic Habitat which has become established in recent years will be lost.

Overheating. Large numbers of the flats tested fail to pass basic standards to avoid overheating and the overall development scores 18 on the Good Homes Alliance measure for overheatiing risk on a scale where 12 is considered high.

Sunlight. More than a fifth of those planned – have windows on only one side (single aspect) and more than one third do not meet official guidelines on sunlight. The large number of single aspect flats is in conflict with both London Plan and Merton Local Plan policies. Merton’s Local Plan states “single aspect homes are strongly discouraged and will only be accepted where they demonstrate they have adequate passive ventilation, daylight and privacy and avoid overheating and are necessary to optimise site capacity through a design led approach, in line with the London Plan.” Yet the ground floor flats and those facing Western Road have mechanical not passive ventilation due to the risk of overheating. To flout Merton’s new Local Plan before the ink is even dry would set an entirely damaging precedent.

Shadowing. The developers own studies show a significant overshadowing of neighbouring homes in Westfield Road and Portland Road and revealingly the developers ask for a “flexible approach” to the treatment of official standards on the shadowing impact of the tower blocks.

Impermeable boundary. Despite at least two years of negotiation the developers have still failed to remove the boundary fence owned by Barratt Homes along the Hay Drive open space and across the end of Hay Drive. This creates a massive barrier and severely reduces access to and through the site. The developer knowingly uses misleading images that show no fence and families enjoying green space which lies outside the boundary and which serves as a soakaway during heavy rain on the neighbouring Barratt Homes site.

Contamination. The developer’s studies conclude “potential volatile contamination may be present and has not been fully investigated to date” and confirm that previous clean-up work done on most of the site is not to the standard required for residential development and the area of the recently demolished gasometer has not been cleaned up. We believe clear plans for how the site will be decontaminated are needed before the planning application is decided and cannot be left to a later date.

Local Plan conflict. Merton Council has collaborated with the developers behind closed doors to increase the number of homes allocated on the site in its new Local Plan to fit with what is now planned. However the latest policy for the site also states that its development should be informed by a Design Guide or Design Code “based on effective community engagement and reflect local aspirations for the development of the area”. No Design Guide or Design Code has been prepared and the plans were rejected by 99% residents living within 100m in a door-to-door street audit. Merton Council’s own resident survey of preferences showed “taller flatted housing” to be the least popular option and supported by only 7% of people.

At the time of writing no images of the proposed tower blocks with all nine storeys are provided by the developer

How to make your views known – contact your ward councillors

The latest plans will shortly go to Merton Council’s Planning Committee for a decision.

Now is the time to ask your ward councillors to:

  • confirm they still object to the plans and explain why
  • write again to Merton Council officially expressing their views so they count in the planning decision
  • provide support and advice on how local people can register their views
    exercise their right to speak at the Planning Applications Committee on behalf of local residents

The Mitcham Gasworks site is on the border of Lavender Fields ward and the scale of the building plans means they also have a direct impact on other wards, especially Figges Marsh and Cricket Green. You can read what ward councillors said about the plans when they were first submitted here. Siobhian McDonagh MP expressed concerns about the plans but did not submit an official objection.

You can find contact details for ward councillors here and find out which ward you are in by dropping your postcode into the search box here.

How to make your views known – three ways

There are at least three ways in which you can get involved in the decisions to be made over the future of Mitcham Gasworks:

1. Comment on the planning application This is a must do for your views to inform the actual decision which will be made by Merton Council’s Planning Applications Committee.

Full details of the proposals can be found here.

Submitting your views can be done quickly and should take you no more than 10 minutes.

You need to send in your views again even if you commented on the plans last year.

Email your comments to planning.representations@merton.gov.uk.

We provide some pointers on issues to raise above and further guidance on commenting on planning applications is available here.

To be heard you must:

  • Put the application reference in the subject line – 22/P3620 Mitcham Gasworks
  • Include your name and address
  • Be clear that you would like the application to be refused and why if that’s your view

Ideally you should make your views known by Thursday 16 May although comments will be accepted right up until the Planning Applications Committee agenda is decided.

2. Contact your ward councillors. Ask them to say whether they support or object to the plans and if they will represent you by speaking at the Planning Applications Committee. Keep asking if you don’t get an answer. And ask again if you still don’t get a response.

