To what extent do you regard as important the protection of all defined open spaces in the Borough from development, and how do you intend to achieve this protection?
The protection of defined open spaces is a top priority for Merton Green Party because such spaces play a crucial role in the Borough, abating the onset of climate change and biodiversity collapse, and impacting positively upon the health and wellbeing of residents and visitors. It is these services provided by the spaces, rather than the spaces themselves, that are to be protected.
As Greens, we unequivocally oppose developments that risk any degradation of defined open spaces. But forms of development that enhance the spaces should be encouraged.
Development need not mean turning green to grey, or destroying views by introducing enormous buildings. An underutilised part of a park, a derelict leisure facility, or a grass area that has the potential to be diversified into different types of habitats for nature, could be developed in ways which raise the nature and climate performance of the space, whilst also adding interest for people.
If elected, our means to achieve the necessary protection of defined open spaces would include voting power in the Development and Planning Applications Committee, as well as campaigning tools to bring together local people and elected representatives to collaborate on such matters. Importantly, we believe that protecting defined open spaces should not be politically partisan. Hence, we would always seek to build cross-party support.
Regarding the All England Lawn Tennis Club’s proposals for the golf course site, will you enforce the covenants protecting the site from development, and what do you think should be the future for the site?
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 a world-class 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 about this.
How will you ensure that the public is brought into the creative design process at the start of significant new development (as the National Planning Policy Framework says) rather than as now, excluded, and then given only 3 weeks to ‘object’?
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, residents, and elected representatives should not all work together when it comes to development, rather than operate at constant loggerheads as we see today.
Given the poor progress so far, what are your proposals for driving forward the retrofitting of the Borough’s housing stock to meet national energy standards, responding to the Climate Emergency?
This is and will remain a tremendous challenge until the level of public funding is adequate to the task. That said, it is not simply a funding gap holding back progress on this front; there is still a great deal of ignorance and uncertainty surrounding this topic, not only amongst homeowners and landlords (including housing associations), but also within the trades. A holistic approach to this challenge would be to identify and address each bottleneck in its own right – from increasing access to the professional training required to ensure that we have sufficient technical skills within the Borough to deliver the scale of retrofitting required, to promoting understanding amongst homeowners and landlords about the what/when/why/how/who of retrofitting provision. To an extent, the latter is a matter of accessibility: people need tangible examples of what retrofitting can look like. They need to understand what it would mean for them, such as the benefits that it offers, how to start the process, and which contractors they can trust. These are all matters where the Council is well-positioned to help. Hence, Green Councillors would work hard to raise the Council’s game in this regard.
The Borough is losing trees faster than they are being replaced. What are your proposals for halting this decline? Will you endorse the Society’s ‘Trees 2050’ approach?
Merton Green Party has previously endorsed the Society’s ‘Trees 2050’ approach and is happy to extend our endorsement.
Trees are work horses performing many vital services: abating rising urban heat island effects, filtering air pollution, cooling the streets in summer both for us and our canine friends, reducing the risk of flash flooding, supporting biodiversity, and more besides. Many people appreciate that planting new whips is no substitute for ancient and established trees, but perhaps the magnitude of this inequivalence is not fully grasped. It can take tens, if not hundreds, of saplings to achieve the same positive climate and nature impacts as an established tree, and take decades for a new tree to mature to the performance level of an established tree. In light of this, we find that the importance of protection for existing trees cannot be overstated, and only in genuinely extraordinary circumstances can it be deemed acceptable to sanction the removal of an existing tree. The older the tree, the more important its protection. Indeed, ensuring this protection sits perfectly in keeping with Merton Council’s declaration of a Climate Emergency and pledge to reduce carbon emissions.
The inequivalence of newly planted trees to old trees needs to be better understood in the local context, but it is clear that to prevent continued degradation of our local environment, it is inadequate to plant one new tree in place of one old tree. Instead, we must move to the situation where multiple new saplings are required to be planted to replace every mature tree that is lost. Green Councillors would look closely at this and consider what suitable equivalence requirements could be put in place. This could form part of a suite of measures to disincentivise tree felling and raise the appreciation of our existing trees.
