SUBMISSION FOR PLANNING APPEAL CASE NO 3211109 FROM Haydons Road North Community. August 2019

Executive Summary

• The transport and environmental assessments for this application are inaccurate and incomplete. There is therefore no robust assessment of the highways and air quality implications of this proposal. For this reason alone, the Appeal should be dismissed.

• This site is at a special location which is probably more sensitive to its context than others sitting alongside a public footpath, designated Quietway, protected Regional Park, SINC and MOL. This is an inappropriate location for a concrete batching plant.

• Appellant and Council both fail to acknowledge the proximity of nearby allotments and children’s playground.

• Appellant and Council also overestimate the amount of existing traffic and general activity on this SIL estate.

• A batching plant would have a negative impact on the increasingly residential nature of this area. The cumulative effect of local developments has not been taken into account.

• A concrete batching plant so close to the Wandle Trail would threaten Wandle Valley Regional Park strategies which include safeguarding the Wandle Valley as “a place for healthy living” and “a clean, safe, sustainable and attractive natural environment”.

• Background noise levels would dramatically increase, with noise from the plant likely to be sudden, concentrated and powerful with a negative impact on passers-by, wildlife and allotment holders.

• Large numbers of truck movements will be generated onto a quiet, narrow road that provides pedestrian and cyclist access to the Wandle Trail.

• The Application is contrary to numerous local, London and national policies. There are no needs case, employment benefits or historic usage arguments for this scheme that warrant overruling policy guidance.

1

SUBMISSION DOCUMENT BY NICOLA THOMPSON FOR THE HAYDONS ROAD NORTH COMMUNITY 1.0 Determination Grounds For This Appeal

1.1 We note that under section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State, and therefore any inspector to whom jurisdiction for determining the appeal has been transferred, "may deal with the application as if it had been made to him in the first instance".

1.2 We assume that given the failure of Merton Council to properly consider all elements of this scheme, and its decision to ultimately reject it on visual amenity alone, the Inspector will take the above approach and consider all elements of this proposal, notwithstanding the SOCOG in which Merton Council (for reasons which are not understood) has chosen to concur with the appellant on numerous issues which are disputed by objectors.

1.3 Additionally, we note that Merton Council’s planning officer for this application reassured us after this application was refused planning permission under delegated powers that, were it to be appealed, the Inspector would examine all elements relating to the application and not simply the grounds cited by Merton Council for refusal.

2.0 Insufficient Information Submitted

2.1 We note that numerous appeals have been dismissed where an applicant for permission has submitted insufficient information to enable the impact of a proposed development to be assessed. We suggest that this is the case in this instance, as follows.

2.2 Merton Council’s Planning Application Checklist includes:

“47. Transport Assessment: This is a requirement of the NPPF, London Plan policy 6.3 and Core Strategy policies CS18 to CS20 the adopted Merton Sites and Policies Plan (July 2014): DM T1 to T5”

2.3 The requirement for a transport assessment was identified at the pre-app stage of this application. Merton Council stated that a transport assessment detailing the number of existing and proposed traffic movements from this site would be key.

2.4 The required assessment was provided (Transport Statement Jan 2017). It includes the following statements:

6.1 …the existing use of the application site generates a total of 238 vehicle movements per day, of which 182 (76%) are HGVs. 6.2… The proposed development will generate a total of 96 movements per day at the site access, of which 86 will be HGVs. That is a very significant reduction in both total flows (minus 60%) and HGV traffic (minus 53%) to and from the site. 7.1 The application site can be redeveloped in order to create a concrete batching plant with no adverse impact on local traffic conditions. Indeed, the result will be a strongly beneficial improvement due to significant reductions in HGV and total traffic movements generated by the site compared with its existing use.

2

2.5 The appellant continued to insist throughout 2017 that this Transport Assessment was accurate and representative of usage of the appeal site (at the time of the traffic survey and through 2017), in documents and correspondence as well as in a meeting with residents on October 3, 2017. ( SEE APPENDIX 1 )

2.6 In an email (SUPPLIED AT APPENDIX 2) to the appellant’s agent dated 24/10/2017, planning officer Tim Lipscomb states: “information submitted by objectors… has cast serious doubt over the reliability of the applicant’s figures, to the extent that we would not consider the traffic survey sufficiently robust to support the officer recommendation for approval… It is likely that we will now require much more robust traffic surveys which are more reflective of the actual situation. It will need to be over a longer period than a day.”

2.7 Merton Council’s requirement for a more robust traffic survey (as required under London Plan Policy 6.3) is repeated in a further email (SUPPLIED AT APPENDIX 3) to the appellant’s agent dated 3/11/2017 as follows: “The view is that we will need a robust traffic count… and to maintain credibility, it is going to be necessary to commission an independent traffic count (ie the Council commission the survey but the applicant would need to meet those costs).”

2.8 No such survey was commissioned or provided.

2.9 However, a fresh Addendum Transport Note was submitted by the appellant in December 2017, which contradicts the appellant’s previous statements of existing and ongoing traffic levels from the site. It also acknowledges, in contradiction of every previous statement from the appellant, that traffic figures presented in video and tabular format by residents following an informal survey of the site over the course of a number of days and weeks, were indeed representative of HGV movements to and from the site:

“2.2 Cappagh have confirmed that they have reviewed the survey undertaken by the third party objectors and confirm that this is broadly representative of how the site is currently operating…”

2.10 A Highways and Transport Statement is provided as part of the documentation for this Appeal. It relies on the original – discredited – traffic survey figures (at par 5.3) and the informally surveyed by residents traffic figures (par 5.5) which it originally dismissed, then accepted to be ‘broadly representative’, but has had no direct access to, has not properly assessed for methodology and cannot be sure are accurate.

2.11 The appellant submits no fresh traffic survey results despite these having being requested by Merton Council as essential to ensure credibility. At par 6.3 in the most recent Highways and Transport Statement, the appellant explains this is for two reasons: “(a) The baseline highway network surveys are less than 3 years old and are therefore still current; (b) The results of any further surveys at the Appeal site would simply lie within the range already tested.”

