Hi folks,

We have another lifeline since Wandsworth Council have submitted an official application to the Secretary of State (SoS) to have the Plough Lane, Wimbledon development called in because they want an impartial and objective authority to determine the application. For those of you who wish to continue the battle to save greyhound racing at Wimbledon, please consider emailing the SoS to ask for his involvement. Feel free to write your own email or copy and paste what is below and add your name and full address at the bottom. Please send your emails to BOTH the National Planning Casework Unit (NPCU) and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Sajid Javid.
Thank you everyone.

EMAIL TITLE: Request for the Secretary of State to call in planning application: 14/P4361 (Plough Lane site, Wimbledon) Merton Council.

EMAIL ADDRESSES x 2: [email protected] [email protected]
Dear Sir

I ask that the Secretary of State calls in the Plough Lane planning application because it is too important to allow it to be decided by Merton Council alone since it has a major impact not only on the Borough of Wandsworth and further afield, but most importantly on the local residents who feel their concerns have not been listened too.

The planning application for this site was called in by Mayor Boris Johnson but recently handed back to Merton Council by Mayor Sadiq Khan who decided not to act as Local Planning Authority despite registering concerns to Merton Council in his previous role on behalf of his constituents in Wandsworth related to transport services, traffic and parking, flooding, impact on the local village and anti-social behaviour, and strain on local services such as schools and GP services.

According to reports, Merton Council has adopted a deeply flawed and `pre-determined planning process which ignored the opposition of local residents, businesses and Residents Associations of overall 6000 members, where according to a Ugov poll 80% were against this development.

I do not believe that a second option for the site which Paschal Taggart has proposed has been given appropriate consideration and request that Merton Councils planning framework for submissions should be investigated. Paschal Taggarts plans offer an `environmentally friendly option which would preserve the last Greyhound Stadium in London alongside offering many `real community benefits without creating massive overcrowding, traffic and pollution problems in what already is the pollution hotspot in Merton. Paschal Taggart also offered 50% Affordable Housing compared to the meagre 9.6% offered by Galliards/AFC plans. Paschal Taggarts plan would mitigate the flooding issues in that area, which is a floodplain. I am informed that the local community is firmly behind Paschal Taggarts plan.

I believe it is vital that an impartial and objective authority determines this application.

Many thanks

NAME

FULL ADDRESS

Bombard the SOS.

Good luck everyone.

This link makes interesting reading...AFC Wimbledon acknowledge there would be another hurdle to overcome if the plans are called in by the Secretary of State.

They are 'very doubtful' that there are grounds to call-in the plans...

EXTERNAL LINK

The Secretary of State will, in general, only consider the use of his call-in powers if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which in his opinion:

may conflict with national policies on important matters;

may have significant long-term impact on economic growth and meeting housing needs across a wider area than a single local authority;

could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality;

give rise to substantial cross-boundary or national controversy;

raise significant architectural and urban design issues; or

may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments.

However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits.

This info has been taken from:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121026/wmstext/121026m0001.htm#12102628000003

gone for good?

apologies for the delay in responding to an issue raised a few days ago where there was some discontent expressed because Paschal hadn't submitted a 'full' planning application for the Plough Lane site in Wimbledon. This is the information as I understand it on the planning process since this project was launched in 2012.

Why would anyone put in a 'full' planning application for Wimbledon Greyhound Stadium if they didn't own the site? The site owners GRA Ltd/Galliards Homes put in their own full planning application.

I guess it would be similar to your neighbour submitting a 'full' planning application for your house. It would require your neighbour to pay all the planning fees, costs of searches, architects etc, meanwhile you have submitted your own plans and are waiting to gain approval from the council. Unless the neighbour was encouraged by either the council or the owners of the house that their scheme was their preferred option then it would be a complete waste of time and money.

Paschal has explained in depth the issues with the planning process in the letter I will post underneath this post.

There is also a detailed account of submissions, planning documents and a chronological history of events available on Merton Council's webpage:

EXTERNAL LINK

From that webpage you'll see just how involved Paschal's team (Hume Consulting Ltd) have been since the first 'responses' and 'proposals' were submitted in 2012 and their pre-planning searches/plans/consultations have cost tens of thousands and a huge amount of time and effort for all concerned.

Proposals for the development of the site were submitted between 2012/13 as part of Merton Council's larger project to encourage people to have their say on what sites could be used for in Merton. This suggested that Merton Council were open to ideas for developments that would best suit their local needs.

Merton Council acknowledged the 2 most detailed schemes were submitted by;

1. 'GRA Ltd' in conjunction with AFC Wimbledon and
2. Hume Consulting Ltd proposing a new Stadium

*GRA Ltd was bought by Risk Capital/Galliard Homes in 2005.

