Merton Council has approved a 249-home redevelopment on Majestic Way in Mitcham town centre, a decision that has prompted a community group to call for an emergency review of planning policies, warning that the borough is now 'at risk' of more tall buildings in areas not designated for them. The approval, granted on July 30, allows Clarion Housing to build up to 11 storeys – the tallest in Mitcham – on the vacant Morrisons site and car park, with completion expected by 2029.
Community Group's Emergency Call
Mitcham Cricket Green Community and Heritage (MCGCH) has written to Merton Council leader Ross Garrod, expressing 'dismay' and urging an emergency review of the Local Plan. The group argues that the decision contradicts the council's own planning guidelines, which set limits on building height and scale. 'The consequences of the decision go well beyond Mitcham,' the letter states, adding that 'swathes of the borough are now at risk from grandiose schemes for tower blocks.'
MCGCH secretary Tony Burton described the approval as 'a sad day,' saying, 'By ignoring their own Local Plan, councillors have left the whole of Merton exposed to developer ambitions to erect tall buildings.' The group also reminded Garrod of his previous statement that 'any plans for Majestic Way should reflect the ambitions of the Local Plan, delivering high-quality design that is in keeping with the area and its heritage.'
Details of the Development
The Majestic Way scheme will deliver 249 affordable homes, alongside new commercial and community space. Clarion Housing stated that the development would create a 'stronger high street' and help address the borough's housing need, noting that Merton currently has more than 10,000 households on its social housing waiting list. Demolition of the existing site is expected to begin in February 2027, with completion targeted for 2029.
Opponents, including the Mitcham Society, argue that the approval conflicts with the Local Plan, which was developed over seven years with input from officers, councillors, and residents. MCGCH called the approval 'a betrayal' of this collaborative effort, stating, 'If we cannot believe that a Local Plan means what it says then we cannot engage in commenting on planning applications with any degree of confidence.'
Wider Implications and Process Concerns
MCGCH also criticized the conduct of the planning meeting, claiming that discussions focused on negotiating planning conditions before councillors had decided whether to approve the development in principle. 'This gave the clear impression that consent was assumed before the decision was made,' the letter states. The group warned that this undermines public confidence in the planning process and may discourage residents from participating in future consultations.
'The process has no credibility,' the letter adds, concluding, 'Public trust is already a scarce resource and it is now at risk of being entirely lost. We look to you to provide the reassurance and initiate the action necessary to ensure this is not the case.'
Council's Response
Merton Council has declined to comment on the letter, and the Labour-led council also refused to provide a statement to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) when asked to explain its position. As of now, MCGCH has not received a response to its letter, despite the group's engagement throughout the planning process.
