NATWEST SPORT GROUND – PLANNING APPLICATION 24/P3406:
On 26th September 2025, the SVPOA attended the Planning Committee meeting at Merton Civic Centre to consider the application for the further development of the former NatWest Sports Ground, north of Turle Road.
The Planning Officer presented the case for development of the site. Two speakers, representing the Longthornton Residents’ Association and Norbury Village Green Residents’ Association, spoke passionately as to why the current design for the development was unsuitable. They expressed their concerns about loss of sporting facilities, additional traffic, GP services, impact on local schools and public transport.
Duncan Thomas of Portobello, the developers, put the case forward for the development of the site. He stressed the need for housing provision in Merton and said 35% of the site would be for social housing. A 6 feet high close boarded fence would surround the site. He stated that the site has been unused for many years and would provide ample sporting facilities going forward. He skidded over the drainage and sewage issues, briefly answering questions asked by the Chairman of the Committee. Reference was made to attenuation ponds (this will be dealt with in another article).
Councillor Leila Ben-Hassel for Norbury stated that there was inadequate provision for GP services and education. She was also very concerned about the additional parking the development would bring to local streets. She felt Merton had been unresponsive to her request to share the Section 106 (S106) funding to help with local medical and school provision. She cared deeply for her residents and the impact this development would have on their day-to-day lives.
Duncan Thomas of Portobello spoke again and stated that he could not see a problem with school provision (even though Merton Council had closed Stanford Primary School in Chilmark Road – very close to the site). He said that there was ample provision in the local schools. The point he failed to appreciate was that the two excellent primary schools, close to the development, are in Lambeth and Croydon and priority must be given to the children of those Boroughs first.
Councillor Foley (Merton) was not happy with the car parking provision on the development and asked for a breakdown. The Planning Officer said provision would be as follows:
- Houses would be provided with a parking place for one car.
- 203 Apartments would be provided with 50 car parking places.
- 84 bed care home would have 24 car park places for visitors.
It was agreed by the Councillors that no parking provisions should be provided for users to the sport facilities. They felt this would encourage users to walk. For team matches parking provision would be provided for minibuses.
Many questions were asked about the management of the sports facilities, lack of parking on site and the extreme volume of traffic this development would bring to the surrounding roads.
It was agreed that part of the S106 funding should be spent on providing a CPZ survey/provision for the surrounding roads in Merton and Croydon.
At the end of the meeting a vote was taken. Eight Councillors voted in favour of the development. Councillor Foley voted against the development, as he felt there was inadequate parking provision on site. Some of the other Councillors said they understood his argument but felt that the need for additional housing in the area outweighed the need for car parking.
Let’s hope the Council can come up with a new company to hopefully carry on the good work SYCT have given us over the years, as the education and recreation of our youngsters ought really to be a priority on any Council’s agenda.
Eileen Barnes
SVPOA Committee