2.12 Statement (a) fails to take into account the effects of other developments in the local area, which include a large-scale development of the Wimbledon Stadium site, the building of a new secondary school within half a mile of this site, and development of the High Path housing estate also within half a mile of this site, as well as multiple developments in nearby Wandsworth. It has also already been discounted as inaccurate. Statement (b) is therefore incorrect.

2.13 There is no current, accurate transport assessment for this application.

3

2.14 As stated at 2.2 and 2.3 above, provision of a Transport Assessment is a requirement of the NPPF, London Plan and Merton Core Strategy. It was also identified as necessary at pre-app stage. Without a Transport Assessment, there is insufficient information to enable the impact of the proposed development to be properly assessed. Documentation supplied to support this application is unclear and inconsistent. For this reason alone, this appeal should be dismissed.

2.15 It stands to reason that, without a robust Transport Assessment, there can be no credible Air Quality Assessment, as the latter relies on the former to extrapolate environmental conclusions. The Environmental Assessment offered by the appellant is therefore also insufficient. For this reason too, this appeal should be dismissed.

3.0 Problems With Agreed Statement Of Common Ground

3.1 There are a number of errors and omissions in the document entitled Appellant Statement of Common Ground (SOCOG), as follows. Pars referred to below relate to the SOCOG document.

3.2 At par 2.3, there is mention of a cement silo “which has been used temporarily on site”. Note that if this silo has been used on this site, this apparently accepted usage was carried out without the necessary environmental permissions. This is illegal.

3.3 At par 2.10 is a description of the surrounding area. Note that this paragraph fails to mention the children’s playground in Garfield Park, which lies just beyond the railway line c50m from the site. It also fails to mention the Havelock Road allotments which lie just over the River Wandle c10m from the site.

3.4 Under the section titled ‘Planning history’: there is no mention of planning application 94/P0132 for a usage of the neighbouring site for waste recycling, which was refused. The planning officers’ report for that application contains some relevant historical notes on usage of Unit 12 Waterside Way, which was clearly not being used for heavy industrial processes. (A copy of the planning officers’ report for this application 94/P0132 is attached as APPENDIX 4)

3.5 Under the section titled ‘Wandle Valley Regional Park’ (WVRP) at SOCOG par 6.10 it is stated: “the contrast of industrial uses adjacent to the Regional Park is a key characteristic of the character of the Wandle Valley”.

3.5.1 This statement is not reflected in strategy or documentation produced by the WVRP, nor does it reflect submissions by the Wandle Valley Trust and other local Wandle Valley conservation organisations in response to this planning application or appeal. Indeed, the WVRP lists among its ‘charitable objects’: “To promote for the benefit of the public the conservation and improvement of the physical and natural environment within the Wandle Valley.” It does not state among its goals a desire to maintain or promote the industrial usage of land bordering the WVRP.

3.6 Study of the historic uses of land adjacent to the WVRP reveals that this part of the Wandle Valley was historically agricultural, with watercress meadows surrounding this site. ( See section 12.0 Industrial Location below )

3.7 At SOCOG par 6.11: “it is agreed that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the adjacent WVRP”. The Wandle Valley Trust disagrees strongly with this, as do users of the Wandle Trail as per numerous objections submitted to the original application.

4

3.8 Under the section titled ‘Noise’, par 6.12: there is no mention of the harmful/disturbing effect of noise emanating from concrete batching processes on users of the nearby allotments, children’s playground or Garfield Park.

3.8.1 One should therefore assume that the Appellant and Council rightly cannot agree that there will NOT be harmful effects on local allotment holders, people who use Garfield Park and playground. Havelock Road Allotment holders frequently spend hours on this site and are sensitive receptors that have not been considered, neither have children playing in Garfield Park playground and their carers.

3.9 In par 6.16 it is stated “There would be some noise audible to users of the adjacent Wandle Trail Path but this would be transient in nature and would not be materially harmful. It is agreed that the existing industrial processes occurring within the industrial estate are also visually and audibly prominent when viewed from this path and that this is not a “tranquil area” requiring protection (NPPF Para 180b) given the context of the adjacent railway line and SIL.”

3.9.1 This statement shows a total lack of awareness of the benign nature of existing operations at this site and within this area, which are overwhelmingly light and non-intrusive.

3.9.2 Noise from a concrete batching site will not be transient. The noise from this proposal will be ongoing, and will materially alter the nature of this predominantly quiet and tranquil area, where a pier into the River Wandle encourages passers-by to stop and spend time.

3.9.3 Existing industrial processes in this location are not audibly prominent from the pathway; this is a “tranquil area”. As with other statements in connection with this application made by officers from Merton Council’s planning, transport and environmental health teams, this statement reveals their lack of familiarity with the site and the nature of its location.

3.9.4 We learn elsewhere that the Environmental Health Officer concerned with this application fails to consider outside evidence or expertise, relying solely on information supplied by the appellant’s agent (SEE APPENDIX 5). The statement quoted at 3.9 above is therefore worthless as it is made from a lack of knowledge of this area.

3.9.5 The tranquil nature of this green corridor is acknowledged by Merton Council’s own Chief Executive who walked this stretch of the Wandle Trail as recently as April 2019.

3.9.6 The applicant’s own noise assessment document shows that this site generates minimal activity throughout most of the day, and that existing noise background levels are extremely low.

3.9.7 Note too that the railway line timetable for the adjacent Thameslink railway line shows just four trains an hour: two in either direction. The proximity of a railway line in this case cannot feasibly be used to justify lack of tranquillity.

3.9.8 The need for ‘protection’ of this area is clear from its designation as Metropolitan Open Land, a Green Corridor, Regional Park, SINC and Blue Ribbon status. Stating that this area is ‘not requiring protection’ is clearly wrong given that the Wandle Trail is in fact a protected Regional Park.