3. Attend a meeting. We will be discussing Mitcham Gasworks along with other issues at our next Open Meeting on 20 May and we are hoping our local MP, Siobhain McDonagh, will organise the public meeting she proposed last year to give local people the opportunity to hear more about the plans. We have little faith in the faux “public consultation” event held by the developers.

 

Mitcham Gaswork Community poster

A view of Mitcham Gasworks from Fair Green. While this photo is from the original planning application documents, the applicant has failed to provide a similar view for its revision, which is almost the same height and massing.

 

 

Mitcham Heritage Day Saturday 9 September 2023

10.00am to 4.30pm Saturday 9 September 2023

Thank you to all the volunteers who have worked hard to help make Mitcham Heritage Day 2023 happen, to those who have given financial support, and to Merton Council’s Heritage and Local Studies service for providing exhibitions.

Download our map for use on the day.

If you enjoy Mitcham Heritage Day do please consider becoming a member. Your membership fee will help us run Mitcham Heritage Day in the future, as well as supporting all the other work we do.

Here is the programme – do check back before coming along for any last minute additions and alterations.

Event Centre
7 on map
Come and say hello and find out more about our work. We will be at the Mayor of Merton’s Tea on the Green between 1.00pm and 4.00pm We’d love to hear what you think of Mitcham Heritage Day.

Heritage Shorts
H on map
Check the map for the Heritage Shorts locations – each one provides interesting local heritage information.

Mitcham Community Choir
Keep your eyes open for Mitcham Community Choir who will give impromptu performances during the day. Here’s where and when to spot them:
12.20pm at Mitcham Parish Church 1 on map
1.20pm at Mitcham Methodist Church 8 on map
2.10pm at Wandle Industrial Museum 3 on map

Mitcham Parish Church
1 on map
10.00am to 4.00pm church open.
10.00am to 12.00pm bell tower ringing room open with bell ringing demonstrations. NB the tower is accessed via a spiral staircase.
1.00pm Introduction to the Graveyard talk and tour. Participants should wait in the church.
Exhibitions relating to the church building and its history back to Medieval times.
Exhibition provided by Merton Council’s Heritage and Local Studies service From Green to Green
Refreshments.
Toilet – wheelchair accessible.

Cricket Green School
2 on map
10.00am to 4.30pm access via main gate of school on Church Road.
See the remains of the Grade II listed arch of 14th Century Hall Place in school grounds.

Wandle Industrial Museum
3 on map
10.00am to 4.30pm museum open as normal. The museum has exhibitions on the history and heritage of the people and industries of the Wandle Valley. Mitcham has a rich heritage of industry which included a number of mills on the River Wandle.
Volunteers will be on hand to answer your questions.
10.30am, 12.00pm, 2.30pm block printing demonstration and hands-on session. Booking essential – office@wandle.org or telephone 020 8648 0127.
Toilets available.

Vestry Hall 
4 on map
10.00am to 4.00pm open to visitors. Some parts of the building may be closed due to building works.
2.30pm and 3.30pm guided tours. Booking advised – email Vestryhall@merton.gov.uk. Meet at main entrance to building.
Toilets available.
Display boards containing historic photos and current plans of the development taking place inside Vestry Hall are located outside the Wandle Industrial Museum (location 3 on map).

Mitcham Cricket Club pavilion
5 on map
10.30am to 4.00pm cricket pavilion open. Meet the volunteers to learn more about 338 years of cricket on the Green.
Exhibition Mitcham Man James Southerton and the WG Grace Tour of Australia 1873-74.
Refreshments.
Toilets available.

Mitcham Cricket Green Community & Heritage
6 on map
10.30am guided walk around the local area. An introduction to the history and heritage of Cricket Green. Allow one hour. Meet on Cricket Green opposite the cricket pavilion.

Mayor of Merton’s Tea on the Green
7 on map
1.00pm to 4.00pm
Cricket Green Councillor Gill Manly, the Mayor of Merton, is holding a tea party on Cricket Green raising funds for her charities: Merton Music Foundation, and Brain Cancer Research.
Enjoy homemade cakes and savouries (baked by the Mayor!), and lashings of tea. All donations for refreshments will be given to the two charities. There may also be some singalong during the afternoon.

Mitcham Methodist Church
8 on map
10.30pm to 4.30pm church open.
Volunteers available throughout the day to tell visitors about the church and show them round.
Toilets available.

