PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 14 February 2013 Item No: 08

UPRN APPLICATION NO. DATE VALID

12/P3265 26/10/2012

Address: 10 Lyon Road, , SW19 2RL

Ward: Abbey

Proposal: Change of use of the existing building [1942 square metres] from general industrial use [Use Class B2] and storage and distribution use [Use Class B8] to provide a Hindu Cultural Centre [Use Class D1]., comprising a prayer hall/temple, elderly day care centre, youth centre, restaurant and ancillary residential use in the form of 15 individual 'priest rest rooms'

Drawing No’s: 8429-PP-50C [site location plan and existing plans]; 8429-PP-51E [existing elevations and proposed plans and sections]; 8429-PP-52; ‘Site Location’ Plan 1:1250; Site Context Plan; statement from agent dated 23 January 2013; Transport Assessment; Draft Framework Travel Plan; and Planning Statement [with appendices A to I].

Contact Officer: Tony Ryan [020 8545 3114]

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION.

CHECKLIST INFORMATION.  S106: N/A  Is an Environmental Statement required: No  Has an Environmental Impact Assessment been submitted: No  Press notice: Yes [departure notice]  Site notice: Yes  Design Review Panel consulted: No  Number of neighbours consulted: 143  External consultations: Environment Agency  Public Transport Accessibility Level: 2 [TFL Planning Information Database]  Density: N/A  Number of jobs created: 14 jobs provided by previous occupier, with the current proposal providing a mixture of 30 full and part time jobs.

181 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This application is brought before the Planning Application’s Committee due to the level of interest in this proposal and as it represents a departure from the adopted development plan.

Departure from the adopted development plan 1.2 Section 38[6] of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires decisions on planning applications to be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

1.3 The National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] published in March 2012 reaffirms the status of the development plan as the starting point for making decisions on planning applications. The NPPF advises “Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise”.

1.4 The adopted development plan in place for the borough includes the Unitary Development Plan [October 2003], the Core Strategy [July 2011] and the Plan [July 2011]. The application site and the surrounding Road Factory Estate are designated as an industrial area in the adopted Unitary Development Plan [policy E3].

1.5 The Morden Road Factory Estate is designated as a ‘Strategic Industrial Location’ and ‘Preferred Industrial Location’ in the adopted London Plan [2011]. The London Plan advises that ‘Preferred Industrial Locations’ are considered particularly suitable for general industrial, light industrial, storage and distribution, waste management, recycling, some transport related functions, utilities, wholesale markets and other industrial related activities.

1.6 The Council’s adopted Core Strategy [policy CS12] seeks to ‘protect’ and ‘manage’ the designated Strategic Industrial Locations to ensure that they contribute towards ‘business, industrial, storage and distribution functions’. Policy 2.17 of the London Plan considers ‘Strategic Industrial Locations’ specifically stating that development proposals in ‘Strategic Industrial Locations’ should be refused planning permission unless they comprise general industrial uses, light industrial uses, storage and distribution, waste management, recycling, some transport related functions, utilities, wholesale markets or other industrial related activities.

1.7 The current application proposes the introduction of a non-industrial use into this designated industrial area, ‘Strategic Industrial Location’, and ‘Preferred Industrial Location’ and therefore the proposal represents a ‘departure’ from the development plan. The planning considerations section of this report consider the planning policy background and whether in line with Section 38[6] of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 whether there are ‘material

182 considerations’ present in this case that would justify a departure from the adopted development plan.

2. SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 2.1 The detached brick application building currently provides a total of 1,942 square metres of employment floor space. This floor space includes an open plan workshop/warehouse area covering 1,252 square metres at the rear of the building; this part of the building has a pitched roof and high internal ceiling levels. A two-storey linked office building with a flat roof fronting Lyon Road provides 513 square metres of ancillary office floor space. A mezzanine floor of 177 square metres is provided over part of the workshop/ warehouse floor space.

2.2 A secure external yard within the site covers 635 square metres with two vehicular access points on to Lyon Road. At the time of the case officer’s site visit; the external yard was being used for the storage of commercial vehicles linked to a nearby demolition business. A single storey detached building to the rear of the main building provides a compressor.

2.3 The application building was occupied until May 2012 by Octanorm UK limited, which manufactured retail storage and display systems. The applicant has confirmed that application building has been vacant since May 2012 [Planning Statement paragraph 6.4].

2.4 The area surrounding the application site is industrial in character with commercial buildings providing a mix of B1, B2 and B8 uses. A pedestrian gate in the rear boundary of the application site, and an unmade footpath provide access through a wooded area at the rear of the application site. This footpath links up with a public footpath that runs to the rear of the application site and other buildings in Lyon Road. The runs parallel to this public footpath with a footbridge providing access across the River Wandle to the Abbey Mills complex. The Merton Abbey Mills complex includes three and four storey residential blocks next to the River Wandle and other commercial uses.

2.5 The application site is located on the east side of Lyon Road adjacent to the vehicle turning area at the end of this cul-de-sac. This turning area, that has parking and waiting restrictions and is marked with a ‘yellow box’, is designed to facilitate the manoeuvring of larger vehicles accessing this industrial estate. With double yellow line parking restrictions and entrances to adjacent industrial premises there is very limited on street parking available in this area. The site has a low Public Transportation Accessibility Level [PTAL] of 2/3 [where 1a represents the least accessible areas and 6b the most accessible]. The application site is not located in a Controlled Parking Zone.

2.6 The site is not located in an area at risk from flooding or a conservation area and there are no protected trees on the site. The land at the rear

183 of the site is within Wandle Valley Conservation Area, Urban Centre and designated as a Green Corridor, as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, Green Chain and a Leisure Walking Route and Metropolitan Open Land.

3 CURRENT PROPOSAL 3.1 The proposed Hindu Cultural Centre, run by the Sivayogam Trust previously occupied a three-storey building at 180-186 Upper Tooting Road in the London Borough of . This building in a town centre location was occupied for 16 years and provided floor space of 3,579 square metres.

3.2 The Sivayogam Trust were evicted from these premises on the 22 May 2012. The cultural centre is currently using temporary premises at 2A Elmwood Road in the London Borough of Croydon. The applicant has stated that the Hindu Cultural Centre serves a geographical area covering Merton, Croydon, Tooting, , Bromley and Wandsworth.

3.3 The current application involves the change in the use of the existing building from this general industrial/storage use [Planning use classes B2 and B8] to provide a Hindu Cultural Centre [Planning use class D1]. A large section of the ground floor of the building will be used as an open plan prayer hall and temple space to host the faith’s festivals and celebrations.

3.4 The cultural centre aims to provide a centre to promote and popularise Hindu Culture, Hindu Religious Education and Carnative Music [vocal and instrumental, Indian dance, drama and literature]. Other areas of the ground floor provide a dining space and multi purpose space, a day care facility for the elderly and children, a restaurant, a storage area and toilets.

