What is your party’s vision for the future of Wimbledon town and what are the main planning issues affecting it?

As captured on your website, there is already much to commend Wimbledon town: various types of housing, businesses and educational institutions; a range of handsome buildings; some pleasant green spaces; a decent choice of cafes, restaurants, pubs and bars; and valued cultural venues.

However, house prices and rental fees are prohibitively high, making it impossible for many people who would otherwise love to settle in the area, and the place suffers from traffic congestion, causing air pollution, noise pollution, and sometimes frustratingly long journey times.

Adjustments that would make the cost of buying or renting an existing property more reasonable are in the remit of national government. But when it comes to creating much-needed affordable, accessible and sustainable housing, and transforming the way that people travel, there is much that could be achieved by local and regional government, if there is the political will. We believe that the Council and the Greater London Authority are allowing too many developers to get away with failing to meet affordable housing targets, accessible housing targets, and sustainable construction targets, and that retrofitting, including the need for training and the potential for job creation, is nowhere near high enough on their agenda. Likewise, the provision of affordable, comfortable, fast and frequent public transport is critical, as is improved cycling infrastructure which includes not only segregated cycleways but also secure storage facilities, and in this field, we want much greater ambition from those with the power to effect change locally.

 

How would your party’s Councillors work to protect and enhance the character and heritage of Wimbledon town and to improve the town’s streets and public spaces? What kinds of developments would your party favour?

We feel sure that the heritage of Wimbledon town is much richer than the majority of not only residents and visitors, but also Councillors and Council Officers, realise, and that if more effort is put into unearthing and foregrounding, this will bring opportunities for education, critical reflection, and celebration, and will, thereby, enhance the character of the area.

On a more practical note, on-street recycling facilities are poor, the dearth of public toilets is an embarrassment, and accessibility for those who wheel is below par. Yet on these fronts, there is much good practice in other parts of the country and the world, from which we can learn, and it is important to recognise that residents’ lived experience of wheeling is expertise that can and should be harnessed.

Further to this, we favour more urban greening measures – such as Sustainable Drainage Systems (e.g. rain gardens, and green walls and roofs) and street trees – which are needed to mitigate for and adapt to climate change. Street trees, in particular, are important for their aesthetic value, contribution to biodiversity, absorption of carbon dioxide emissions, and shade. And it is important to add that: tarmacked tree pits should be banned; storm damage, disease and decay should be factored into planning; and good ongoing management is essential.

Finally, whilst some residents are deeply sceptical about efforts which seek to get them out of their cars, we would welcome the pedestrianisation of some parts of Wimbledon town, provided that it is brought about in such a way as to keep residents on board with the proposals. Changing the public realm in this way would surely open up a multitude of possibilities that would enhance the character of the area immeasurably.

 

How will your Councillors ensure that development in Wimbledon town is appropriate, reflecting the interests, views and representations of all Wimbledon residents? How can better consultation be achieved with residents and other interested parties on key developments that might alter the character of the town centre?

A neighbourhood should be a place that develops according to the needs of its residents. Therefore, it stands to reason that residents hold the key to ensuring that any development serves those needs. Failing to involve residents at the outset calls into question the motives of developers and councils, and directly contravenes international best practice for community consultation.

Indeed, effective stakeholder consultation is a fundamental requirement to ensure sustainable, equitable, effective and durable outcomes in any development, and a very extensive toolkit exists today for how to effectively engage with stakeholders. Yet in Merton, consultations feel like hostile inconveniences, where public input is the last thing that the developers and the Council want.

Green Councillors would advocate a complete transformation of the way that consultations are conducted. We would draw from the aforementioned toolkit and, in doing so, include provision to open up the very start of the development process to public input. We would strive for best practice at every stage of the consultation, and it would become an active – not a passive, as it is now – process, whereby all residents have free and easy access to information and opportunities to be involved. The process should begin with open access ideation and design workshops, held on multiple occasions and involving multiple demographics and stakeholder types. In order to truly consent for local development projects, residents must be informed well in advance, and free to make their mind up however they choose. Continuous input mechanisms must also be in place as standard, allowing residents an ongoing opportunity to make representations.

There is no reason that planning officers, developers, elected representatives, and residents should not all work together when it comes to development, rather than operate at loggerheads as we see today.

