representation hearing report GLA/4756/03 8 December 2020 Land at Benedict Wharf, Mitcham in the London Borough of Merton planning application no. 19/P2383 Planning application Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 (“the Order”). The proposal Outline planning application (with all matters reserved) for the redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of existing buildings and development of up to 850 new residential dwellings (Class C3 use) and up to 750 sq.m. of flexible commercial floorspace (Class A1-A3, D1 and D2 use), together with associated car parking, cycle parking, landscaping and infrastructure. The applicant The applicant is SUEZ Recycling and Recovery Ltd and the architect is PRP Recommendation summary The Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills (acting under delegated powers),acting as the Local Planning Authority for the purpose of determining this application; i. grants conditional outline planning permission in respect of application 19/P2383 for the reasons set out in the reasons for approval section below, and subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement; ii. delegates authority to the Head of Development Management to: a) agree the final wording of the conditions and informatives as approved by the Deputy Mayor; with any material changes being referred back to the Deputy Mayor; b) agree any variations to the proposed heads of terms for the Section 106 legal agreement and negotiate, agree the final wording, and sign and execute and complete the Section 106 legal agreement; and c) issue the outline planning permission; and page 1 d) to refer the application back to the Deputy Mayor in order to refuse planning permission if by, 8 April 2021, the Section 106 legal agreement has not been completed; iii. notes that the approval of Reserved Matters pursuant to the outline planning permission would be submitted to, and determined by the Mayor or Deputy Mayor; iv. notes that the approval of details pursuant to conditions imposed on the planning permission will be submitted to, and determined by Merton Council; v. notes that Merton Council will be responsible for the enforcement of the conditions attached to the outline planning permission; Subject to referral to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government under The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009. page 2 Drawing numbers and documents Proposed plans Site plans and parameter plans Site location plan_AA7042 – SK004 (PRP Architects, 12.07.2018) Building heights parameter plan_AA7402-02071 (PRP Architects, 13.02.2020) Illustrative plans Illustrative Masterplan_ AA7402-02061 (PRP Architects, 13.02.2020) Indicative Framework Plan - Development Parcels Block Layout_AA7402-02069 (PRP Architects, 13.02.2020) Indicative Framework Plan - Non Residential Uses_AA7402-02074 (PRP Architects, 13.02.2020) Indicative Framework Plan - Access and Movement_AA7402-02072 (PRP Architects, 13.02.2020) Indicative Framework Plan - Open Play Space_AA7402-02073 (PRP Architects, 13.02.2020) Supporting documents Benedict Wharf Framework Design Code (PRP Architects, March 2020) Benedict Wharf Design & Access Statement (PRP Architects, February 2020) Planning Statement Addendum (Savills, February 2020) Planning Statement (Savills, June 2019) Heritage and Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment Addendum (ARC, February 2020) Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing Impact & Overshadowing Assessments (PRP, February 2020) Energy and Sustainability Strategy (PRP, February 2020) Arboricultural Impact Assessment (SLR, February 2020) Ecological Impact Assessment (SLR, February 2020) Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy (SLR, February 2020) Noise Assessment (SLR, February 2020) Transport Assessment (SLR, March 2020) Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (SLR, March 2020) Outline Delivery and Servicing Management Plan (SLR, March 2020) Outline Travel Plan (SLR, March 2020) page 3 Contaminated Land – Preliminary Land Quality Risk Assessment and Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment Report (SLR, February 2020) Contaminated Land - Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment (SLR, February 2020) Economic Impact Assessment (Savills, February 2020) Utilities and Servicing Plan (SLR, February 2020) Air Quality Assessment (SLR, June 2019) Statement of Community Involvement (SUEZ, June 2019) Consultation Feedback Report (PRP, February 2020) Summary of geotechnical and archaeological information for the northern part of the site (Compass Archaeology, Sep 2019) Introduction 1 Having assumed authority to determine this planning application, this report sets out the matters that the Deputy Mayor must consider in forming a view over whether to grant or refuse planning permission and to guide his decision making at the upcoming representation hearing. This report includes a recommendation from GLA officers, as set out below. Officer recommendation - reasons for approval 2 The Deputy Mayor acting under delegated authority as the local planning authority, has considered the particular circumstances of this application against national, strategic and local planning policy, relevant supplementary planning guidance and all material planning considerations. He has also had regard to Merton Council’s committee report dated 18 June 2020 (including the draft planning conditions) and Modifications Sheet presented to Merton’s Planning Committee on 18 June 2020, the draft decision notice setting out the single reason for refusal and all consultation responses and representations made on the case both to Merton Council and the GLA. The below reasons set out why this application is considered to be acceptable in planning policy terms: a) The application conflicts with the Development Plan in that residential development is proposed on a safeguarded waste site, which also falls within designated Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) and because the proposals do not form part of a strategically agreed plan-led process of SIL consolidation. In addition to this, the application does not comply with the Merton Local Plan policies on tall buildings, which are not supported in this particular location. As such, the application represents a departure from the Development Plan. Accordingly, as required by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, other material considerations must exist to justify this departure. In this specific case, GLA officers do consider that there are clear and convincing material considerations which justify a departure from the development plan policies relating to safeguarded waste sites, SIL and tall buildings. b) The loss of the existing safeguarded waste site would be appropriately mitigated with sufficient compensatory waste management capacity provided, in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.17 and Policy WP3 of the South London Waste Plan (2012), with the existing waste facility relocated to an alternative and more suitable safeguarded waste site in Sutton which is within designated SIL and has been vacant for 10 years. Full planning permission has been granted for the replacement waste facility. The Section 106 agreement restricts development from commencing on site until the replacement waste facility has been delivered.. Whilst the applicant’s relocation strategy does form part of an emerging plan-led approach set out in the draft South page 4 London Waste Plan 2021, this draft Plan has not been subject to an Examination in Public and is not adopted. However, in this specific case, GLA officers consider that there are material considerations to justify a departure from the plan-led principle set out in the Intend to Publish London Plan, taking into account: the significant operational constraints present at the existing site which prohibit the provision of a modern 24-hour waste management facility; the public benefits associated with the provision of additional waste management capacity within the South London Waste Plan Area; and noting that the applicant’s relocation strategy is supported by the South London Waste Plan Authorities. Furthermore, GLA officers are satisfied that the loss of the existing safeguarded waste site at Benedict Wharf would not compromise the potential to meet the apportionment targets in the Intend to Publish London Plan. Taking in to account paragraphs 49 and 50 of the NPPF, GLA officers do not consider that a refusal of permission on the basis of prematurity would be justified. c) In relation to the site’s current SIL designation, whilst the application does not comply with the development plan, GLA officers consider that there are exceptional circumstances in this specific case which justify a departure from the development plan. The applicant’s relocation strategy generally accords with the overarching principles set out in the Intend to Publish London Plan in terms of ensuring industrial intensification, as there would be no material loss of industrial capacity in terms of waste throughput, with a 24% increase in waste throughput capacity proposed, based on the existing situation. The introduction of residential accommodation on the site would not compromise the integrity or function of the remaining SIL. Furthermore, the proposed residential redevelopment would help to deliver important wider public benefits in terms of facilitating the delivery of additional waste management capacity, alongside substantial housing supply, of which 35% would