3.5 The submitted plans show the existing first floor office floor space converted into residential accommodation with fifteen priest rooms with shared toilet and shower facilities. The applicant has confirmed that the proposal does not include any external alterations apart from the insertion of new roof lights above the proposed first floor residential accommodation. It is highlighted that the south and north elevation drawings submitted with the planning application are inaccurate in terms of the location of existing windows.

3.6 The information submitted with the planning application shows that the use will employ between 25 to 30 staff, including nine priests, security staff, cooks, waiters, musicians and receptionists.

3.7 The use is intended to operate 7 days a week throughout the year between 0800hrs and 2130hrs, however the applicant states that the youth centre may stay open later until 2200hrs [planning statement Appendix B]. The applicant has stated that the youth centre ‘may

184 accommodate about 20 to start with’ and the day care for the elderly 30 people “…on each week day to start with; aged 65 yrs and over”.

3.8 A Pooja is a religious ritual performed by Hindus as an offering to various deities, distinguished persons, or special guests. It is intended that Pooja’s will take place at the centre, seven days a week throughout the year at 0900hrs, 1200hrs and 1930hrs.

3.9 A breakdown of the predicted number of visitors to the centre when operating normally is provided in the table below. This information is taken from the applicant’s transport assessment and planning statement submitted as part of the planning application.

Table 1: Predicted staff and visitor numbers [non festival days] Day of Pooja Elderly Youth Staff Others Daily the visitors Day care centre Totals week visitors visitors Sun. 60 0 20 15 20 115 Mon. 35 30 20 15 20 120 Tues. 195 30 20 15 20 280 Wed. 35 30 20 15 20 120 Thurs. 55 30 20 15 20 140 Fri. 275 30 20 15 20 360 Sat. 110 0 20 15 20 165 Totals 765 150 140 105 140 1260

3.10 The documents submitted with the planning application state that as well as the three daily Pooja’s it is intended to hold six multiday festivals and five single day festivals throughout the year. In total these festivals will take place over a total period covering 10 weeks of the year.

3.11 The proposed multi day festivals at the centre include the following:  Thai Poosam Festival starting in January or February [10 days with 20 people attending each day in the evening];  the Annual Main Festival in April or May [20 days with 250 people attending each day for the first 15 days and 115 for the final 5 days];  the Aadi Pooram Amman Festival in July or August [10 days with 20 people attending each day];  the Vinayakar Festival in August or September [10 days with 20 people attending each day in the evening];  the Navarathiri Festival in September or October [9 days with 50 people attending each day]; and  the Kanda Shasti Festival in October or November [6 days with 40 people attending each day in the evening].

3.12 The Annual Chariot festival was previously held at Figges Marsh and attracted about 8000 people with a procession from the previous site in

185 Tooting High Street to Figges Marsh. The applicant has confirmed that this event will not take place in the future, as the applicant considers that it not be possible to use the chariot from the application site.

3.13 The proposed five one-day festivals at the centre are as follows:  English New Year [350 people attending];  Tamil New Year [April - 350 people attending];  Varalakshmi Viratham [August - 250 people attending];  Diwali [October - 250 people attending] and  Kethara Gowrri Viratha Pooja [October - 300 people attending].

3.14 The applicant has confirmed that those visiting the centre outside festival periods will continue to visit when the festivals are taking place. The number of festival visitors listed in paragraphs 3.11 and 3.13 of this report therefore exclude the normal daily Pooja attendees, staff and other visitors. If one-day festivals were held on a Friday this would result in a total of 710 people visiting the application building on this day. The following table provides total daily visitor numbers during festival periods including staff, ‘Pooja’ attendees, visitors to the centre for the elderly, the youth club and other visitors.

Table 2: Total predicted staff and visitor numbers [multiday festivals]

Day of the week / Festival Non festival day visitors. Thai Poosam Main Festival Aadi Pooram Amman Vinayakar Navarathiri Kanda Shasti No. of days 10 20 10 10 9 6 Sun. 115 135 365 135 135 165 155 Mon. 120 140 370 140 140 170 160 Tues. 280 300 530 300 300 330 320 Wed. 120 140 370 140 140 170 160 Thurs. 140 160 390 160 160 190 180 Fri. 360 380 610 380 380 410 400 Sat. 165 185 415 185 185 215 205 Weekly Totals 1260 1440 3050 1440 1440 1650 1580

3.15 The submitted planning application includes a letter of support from the Rt Hon Sadiq Khan MP [Member of Parliament for Tooting] stating that he has known the temple for a number of years and on several visits was impressed by the warm and friendly welcome. The Temple played an important part in contributing to the positive and inclusive atmosphere within the wider Tooting community. The festivals held at the temple were always ‘well attended’ and strong links were forged with other community organisations.

186 3.16 A letter of support from Siobhan McDonagh MP states that it is hoped that the planning application is given ‘compassionate consideration’ as the community are desperate for an alternative place of worship. The submitted application includes 12 letters of support from members of the congregation.

3.17 A Transport Assessment and draft Travel Plan have been submitted in support of the planning application prepared on behalf of the applicant. The Transport Assessment advises that the use intends to provide a mini bus that will support the proposed community uses. The mini bus could provide a ‘dial-a-ride’ service, timetabled operation, shuttle bus, or use for day trips.

3.18 The planning statement includes a travel survey/petition in support of the application from the existing temple congregation with 395 signatures/responses received from 163 dwellings. The petition states that there is support for the temple for the following reasons:  The temple has had a clean record during the last sixteen years;  We are in the process of purchasing the application property funded by our donations and so that the temple can be proud of owning a freehold property;  The use will provide services for their youth as well as our elders;  The use will ease the public finance and create more employment opportunities;  We are desperately in need of this centre as it meets almost all our immediate needs.

4. PLANNING HISTORY. 4.1 There have been several planning applications approved for alterations to the existing commercial building. Further relevant applications include approval in May 1955 [reference M/M6980] for the erection of workshops, stores, offices and ancillary buildings. Planning permission was granted in October 1992 for the change of use from B2 [industrial] to B8 [storage] use.

4.2 The applicant was provided with pre-application planning advice in July 2012. Without prejudice to the assessment of a future planning application this pre application planning advice set out the reasons why officers considered the application site unsuitable for the proposal that is being considered as part of the current planning application.

4.3 Public consultation responses to the current planning application have highlighted an earlier planning application for the nearby building at 17 Lyon Road. This earlier planning application and the current proposal were submitted by different applicants who appear to be unconnected. As there are similarities between the two applications in terms of the proposed development, details of this earlier planning application are provided below.