The Canons House and Grounds
9 on map
11.00am to 4.00pm community exhibitions will be open.
12.00pm, 1.00pm, 2.00pm, 3.00pm guided tours of Canons House.
Toilets available including accessible toilets.

Mitcham Cricket Green Community & Heritage
10 on map
11.45am Learn the story of the 201 year old obelisk and try your hand at dowsing to find underground water. Dowsing rods provided.

Saints Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Church
11 on map
11.00am to 2.00pm church open.
11.00am, 12.00pm, 1.00pm guided tours of church and garden.
Exhibition Photographs of the Consecration in the parish room.
Exhibition provided by Merton Council’s Heritage and Local Studies service The Colour Purple: The story of Mitcham’s lavender industry.
Exhibition provided by Merton Council’s Heritage and Local Studies service Common Knowledge: The Heritage of Mitcham Common.
Merton Historical Society stall.
Refreshments.
Toilets with disabled access.

The Small Quarter
12 on map
260 Croydon Road, CR4 4JA. Look out for the entrance with a sign above saying “The Small Quarter”
11.00am to 4.00pm open to visitors.
Printed display about the Blue House Cottages which used to be on the site.
Creative activities relating to carpentry, bee keeping and gardening.
Accessible composting toilet available.

 

Mitcham Heritage Day is part of Wandle Fortnight 2023 and Heritage Open Days.

Thanks go to Wandle Fortnight and The Canons (via the National Lottery Heritage Fund and the National Lottery Community Fund) for their financial support.

  

Caring for trees

The way we care for trees is a barometer of how much we care about the places we live, work and play in. Trees enrich our lives, keep us healthy, reduce pollution, provide shade and support wildlife. They remind us of our heritage and they will last long into the future.

It’s no surprise therefore that people care deeply about how treees are looked after, spend hundreds of volunteer hours planting and caring for them and get angry when they are needlessly felled.

Now, finally, Merton Council is to have a strategy for the trees that it owns. We’ve had sight of the draft and fed in our thoughts. You can read them below. There’s much to welcome but so much more that can be done.

The best strategies set out a vision, provide a plan for how to achieve it and put in place the resources for delivery. This draft Strategy only begins to provide this. It needs to commit to increasing Merton’s tree canopy not just to planting new trees, and to set an ambition well above the 10% target for London as a whole. It also needs to set clear deadlines for delivery and set out how both capital and revenue funding will be forthcoming from Council budgets, grants and other funding sources.

Trees are the responsibility of many Merton Council departments and what happens on our streets and in our green spaces is largely undertaken by contractors. Too often these different parts operate in conflict with each other. Some of the biggest tree losses in and around Cricket Green have been down to Merton Council itself.

The development of The Canons nursery will wipe clean an area which Merton Council’s own consultants recognise as being of “significant ecological value” and it threatens Merton’s Tree of the Year. Other mature trees have been needlessly felled in front of The Canons house and the new Mitcham Bridge has come at further needless damage to our tree canopy. On our streets tree pits have been tarmacked and trees lost to highway “improvements”. The new Tree Strategy is an opportunity to draw a line and bring the different parts of Merton Council together.

Its also important that the new Strategy is based on good data. The draft suggests Merton Council has no responsibility for shrubs and hedges barely get a mention. The data presented uses outdated ward boundaries and there is no record of Merton’s very special veteran trees or those which commemorate important events. More can be done by Merton Council to protect its own trees with Tree Protection Orders in both Conservation Areas and elsewhere.

The new Strategy can do more to tap into the love that local people have for trees. Tree Warden Group Merton, Friends and other like-minded groups do far more for Merton’s trees than many realise.

Many of us have seen or been involved in trees being planted. This is only the beginning. Those trees need to establish themselves, be pruned, mulched and above all watered in the first few years of their life and during the increasing number of dry spells. So much of this is done by volunteers and too much of it is made too difficult. Volunteers need access to taps, to mulch, to tools and to advice. Local people also undertake research, organise walks, prepare tree trails, nominate sites for new trees and use citizen science to increase our collective understanding. All this and more should be embraced by a Tree Strategy which puts community collaboration at its core.

Read our full submission on Merton Council’s draft tree strategy Merton Tree Strategy – response Nov 22

Mary Tate building plans

Mary Tate’s Almshouses is one of the most important heritage assets in Mitcham Cricket Green Conservation Area.

