Landfill restoration changes at Beddington Lane, Beddington

What was proposed

The application sought changes to the approved restoration plan, replacing acid and heathland habitats with species-rich meadowland and adding buildings, access works and visitor facilities.

“The application seeks planning permission for amendments to the previously approved restoration management plan for the Beddington Landfill Site, specifically the replacement of acid and heathland habitat with rich meadowland habitat due to the technical challenges associated with delivering the former.”

“The proposal also includes a revised restoration plan and its implementation alongside the erection of a single-storey detached agricultural building, a single-storey detached external housing control unit, extensions to existing vehicle crossovers, vehicular and pedestrian access gates, security and predator fencing, and seating.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The 88.4-hectare Metropolitan Open Land site is a former landfill now in restoration, with earlier permissions requiring completion by the end of 2023.

“The application site is located within the Metropolitan Open Land to the west of Beddington Lane and comprises 88.4 hectares of land. The site previously comprised sludge beds owned by Thames Water who sought planning permission for landfill activities pursuant to a planning permission, which was granted on appeal in 1995.”

“The Council understands that as part of that share sale, all staff and resources set aside by Viridor landfill for all of the sites involved in the sale, including Beddington Farmlands, were transferred to what is now Valencia Waste Management (VWM). VWM, as successors in title for the land from Viridor landfill operations, were required to restore the site from landfill by the end of 2023.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the revised scheme was considered deliverable, policy-compliant and capable of securing biodiversity gain, ecological management and protection of nearby properties.

“Summary of reasons for recommendation 2.2. The proposed revisions to the approved Restoration Management Plan would facilitate the long-term restoration of Beddington Farmlands by replacing the previously approved acid grassland with species-rich meadow grassland, introducing a revised water supply strategy for wetland habitats, and providing supporting infrastructure including an agricultural building, access improvements and associated visitor facilities.”

“Subject to planning conditions and a Section 106 Agreement, the proposal would secure statutory Biodiversity Net Gain, provide an appropriate framework for long-term ecological restoration and habitat management, and comply with the Environment Act 2021, London Plan Policy G6 and Sutton Local Plan Policy 26. 2.5.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

There were 61 objections, one supporting representation and three neutral comments, covering biodiversity, public access, delay, water, enforcement and management.

“The revised application raises issues with ecological benefits, biodiversity net gain assumptions, water management, and habitat delivery record. ● Criticism of the consultation process, financial guarantees, and need for stronger enforcement. ● Requests a full Environmental Impact Assessment and resolution of outstanding wildlife, water, access, and management issues before approval.”

“It is imperative that enforcement and compensation is sought, and Valencia held to account. ● Delay of public access for another 5 years is unacceptable and it is important that the original Section 106 agreement is updated to include a clear commitment to the resurfacing of the full length of the permissive path so it is truly accessible 364 days a year.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector representing the Wandle Valley Forum, two ward councillors and the applicant’s representative addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members discussed acidification risks, biodiversity gain, enforcement, water management, public access, staffing, ecological oversight and the consequences of further delay.

“There had been failure to deliver the nature reserve by the promised 2023 deadline, coupled with concerns regarding the applicant’s track record of delivery. • There were concerns that the revised plans were "watered down," fail to meet planning policies 5 and 26, and provide insufficient economic or ecological benefits. • That the applicant’s biodiversity baselines and habitat proposals were inadequate.”

“Members discussed the public access arrangements and the management of anti-social behaviour. Officers clarified that site management and access control depend on staffing on- site. Officers advised that immediate, unrestricted public access to the site was not currently possible. This is due to safety hazards on the site and the need to allow local wildlife time to habituate.”

Minutes

How the committee voted

The poll vote recorded eight votes for permission, one against and one abstention.

“A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:”

“To GRANT planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix B as amended above and completion of the Section 106 agreement (with the obligations secured outlined in Section K of this report) by 31st March 2027, or a later date as agreed in writing by the Head of Planning & Building Control (Chief Planner).”

Minutes