187 4.4 On the 6 September 2012 planning permission was refused [reference 12/P1252] for the change of use of the ground floor warehouse [class B8] at 17 Lyon Road and first storey office space [class B1] for use as a banqueting hall [class D2] and the use of vacant office space [class B1] at third floor level as a place of worship/ educational centre [class D1]. Planning permission was refused for the following reasons:

1. “The proposal would result in the loss of existing employment generating floor space in a Strategic Industrial Location that recent reviews of employment land have shown is of a good standard and has the potential to continue to provide a good standard of employment floor space including for general industrial use. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy E.1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan [October 2003]; policy CS 12 of the adopted Core Strategy [July 2012]; policies 2.17, 4.1 and 4.4 of the London Plan [July 2011] and the National Planning Policy Framework [Chapter 1: Building a Strong, Competitive Economy] [March 2012].”

2. “The proposal fails to demonstrate that the development will not adversely affect highway safety and traffic management; and lead to conflict between vehicle movements and on street parking generated by the development and commercial vehicles, deliveries and servicing associated with existing adjacent commercial uses to the detriment of the attractiveness of surrounding land and buildings for purposes appropriate to this Strategic Industrial Location. The proposals would therefore be contrary to E.1 of the Adopted London Borough of Merton Unitary Development Plan [October 2003]; policies CS 18 and CS20 of the adopted Core Strategy [July 2012 policies 2.17, 4.1 and 4.4 of the London Plan [July 2011] and the National Planning Policy Framework [March 2012]”.

5. CONSULTATION 5.1 The planning application was publicised by means of a site notice displayed in the vicinity of the application site, a departure application press notice together with individual letters to 143 neighbouring properties.

5.2 In response to this public consultation 48 letters [12 letters from within the borough] and a petition of 626 signatures [43 signatures from within the borough] from the temple congregation have been received expressing support for the planning application for the following reasons:  The temple is needed to educate the youth of the Tamil Hindu community on culture;  The centre provides an important facility for the youth to help them to grow;

188  The previous temple provided a service to senior citizens who traveled by public transport;  The centre is required for religious services, for prayers and for the Tamil Hindi festival;  The temple is an important part of the way of life and culture for south Indian families in south London;  Even through I live on the opposite side of London I made regular journeys to the earlier temple. Due to the high standard of services and community spirit it offered

5.3 In response to public consultation 37 letters have been received [from the occupiers and owners of residential buildings in Merton Abbey Mills and commercial occupiers in Merton Abbey Mills and the Morden Road Factory Estate objecting to the planning application for the following reasons:

Impact on the industrial estate and employment  The additional use of roads in the industrial estate by cars associated with the proposed use will delay deliveries to adjacent businesses;  The estate roads are not suitable for use by the additional traffic generated by the proposed use;  The proposed use would exacerbate an existing serious local parking problem in the estate;  Articulated vehicles, sometimes of two trailers linked use the estate roads;  A religious social hub located in an industrial location is considered “…a complete misfit”;  The location has been chosen as it will be cheaper then a developed location;  Approving the current application will set a dangerous precedent for other industrial sites across the borough;  The proposed use will not create much employment as it is run by volunteers;  The loss of employment land will prevent the country from coming out of recession.

Impact on amenity  Adjacent residents will be affected by the influx of residents into the area;  The use will cause serious security and privacy;  The use will cause noise pollution to an otherwise clam and peaceful area;  The green corridor that forms a natural and effective barrier between the industrial estate and residential uses will be damaged by the proposal.

189 Impact on traffic, transport, car parking and access  The use will attract heavy traffic to Watermill Way which is a private road;  The application does not address potential parking problems in Merton Abbey Mills where there is a high existing demand for car parking;  The proposed use will lead to parking and traffic problems in the local area, including in the Sainsbury’s and Marks and Spencer car parks;  The private roads in Merton Abbey Mills are currently in need of repairs, which will be at the expense of residents;  The footbridge and cobbled area is maintained through a service charge and there is a concern that there will be extra damage to these areas;  The application does not acknowledge Merton Abbey Mills as residential use referring to a ‘shopping centre’;  The development will lead to both general inconvenience and safety issues in terms of access for emergency vehicles caused by illegally parked vehicles in Watermill Road and it would be naive to believe that the applicant could police or control this;  It is not accepted that as people arrived on foot or by public transport at the previous site they will do the same at the new site, and there is no way of controlling this.

Other issues  The proposal may impact upon property values;  The experience with another temple in North London has shown that it places an ‘immense’ pressure on local infrastructure;  Shouldn’t the use of Brown and Root tower be investigated?;  The additional use of the green corridor with the need to install hard pathways would disrupt nature;  This planning application is inappropriate for this area and it would be irresponsible if the council were to approve it.

Trustee and former treasurer and administrator of the Sivayogam Trust 5.4 The previous temple was open daily with approximately 300-400 visitors per day and 1000 visitors on festive days. The temple had 12 priests and 6 assistants.

5.5 In addition to religious services the temple also provides cultural and community services to the public including weddings as well as social and cultural events especially focussing on the youth and the elderly.

5.6 The temple is currently sponsoring many orphanages, schools and a home for the elderly in Sri Lanka. The premises were also used by organisations providing advice on common health problems such as heart disease.

190 Environment Agency 5.7 The development has been assessed as having a low environmental risk and the Environment Agency have no further comments to make.

LB Merton Transport Planning 5.8 The previous location of the proposed use was on the A24 road and within easy walking distance of Tooting Broadway underground station with numerous bus routes serving the site and a Controlled Parking Zone in operation. The average walking time from Colliers Wood or South Wimbledon tube stations to the application site is 20 minutes. Whilst it is considered that the submitted survey information reflects the transport activity at the previous location, it is very difficult to transpose the travel behaviour from that site to the application site in Lyon Road.

5.9 It is recommended that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposal has failed to demonstrate that it will not have an adverse impact on highway safety and traffic management. The proposal will lead to conflict between vehicle movements and on street parking generated by the development and commercial vehicles, deliveries and servicing associated with existing adjacent commercial uses.

LB Merton Environmental Health 5.10 Concerns are expressed regarding the proposed use and the potential to cause noise disturbance and also the potential for visitors to the use to be disturbed by the neighbouring commercial industrial premises. With this in mind Environmental Health recommend the refusal of planning permission.

Councillor Andrew Judge 5.11 In my role as the ward councillor I wish to register my opposition to this proposal. In my view it is not appropriate that this location on an industrial estate should be used as a religious community centre. I would hope that its employment and business uses could be maintained.

Councillor Nick Draper 5.12 I wish to object to the planning application as the ward councillor for the neighbouring Colliers Wood ward where the closest residents to the application site live. The objection is on the grounds that the application will result in the loss of an industrial unit on a successful industrial estate. There is a concern that the congregation of the temple will seek to use the parking area in Merton Abbey Mills to park their cars which would prevent their intended use by residents or customers of the hotel and fitness premises.

