The Merton Council's Development and Planning Applications Committee met on 27 November 2025, and approved a variation of conditions for the Mitcham Gasworks site to allow for an increase in housing units, changes to the housing mix, and alterations to the energy strategy, while also hearing a report on planning appeal decisions and a summary of current planning enforcement cases. The committee agreed to grant the Mitcham Gasworks application subject to conditions and a deed of variation, and members noted the reports on planning appeals and enforcement.

Here's a detailed look at the key discussions:

Mitcham Gasworks Development

The committee approved a variation of conditions for the Mitcham Gasworks site, allowing an increase in the number of homes from 579 to 626, changes to the housing mix, amendments to building footprint and height, and alterations to the energy strategy. The decision was made subject to any direction from the Mayor of London, conditions, and the completion of a Deed of Variation.

Key points of discussion included:

• Affordable Housing: The revised plan proposed zero affordable housing units, a significant change from the previously approved scheme which included 35% affordable housing. Simon Lewis, a planning and development director for St William, explained that current market conditions made it unviable for private development to cross-subsidise affordable housing. He stated that the application provided a backstop of no affordable housing because the viability case as agreed by the Council's independent assessor shows this is not possible. However, he said that St William remained committed to delivering affordable homes and were in advanced discussions with the council and the GLA to secure grant funding to deliver the first 146 homes as social rent.
• Viability: Concerns were raised about the change in viability since the original application. Councillor asked what viability studies were done before this inclusion, and how things had turned out so differently to what the initial viability studies said. Simon Lewis explained that the market had changed significantly since the original application in autumn 2022, with a drop in sales and economic headwinds. He assured the committee that the updated viability appraisal had been independently assessed by Carter Jonas, who agreed that the site could not deliver any affordable housing without grant funding.
• Housing Mix: Councillor Matthew Willis, Vice-Chair of the committee, questioned the deliverability of the revised housing mix, which included a much smaller proportion of three-bedroom units than the strategic housing need assessment indicated was required in Mitcham.
• Legal Considerations: The committee sought legal advice on whether they could reject the application based on the lack of affordable housing, and on strengthening the reasonable endeavours clause related to securing grant funding. Mustafa Khan from Legal Online, advised that reasonable endeavours would require the applicant to commit to everything within their capacity to attempt to achieve grant funding, and suggested adding to the satisfaction of the council to the clause to give the council additional comfort.
• Community Concerns: Councillor Manning voiced concerns on behalf of local residents who had been stressed and struggling with the uncertainty around the development. She questioned why viability was still an issue at this late stage and asked for assurances regarding decontamination and parking provision.
• Contamination: Councillor Johnson asked about the decontamination strategy. Simon Lewis said that the remediation strategy would be subject to a submission under a planning condition, and that the company liaised heavily with the community about the activities undertaken. He also said that the company was happy to have an independent assessor on the decontamination works.
• Public Transport: Concerns were raised about the impact of the development on local public transport, particularly the 152 bus route. Officers noted the concerns and said they would raise the issue with Transport for London (TfL).

The committee ultimately voted to grant the application, with a unanimous vote in favour. The decision was made with the understanding that the applicant would continue to seek grant funding for affordable housing and that the council would work to address community concerns regarding transport and contamination.

Planning Appeal Decisions

The committee noted a report on recent planning appeal decisions, including several appeals that had been dismissed and several that had been allowed¹. Of particular note:

• 242 Hillcross Avenue: An appeal against the refusal of a planning application for a vehicular crossover was allowed. Officers had refused the application based on design, loss of a grass verge, and concerns about highway safety and biodiversity. The inspector, however, felt that the grass verge had little amenity value and that the crossover would not be out of character.
• 4 Fortescue Road: An appeal against the refusal of a change of use from a dwelling house to a five-person HMO[^3] was allowed. The application had been refused due to discrepancies on the plans, poor sound insulation, and unsuitable refuge, cycling, and bin storage. The inspector considered that the development met space standards and that the concerns about the standard of accommodation were not sufficient to warrant refusal.
• 29 Charnwood Avenue: An appeal against the refusal of extensions to a property was allowed. Officers had refused the application based on design and a lack of a fire safety strategy. The inspector considered that the submission of the fire strategy at the appeal stage was acceptable and that the extensions would improve the appearance of the property and the terrace as a whole.
• 7 Circle Gardens: An appeal against the refusal of a single-storey rear extension was allowed. The application had been refused due to the impact on a neighbouring property. The inspector considered that the extension would not appear too harmful due to the existing screening and the distance from the neighbouring property.
• Nelson Trading Estate: An appeal against the refusal of advertisement consent for an illuminated holding sign was allowed. Officers had refused the application due to concerns about highway safety. The inspector considered that the brightness of the sign could be conditioned and that the existing highway network was not particularly complicated.

Councillor Willis raised concerns about the increasing number of digital signs and their impact on residential areas and the council's sustainability aims. Officers said that the council would consult neighbours on these applications and consider their views.

Planning Enforcement - Summary of Current Cases

The committee noted a report summarising current planning enforcement cases. The report highlighted that the team had been very active, serving more enforcement notices than in any of the previous years.

Key points from the report:

• The council had 255 enforcement cases, with 15 new complaints and 25 cases closed.
• Four new enforcement notices were issued, three of which were breach of condition notices.
• The team had four prosecutions in hand.
• The team had taken direct action to clear untidy land at 87 Park Avenue, removing two tons of rubbish.
• The team had also secured the repair of the listed wall at Abbey Wall.

Councillor Hayes thanked the officers for their work on Park Avenue and asked for a breakdown of tree applications. Councillor Bhim thanked the team for their work in tidying up Lower Green West.

Other Business

The committee agreed to cancel the December meeting due to major schemes not being ready for consideration.