3.10 We note under the SOCOG section entitled ‘Air Quality’ at par 6.17: “The facility will be required to operate under an Environmental Permit in accordance with Process Guidance Note 3/01 (12). In addition, further mitigation measures within a Dust Management Plan are to be secured by condition. With these controls in place it is agreed that emissions arising from the facility will have no significant effects.“

5

3.10.1 The owner of this site, Cappagh Group (the parent company of the appellant) has a history of non-compliance with environmental legislation: this very document states that a cement silo has been used in this location; the applicant until March 2019 held no permit for this usage. It still holds no permit for this site at Unit 12 Waterside Way despite stating that it has been used on a temporary basis.

3.10.2 The Cappagh Group has also previously been served an enforcement notice by Wandsworth Council for operating its site in Riverside Road without the requisite waste management licence.

3.10.3 There is also evidence that the applicant’s parent company Cappagh in June 2018 caused a dust emission incident which it failed to report and failed to manage according to its own guidelines.

3.10.3 We also note that Merton Council has a history of failing to properly issue permits and control industrial operations of this type, for example at the Garth Road concrete batching facility.

3.10.4 It is clear that the existence of environmental permits does not guarantee that emissions will have no significant effects, especially in a protected, sensitive space like the well-used public footpath which runs beside the appeal site.

3.11 The claim stated at par 6.18 that “emissions from HGV traffic generated by the facility will have no significant effects on air quality conditions along the local road network” is unproven due to the absence of robust transport and air quality assessments for this application.

3.12 The claim at 6.19 under the heading Parking/Highways, that this scheme will have “no material negative impact” on the local highway network or its users has also been challenged and is unproven.

3.12.1 The applicant has submitted no credible evidence about current vehicle movements to and from this site. The applicant fails to mention the impact of cumulative development in this area.

3.12.2 This planning application was withdrawn from the PAC agenda in order for Merton Council/the appellant to further assess the highways evidence. This has not materialized. Since it emerged that its original transport and highways assessment was neither robust nor representative, the appellant has failed to produce credible replacement data.

3.12.3 Instead, Express Concrete bases its most recent assessment on data gathered by residents, to which the company and its agents have no access and cannot confirm whether it is correct or representative of any typical day.

3.12.3 To the contrary, there are numerous assertions by the applicant that the figures it submitted originally were accurate and typical of activity at the site, and continued to be so until December 2017 (APPENDIX 1).

3.13 We note the following policies:

Merton Sites and Policies Plan (July 2014): Policy DMT2: “Development proposals will need to demonstrate their impact on the transport network through the provision of a Transport Assessment and associated Travel Plan in accordance with TfL referral thresholds”

London Plan Policies: 6.3. Assessing the Effects of Development on the transportation on transport Capacity: A) Development proposal should ensure that impacts on transport capacity and the transport network, at both corridor and local level, are fully assessed. Development should not adversely affect safety on the transport network.

6

3.14 Under par 6.21 of the SOCOG, the appellant’s mapping of existing concrete batching plants is incomplete. It fails to mention nearby concrete batching facilities including one just three miles away in Willow Lane, Mitcham. (See ‘5.0 Needs Case’ section below.)

4.0 Mis-Assessment Of This Site And Surrounding Area

4.1 VEHICLE MOVEMENTS: As detailed above, the appellant relies on an unrepresentative transport assessment to assert that this site sits on a busy industrial estate road with high levels of activity throughout the day. This is not an accurate representation of Waterside Way, as is indicated by the appellant’s own noise assessment document, which details busy early am and pm periods in Waterside Way and minimal activity through the rest of the day.

4.1.1 Resident surveys, by eye and recorded on video, back up the assertion that this site is quiet for most of the day once HGVs based here overnight have left for the morning (generally gone by 0630), until they return to park up overnight (the precinct is generally fully parked up by 1700 with gates locked by 1800).

4.1.2 Merton Council refused to accept these facts despite being shown written and video evidence, until served with a lawyer’s letter shortly before the application was due to be decided by councillors at a Planning Committee meeting.

4.1.3 Merton Council’s Environmental Health Officer’s original comments of 03/04/2017 in the same delegated report: “As far as I am aware this location already has heavy vehicle plant movements.” Of course, this has been shown to be untrue.

4.1.4 Similarly, Merton Council’s Transport Planner is happy to confirm his/her confidence in the unrepresentative, reduced traffic figures submitted by the applicant, stating in the same document (04/04/2017): “The proposal is likely to significantly improve the performance and safety of the immediately surrounding highway network, as such a recommendation for approval is supported.” This has also been shown to be untrue as the proposed scheme will in fact increase traffic movements on the local road network. The appellant’s case now is that it won’t make things much worse: a totally different assessment.

4.1.5 When later the appellant’s traffic assessment is accepted to be inaccurate, Merton Council’s Transport Planner comments, also in the delegated report (23/02/2018): “Cappagh have confirmed, and provided a statement setting out further details of how they were operating the site up to the early part of 2017, and since that time they have been actively winding down operations at the application site in the belief that planning permission for the proposed new use would be granted.” There are numerous incidences when Express Concrete and Cappagh Group contradict this statement (SEE DOC AT APPENDIX 1), so it cannot be assumed to be correct.

4.1.6 Later in the same section of the delegated report, Merton Council’s Transport Planner further comments: “In the event, that planning permission is not forthcoming, it is almost inevitable that Cappagh will scale up their use as the site has a valid B2 use ideally located in a Strategic Industrial Location.” This is of course parroting a threat made by the applicant that is unevidenced, unfounded and in fact irrelevant. It has no place in this report.

4.2 ALLOTMENTS: The Havelock Road allotments, just across the river from this site, are not mentioned in Express Concrete or Merton Council reports. People who spend hours working these

7 allotments are the most sensitive ongoing receptors of noise, dust and particles from this site. Their existence is not acknowledged. Their health and wellbeing are not considered.

4.3 GARFIELD PARK: Right on the edge of Garfield Park, nestling below the railway line, is a children’s playground, closer than any homes to this site. Users of this playground, vulnerable receptors, are not considered, despite many families spending hours at a time at this site especially during the summer months. Their existence is not acknowledged. Their health and wellbeing are not considered.