6. POLICY CONTEXT National Planning Framework [March 2012] 6.1 The National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] was published on the 27 March 2012 and replaces previous guidance contained in Planning

191 Policy Guidance Notes and Planning Policy Statements. The NPPF document is a key part of central government reforms ‘…to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, and to promote sustainable growth’. The framework also states that the primary objective of development management should be to foster the delivery of sustainable development, and not to hinder or prevent development.

6.2 The NPPF reaffirms the status of the local development plan as the starting point for making decisions on planning applications. The NPPF advises, “Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise”.

6.3 In this instance the local development plan consists of the London Plan [July 2011] published by the Greater London Authority, the Council’s Core Strategy [July 2011] and saved policies with the Council’s Unitary Development Plan [October 2003]. The Council’s Core Strategy and the London Plan both adopted in July 2011 are considered up to date, in line with the National Planning Policy Framework and providing a sound basis on which to make decisions on planning applications.

Policies within the Adopted Core Strategy [July 2011] 6.4 The relevant policies within the Council’s Adopted Core Strategy [July 2011] are CS.1 [Colliers Wood and South Wimbledon sub Areas]; CS 7 [Centres]; CS11 [Infrastructure]; CS 12 [Economic Development]; CS.13 [Open space; nature conservation; leisure and culture]; CS.14 [Design]; CS.15 [Climate change]; CS.18 [Active transport]; CS.19 [Public transport]; and CS.20 [Parking; servicing and delivery].

The London Plan [July 2011]. 6.5 The relevant policies in the London Plan [July 2011] are 2.17 [Strategic industrial locations]; 3.16 [Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure]; 4.1 [Developing London’s economy]; 4.4 [Managing industrial land and premises]; 4.6 [Support for and enhancement of arts, culture, sport and entertainment provision]; 4.10 [New and emerging economic sectors]; 5.1 [Climate change mitigation]; 5.2 [Minimising carbon dioxide emissions]; 5.3 [Sustainable design and construction]: 5.7 [Renewable energy]; 5.10 [Urban greening]; 5.13 [Sustainable drainage]; 6.3 [Assessing effects of development on transport capacity]; 6.9 [Cycling]; 6.10 [Walking]; 6.11 [Smoothing traffic flow and tacking congestion]; 6.12 [Road network capacity]; 6.13 [Parking]; 7.2 [An inclusive environment]; 7.3 [Designing out crime]; 7.4 [Local character]; 7.5 [Public realm]; 7.6 [Architecture]; 7.14 [Improving air quality]; 7.15 [Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes]; 7.21 [Trees and woodlands] and 8.2 [Planning obligations].

Merton Supplementary Planning Guidance 6.6 The key supplementary planning guidance relevant to the proposals includes Design [2004] and Planning Obligations [2006].

192 Policies retained in Adopted Unitary Development Plan [2003] 6.7 The relevant planning policies retained in the Adopted Unitary Development Plan [October 2003] are BE3 [Development Adjacent to a Conservation Area]; BE16 [Urban design]; BE22 [Design of new development]; BE25 [Sustainable development]; C1 [Location and access of facilities]; E1 [General employment policy]; E2 [Access for disabled people]; E3 [Land uses in industrial areas]; F2 [Planning obligations]; HS1 [Housing layout and amenity]; L2 [Walking Routes]; L14 [Community and religious meeting places], NE2 [Development in Proximity to MOL]; NE6 [Local Nature Reserves and Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation]; PE7 [Capacity of water systems]; PE.9 [Waste minimisation and waste disposal]; PE.11 [Recycling points]; PE.12 [Energy generation and energy saving]; RN3 [Vehicular access]; and Schedule 6: [Parking standards].

7. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The main planning considerations include assessing:  the need to provide religious and cultural facilities in the borough and the suitability of the application site for this use;  the need to ensure that there is sufficient land in suitable locations to provide an adequate supply of viable and appropriate sites and premises for employment use [including industrial employment uses];  the need to ensure that noise sensitive land uses are located in suitable locations [including assessing the relationship to existing, or potential future sources of disturbance such as noise, additional traffic and air pollution].  the need to assess the impact of the proposal in terms of traffic, parking, and access.

7.2 These planning considerations are considered in the context of the current protection offered to this employment site by the adopted development plan [consisting of the Unitary Development Plan, the LDF Core Planning Strategy and the London Plan] and whether there are material considerations present in relation to this current planning application that would justify a departure from the development plan.

Provision of religious and cultural facilities and site suitability. 7.3 The spatial vision for the borough set out in the adopted Core Strategy and supported by the Community Plan [2009-2019] states that the Council will support community life. This support will be through facilitating education and employment opportunities, cultural and sporting assets, community services; healthcare; recreational activities and other infrastructure that meets local needs.

7.4 Policy L.14 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan states that the Council will consider applications for the development of community and religious meeting places favourably having regard to several factors including its effect on the amenities of adjoining properties; the

193 effect on the character of the area; the adequacy of access and parking facilities the accessibility of the site by public transport and walking and cycling; and the need to protect the existing use of the site.

7.5 Adopted planning policies [CS.1, CS.2 and CS.3] in the adopted Core Strategy encourage the location of community, religious and cultural facilities in town centre locations. Policy CS12 of the Core Strategy states that ‘town centre type uses’ such as the proposed cultural centre use should be directed to the centres such as Mitcham Town Centre.

7.6 Policy 4.6 of the London Plan states that cultural development should be located on sites where there is good access to public transport and be accessible to all sections of the community including the disabled and older people. Development involving cultural facilities should fulfill the sequential approach set out in policy 4.7.

7.7 In setting out the sequential approach, policy 4.7 of the London Plan states that cultural uses should be focused on sites within town centres, or there are no sites available in town centre, these uses should be located on sites on the edges of centres that are integrated with the existing centre and public transport. The reasons for this requirement include the public transport access that is available in town centres, the likelihood of reduced trip generation through linked trips and the supporting infrastructure that is available in these town centre locations.

7.8 In terms of the sequential approach required by the London Plan, whilst there is no reference to the need to locate in a town centre location, the applicant’s planning statement advises that the applicants have ‘…exhausted all avenues open to them to find an alternative property”. A letter submitted with the planning application from a Hindu priest at the temple [planning statement Appendix D] states that the ground floor location and the proximity of the River Wandle to the application site were factors in choosing this location. It is stated that ‘the other great thing about this property is the river nearby. It is going to be incredible and invaluable”. The letter goes on to say ‘we normally do a few poojas on the river as per our tradition” and in remembrance of our ancestors.

7.9 Following pre-application planning advice, the applicant contacted the Council’s property section with the following site search criteria “We are seeking a freehold property circa 20,000 sq ft [1858 square metres] in the area close to the Abbey Mills development. In addition to parking on site we require good transport links…” and a property in B1 use that can be changed to D1 use. With these restrictive search criteria the Council’s property section were unable to assist in finding an alternative site for the cultural centre.