It is Grade II listed strategically located by the historic cricket ground and part of the wider Cricket Green story of socially conscious benefactors addressing local needs for healthcare, homes and other support.

It is a much admired and appreciated part of Cricket Green’s social infrastructure and heritage, as evidenced by the level of public interest when it participates in Mitcham Heritage Day.

Over 20 years ago building plans on the important allotments to the rear were given permission but never implemented. They have re-emerged after the site was taken over by Croydon Almshouse Charities. An application for five homes, an office and a meeting room is now with Merton Council to decide.

There is a desperate shortage of truly affordable homes in Mitcham and we welcome efforts to address the problem. Having examined the plans, however, we don’t think that building on protected open space in the grounds of a listed building is the best way forward.

A lot has changed in the last 20 years and we know far more now about the importance of Mary Tate’s Almshouses and the value of green space.

The open land on which the development is planned has just been designated for protection in Merton’s new Local Plan. It is also now included in the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust’s Inventory of historic parks and gardens. Merton Council itself has undertaken an appraisal of the Conservation Area and a study of local character in the last few years which both identify the special value of open spaces to the neighbourhood. It would be perverse to set all this new insight aside because of a decision made two decades ago.

Our review of the plans shows that the buildings proposed are oversized, poorly designed and the schemes as a whole isn’t practical. The planning application also lacks vital information needed to make any informed decision.

We estimate around 67% of the existing open space is lost to development. This fundamentally changes the character of the Mary Tate site which flips from being predominantly green space to predominantly developed.

The proposed new buildings lack architectural merit. They present a barren, rectangular appearance out of character and in sharp contrast with the existing buildings. The applicant recognises these for being “constructed at considerable expense” and benefiting from “architectural detailing that is uncommon on buildings constructed for lower income residents”. This cannot be said of the new proposals. The plans also include a significant office space and an undersized meeting room which cramp the existing buildings and offer little public benefit.

As well as being poorly designed and harming the existing listed buildings we find the plans don’t work at a practical level on issues such as access, bins, room sizes and safety.

It is unclear whether access down a narrow shared driveway outside the site and through a new gate involving demolition of part of the Grade II listed boundary wall will work in practice. It is equally very clear that the plans to use two small existing outhouses to store bins is a non-starter given their size, layout and the number of bins involved.

The new homes fall short on London-wide space standards that require storage space to be provided. This is a particular problem given the need for many to find somewhere to keep a wheelchair or other mobility aids as well as personal posessions. With rising heating costs it is disappointing to see room designs that have the front door opening direct into the living space. This will be a major source of heat loss on a daily basis during winter months.

Getting around and away from the buildings will also be challenge. There is no evidence provided for how residents in the new buildings to the rear can be evacuated if fire breaks out in the existing Almshouses blocking them from the road. Getting around the site will also be a daily challenge given some of the routes are as narrow at 1.5m wide. This is despite the extensive use of mobility scooters and wheelchairs by residents.

We’ve also been surprised and disappointed by how the plans have emerged.

Despite Croydon Almshouse Charities social purpose and values there has been no prior consultation with the local community and even the existing Almshouse residents didn’t know what was in the planning application before it was submitted. Strikingly, there is no consideration of the impact of the building works on the existing residents in the plans. This is despite their vulnerability to the noise, dust and other harm from construction works. We have called for evidence in the form of a “method statement” that construction can be managed without harm to residents before any decision can be made on the proposals.

Our conclusions are emphatic. Despite the obvious need for more affordable places to live this is not a finely judged decision. The proposals irreversibly change and harm the character of Mary Tate’s Almshouses. They develop a large area of protected open space and cause demonstrable harm to the significance of the Grade II listed building and Conservation Area. The site area of Mary Tate’s Almshouses changes from being predominantly open space to predominantly developed.

The evidence of seeking to extract too much from the site is also apparent in the undersized homes, lack of internal storage, restricted access routes, inadequate bin storage and cramped meeting space. There may also be insurmountable issues relating to the construction of the new buildings given the restricted site and vulnerability of existing residents. We find this all particularly problematic given the caring mission of Croydon Almshouse Charities and the circumstances of the existing and any future residents.

We are asking Merton Council to reject the planning application and stand ready to work with Croydon Almshouse Charities on how it can contribute to meeting housing needs in Mitcham.