4.3.1 WANDLE TRAIL USERS: The appellant asserts that the wellbeing of passers-by is not relevant when assessing sensitivity to environmental impact. However, paragraph 2.5 of the IEMA Guidelines on Sensitivity of Receptors explains that ‘groups’ or ‘locations’ which may be sensitive to changes in conditions include the following: people at home; people in workplaces; sensitive groups including children, the elderly or the disabled; sensitive locations eg hospitals, churches, schools or historical buildings; people walking; people cycling; open spaces, recreational sites, shopping areas; sites of ecological/nature conservation value; and sites or tourist/visitor attraction.

4.3.2 People walking, cycling and enjoying the Wandle Trail close to this site should therefore be considered sensitive receptors, as should people spending time in the Havelock Road allotments and at Garfield Park playground.

4.4 RESIDENTIAL AREA: This area is increasingly residential, with 632 apartments currently being built on the Wimbledon Stadium site in Plough Lane. The cumulative effect of the appellant’s scheme is not considered.

4.4.1 Residents and families from the new Plough Lane development will use both Waterside Way and the Wandle Trail as a traffic-free cut-through to Garfield School and playground, Haydons Road Station, Haydons Road and Colliers Wood. Their homes will also lie directly on the route between Waterside Way and Riverside Road industrial estates, which is proposed by Express Concrete for backloading of HGVs servicing the concrete batching facility.

4.4.2 A dedicated cycle lane is planned for Plough Lane as part of a highways overhaul necessary because of the stadium site redevelopment. The effects of increased numbers of heavily-laden trucks on this route – Waterside Way, Summerstown (en route to Earlsfield) and Plough Lane – for residents, pedestrians, cyclists or other road users have not been considered or assessed by the appellant or Merton Council. Neither have they assessed the effects of a vast increase in heavily laden lorries on users of Waterside Way which connects at its southern end to the Wandle Trail via a pedestrian access.

4.5 PARKING: Merton Council’s delegated report into this application under the section Parking/Highways states: “The length of Waterside Way has unrestricted parking.” This is untrue. There are double yellow lines at both ends of Waterside Way, including from the road’s junction with Plough Lane right down to opposite the car auction business, also outside the appeal site and the Cappagh HQ site opposite.

4.6 NOISE: The Delegated report states: “it is noted that the existing industrial processes occurring within the Industrial estate are also visually and audibly prominent when viewed from this path.” This statement is a straight lift from the appellant’s documentation. It is untrue, and an indication that Merton Council officers are unfamiliar with this section of the Wandle Trail.

4.6.1 What is audibly striking about the route of the Wandle Trail southwards from Plough Lane is that as a pedestrian leaves behind the constant traffic noise of the main road, the predominant

8 sound is of the waters of the fast-flowing River Wandle. There are occasional sounds from the industrial units in Waterside Way, but these sounds are intermittent and generally of low volume. There is little in the way of traffic noise because Waterside Way carries few vehicles.

4.5 LOCAL AUTHORITY IGNORANCE OF THIS AREA: Local authority officers are complicit in the mis- assessment of current conditions on the Wandle Trail and Waterside Way, the layout of the area and usage of the appeal site by ‘confirming’ in their transport, air quality and environmental reports facts about current usage, conditions and traffic levels at this site despite having little current knowledge of it and failing to independently or properly assess the location.

5.0 Needs Case

5.1 The Delegated Report of March 2017 from Merton Council says: “As the site is within a Strategic Industrial Location there is no requirement to justify the proposal by demonstrating a 'need' for the proposed concrete mixing batch. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to refuse permission on the basis of lack of need for a concrete mixing batch, as this is not a requirement of the policy.”

5.2 Nevertheless, the appellant argues that there is a need for batched concrete at this location. We would argue that this is incorrect. There is no needs case for this development.

5.3 The SOCOG document includes an analysis (and map) of local availability of concrete, yet fails to mention a licenced concrete batching plant three miles south of this site in Willow Lane Mitcham. There is also a concrete batching plant within half a mile of this site in Weir Road, there is another five miles away beside the A3 in Chessington, with others beside the Thames in Wandsworth, Battersea, Fulham and Charlton.

5.4 Multiple local concrete suppliers provide sufficient availability of this resource, including:

Hanson, Archway Close, Endeavour Way, Wimbledon Hanson Wandsworth, Pier Terrace, Jews Row, Wandsworth ReadyMix Concrete, Garth Road, Morden Cemex, Comleys Wharf, Townmead Road Fulham Cemex Coomber Way, Beddington Lane, Croydon Cemex Battersea, Nine Elms Goods Yard, Cringle Street, Battersea Advantage Concrete: 42 Willow Lane, Mitcham Hanson Beddington Farm Rd, Croydon

6.0 Tranquillity And Special Location

6.1 NPPF 2018 states: “180. Planning policies and decisions should [also] ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should:

a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life;

9

b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason;”

6.2 The proposed development site lies just metres away from the protected Wandle Trail. It is one of the few off-road walking/cycling routes in an area of high traffic, many HGVs, demonstrably poor air quality and noise pollution.

6.3 The Wandle Trail is valued locally for its peace and tranquillity. Children can walk, run, practise riding their bikes and scooters on this path. It is used by many people as a safe, clean, quiet route to get to school and the playground in Garfield Park, to travel between Earlsfield and Colliers Wood and beyond.

6.4 The assessment process carried out by both appellant and Merton Council originally entirely missed the fact that the Wandle Trail is a cherished and protected route, indicated by its designation as a Mayor’s Blue Ribbon route, a designated Regional Park, SINC and an area of Metropolitan Open Land.

6.5 The list of designations which apply to this strip of land alongside the appeal site make it clear that Unit 12 Waterside Way is no ordinary SIL site. Its special location makes it more sensitive to its context than many other SIL sites, being alongside a rare chalk stream river, just metres from public allotments, dust-drifting distance of a children’s playground, and on a public footpath popular with families, children going to and from school, and leisure users such as cyclists, runners and dog walkers.