7.10 The information submitted with the planning application [Appendix G of the planning statement] provides a list of 55 alternative sites providing ‘industrial’ floor space in the ‘Lyon Road Estate and surrounds’. There

194 is no information submitted with the application as to why these 55 sites were discounted or why this site search was restricted to just industrial land around Lyon Road. In pre-application discussions two alternative sites were suggested to the applicant, and there is no evidence that these sites have been investigated further. It is understood that an alternative site outside the industrial area within walking distance of Morden Town Centre has also recently been suggested to the applicants.

7.11 Following the submission of the planning application the applicant has submitted further details of an alternative site search dated January 2013. This site search sought a freehold only building covering 20,000 sq ft [1858 square metres] in the areas of Tooting, Colliers Wood, Merton and South Wimbledon with D1 planning use or the possibility of securing D1 use. The submitted details states that the applicant found two alternative sites as part of this search, the nearby industrial building at 17 Lyon Road and the office building Brooke House in Cricket Green Mitcham. The building at 17 Lyon Road was discounted due to the earlier refusal of planning permission for a D1 use [see planning history section of this report] and the building at Brooke House did not have floor space with the necessary flexibility.

7.12 The applicant has stated that the proposed temple “directly serves the needs of its members in Merton, Croydon, Tooting, Mitcham, Bromley and Wandsworth”. The petitions submitted following the submission of the planning application also show that a large proportion of the congregation live outside the borough including in north, west and east London. Whilst the congregation from the temple appear to come from a wide area, it is considered that the applicant’s restrictive search criteria to the ‘Lyon Road Estate and surrounds’; or to “the area close to the Abbey Mills development” and with D1 use have prevented alternative suitable sites being found in town centre locations.

7.13 The application site is located within an industrial estate and outside a town centre, a local centre and not in a location on the edge of one of these areas. The application site has poor accessibility to public transport with a public transport accessibility level [PTAL] of between 2 and 3 [where 1a represents the least accessible areas and 6b the most accessible].

7.14 In conclusion, the relocation of the Hindu Cultural Centre to the borough would provide a new local community and a religious meeting place in the borough. Whilst the principle of the use relocating in the borough is fully supported it is considered that that the application site is unsuitable for this use due to the location outside a town centre and conflict with the operation of the surrounding industrial estate.

195 Provision of employment land in the borough. - Evidence of demand for employment land in the borough 7.15 Paragraph 22 of the National Planning Policy Framework [March 2012] advises “Planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed".

7.16 In line with the National Planning Policy Framework the employment land allocations within the borough have been subject to several recent reviews as part of the preparation of the evidence base for both the Council’s Core Strategy and the London Plan. A further review was also carried out in 2011 following adoption of these documents.

7.17 In 2010, as part of the evidence base for the Council’s Core Strategy, consultants Nathaniel, Litchfield and Partners carried out a review of the quantity and quality of employment land in the borough on behalf of the London Borough of Merton. This assessment updated a previous review carried out in 2005. The review included individual site assessments of 150 employment sites in the borough including the Willow Lane Industrial Estate where the current planning application site is located.

7.18 The review of employment land considered a wide range of factors including strategic access; local accessibility; proximity to urban areas and access to labour and services; compatibility of adjoining uses; development and; environmental constraints; market attractiveness; barriers to delivery; potential uses; timescale/ availability and contribution to the overall economic development strategy. This review of employment land and land allocations found that the Willow Lane Industrial Estate provided a good standard of employment land that should be retained for employment purposes.

7.19 After independent ‘examination in public’ the Core Strategy was found ‘sound’ and adopted in July 2011, with the designation of the application site for employment purposes retained within the adopted Core Strategy. In this context the Nathaniel, Litchfield and Partners review of employment land in the borough and its conclusions are considered ‘robust and credible’. This review represents a recent review of employment land in the borough as required by paragraph 22 the National Planning Policy Framework.

7.20 The policies contained in the adopted London Plan [July 2011] were formulated after research was carried out on industrial land across London. This research was first carried out in 1999, and updated in 2004, 2007, and again in 2010. Following the conclusions of this industrial land research, the Willow Land Industrial Estate was designated as a Strategic industrial location.

196 7.21 After independent ‘examination in public’ the London Plan was found ‘sound’ and adopted in July 2011. In this context the review of employment land in the borough carried out to inform the London Plan and its conclusions are considered ‘robust and credible’ and represent a recent and regular review of employment land in the borough as required by paragraph 22 the National Planning Policy Framework.

7.22 Policy 4.4 of the London Plan states that the Mayor will work with boroughs and other partners to adopt a rigorous approach to industrial land management to ensure a sufficient stock of land and premises in order to meet the future needs of different types of industrial and related uses in different parts of London, including for good quality and affordable floor space. Policy 4.10 of the London Plan seeks to support new and emerging economic sectors, with the supporting text noting that, ‘This Plan’s managed approach to provision of offices and industrial type activities will help underpin innovative firms seeking affordable premises, as well as ensuring there is adequate capacity to accommodate innovation among more established businesses’.

7.23 Following the conclusions of the reviews of employment land, the London Plan [Map 4.1], indicates the approach that should be adopted for the release of industrial land to other uses. This classification takes into account the projected demand and supply of land capacity to accommodate all types of industrial activity. It was concluded that the London Borough of Merton had “…low levels of industrial land relative to demand [particularly for waste management or land for logistics] and/ or low proportions of industrial land within the Strategic Industrial Location framework” and as a result the borough should adopt a ‘restricted transfer’ approach to the release of industrial land for alternative uses.

7.24 The research carried out as the evidence base for the London Plan was reviewed recently, with the publication in December 2011 of a further study of industrial land across London. This study commissioned by the Greater London Authority and carried out by Roger Tym and Partners [‘Industrial Land Demand and Release Benchmarks in London’] concluded that the restricted transfer approach to the release of employment land within the London Borough of Merton was the correct approach and that this approach should be maintained.

7.25 In conclusion, the location and quantity of employment land in the borough has been the subject of several recent reviews, in line with the National Planning Policy Framework. These independent and separate reviews of employment land found that the application site provided a good standard of employment floor space. These reviews show that there are low levels of industrial land relative to demand in the borough an as a result the application site has a more then reasonable prospect of future use for employment purposes and should be retained for employment purposes.

197 - Suitability of the application site to provide employment uses; 7.26 Following the recent reviews of employment land in the borough and assessment of future need, the application site has been allocated as a Strategic Industrial Location. As a result of its unique scale, homogenous character and proximity to the strategic road network, the Morden Road Factory Estate is considered to be a suitable location in the borough for locating employment uses that would be likely to harm amenity if located elsewhere in more sensitive locations.