Galliard Homes/AFC Wimbledon proceeded to submit a 'full' planning application for Plough Lane and comments regarding the application were to be submitted by 20/2/15.

Resident groups expressed their objection to the application and Sadiq Khan expressed concerns on behalf of his constituents in Wandsworth.

10/12/15 Merton Council unanimously approves Galliard Homes/GRA Ltd and AFC Wimbledon's planning application.

***

From Paschal's letter;

"Hume Consulting have invested heavily in taking part in this development process on the understanding that competing proposals for the site would be fairly assessed. We understood that whichever proposed scheme best met the London Plan, affordable housing targets and was the best for the site would become the preferred option. The then author of the preferred proposal would be asked to develop their scheme along with the Council before making a full planning application. Indeed, this understanding was reinforced when Merton asked Hume Consulting in April 2013 to provide costings, viability reports and a formal indication that their proposal could be delivered. Hume Consulting bore the expense of this and forwarded the relevant information.

BUT Merton then appear to have totally ignored Hume Consultings submission, despite encouraging them to take part in the site development process.....Indeed we were shocked to be informed despite Hume Consultings large investment....in response to Merton's call for development proposals, Merton intend to approve the Galliard application with no feedback to ourselves.

Where is the justification in inviting developers to make costly submissions if the intention was to ignore them and simply approve a poor application from the site owners?

It seems that only those who have lodged a planning application have been considered by Merton of sufficient merit to be taken seriously...this is fundamentally unfair and places Galliards at a huge advantage."

***

The GLA Planning Unit's response to Paschal's request for the Mayor to maintain jurisdiction of the planning application was:

'Officers understand that a pre-planning request has been registered with Merton Council but a meeting has not yet been held, and no pre-application requests have been formally submitted to the GLA. No planning application has been made for the alternative proposals. In any case, even if an alternative scheme had been submitted and granted planning permission, this could not influence the outcome of the current case, as each application must be considered on its own merits and planning authorities could not determine one case in favour of another'

However, once the Mayor called in Galliard's application, it gave us real hope that the 9.6% affordable housing option in Galliards plans would be rejected along with the other reasons that Mayor Johnson put forward in his rationale for calling in the plans. The appointment of Mayor Khan to the position of Mayor strengthened our hopes since he was elected on the platform of affordable homes and he had already expressed concerns about the application on behalf of his constituents in Wandsworth. Therefore, Paschal made a pre-planning application to Merton Council in May 2016. As I said earlier in this topic 'I have seen the application for the new track and the email comms when it was submitted'. I have outlined this in chronological order below:

2/6/16 Merton Council Planning Officer asked for more details re the plans
9/6/16 Paschal's team sent in the information requested
22/7/16 Paschal's team sent another email asking for an update on progress as they have not had a response from Merton Council in the 6 weeks after this submission
27/7/16 Mayor Khan indicated his preference to handback the decision on the application to Merton and announced a GLA public consultation on the application.
8/8/16 Merton Council Planning Officer replied (over 2 months since the pre-planning application was submitted) that they wished to discuss Paschal's application and proposed a meeting which has yet to occur.
19/8/18 The Mayor officially announces the formal handback to Merton to decide on application.

Current situation: Wandsworth Council have asked the Secretary of State to call in the plans because they believe they have a huge impact on Wandsworth and therefore need scrutiny and assessment by an impartial organisation. We await the outcome of that process.

The odds have been against us from the start because we didn't own the site. Whilst there is little we can do at this point I hope people can judge the information above for themselves. Tens of thousands have already been spent by Paschal Taggart on chasing this dream...a dream that lay at the feet of GRA Ltd (Galliard Homes) and Merton Council. "Since the appointment of Clive Feltham as Managing Director, GRA Ltd/Galliard Homes have closed 4 stadiums with 4 remaining, 3 of which are in jeopardy" (Wikipedia)

Both the site owners and Merton Council have made their intentions clear as to their preferred option. Thankfully a 'full' planning application was not submitted against such poor odds of success, otherwise Paschal's team would have been out many more tens of thousands. Regardless of the outcome, I personally wish to thank Paschal and his team for all their time, money and efforts in trying to keep our dream alive since 2012. It sure is an uphill battle.

This is my last comment on the planning issue.