Read our full submission on these plans Mary Tates Almshouses – Nov 22

Managing Mitcham Common

Mitcham Common is the largest and most significant open space in our neighbourhood.

At 182 hectares it is bigger than Hyde Park or Kew Gardens and it is enjoyed by thousands.

The Common only exists as a result of public campaigns in both the 19th and 20th centuries to protect it from gravel extraction, new roads, landfill and encroaching development. The M23 was once planned to carry on north and run right across it.

As time passes each new generation finds Mitcham Common is more and more valuable to all our lives. It also supports a vast diversity of wildlife. Thousands of us discovered it during lockdown and there is immense public interest in its future. It should be no surprise that Friends of Mitcham Common is one of the largest membership groups in our area.

Mitcham Common matters. It is highly valued by those who enjoy it and yet there are many more who are still unaware it exists or of the rich experiences it can offer. Too often it is seen as a scary wasteland. This all presents opportunities for Mitcham Common to matter even more.

We are, therefore, delighted to see a new Management Plan is in preparation under the guiding hand of Mitcham Common Conservators who own and run it under 19th century legislation. The new Management Plan cannot come quickly enough. The last one ran out ten years ago and the public have not had any opportunity to inform the management approach since 2007.

We have fed in views on what should be in the new Management Plan. The draft suggests it will offer much for the wildlife of Mitcham Common and it is good to see the strong line against the clutter of bins, signs, sports pitches and seats and the laying tarmac paths. We also agree that opportunities for major tree planting on Mitcham Common are limited if it is to retain its open nature and important habitats.

Despite these positives the Management Plan is a deeply disappointing document. We find it narrowly drawn and unlikely to generate the public and financial support needed to provide Mitcham Common with a sustainable future. Instead it is reliant on short term financial fixes which could harm the Common such as mass participation events, music festivals and advertising. These provide no basis for securing its long term future.

We are invited to respond to the draft Management Plan by making “comments relevant to specific parts of the draft document”. This implies a belief that the draft is almost there and only need tweaks and adjustments to provide what Mitcham Common needs to guide its future. Instead we believe there are fundamentals still missing and a misconception of what Mitcham Common offers and what’s needed.

The new Management Plan should be a watershed. It should redefine how Mitcham Common relates to the thousands of people who both use it and would be willing to do more to support it. The Common has been managed for too long as if it were run by a local authority. Inward looking, focused more on risk than opportunity, lacking creativity and managed remotely from the people who use it. Yet the Conservators have few of the constraints of local government and their independence means they can take a very different approach more suited to the times.

We believe Mitcham Common needs to be managed with the mindset of a charity or trust not a local authority. It needs to inspire and to tap into the energy and support for those thousands of people who people care about and benefit from what it offers. Currently, volunteer support is too often turned away or constrained by unwelcoming attitudes, excessive charges or unnecessary requirements for “professional supervision”. Mill House Ecology Centre lies idle most of the time when it should be fizzing with activity as a community and educational hub. The army of citizen scientists interested in Mitcham Common’s ecology, history and landscape remains untapped. Mitcham Common has no official presence on social media. By any measure of the level of community support, volunteer activity or external funding, Mitcham Common compares poorly with equivalent green spaces across London and beyond.

Thinking like a local authority isn’t surprising given the majority of Mitcham Common Conservators are councillors appointed by Merton, Sutton, Croydon and the City of London. For too many their priorities lie elsewhere and attendance at meeting is patchy. This should change. While there is a place for councillors as Conservators they should not be in the majority. The boroughs can use their powers to appoint independent voices, bringing fresh insight and knowledge and involving those who use and volunteer on the Common. This will bring wider perspectives to the discussion and decisions.

The Common is also run day to day under a contract with Merton Council’s Greenspaces team. Mitcham Common’s Manager is a Merton Council employee. While this has some advantages it makes it hard to think beyond the local authority mind-set and the skills and experience needed to grow public support for the Common are missing.

These arrangements are among many reasons why we are asking the Conservators to commission an independent review of themselves to learn from their experience and improve the way they work. It’s only healthy for any organisation to take a look at itself every few years and the Conservators have been running the Common for 131.