7.27 The purpose of the Strategic Industrial Location designation is to ensure that there is sufficient land in suitable locations to provide sites for employment purposes. Policy CS 12 of the Core Strategy states that the Council will seek to ensure an adequate supply of appropriate sites by ‘protecting’ and ‘managing’ the designated Strategic Industrial Locations; and ensuring that they contribute towards business, industrial, storage and distribution functions.

7.28 Policy 2.17 of the London Plan considers ‘Strategic Industrial Locations’ stating that development proposals in ‘Strategic Industrial Locations’ should be refused planning permission unless they comprise general industrial uses, light industrial uses, storage and distribution, waste management, recycling, some transport related functions, utilities, wholesale markets or other industrial related activities.

7.29 The application site and the Morden Road Factory Estate is provided with strategic planning policy protection as it provides a land resource where industrial uses can locate away from residential areas and without competition from, or conflict with other land uses such as the currently proposed cultural centre with the associated residential accommodation.

7.30 In conclusion, the application site is currently located in a well functioning and well occupied industrial estate that has good access to the strategic road network. The application premises provide a good standard of employment floor space as part of the larger Morden Road Factory Estate and should be retained for employment purposes.

- Noise sensitive uses and the borough’s‘Strategic Industrial Locations’ 7.31 Policy PE.2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan [October 2003] states that noise-sensitive developments such as the proposed cultural centre will not be permitted near to existing sources of significant noise. Policy 7.15 of the London Plan states that development proposals should seek to reduce noise by: minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within, or in the vicinity of, development proposals, and separating new noise sensitive development from major noise sources. The Hindu Cultural Centre will include meeting rooms; a prayer hall; library and offices. The building will also provide a day care for the elderly and children in need and dining facilities for employees and visitors and overnight residential accommodation for up to ten priests. With these characteristics the

198 proposed cultural centre with the associated residential accommodation is considered a noise sensitive use.

7.32 Whilst restrictions would be required in other areas of the borough to protect amenity, one of the purposes of designating the Morden Road Factory Estate as an industrial area is to provide a location where industrial uses can operate freely [for instance operate over 24 hours] and provide employment opportunities separate from noise sensitive uses. The positive aspects of the Strategic Industrial Location for both existing occupiers of the Morden Road Factory Estate and potential future industrial occupiers include the unique scale and homogenous character of this employment area. This system of land use planning seeks to separate conflicting uses, to ensure that land uses that are likely to the source of disturbance and loss of amenity are separated from noise sensitive uses.

7.33 The current proposal involves the introduction of a noise sensitive use in close proximity to existing industrial uses. The existing and future general industrial and storage and distribution uses within the Morden Road Factory Estate are likely to be the source of future nuisance to future users of the proposed cultural centre and associated residential accommodation with the potential to generate large amounts of noise, pollution and general disturbance.

7.34 In the event that the current application is approved and the cultural centre occupies the application building, UDP policy PE.2 would also be relevant in the consideration of future planning applications for new potentially noisy industrial uses seeking to occupy industrial units neighbouring the application site. In seeking to protect noise sensitive developments from other land uses that would cause noise disturbance policy PE.2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan [October 2003] states that potentially noisy developments must be located away from noise-sensitive land uses. In these circumstances the presence of the cultural centre would severely restrict the use of adjacent units and harm the functioning and operation of the wider industrial estate.

7.35 In conclusion it is considered that the proposal will fail to provide an adequate standard of accommodation for future users due to the potential nuisance caused by existing and future adjacent industrial uses. The proposed use in addition will severely restrict potential occupiers for neighbouring industrial units and harm the functioning and operation of the surrounding industrial estate. The use of these premises as a cultural centre is therefore considered contrary to policy PE.2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan [October 2003]

7.36 The Morden Road Factory Estate is currently separated from sensitive land uses by Merantun Way to the north, Morden Road to the east and the Morden Road to Phipps Bridge section of the tramline to the south. The open space at the rear of the application site and the River Wandle separate the industrial area from the residential accommodation in

199 Merton Abbey Mills to the west. The current proposal introducing a noise sensitive use into Morden Road Factory Estate wolud damage the existing function and operation of the industrial area by introducing a noise sensitive use. It is considered that the presence of a noise sensitive use in this industrial area would make the area less attractive to the business that the Council is seeking to locate in this area and provide employment opportunities. The location of the cultural centre within the industrial estate could potentially cause existing uses to relocate and lead to higher vacancy rates.

Release of employment land in Strategic Industrial Locations 7.37 The three reviews of employment land in the borough found that there is a demand for employment land and that the application building should be retained for employment use. In the event that the review of employment land had found the application site surplus to requirements; policy 2.17 of the London Plan provides guidance on planning, monitoring and managing the release of surplus industrial land.

7.38 Policy 2.17 of the London Plan advises that any release of industrial land such as the application site located in Strategic Industrial Locations, should only be considered as part of a strategically co- ordinated process of Strategic Industrial Location consolidation. This consolidation process carried out through an opportunity area planning framework or borough development plan document. As the application site provides a good standard of employment land and there is demand for such land in the borough there are no plans for this consolidation process to take place.

7.39 In contrast to the Strategic Industrial Locations, retained Unitary Development Plan [UDP] policy E6 considers the loss of smaller ‘scattered employment sites’ that have a closer relationship with residential land uses and are located outside the Strategic Industrial Locations and suitable for uses unlikely to harm amenity. In terms of the loss of these employment sites UDP policy E6 policy requests details of marketing as evidence that the size, configuration, access arrangements or other characteristics of the site make them unsuitable and financially unviable for continued employment use. The policy states that ‘full and proper’ marketing of these sites should be for a minimum period of five years.

7.40 Whilst it is highlighted that UDP policy E6 is not relevant to the consideration of the current proposal located in a Strategic Industrial Locations, the applicant has submitted marketing information in support of the current planning application. The information shows that an estate agent was instructed to market the property in March 2011 with a marketing board put on the site in April 2011. The marketing has included putting the premises on a database for those looking for industrial floor space as well as advertisements in a publication circulated to 10,000 businesses.

200 7.41 The marketing information from the agent shows that the building has been marketed for just less than two years. The applicant has confirmed that the previous occupier left the building in May 2012 and as a result there has been only 8 months marketing with vacant procession. The submitted details show that between May 2011 and December 2012 there has been on average two queries a month in relation to the application building with the majority of these queries coming from prospective commercial occupiers offering alternative employment uses. The information from the estate agents shows that the current applicant the Sivayogam Trust made an offer on the building in June 2012 subject to obtaining planning permission.

7.42 In conclusion the application site is located in an employment area that is given protection by planning policies within the adopted UDP, the Core Strategy and the London Plan. This protection is due to the unique homogenous character and position of this Strategic Industrial Location in ensuring an adequate supply of viable and appropriate sites and premises for employment use in the borough. The separation of the application site from other sensitive land uses makes it an attractive location for business uses and this would be severely damaged by the introduction of the proposed cultural centre

7.43 In line with the National Planning Policy Framework regular reviews of employment land in the borough have been carried out and these have found that there is a need to retain employment land. The last review of employment land in December 2011 supported the protection of the site at 10 Lyon Road for employment purposes.