6.6 Moreover, this site lies at the confluence of the Graveney and Wandle Rivers, where there is an extended viewing platform built to encourage passers-by to stop and contemplate the river setting. Receptors are therefore not simply passing by, but pausing to spend time in this peaceful space, currently only disturbed by intermittent noises from the Waterside Way industrial units and the occasional passing train on the quiet Thameslink line where only four timetabled trains run per hour.

6.7 There has been considerable and concerted opposition to this scheme locally, sparked initially because users of the Wandle Trail did not recognise the exaggerated picture painted by the applicant in the original transport assessment of traffic levels serving Unit 12 Waterside Way.

6.8 Both the appellant and local authority planners appear unaware of the individual and sensitive elements of this site, and refuse to acknowledge that it should not be treated in the same way as any other SIL site.

6.9 Critically, there has been no recognition of the future increasing value of the pedestrian Wandle Trail route. This future value is not vague or uncertain: the local authority in its latest LIP3 states its intention to improve and better promote walking and cycling routes; this area has an increasingly residential nature (632 apartments currently being built in Plough Lane); increasing emphasis is put on sustainable travel for the people of Merton and neighbouring Wandsworth.

6.9.1 The plant would be a difficult neighbour for the mixed-use regeneration development that is already under way in this area.

6.10 Immediately bordering the appeal site on the south side is a pedestrian access point to the Wandle Trail. It is clear, therefore, that this route down Waterside Way is one designed to be used by pedestrians and cyclists. The southern part of Waterside Way is currently so quiet that pedestrians frequently walk down the centre of the road to access the Wandle Trail. It is not uncommon to walk the length of Waterside Way without meeting a single vehicle travelling in either

10 direction. This is clear from the video footage taken over three days, which shows long periods with no vehicle movements during the working day.

6.10.1 A concrete batching plant at this site would have major effects on pedestrian amenity in Waterside Way with up to 100 HGVs per day in contrast with the small number of current movements. This would become a dangerous, heavily trafficked route.

6.10.2 The impact would be largely as a result of the numbers of truck movements that will be generated onto what is a narrow, single-carriageway road and the only means of accessing the southern end of Waterside Way from Plough Lane.

6.11 A balance needs to be struck between usage of this site alongside the Blue Ribbon Network, and the harm to the environment and users of the protected Wandle Trail as a result of the proposed development.

6.11.1 See London Plan Policy 7.24 Blue Ribbon Network:

par 7.71 “The Blue Ribbon Network is multi-functional. It provides a transport corridor, drainage and flood management, a source of water, discharge of treated effluent, a series of diverse and important habitats, green infrastructure, heritage value, recreational opportunities and important landscapes and views. The starting point for consideration of development and use of the Blue Ribbon Network and land alongside it must be the water. The water is the unique aspect and consideration must initially be given as to how it can be used, maintained and improved.”

6.11.2 Unit 12 Waterside Way was recently (June 2018) the source of a harmful cement dust emission which was blasted out of this site and across the public Wandle Trail into the vegetation and waterway. Siting concrete batching operations on this site does not put ‘consideration of the water’ first as per the above policy.

7.0 Visual Amenity

7.1 We agree with Merton Council that particularly when viewed from close-by, due to its proximity to the Wandle Trail, the scale and form of the building would be perceived as excessively dominant.

7.2 The scheme would harm the character and appearance of the area, including existing and proposed routes around the area of the site especially those used by non-motorised traffic: pedestrians, cyclists and leisure users whose safety and feelings of security would be harmed by a high-sided building on this spot.

7.3 The benefits of increasing usage of this site as planned would outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the Wandle Trail in this area, a spot which boasts a bespoke viewing platform so that passers-by can pause and contemplate the confluence of the two rivers.

8.0 Noise And Nuisance

8.1 Impact by way of noise and disturbance has been agreed to be acceptable by the main parties. However, third parties disagree on this point. We note above that Merton Council officers have shown themselves unfamiliar with the wider location, and that the Wandle Trail is a vital part of the local pedestrian/cycling network, a fundamental error which has led to an under-estimation of its significance and quality.

11

8.2 We note the following statement at par 4.7 in the Appellant’s submitted noise assessment statement: “the principal noise-making activities beyond the proposed buildings and other structures and in a further distant part of the site.” This site measures just over 20 metres at its widest part. It lies just a couple of metres from the footpath. There is no part of this extremely small site that could legitimately be called ‘distant’.

8.3 A concrete batching plant at this spot would undermine and harm the Wandle Trail as detailed by the Wandle Valley Trust, Wandle Trust and numerous other objectors.

8.4 Background noise levels would dramatically increase. Noise from the plant and trucks would be ongoing, with intermittent loud blasts of sudden, concentrated and powerful noise. Although this can be averaged out across the day, this will not be how passers-by and Havelock Road allotment holders will experience it. This will also impact negatively on birds and wildlife as well as deter usage of the Wandle viewing pier.

8.5 The prospect of an ongoing stream of cement tankers on weekdays and Saturday mornings would also contribute to a constant level of noise where there is currently little or none for most of the day, and is an unattractive prospect.

9.0 AIR QUALITY

9.1 The absence of a robust transport assessment as detailed above means that there can be no reliable air quality or environmental assessment of this scheme given that the latter relies on evidence from the former.

9.2 NPPF 2018 par 181 states: “181. Planning policies and decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts from individual sites in local areas. Opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified, such as through traffic and travel management, and green infrastructure provision and enhancement. So far as possible these opportunities should be considered at the plan- making stage, to ensure a strategic approach and limit the need for issues to be reconsidered when determining individual applications. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan.”

9.3 The whole of Merton is a designated Air Quality Management Area. Roads which comprise the local road network - Plough Lane, Durnsford Road, Haydons Road, Gap Road – all show air quality readings which persistently break legal limits for NO2 levels. Particulates testing does not take place in this area.