We are also keen to see the management contract currently held by Merton Council re-tendered. This is another example of basic good practice to ensure the management approach is effective and cost efficient. It would also allow the tender to evolve to bring on new skills and experience to address the priorities in the new Management Plan, including building the case for more visitor and volunteer support and a more imaginative approach to income generation than is apparent in the current draft Management Plan.

We’ve asked for the Management Plan to be based on a bold vision and to be well supported by a clear objective and aims. The current draft struggles to do this. It also lacks key information that can inform important targets against which to measure ongoing work. We firmly believe that for the Management Plan to be effective these need to be incorporated, and there should be a commitment to publish a progress report each year.

The Management Plan’s approach can also do more to recognise the value of Mitcham Common’s landscape and heritage as well as its wildlife. It should recognise and protect the value of its relatively dark skies and tranquillity.

There are also other environmental benefits to address, including the role of Mitcham Common in reducing the impact of climate change, managing water resources, reducing urban overheating and mitigating air pollution. These are all in addition to the significant contribution the Common makes to the wellbeing of those who use it.

We have also asked for a more outward looking approach that recognises Mitcham Common is part of a much larger green landscape stretching all the way to Beddington Park and including Beddington Farmlands, Mitcham’s Greens and the open land by the railway north of BedZed. Mitcham Common should be part of the efforts to recognise this key resource at the heart of Wandle Valley Regional Park, looking beyond the boundaries of ownership to join things up and improve the environment.

The new Management Plan is virtually silent on some important outlying areas of Mitcham Common, including the significant area which lies within Mitcham Cricket Green Conservation Area around Mitcham Garden Village and running south towards Mill Green. This area has been threatened by a new access road to Willow Lane Industrial Estate and is one of many subject to significant and persistent flytipping.

The next Management Plan period also needs to see a much stronger evidence base on which to make decisions over Mitcham Common’s future. It is both striking and shocking that the Management Plan admits “there is no available data for the number of visitors to the Common” and nothing is known about those who do visit. The ecological data is also partial and out of date. Large parts of the Management Plan are based on a 1984 report that even leaves out some important parts of the Common. The Management Plan has also been prepared with no assessment of Mitcham Common’s landscape and its character available.

Mitcham Common already plays a vital role in our neighbourhood. Yet it can do so much more to tackle some of the most important challenges of our times. At a time of climate crisis, declining wildlife, rising air pollution and growing concerns over public health, mental wellbeing and civic pride we need to be able to turn to places like Mitcham Common. With the right Management Plan, revitalised Conservators and a dynamic new relationship with the users of the Common and the local community we know we will be able to find some of the answers on our doorstep.

Read our full response to the draft Mitcham Common Management Plan – Mitcham Common Management Plan – Oct 22

The Management Plan is hosted on Mitcham Common Conservators’ website – https://mitchamcommon.org/category/all-publications/ 

Pushing up – Drive House plans

New planing freedoms are encouraging property owners to add extra storeys to their buildings. We have seen a number of proposals along London Road, including Deseret House next to Glebe Court, and the latest is for Drive House.

The plan is to add two storeys to the existing three storey building that runs from Pawelek to Justin Plaza. It includes an important local shopping parade and two storeys of flats.

Where well designed and located we are supportive of efforts to make more effective use of brownfield sites and existing buildings to provide homes.

Our representations on Merton’s new Local Plan supported the allocation of 11 sites for the development of hundreds of new homes. Unfortunately the Drive House plans are for poor quality accommodation in a poorly designed vertical extension.

Drive House is designed as a three storey building and it sits well in London Road. With all the new build going on around it, including on the former KwikFit site and soon to be on the car wash site, it is important to retain existing building heights that protect the character of the townscape and avoid a canyon of new building along London Road.

The detailed design of the proposed vertical extension is also harmful to the external appearance of Drive House. It lacks appropriate architectural detailing and relates uneasily to the existing building which was not designed to be of this scale.

We also question whether Drive House qualifies for the fast track planning freedoms under which the application has been made. These exclude proposals within 3km of an aerodrome. The helipad at St George’s Hospital falls within this definition and it is just under 3km away.

Whatever happens to the plans it is important that the owners maintain the building better. It has been allowed to develop a serious maintenance backlog and action is needed to address the decaying awning which has lost render, causes leaks in the shops below and is now surmounted by numerous buddleia plants. Merton Council has powers to require this to be remedied without giving permission for new development.

You can read our full response here.