7.44 The submitted planning application fails to demonstrate that this building is no longer suitable for employment purposes or that there is no potential demand for the use of the floor space for employment generation. The submitted marketing details show that in the short period that the property has been marketed there has been interest shown in premises.

7.45 The employment floor space is required to ensure a sufficient stock of land and premises to meet the future needs of different types of industrial use and should be retained for employment purposes. It is considered that there is a reasonable prospect of this site being used for the allocated employment use and there are no material considerations that would indicate otherwise.

7.46 The strong evidence base on which the Council’s and London Plan policies have been formulated and the subsequent designation of areas in the borough as Strategic Industrial Locations provide a robust basis in which to seek the retention of land and buildings for employment purposes in these Strategic Industrial Locations. In these circumstances with evidence showing a strong prospect of the application site being used for the allocated employment use the advice

201 in the National Planning Policy Framework states that it is not necessary to consider alternative land uses for this site.

Access, public transport, walking, cycling, and car parking 7.47 Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy states that a mix of appropriate uses will be encouraged to locate in the centres, including cultural, and community, offices uses which contribute to the vitality and viability of centres. Policy 3.16 of the London Plan states that social infrastructure facilities should be accessible to all sections of the community (including disabled and older people) and be located within easy reach by walking, cycling and public transport.

7.48 Policies 3.16 and 4.7 of the London Plan state that culture development should be focused on sites within town centres, or if no in-centre sites are available, on sites on the edges of centres that are, or can be, well integrated with the existing centre and public transport.

Car parking and trip generation 7.49 On street parking capacity in the area surrounding the application is severely restricted, both within the industrial estate and within the nearby Merton Abbey Mills development. There is a concern about extra pressure on the limited space available from those visiting the application site during normal operation and during festivals and dropping off users of the elderly day care facility and the youth club.

7.50 In the event that planning permission is granted the applicant has confirmed an intention to allow pedestrian access to the cultural centre from an existing gate in the rear boundary of the site. This gate provides access from the site to a public pedestrian footpath running between the rear of buildings in Lyon Road and the River Wandle. A footbridge that is privately owned by residents in Merton Abbey Mills provides unrestricted pedestrian access across the River Wandle to a private road, and then access to the residential buildings and to Merantun Way beyond.

7.51 In public consultation responses, concerns have been expressed in relation to the increased use of the footbridge across the River Wandle to access the proposed development and the additional pressure on parking within this area. The rear access gate to the application site is on to a public pedestrian footpath and the footbridge is privately owned and maintained and as a result in the event that planning permission is approved it would not be possible to prevent the use of this existing access gate and use of the footbridge.

7.52 Policy CS20 of the Core Strategy [July 2011] states that car parking should be provided in accordance with current parking standards, whilst assessing the impact of any additional on street parking on vehicle movements and road safety. It is intended for the application site to provide 20 off street car parking spaces that will be formally

202 marked out within the open areas of the site including 4 disabled spaces.

7.53 In support of the planning application the applicant has commissioned a transport assessment; the transport assessment concluding that it is ‘highly unlikely that there will be any increase in vehicular traffic’ as a result of the proposed development. In reaching this conclusion and predicting future transport choices the transport assessment relies on predicted visitor numbers visiting the site during normal operation and a survey of the existing members of the congregation.

7.54 The transport assessment considered trip generation on the basis of the predicted visitors to the proposed new centre on a Friday [360 visitors], Friday is predicted to be the busiest day of the week when the proposed use is operating normally. In separate information submitted by the applicant and set out earlier in this report it is confirmed that it is intended to hold festivals at the proposed centre throughout the year. In total these festivals will take place over a period covering two and a half months annually.

7.55 The applicant has confirmed that as well as the normal visitors to the centre there will be an additional 250 visitors to the site during the main festival [total of 610 visitors to the site on a Friday during this 20 day event] and 350 visitors during one-day festivals. In assessing the impact of the proposed use the submitted transport assessment fails to consider the number of visitors to the application site during festival periods and with limited on site car parking it is unclear how the private vehicles associated with these large events would be accommodated.

7.56 In seeking to predict the number of visitors to the centre arriving by car the transport assessment includes a survey of the congregation using the cultural centre in its former location within Tooting Town Centre. The survey results have been included as part of the separately submitted planning statement.

7.57 The submitted travel survey is unclear in terms of whether the existing congregation were answering a question about their choices in traveling to the former facility in Upper Tooting Road or how they would travel to the proposed new location. The former location of the cultural centre was on Upper Tooting Road in a town centre location, within a controlled parking zone, with easy access to Tooting Broadway Underground station and with numerous bus routes nearby. This previous site had a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 6a [where 1a represents the least accessible areas and 6b the most accessible].

7.58 The application site is located outside a town centre location and a controlled parking zone with an average walk from Colliers Wood or South Wimbledon tube stations of 20 minutes and a low Public Transport Accessibility Level of 2/3. All of these factors and these

203 differences between the two locations would increase the likelihood of visitors to the new location traveling by private car.

7.59 In the event that the responses to the travel survey related to the new location for the cultural centre, it is unclear how 80% of those who said they would travel by public transport were aware of the accessibility of the new location in terms of public transport, including for instance the location of bus stops, pedestrian paths etc. In light of the poor transport accessibility, if respondents to the survey did originally intend to use public transport to the new location, there is doubt that this would borne out by actual travel behavior and that they may instead travel by private vehicle.

Access, cycling, walking and car parking. 7.60 Policy CS 18 of the adopted Core Strategy [July 2011] states that the Council will promote active transport by prioritising the safety of pedestrian, cycle and other active transport modes. The Council will support schemes that will reduce conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and other transport modes. The applicant has stated that the use will provide 12 cycle parking spaces within the site with six Sheffield stands.

7.61 The application site is located within the Morden Road Factory Estate. The site at 10 Lyon Road is located at the end of the cul-de-sac. Windsor Avenue, and Jubilee Way that are also located within the Morden Factory Estate provide access from the application site on to Morden Road [A24] that forms part of the strategic road network. The function and operation of the industrial estate results in a large number of large commercial, freight and heavy goods vehicles using the roads within the estate.

7.62 The applicant has stated that the new facility is aimed at the whole community and includes day care facilities for those over 65 years old and a youth club. In terms of the operation of the industrial estate such as delivery vehicles parked on the pavement, manoeuvering vehicles, and limited sightlines it is considered that the proposed use would result in a conflict between commercial vehicles using the estate roads and vulnerable groups [elderly people and young people] associated with the proposed use. The proposal would fail to provide a safe environment for these groups especially those intending to walk or cycle to the proposed use.