9.3.1 The Wandle Trail at this point, and indeed along most of its length between Earlsfield and Colliers Wood is unpolluted (save for a short stretch just north of Plough Lane between Cappagh’s recycling plant in Riverside Road and the Reston Waste recycling plant in Weir Road, where there is clear evidence of dust emissions from both of these installations). Introducing a concrete batching plant at this spot will create an industrial feel close to the Wandle Trail which has never existed at this site. A batching plant would have a totally negative impact on members of the public accessing and using the Wandle Trail.

12

9.4 The air quality issues relating to this planning appeal are covered in considerable detail in the submission from Wimbledon Park Residents Association. We concur with their conclusions so do not intend to go over the same arguments here.

9.5 We note, however, that The NPFF recognises reducing pollution as being one of its core planning principles. It further indicates that LPAs should focus on whether a development is an acceptable use of land, and the impact of its use.

9.5.1 Similarly, the Draft New London Plan states at 9.1.2: “The aim of this policy is to ensure that new developments are designed and built, as far as is possible, to improve local air quality and reduce the extent to which the public are exposed to poor air quality.”

9.5.2 We believe this application fails on these grounds.

10.0 Sustainability

10.1 It is not unusual for companies to make inflated or unsupported claims as to their environmental credentials. In this case, the appellant mentions repeatedly the benefits of ‘backloading’ HGVs travelling between its parent company Cappagh’s site in Riverside Road and this site in Waterside. This relates to a mere three HGVs per day making this journey.

10.1.1 This is not only a negligible benefit, but one which is unproven: no evidence has been supplied showing how many vehicles already make this journey daily.

10.2 We already know that the number of HGV movements at the southern end of Waterside Way currently is minimal. We also note that one of the two entrances to Cappagh’s Unit 8 Waterside Way site is frequently blocked by plant to prevent access or exit. (SEE APPENDIX 6) We have further extensive photographic evidence of this across numerous days and months, available on request. This is clearly not a route that needs to be available for ongoing, numerous HGV visits during the day.

10.2.1 No robust traffic figures have been produced that indicate whether aggregate loads from the Cappagh site in Riverside Road to No 12 Waterside Way will be in addition to current journeys or not.

10.2.2. The claimed benefit is therefore vastly if not entirely overstated. Better could be achieved by siting the concrete batching plant beside the appellant’s parent company site in Riverside Road, further away from Garfield Park playground and school, and the Havelock Road allotments

10.3 The proposal also claims the benefit of creating employment: a total of nine jobs. Note that current usage of this site as overnight storage of some 40 HGVs already supports employment for drivers of these vehicles, plus staff performing the minimal vehicle support duties they generate. These jobs will disappear from this site, thus creating a negative balance of employment opportunities.

10.3.1 Merton Core Strategy 15 Wandle Valley Sub-Area - Policy 5 states:

“15.4 New enterprises are emerging in the Wandle Valley including some related to the environmental technologies and creative industries. We will encourage growth of these and other sectors to help diversify the economic base and optimise the performance of industrial areas to provide higher value jobs, as supported by Chapter 20 'Economic Development - Policy 12'

13

10.3.2. Economic Development Policy 12 referred to above states:

“20.12 Some employment uses do not provide or increase the number of job opportunities in the borough. In line with Merton's Economic Development Strategy, we wish to both increase the number of employment opportunities in the borough as well as the provision of more highly skilled and higher earning jobs. We will favour planning applications that are in line with these objectives.”

10.3.3 This planning application fails to meet these objectives.

11.0 Highways

11.1 Despite the quantity of highways assessment documents submitted by the appellant, they lack quality and credibility. They include contradictory statements. They include overblown and unevidenced claims. They now rely on the apparent lack of impact of this scheme on the highways network, having previously claimed that it should be approved because of its supposed positive impact on the highways network.

11.2 Merton Council in its South London Waste Plan DPD / Traffic Considerations assesses the Plough Lane Industrial Area at p26 as follows:

“Plough Lane experiences large volumes of traffic, and the junction of Plough Lane/Gap Road is subject to high levels of congestion, particularly during peak periods. In addition, the area already experiences a high level of vehicle movements.”

It adds: “The area is close to residential areas along Plough Lane and Durnsford Road and a school. Redevelopment of part of this area for any purpose would seek to minimise and manage HGV movements.”

11.3 Original justification for this scheme suggested that it would lead to a 50% reduction in HGV movements on Waterside Way and the local road network. This was cited by the appellant and the planning authority as a major justification for allowing this plant to be built. Both parties have now apparently changed their minds on this issue.

11.3.1 This about-turn demonstrates the lack of robust evidential basis for traffic and highways claims made by the appellant.

11.4 In addition to the impact of this development on traffic and thus air quality on the wider road network, the access road to Unit 12 Waterside Way itself presents a number of problems. It is of limited width, with parking on both sides and vehicles parked on the pavements down much of Waterside Way. This road would see a large increase in traffic were this appeal to be allowed, from almost zero movements during much of the day to 100 HGVs plus associated other vehicles in addition to existing traffic (albeit limited).

11.4.1. With the opening of residential elements of the development in Plough Lane from 2020, Waterside Way will increasingly become a preferred route by pedestrians and cyclists accessing the Wandle Trail via the entrance which lies due south of Unit 12 Waterside Way. Introducing a stream of lorries to this road throughout the working day poses a significant risk to highway safety for people walking or on a bicycle.

14

12.0 INDUSTRIAL LOCATION

12.1 The appellant and Merton Council fail to properly characterise the site at No 12 Waterside Way.

12.2 Contrary to the assertion of Express Concrete in its 'Wandle Trail Analysis' document that this stretch of the Wandle is associated with 'historical and modern-day industrialisation (par 4.4), maps dating back as far as the mid-1800s clearly indicate no industrialisation at all on this stretch of the River Wandle south of Plough Lane.

12.2.1 To the contrary, this part of the river has historically been agricultural. Within the Land Character Assessment of the Wandle Valley London, referenced by the appellant, we read: "Historical mapping of the valley shows that in spite of the new railway embankments crossing the river the valley was still relatively rural at the end of the Victorian period".

