Site Development Policies Preferred Options Additional Sites

Item London Borough of Sutton Planning Advisory Group – 15 September 2009 Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION ON THE ADDITIONAL SITES DOCUMENT (A SUPPLEMENTARY CONSULTATION TO SITE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES DPD PREFERRED OPTIONS) Ward Location: Borough wide Author: Duncan Clarke (x6181) Area Served: Borough wide Lead Councillor: Cllr Lyn Gleeson Report for Decision Summary This Report summarises the comments received on the sites contained within the Additional Sites Document, which is a supplementary consultation to Preferred Options draft of the Sites Development Policies Development Plan Document (DPD). It also recommends the suggested action in respect of each site. Recommendations I recommend the Planning Advisory Group: (i) considers this Report; and (ii) agrees to the proposed actions in Paragraph 2 of this report. 1. Background 1.1 The Council conducted a consultation on the Preferred Options draft of the Sites Development Policies DPD between 11 February and 25 March 2009. As a result of the consultation, a further four potential development sites were suggested by stakeholders. At the Planning Advisory Group meeting of 14 July 2009, Members agreed to a further consultation on the four additional sites. This Report summarises the consultation results and the proposed actions in respect of each site. 1.2 The Additional Sites consultation took place between 20 July 2009 and 1 September 2009. All specific, general and other consultees were sent copies of the document together with a response form, in either electronic or paper form, or were sent a letter or email notifying them of the consultation. In addition, advertisements were placed in the Sutton Guardian and Sutton Post prior to the start of the consultation, the document was available for inspection at Council offices and libraries and it was possible to view the document on the main London Borough of Sutton website and through the Council’s consultation portal. 2. Consultation Responses 2.1 In total, there were 55 responses from 42 individuals or bodies. Appendix 1 sets out details of all the comments and officer responses. The breakdown of responses as regards each site is as follows: 1 2.2 D1: Crosspoint House and Car Park, Stafford Road, Wallington Preferred Option: Retain as Office and associated Private Car Parking, pending the Wallington Area Action Plan Support (with/without conditions): 3. Object: 1. The agent acting for the site owner objected to the Preferred Option on the grounds that scheme design is progressing quickly and deferring allocation to the Wallington Area Action Plan would constitute a potential unnecessary delay in realising the redevelopment. Officer Response and Proposed Action: It is still judged that the redevelopment of the site is best considered within the context of the Wallington Area Action Plan as it can be assessed in conjunction with other possible neighbouring development sites. Therefore, it is proposed to withdraw the site from the Site Development Policies DPD. If the owner wishes to submit an application in advance of the Wallington Area Action Plan, it will be considered against the Development Plan and any other material considerations. 2.3 D2: Land to North West of Jessops Way, Beddington Lane, Beddington Preferred Option: Retain as Land safeguarded for the Wandle Valley Regional Park, within Metropolitan Open Land Support (with/without conditions): 3. Object: 2. The proposal was supported by the Mitcham Common Conservators, Natural England and English Heritage. The agent acting for the site owner objected to the Preferred Option on the grounds that special circumstances could be demonstrated for the release of Metropolitan Open Land to provide a waste management facility. In addition, the agent was concerned that non-allocation in the Proposed Submission version of the Site Development Policies DPD would prejudice the site’s consideration as a potential site in the South London Joint Waste Plan site selection process. Officer Response and Proposed Action: The site’s use for waste management purposes will be considered through the South London Joint Waste DPD and the non-allocation of the site in the Proposed Submission version of the Site Development Policies DPD will not affect that process. It is proposed to withdraw the site from the Site Development Policies DPD as there will be no change from the current land use and the site will continue to be safeguarded for inclusion as part of the Wandle Valley Regional Park. 2.4 D3: Royal Marsden Hospital, Downs Road, Belmont Preferred Option: Health Support: 8 (with/without conditions). Object: 0. While there was total support for the Preferred Option, some respondents had minor issues. The agent acting for the Royal Marsden Hospital requested a minor change in wording from The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust “proposes…” to “currently proposes…”. This was requested to provide flexibility for the Trust as may wish to provide different types of treatment in the future to those currently proposed. Natural England raised nature