586-home redevelopment at Gas Holder Station, Motspur Park, New Malden

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the gasholders and building five residential blocks, providing 586 homes, open space, play space, landscaping and new routes.

“Description of Proposal Demolition of existing gasholders and associated above ground structures and buildings. Phased redevelopment of site to provide 8 to 16 storey 5nos blocks with 586 residential units and ancillary residential facilities (C3 Use Class), together with associated works to the existing accesses and internal vehicular routes, new pedestrian and cycle routes, the provision of new publicly accessible open space, amenity space, hard and soft landscaping, cycle…”

“Cross boundary application with LB Merton: Development within Merton comprises works to existing vehicle access onto West Barnes Lane, including hard and soft landscaping and new public realm and associated ground works, to provide pedestrian and cycle route with access for emergency vehicles only, new pedestrian/cycle access routes to Marina Avenue and Sir Joseph Hood Memorial grounds.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains three gasholders, lies beside a railway and Beverley Brook, and is surrounded by residential areas, playing fields and Metropolitan Open Land.

“The application site comprises a large, irregularly shaped plot, that has access from both West Barnes Lane (located within the London Borough of Merton) and Green Lane (Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames). The site is bordered to the west by a Railway Corridor that provides services operated by South Western Railway between London Waterloo and Chessington South (and beyond to Dorking and Guildford).”

“To the west of the site, on the opposite side of the railway corridor, is Motspur Park, which is an area designated as Metropolitan Open Land and a Green Chain. To the east of the site is the Sir Joseph Hood Memorial Playing Field, located within the London Borough of Merton. Directly to the south of the site is the Kingshill Avenue Allotment Garden area, which is also designated as Metropolitan Open Land and a Green Chain.”

Officer report

Earlier site history

Earlier permissions allowed the continued storage and distribution of natural gas at the site in 2001 and 2003.

“01/05009/HAZ Continued use of the site for the storage and distribution of 296.6 tonnes of natural gas Application Granted 19 March 2001”

“03/14178/HAZ Continued use of site for the storage and distribution of 296.6 tonnes of natural gas Application Granted 7 May 2003”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Most representations objected, citing traffic, height, density, infrastructure, amenity, Metropolitan Open Land, ecology, flooding, safety and construction concerns.

“At the time of writing this report 1,103 representations have been received. A total of 1,049 representations have been received objecting to the proposals and 46 have been received in support of the scheme. A further 8 responses were neutral. The material issues raised in the representations are summarised as follows:”

“Harm to Metropolitan Open Land and ecology…”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

Objectors, a Sutton councillor, a Kingston councillor, and representatives supporting the applicant addressed the committee.

What members considered

Members considered the proposal’s housing, affordable housing, environmental, transport, design, amenity, safety and Metropolitan Open Land issues.

“The proposed development involved the demolition of the existing structures and the creation of 5 buildings, incorporating 586 homes. Of these homes, 175 would be classed as affordable homes, with 72 of these homes being within social rent tenure. The proposed development would involve new active travel routes from the north to the south, with the southern access from Kingshill Avenue being both for pedestrian and vehicular access.”

“Principle of Development, including the impact on the visual openness of the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)”

Minutes

The vote

Ten councillors voted for refusal, one voted against, and there were no abstentions.

“For: Councillors Hayes, Davies, George, Giles, Green, Heap, Henderson, Mirza, Sadr-Hashemi and Wehring (10) Against: Councillor Beynon (1) Abstentions: None (0)”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The committee refused the application because of substantial harm to Metropolitan Open Land, incongruous design, and the absence of a legal agreement securing required measures.

“1) The proposed development, by reason of its cumulative bulk, scale and height, would result in substantial harm to the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and accordingly would constitute inappropriate development within the MOL, failing to meet the exceptions test as defined by Paragraph 154(g) of the NPPF. The proposal would accordingly fail to comply with Policy G3 of the London Plan which seeks to protect MOL land from inappropriate development.”

“2) The proposal, by reason of its layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape, would constitute an incongruous and discordant form of development, that would be out-of-character with the prevailing built form in the surrounding area, failing to respect local distinctiveness, and failing to comply with the provisions of Policy D3 of the London Plan.”

Minutes