12.2.2 There has never been heavy industrial usage at this site. In Victorian times it was laid to watercress meadows. Mills were situated north of this spot. The LCAWVL makes this clear: "Many of the areas of open space close to the river, which were associated with the mills, such as the calico bleaching grounds and leather drying fields were to become industrial estates, as have some of the nine beds which once supplied watercress to London markets."

12.2.3 Note too in the same document: "There has been considerable and often vocal local support for efforts to safeguard the heritage of the river, dating back to the 19th century".

12.2.4 And, rather than this stretch of the river having an industrial nature as claimed, the more urbanised part of this river way actually commences further downstream in Wandsworth: "The lower reaches of the river begin to change from the junction with the River Graveney at Southfields. In general from this point down; the river has suffered the highest amount of hard engineering and is highly constrained by hard banks." 12.3 Thus, rather than being characterised by industrial usage, the stretch of the River Wandle beside No 12 Waterside Way is a historically rural spot. The nature of the SIL in Waterside Way was apparently never intended to be a heavy industrial zone, as is clear from documents relating to planning application 94/P0132 (referenced at our point 3.4 above). 12.3.1 The officers’ report into application 94/P0132 listed under ‘Consultation’ includes the following statement: “A letter of objection has also been received from Leybold Limited who also occupy nearby premises in Waterside Way, on the grounds that their company was the first to build in this area in 1984, and that as a high-tec company, they were promised that this area would be reserved for quality operations.” 12.3.2 If Leybold Ltd was the first company to build in this area in 1984, one can conclude that the history of industrialisation cited by the appellant and agreed by Merton Council misrepresents the nature of this zone. 12.4 Policy allows no presumption that SIL land can be used for any industrial purpose simply because it is SIL land. Maximising usage of SIL space should not take precedence in a site of this type, especially given its position beside a public, pedestrian access point to the Wandle Trail.

12.5 Companies based today on Waterside Way are low-level rather than heavy industrial, including a precision instruments company and glass business. Even those transport-based businesses generate very low levels of traffic as is clear from the appellant's own noise assessment which refers to minimal movements during most of the day, and the video-documentation of traffic on the southern end of the road over a number of days by residents. Even the Go Ahead bus depot is quiet

15 for much of the day between the peak AM and PM slots when the fleet of buses depart for the day and return to be parked up for the evening. 12.6 The context to Plough Lane and Waterside Way is now and increasingly residential, leisure and low-impact industrial. Small businesses occupy all sites to the south of this site.

12.7 We note the Mayor of London SPG : Land for transport and industry states:

“xviii. The quality and fitness for purpose of industrial sites is an important concern of the London Plan and this SPG. Qualitative improvements in industrial locations can contribute towards the wider objectives of the London Plan to make London an exemplary city in terms of mitigating and adapting to climate change and urban design, public realm and architecture.”

12.7.1 We also read at 2.12… “this SPG set out a rigorous approach to ensure that land allocations for industry and related uses are based upon robust, up to date and integrated strategic and local assessments of demand and supply.”

12.7.2 The same document states at par 1.2 that this paper should be “a material consideration in drawing up development plan documents and in taking planning decisions”.

12.8 Merton Core Strategy Policy CS 12 Economic Development states: “a. We will support the development of a diverse local economic base in Merton by encouraging the increased provision of the overall number and range of jobs in Merton; particularly in the commercial and business sectors (including the provision of business, leisure, retail, creative, cultural and 'green jobs').”

12.8.1 In that same document, at Figure 20.1 “Merton’s future economic geography (economic development strategy)”, Greater Wimbledon area (incl this site) is nominated as a hub for creative industries. Mitcham and Morden are identified as the area for construction and manufacturing industries.

13.0 SITE SIZE 13.1 The Appellant might argue that the presence of a fixed (not mobile) cement silo on site indicates previous usage of this land for cement/concrete batching activities. However, usage of the silo for this or any loading/unloading purpose would require planning permission and an environmental Part B Permit. One must therefore assume that there is no history of concrete or cement batching at this site.

13.2 This site of 0.2ha is extremely small for the operations proposed, and inadequate according to guidance from the Hanson cement company which specifies a site of minimum 0.25ha in size for a mobile concrete batching installation.

13.4 We note that Express Concrete operates the following concrete batching sites: at Erith, size 0.27ha; at Barking, size 0.94ha incl access road (0.6ha operational area).

14.0 Threats By The Appellant Of Alternative Usage Of This Site

14.1 The applicant states that if permission is not given to site a concrete batching plant at this site, it will be switched to another use without further permission. This is irrelevant to this application.

16

14.2 It is not unusual for companies to make threats of this nature. However, the threat to impose a more invasive usage of this site is supported by no evidence. The reality is that there is no history of heavy industrial usage on this site.

14.3 An invasive change of use would require permissions and permits.

14.4 Cappagh has continued to use it as an overnight lorry park throughout the last two years. It is almost always absolutely full of HGVs overnight, despite declarations that usage has been wound down since the planning application for this site was submitted.

17

APPENDIX 1 : Inconsistent claims regarding current usage of Unit 12 Waterside Way

Analysis of Cappagh claims re traffic figures relating to this planning application

THE CLAIM: Cappagh statement (Dec 2017) indicates at 2.1 “Cappagh have been actively winding down operations at the site since the early part of the year – which was always as proposed.”

The applicant’s latest transport statement (Addendum Transport Note Dec 2017, Bellamy Roberts : http://planning.merton.gov.uk/MVM.DMS/Planning%20Application/1000096000/1000096961/17P0 438_Addendum%20Transport%20Note_Dec%202017.pdf) refers to the above statement, claiming:

“2.1 The traffic survey undertaken in December 2016 which formed the basis of the submitted TS contained accurate figures for traffic activity into and out of the application site at that time. Cappagh have confirmed, and provided a statement setting out further details of how they were operating the site up to the early part of 2017, and have detailed that since that time they have been actively winding down operations at the application site as has always been intended would be the case. Indeed, this was confirmed at application submission stage (see original Transport Statement Jan 2017). The decision to commence the winddown of operations was of course at risk and was based on the early indications that planning permission would be secured, and Cappagh’s own operational and business requirements. It is this which primarily accounts for the lower levels of activity recorded in the recent surveys by third party objectors.”

