Please note: this is the old RPWBRA web site, kept for historical information only. Please check our
new web site for up-to-date information.
Raynes Park and West Barnes Residents' Association
Serving the community since 1928
Barratt Homes' proposed development of LESSA playing fields
News Update
Copy of a letter sent to local residents by the Residents' Association in January 2001
Re: Planning Application Nos: 00/P2410 and 00/P2413
You should by now have received details of an outline planning application by Barratt Homes Ltd. The notice from Mr. O Duyile is dated 18th December 2000, although many residents did not receive their copy until the first week in January. It has now been agreed that formal objections may be sent to the Council by 21st January (although they will probably be accepted up to the end of the month).
The applications (which are identical) are for consent to build 100 dwelling units (houses and flats) to a maximum of 450 habitable rooms, covering just under half the site. The plan shows 60 houses and 7 blocks of flats (two- and three-storey). The Raynes Park and West Barnes Residents' Association believes this amounts to much more than 100 dwelling units.
The proposals also envisage a new public park, pavilion, car parking and access road.
The Residents' Association will, of course, be sending its own formal letters of objection to both of these proposals ; however, we must strongly advise all residents affected to write individually.
Some main points on which objections may be made are:
-
It is Council policy that on Private Recreational Open Space there is scope to develop only a small part of the site, which in this case runs to 11 acres all told. We believe that the proposed development of 5 acres (about 45% of the site) is far too large and should be restricted to no more than 1 acre of built development, including access roads and car parking.
-
The latest information from the Environment Agency - the experts in this field - indicates that a significant part of the proposed build (perhaps half or more) would be on the redefined West Barnes flood plain, and of course the remainder of the proposed development would be very close to it.
Environment Agency advice is that residential development on the flood plain should be strongly resisted - not only because of the obvious high risk to potential new residents on the site, but also because of the increased risk created by the development to residents already living in the vicinity. Those in Westway, Greenway, Blenheim Road and Blenheim Close, Brook Close and Linkway would be particularly affected.
Many houses in this area are already on the flood plain and there can be no doubt that the proposed development would heighten the potential flooding risk to them. Moreover, we understand that, acting on advice from the Environment Agency, the Government has now accepted that there should be a presumption against development on the flood plain and that there should be a preference for development on sites with no flood risk, followed by sites with low risk. This new policy would render the whole of the LESSA site as unsuitable for residential development.
-
The proposed density of the development exceeds the guidelines set out in the Unitary Development Plan Policy HP6. A density of 225 habitable rooms per hectare (2.47 acres) is far too high.
-
Given the scale and general character of housing near the site, and the relatively limited accessibility of good transport facilities, we believe that the density should be no higher than 150 habitable rooms per hectare. We also believe that, because of the nature of the surrounding area, the number of dwellings should be considerably reduced to a ratio of no more than 30 dwellings per hectare.
-
Given the suggested layout of the proposed development, and in view of the proposed change from a private lockable open space to a residential area that would have to be accessible day and night, we believe that there would be potential security implications for nearby residents, particularly in Greenway. We also believe there would be a greater risk of vandalism on a site very largely screened off from Grand Drive.
-
Many of you will be aware of the traffic congestion in Grand Drive. We believe that a development of the extent contemplated would seriously aggravate this problem, particularly at the entrance to the site, during peak traffic movement times.
There are many unanswered questions regarding the proposal which raise genuine concerns that you may share.
In view of land and house prices in the immediate area, we wonder whether the Council's policy of requiring the developer to provide up to 30% of the development as "affordable housing" is really feasible. The location would appear to be totally unsuitable to pursue this concept.
The proposals offer no guidance on important issues such as the ownership, maintenance and upkeep of the proposed local park, pavilion and sporting facilities. If the development went ahead, we would need firm safeguards built into the scheme to ensure that the park area was secure from further development. The proposal from Barratts is silent on this point.
We also wonder - given the history of flooding in the surrounding area (presumably known to the proposed developer, but not even mentioned in the proposal) - whether Barratts have adequately costed the flood alleviation measures which such a site would require if the scheme went ahead.
As you can see, there are many reasons why this Association feels that this is an ill-founded proposal, which should be rejected. Above all other matters of concern is the deeply worrying issue of the increased risk of flooding, both on the site itself and to the thousands of residents living to the west of it.
Against a background of actual flooding in the area and, with climate change, the increasing risk of further flooding in the Beverley Brook catchment area, the Association believes this whole proposal is totally unsound and should be resisted.
Please ensure that when you send in your objections you make it clear that you object to both the outline planning applications, even though we understand that one is a duplicate of the other.
Letters of objection should be headed:
Re: Planning Applications 00/P2410 & 00/P2413
and sent by 21st January 2001 to:
The Environmental Services Department
London Borough of Merton
Civic Centre, London Road
Morden, Surrey SM4 5DX
marked:
For the attention of Mr. O Duyile