Mayor Sadiq Khan
Mayor of London
City Hall
London
SE1 2AA

Re: The redevelopment of the Wimbledon Greyhound Stadium site, Plough Lane, Morden

Planning Application -14/P4361: Proposed Demolition of Existing Buildings and Erection of a 20,000 seater football stadium including 602 apartments, a new squash & fitness centre and retail unit

Dear Mayor Khan and Councillor Alambritis

The redevelopment of the Wimbledon Greyhound Stadium site is by any measure a major regeneration project for the area. The redevelopment of any such site in London should have been handled by first establishing a development framework in which principal requirements for the regeneration were set out in order that competing development proposals could be fairly judged based on how they met the development framework requirements. I have listed below some of the reasons why Wimbledon Greyhound site is uniquely important and warrants a development framework so competing proposals can be fairly evaluated to make sure that the best development may take place.
The sites proximity to the Nearby St Georges Hospital.
The sites unique historical context and present use as the last greyhound track with a London post code.
The site is bounded by several Council areas and so redevelopment will materially affect more than one council.
The 2016 report by the London Chamber of Commerce "living on the edge-Housing London's Blue Light Emergency Services"
The overarching London Plan and chronic affordable Housing shortage in London

Hume Consulting understood that Merton had embarked on such a process when they asked for submissions as part of Stage 3 of their sites and Policies document on the 27th February 2013. Consequently, Hume Consulting enthusiastically became involved with the process and developed our world class Greyhound Stadium proposal. Our Greyhound track proposal addressed affordable housing, sports intensification including the retention of Christopher's Squash club, how best to develop the site in this active floodplain, local and issues and Blue Light Emergency service workers issues such as how to offset the loss of parking for St Georges hospital. Our proposal went beyond proposing a scheme which would deliver maximum developer profit, rather we generally highlighted and addressed many issues which should be included as a design requirement in any development framework for this site.

Hume consulting have invested heavily in taking part in this development process on the understanding that competing proposals for the site would be fairly assessed. We understood that whichever proposed scheme best met the London Plan, affordable housing targets and was the best for the site would become the preferred proposal. Then the author of the preferred proposal would be asked to develop their scheme along with the Council before making a full planning application. Indeed, this understanding was reinforced when Merton asked Hume Consulting in April 2013 to provide costings, viability reports and a formal indication that their proposal could be delivered. Hume consulting bore the expense of this and forwarded the relevant information.

BUT Merton then appear to have totally ignored Hume Consultings submission, despite encouraging them to take part in the site development process. It seems Merton have only considered the Galliard poor quality developer profit led submission, treating it as the only show in town. Indeed we were shocked to be informed despite Hume consultings large investment in consultation with residents, planners, pre planning meeting fees, and consultants fees in preparing floodplain assessments, traffic impact assessments, Outline Development Costs, Retail Assessments and preparing designs in response to Mertons call for development proposals, Merton intend to approve the Galliard application with no feed back to ourselves. It seems Merton have decided our proposal is of such little importance that does not even warrant informing the Mayor as a material consideration when he decides if he should simply pass the planning decision back to Merton or determine it himself. Where is the justification in inviting developers to make costly submissions if the intension was to ignore them and simply approve a poor application from the site owners?

It seems that only those who have lodged a planning application have been considered by Merton of sufficient merit to be taken seriously. I suggest to you Mayor and Councillor Alambritis that this is fundamentally unfair and places Galliards at a huge advantage. In reality the Hume Consulting's risk and commitment to this site, which they do not own, is at least proportional to any risk or investment the site owners have made in lodging the planning application. Indeed we now question that given the preferential assessment of the Galliard proposals it was unfair for Merton to ask other potential developers to become involved.

I write to inform you the Hume Consulting proposal is not speculative. The scheme will be better for London, better for the delivery of promises on Affordable housing and better for the area in terms of building safely on a floodplain. The New Greyhound track proposal will provide reduced pressure on transport infrastructure, do less harm to local businesses and is much more in keeping with wishes of the vast majority of the local residents when compared to the Galliard proposal. Consequently, we ask that you confirm the Galliards application should not have been granted the unfair advantage of having their application considered as the only show in town and should not have been granted planning concessions on floodplain issues, destruction of London's cultural diversity, permitted to deliver less than 50% affordable housing and allowed to overwhelm the traffic infrastructure with little regard to local business.

Given the foregoing we suggest the Mayors office has a duty to call in the above application. We ask you to consider that all planning applications for this site should be considered premature until a reasonable development framework is in place. The Framework should take full account of the site history and the overarching London Plan policies and London issues such as Social Housing and Blue Light Emergency Services recommendations. We urge you to act fairly and impartially in the best interests of the local residents and London and determine what should be delivered on this site or by insisting Merton must follow through with the process they started and put a meaningful development framework in place and ensure that only the best possible scheme will be granted planning approval.