7.63 In conclusion the application premises will fail to provide suitable access arrangements for visitors to the cultural centre due to the conflict between the operation of the proposed use and the daily operation and servicing of the Morden Road Factory Estate. The location outside a town centre, the poor access to public transport and the nature of the use involving vulnerable groups that would be more likely to travel by car, is likely to place additional pressure on local on

204 street parking demand and lead to an increase in vehicle trips within this industrial estate.

Standard of residential accommodation and affordable housing. 7.64 Policies CS 8, CS9 and CS14 within the Council’s Adopted Core Strategy [2011] states that the Council will require proposals for new homes to be well designed. Policy 3.5 of the London Plan [July 2011] states that housing developments should be of the highest quality internally and externally.

7.65 Having regard to characteristics such as site size, site suitability, financial viability issues and other planning contributions Core Strategy policy CS 8 states that the provision of new residential accommodation should include a minimum of 40% of new units as affordable housing. Within this affordable housing provision, 60% of the units should be provided as social rented and 40% as intermediate accommodation.

7.66 The submitted planning application drawings show the conversion of first floor office space within the application building into 15 individual rooms providing residential accommodation for priests. The accommodation has shared toilet and shower facilities with dining facilities linked to the ground floor use. This new residential accommodation includes four new internal rooms with no external outlook; with roof lights providing sunlight and daylight.

7.67 Whilst the applicant has been unable to provide information on how this accommodation would be managed, including typical length of stay, it appears that the accommodation would be occupied on a short-term basis and linked to the ground floor use. The organisation that would run the proposed temple have an existing building in Wembley, North London and similar accommodation on this site is occupied on a temporary basis not exceeding 12 months.

7.68 Whilst the proposed residential accommodation provides small rooms and some do not have natural light provision they are intended to house priests on a temporary basis and are linked to the ground floor use. In these circumstances it is not considered necessary to apply normal residential standards in terms of internal layout, amenity space or affordable housing provision.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8.1 The proposals are on a site of less than 0.5 hectares and therefore fall outside the scope of Schedule 2 development under the Town and Country Planning [Environmental Impact Assessment] Regulations 1999. There is no requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment in this instance.

9. CONCLUSION 9.1 The relocation of the Hindu Cultural Centre to the borough would provide a new local community and a religious meeting place in the

205 borough. Whilst the principle of the use relocating in the borough is supported it is considered that that the application site is unsuitable for this use due to the location outside a town centre and conflict with the operation of the surrounding industrial estate.

9.2 In line with the National Planning Policy Framework the location and quantity of employment land in the borough has been the subject of several recent reviews. These independent and separate reviews of employment land found that the application site provided a good standard of employment floor space. These reviews show that there are low levels of industrial land relative to demand in the borough and as a result the application site has a more than reasonable prospect of future use for employment purposes and should be retained for employment purposes.

9.3 The application site is currently located in a well functioning and well- occupied industrial estate that has good access to the strategic road network. The existing building at 10 Lyon Road provides a good standard of commercial floorspace that has only recently been vacated and has a strong potential to attract a similar replacement commercial employment generating use. The submitted application information shows that in the limited period that the premises have been on the market there has been a good level of interest from potential future commercial employment generating occupiers.

9.4 The submitted proposal will introduce a noise sensitive and conflicting use in this building that is located in this currently popular and well- occupied industrial estate. One of the purposes of the estate is to provide an area where important employment generating uses that are also likely to cause disturbance [such as manufacturing] can locate away from noise sensitive uses and the subsequent restrictions that this would bring on their operation. The proposed introduction of a noise sensitive use in the Morden Road Factory Estate has the potential to result in greater vacancies in the industrial estate as existing and potential future commercial occupiers will view the cultural centre as a source of future noise complaints and restrictions on their operations and may look for alternative locations.

9.5 The application premises would fail to provide suitable access arrangements for the users of the cultural centre due to the conflict between the operation of the proposed use and the daily operation and servicing of the Morden Road Factory Estate. The application premises have poor access to public transport and this is likely to increase the pressure on the existing high demand for on street car parking space and increase vehicle trips.

9.6 Section 38[6] of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires decisions on planning applications to be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The current application proposes the introduction of a non-

206 industrial use into this designated industrial area, ‘Strategic Industrial Location’, and ‘Preferred Industrial Location’ and therefore the proposal represents a ‘departure’ from the development plan. After considering the submitted proposal there are no material considerations that justify approving the current application contrary to the development and as a result the refusal of planning permission is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the following reasons 1. The proposal would result in the loss of existing employment generating floor space in a Strategic Industrial Location that recent reviews of employment land have shown is of a good standard and has the potential to continue to provide a good standard of employment floor space including for general industrial use. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy E.1 of the Adopted London Borough of Merton Unitary Development Plan [October 2003]; policy CS 12 of the adopted Core Strategy [July 2012]; policies 2.17, 4.1 and 4.4 of the London Plan [July 2011] and the National Planning Policy Framework [Chapter 1: Building a Strong, Competitive Economy] [March 2012].

2. The proposal fails to demonstrate that the development would not adversely affect highway safety and traffic management; and would lead to conflict between vehicle movements and on street parking generated by the development and commercial vehicles, deliveries and servicing associated with existing adjacent commercial uses to the detriment of the attractiveness of surrounding land and buildings for purposes appropriate to this Strategic Industrial Location. The proposals would therefore be contrary to policies CS 18 and CS20 of the adopted Core Strategy [July 2012 policies 2.17, 4.1 and 4.4 of the London Plan [July 2011] and the National Planning Policy Framework [March 2012].

3. The proposal would result in the introduction of a noise sensitive land use in close proximity to other employment land uses, appropriate to an identified Industrial Employment Area including industrial and warehouse uses, to the detriment of the future operation of those neighbouring uses and the attractiveness of the land for redevelopment for uses that would otherwise be appropriate to an identified Industrial Employment Area contrary to policy PE.2 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan [October 2003] and policy 7.15 of the London Plan [July 2011].

4. The proposal fails to demonstrate that there are no alternative sites available for the proposed use that are located within a town centre location or in an edge of a town centre location contrary to the sequential approach set out in policy 4.6 an d 4.7 of the London Plan [July 2011] and contrary to policy L.12 of the Unitary Development Plan [October 2003] and Policy CS12 of the Core Strategy [July 2011].

207 Informative In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, The London Borough of Merton takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The London Borough of Merton works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by offering a pre-application advice service.

In this instance the applicant/agent was provided with pre-application advice and the application was considered by the Planning Committee where the applicant/agent had the opportunity to speak to the committee and promote the application.

208 This map is based on Ordnance Survey material with London Borough of Merton the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. 10 Lyon Road Scale 1/1250 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright 100 London Road and may lead to prosecution or Civil procedings. Morden London Borough of Merton 100019259. 2012. Date 29/1/2013 SM4 5DX DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 209 210 211 212