Despite these statements, there is no evidence that the applicant was ‘winding down’ operations following the Dec 2016 traffic survey. To the contrary, in documentation submitted as part of the planning process (detailed below), the applicant repeatedly states that the site is currently heavily used as per the Dec 2016 traffic survey figures, and refers to an intention in future to relocate vehicles. Not once does it indicate that this operation is already under way.

THE EVIDENCE:

JAN 2017 Planning statement: no mention of ongoing or phased relocation of vehicles currently using the site (contrary to claims in new Cappagh statement and FirstPlan letter Dec 2017; (my highlighting) http://planning.merton.gov.uk/MVM.DMS/Planning%20Application/1000096000/1000096961/17P0 438_Planning%20Statement.pdf

“3.4 The proposed development of the site is to be accommodated by Cappagh’s planned relocation of their existing use and operation currently accommodated on the application site (primarily comprising: repair and maintenance of mobile recycling and other construction machinery; storage of materials and equipment; and overnight fleet parking of vehicles). These activities and vehicle parking will be relocated to a number of Cappagh operated quarries, landfill sites and recycling depots located across London and the South East in accordance with their operational requirements and business development plan “

JAN 2017 Transport statement: no mention that existing usage of the site was being phased out (contradicting claim by Firstplan in document dated Dec 2017) http://planning.merton.gov.uk/MVM.DMS/Planning%20Application/1000096000/1000096961/17P0 438_Third%20Party%20Representations%2005.09.17.pdf

18

FEB 2017 Amended transport statement: still no mention of any intention to phase out usage of the site: “7.1 The application site can be redeveloped in order to create a concrete batching plant with no adverse impact on local traffic conditions. Indeed, the result will be a strongly beneficial improvement due to significant reductions in HGV and total traffic movements generated by the site compared with its existing use. “ http://planning.merton.gov.uk/MVM.DMS/Planning%20Application/1000096000/1000096961/17P0 438_Transport%20Statement_Amended_24.02.17.pdf

APRIL 2017: letter from FirstPlan to MBC confirms:

“the site, as existing, has large numbers of heavy vehicle movements associated with it”; “Please note that the existing traffic movements were accurately surveyed as detailed in the supporting Transport Statement. Traffic surveys were carried out on 5 December 2015 2016 between 06:00 and 19:00, in additionally to a classified turning count at the site access and at the junction between Waterside Way - Plough Lane to establish the existing levels of use. The full results of the survey data are included in appendices 6 and 7 of the submitted Transport Statement.” http://planning.merton.gov.uk/MVM.DMS/Planning%20Application/1000096000/1000096961/17P0 438_Applicant%20Comments.pdf

SEPT 2017: Response by First Plan (5/9/17) to objectors: reiterates that current usage is as detailed by movements logged in applicant’s transport assessment. No mention that usage of site has been reduced.

“2.4 The application site itself is currently used by Cappagh to store construction machines and other materials, undertaking repairs and maintenance of their mobile waste recycling plants and other heavy construction machines, as well as parking for over 30 Cappagh fleet trucks at night.”

“3.1 As the Planning Statement and Transport Statement have detailed, the application site currently accommodates a significantly higher number of vehicles (and associated vehicle movements) than that proposed by the application. On this bases (sic) the proposals would in fact result in a reduction in HGV’s (sic) associated with the site and corresponding HGV movements. 3.2 The site currently accommodates more than 30 vehicles which park on the site overnight – and which are to be relocated to other Cappagh operations “

“3.8 It is noted that the existing use of the site generates more than twice as many HGVs per day as the proposed plant. The highways assessment Survey showed the existing operation, which will be replaced, generated 17 HGVs during hour 0600-0700 i.e. which is the hour before the proposed plant opening time of 0700 hrs. “ http://planning.merton.gov.uk/MVM.DMS/Planning%20Application/1000096000/1000096961/17P0 438_Third%20Party%20Representations%2005.09.17.pdf

SEPT 2017: AQC doc ‘response to objectors’ dated 5/9/17: continues to base response on stats from Dec 2016 traffic survey. No indication that those figures were no longer accurate or that number of vehicles emanating from this site had reduced: http://planning.merton.gov.uk/MVM.DMS/Planning Application/1000096000/1000096961/17P0438_Air Quality Technical NoteResponse to Comments 05.09.17.pdf

19

OCT 3, 2017: meeting between Express Concrete and residents at site in Waterside Way. Present were: Derek Casey (Chairman, Express Concrete) Vilna Walsh, Gerard Manley (FirstPlan), Cllr Abdul Latif, Rob Dickinson (chairman of Governing Body, Garfield Primary School), Ann Lindsay and Nicola Thompson (nearby residents, and representatives of Haydons Road North Community group). The applicant continues to stand by figures from Dec 2016 traffic survey “we are comfortable with the numbers that our traffic consultant came up with”, and does not claim at any point or in any way that vehicles have been transferred from this site to others in anticipation of planning approval.

Nicola Thompson has contemporaneous shorthand notes from this meeting. Chairman of Governors at Garfield School Rob Dickinson also confirms: “In that meeting with Vilna and the chairman of Express Concrete, they were adamantly defending the numbers and made no reference to the “winding down” – and spent most of the time saying residents’ numbers were nonsense.”

20

APPENDIX 2 : Email from Merton planning officer indicating transport assessment is insufficient

21

APPENDIX 3 : Second email from Merton planning officer indicating need for an independent transport assessment

APPENDIX 4 : officer report for planning application 94/P0132

94P0132- Officers Report X2.pdf

22

APPENDIX 5 : emails from Merton EHO indicating lack of notice taken of external information

23

APPENDIX 6 : Images indicating regular block to vehicle exit/access route at Cappagh HQ, Unit 8 Waterside Way (photos taken on random days between March and June 2019)

24