conservation issues and English Heritage had archaeological concerns. Officer Response and Proposed Action: It is proposed to incorporate the Royal Marsden’s Hospital request for flexibility in the Proposed Submission version of the 2 Site Development Policies DPD. Further work will be undertaken to resolve the issues raised by Natural England and English Heritage. It is proposed to progress the Preferred Option to a potential site allocation in the Proposed Submission version of the Site Development Policies DPD. 2.5 D4: Sutton United Football Ground, Gander Green Lane, Sutton Preferred Option: Sports Ground and Community Facilities Support (with/without conditions): 33. Object: 0. In addition to total support for the Preferred Option, a number of suggestions were also made. These were: creating vehicular access from Collingwood Road; creating a footpath from the football ground car park, behind the east stand, to the park; creating a cricket pitch; and, establishing a café for those using the children’s play area. Officer Response and Proposed Action: Vehicular access to and from Collingwood Recreation Ground using Collingwood Road is potentially problematic with regard to visibility along the road when turning into or out of the recreation ground. The creation of the footpath, a cricket pitch and a café all require further investigation. It is proposed to progress the Preferred Option as a site allocation in the Proposed Submission version of the Site Development Policies DPD. 2.6 There were a further five responses of a general nature. In addition, both the Government Office for London and the Greater London Authority informed the Council by telephone that they had no comments to make on the four sites. 3. The Next Steps 3.1 The publication of the Proposed Submission version of the Sites Development Policies DPD is scheduled to take place in January 2010 and evidence gathering for the Wallington Area Action Plan is proposed to commence at a later date. 3.2 Members should also be aware that Wandsworth, Merton, Croydon and Sutton Councils are jointly progressing with proposals for creating the Wandle Valley Regional Park over the next two or three years. This will be the subject of a Report to The Executive in November. 4. Financial Implications 4.1 Future reports on the individual development sites will set out the financial implications. 5. Influence on the Council’s Core Values 5.1 This Report promotes: working in partnership with people who live and work in Sutton; making services open and accessible; and, empowering everyone so we can all take part and take pride as active citizens and staff. 6. One Planet Living 6.1 The redevelopment of the Royal Marsden Hospital and Sutton United Football Ground will meet the following One Planet Living Principles: Sustainable Transport, Culture and Heritage and Health and Happiness. In addition, they have the potential to meet the following principles: Zero Carbon, Zero Waste, Local and Sustainable Materials, Sustainable Water, Equity and Fair Trade. 3 7. Contribution to the Achievement of the Council’s Policy Aims 7.1 The proposed responses and actions to the consultation will: create safer communities; invest in the Borough’s children and young people; develop active and inclusive communities; encourage enterprise and employment, and improve health and well-being. 8. Equalities Impact Assessment 8.1 The aim of this Report is to improve the living and working conditions for all sections of society across the Borough. Possible Negative Impacts: None. Possible Positive Impacts: New sites will provide new employment opportunities and improve the way services are delivered for all sections of society. APPENDIX 1 SCHEDULE OF REPRESENTATIONS ON SITES See following pages. 4 Site Development Policies - Preferred Options Additional Sites Schedule Site Development Policies Preferred Options Additional Sites Consultee ID: 222877 Full Name: Ms Rachael Bust Organisation: The Coal Authority Agent ID:Agent Name: Agent Organisation: Comment ID: SDPAS12 Nature of Response: General Comment/Observation Officer Recommendation: Noted - No action Reason: Having reviewed your document, I confirm that we have no specific comments to make on this document at this stage. Changes Required: Officer Response: Consultee ID: 130278 Full Name: Organisation: Transport for London Agent ID:Agent Name: Agent Organisation: Comment ID: SDPAS20 Nature of Response: General Comment/Observation Officer Recommendation: Noted - Action proposed Reason: TfL has no comment to make on any of the four sites identified. However, TfL expects to be fully consulted regarding any future redevelopment on any of these sites. Changes Required: Officer Response: Tfl will be notified by the Council of developments which require its comment and input. Consultee ID: 108354 Full Name: Laura Phillips Organisation: London Wildlife Trust Agent ID:Agent Name: Agent Organisation: Comment ID: SDPAS23 Nature of Response: General Comment/Observation Officer Recommendation: Noted - Action proposed Reason: You may find it useful to refer to the "Design for Biodiversity" website for more information at http://www.d4b.org.uk .

Load more