The loss of trees about the Borough causes enormous distress to local residents and visitors, but it is notable that this loss is not evenly distributed: there is a stark contrast between leafy green streets and barren concrete-scapes. Hence, a key question to address is how to level up the protection of existing trees and the planting of new trees in all parts of the Borough.
How will you balance the significantly greater density and heights of buildings (as is now being proposed by His Majesty’s Government and the London Plan) with respect for local character and the desires of local residents?
Higher density development and creeping building heights is not something to be opposed in its own right. Rather, it is a question of proportionate need and a matter of creativity. We do not need development for development’s sake; what is needed by a place or community is a local matter, and it might be that higher density development provides the means of delivering on those needs without resulting in further urban sprawl into green space. There are numerous examples throughout London where high(er)-rise development have led to the creation of balanced places that still deliver on green space, leisure facilities, and local amenities required by a growing population. Merton Council has the ability to achieve the right balance through proper engagement with residents, and through planning decisions that curate plans in keeping with or, better still, enhancing local character and interest.
The current Council Plan for Wimbledon town centre is dominated by ‘developer thinking’, seen by many as being against the clear wishes of local people. What do you propose to do about this?
We think that development in Wimbledon feels more like an opportunistic real estate project than an evolution driven by local people. From our conversations with small business owners, and looking at those businesses that tried and failed to ‘make it’ in Wimbledon, it is clear that affordability is an issue. Could it be that affordability is nested in the profiteering of the developers?!
We believe that local people should be the primary agents for change in the area in which they live, and that elected representatives should feel duty bound to use their powers to empower local people and bring down barriers faced by those local entrepreneurs and business people trying to bring something positive to their communities. Council decisions that result in driving up property prices and business rates in Wimbledon do a disservice to the place, making it unviable for smaller, independent enterprises to succeed, and thereby driving out just the sorts of businesses that local people appreciate.
There must be a balanced approach to development – one that keeps local people at its heart, with public consultations treated not as inconvenient obstacles to be diminished and overcome, but as fundamental and formative parts of the ideation that sets the course for development. This is where Greens are different, because we seek not to impose, but to involve. We would seek to lower barriers for local businesses to trade locally, and create continuous input mechanisms for local people to have their say on what happens to their neighbourhood.
Will pedestrianisation, lower buildings, more housing and fewer offices be a part of your thinking? See, for example, the Society’s ‘Vision 2040’ plan.
We are broadly supportive of the Mayor of London’s new Vision Zero Action Plan 2 that details the need for reduced traffic in terms of road safety for all users. However, it is clear that some residents are deeply sceptical about efforts which seek to get them out of their cars. Pedestrianisation of Wimbledon is certainly an outcome that we would welcome, provided that it is brought about in such a way as to keep residents on board with the proposals.
Building height is a nuanced matter, and the position of Merton Green Party is to advocate for the more efficient use of existing space. The latter 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. Green Councillors would prioritise the environmental credentials of any building plans, and those that make notable contributions to local character.
Housing is needed in the capital, including in Merton – not least because there are at least 10,500 households on the Housing Register in the Borough. Affordability for those seeking to buy is key. High quality social housing is required. And the London-wide accessibility targets for new builds should be met.
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
- repair shops
- leisure opportunities
- green spaces
- homes.
How important is air quality in our area, and what steps would you take to improve and monitor it?
Air quality in this (and every) area, is an extremely important issue, with particular health implications for young children and those with respiratory problems. Despite gradual improvements to London’s air quality over the last few decades, the problem of pollution has not been solved, and Merton certainly does have areas where it is particularly pronounced.
Air pollution is not a standalone issue that can be solved with standalone improvements. Rather, it is inextricably intertwined with a great many facets of the way that we live today. Means of improving air pollution are well known – from traffic management methods and vehicle improvements, to urban greening and facilitating active transport.
Green Councillors would scrutinise and, if necessary, push for a revamp of the current system for monitoring and improving air quality across the Borough, and related plans such as the Council’s Walking, Wheeling and Cycling Strategy 2026-2035. We want to understand, for example, whether previous interventions, such as School Streets and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, are successfully lowering air pollution in those areas, and if they are not, work on the delivery of alternative methods.