 

What would your party encourage to serve the character and economic development of Wimbledon town, while enhancing the quality of life for residents. For example:
a. Retail? What sort? More independent shops or more major retailers?
b. Hospitality? Pubs/restaurants/night clubs/independents/chains?
c. Cultural venues? Cinemas/music venues/the proposed concert hall/theatres/art galleries?

Because Greens seek not to impose, but to involve, we are loathe to create a specific wish list.

What we will say, though, is that development in Wimbledon town should be an evolution driven by local people, but currently feels more like an opportunistic real estate project.

From our conversations with small business owners, and looking at those businesses that tried and failed to ‘make it’ in Wimbledon town, it is clear that affordability is an issue. Council decisions that result in driving up property prices and business rates in Wimbledon town do a disservice to the place, making it unviable for independent enterprises to succeed, and thereby driving out just the sorts of businesses appreciated by local people.

Furthermore, as the trend for hybrid working continues, we see the potential for offices to be transformed into: shared work spaces, with facilities for printing, photocopying, scanning, 3D printing, teleconferencing, in-person meetings, etc.; community spaces for classes, workshops, exhibitions, rehearsals, performances, etc.; makerspaces; art and music studios; swap shops; and repair shops.

Overall, we would seek to: (a) create continuous input mechanisms for local people to have their say on how their neighbourhood is shaped; (b) lower barriers for entrepreneurs trying to bring something positive to the community.

 

Does your party support the latest version of the Merton Local Plan as it affects Wimbledon town?

This question is difficult to answer succinctly, as there are a multitude of elements which we believe are up for debate, not only amongst Councillors and Council Officers, but also amongst residents – most of whom are unaware that there is a Local Plan, let alone have the time to look at it, or try to understand and/or feed into it. Until the Council overhauls its attitude to community consultation, the Local Plan will never be an effective tool for change and, in that regard, we are not prepared to support it.

 

What is your party’s position on the AELTC’s proposals for Wimbledon Park?

The council elections represent a crucial opportunity to tip the balance in favour of parties that oppose the AELTC’s proposals. Merton Green Party have long held the view and stated publicly that such proposals are at odds with the Council’s declaration of a Climate Emergency and pledge to reduce carbon emissions. We cannot see how several years of construction work to add an 8000-seat stadium, 38 courts, 10 buildings and 9kms of roads/paths, and remove hundreds of trees, aligns with such a declaration and pledge. Likewise, we think that the AELTC’s claim that they will not harm the rich ecology of the area is highly dubious. Currently, the existing requirement of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain is no more than window dressing, since the processes for establishing this are far from robust.

We were appalled when Merton Council approved the plan which would destroy Metropolitan Open Land, a Grade II* site listed on the National Heritage List for England (NHLE), a Conservation Area and a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), and which breaks the 1993 covenants stating that the land sold to the AELTC would not be used except for leisure or recreation, or as an open space. Green Councillors would wholeheartedly enforce the covenants, with the aim of blocking the planned expansion in its current form. Whilst we, like many other Wimbledon residents, are proud to host the tournament on our doorsteps, and support the AELTC’s aim to ensure that the calibre of the event remains world class, we stand unwavering behind the principle that no precedent should ever be set to allow exceptionalism when it comes to development on protected land.

We recognise that AELTC purchased the land, and we are aware of the recent High Court ruling in favour of the AELTC. Hence, it may be the case that a compromise needs to be reached. For example, the Council could toughen its stance on planning requirements to ensure that any development that takes place is in keeping with the declaration of a Climate Emergency and pledge to reduce carbon emissions. We understand that ‘compromise’ plans do exist, and we would be interested to learn more.

 

What is your party’s view of the future of building heights in the town centre, with particular reference to the proposals for the St George’s House East site?

We worry about the introduction of buildings whose height does not complement the environs. We know that building height is a nuanced matter, and our position is to advocate for the more efficient use of existing space, which could mean going up instead of going out. However, high-rise buildings are disproportionately polluting in comparison with their more modest peers, and clearly alter dramatically the character of a place.

Looking at the proposals for the St George’s House East site, we remain unconvinced. Demolition is wasteful, rendering problematic any claims of a BREEAM Excellent rating. And with hybrid working having taken off during the pandemic, and set to stay, we think that large-scale traditional office development is neither economically viable nor sustainable, and unlikely to yield a reliable business rate revenue stream for the Council. We wonder about the possibility of retrofitting to provide more homes. There are, shockingly, at least 10,500 households on Merton’s Housing Register. That said, because we have never had access to the current site, it is impossible for us to say with any certainty that this would be viable.