Residents and campaigners in Croydon, Sutton, and Merton have voiced disappointment with the altered plans for the Beddington Farmlands project. The ‘Hyde Park-sized’ conservation area, which was intended to serve as a haven for at-risk wildlife, has sparked significant debate about its nearly 20-year existence.
The 120-hectare site was proposed over 20 years ago as South London’s newest wetland environment, with plenty of space for both animals and humans. Campaigners think agriculture plans have been ‘watered down’ to the point that they are no longer suitable for purpose.
The plans, approved by Sutton Council on February 22, were in response to a public consultation held over Christmas. During the consultation, Lysanne Horrox, Chair of the Hackbridge and Beddington Corner Neighbourhood Development Group, stated that “the current plan for the restoration of Beddington Farmlands has failed to meet its objectives.
In reaction to the plans, the Wandle Valley Forum (WVF), a volunteer-run conservation group, has published a list of the current site’s’major inadequacies’. Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), Tony Burton, Chair of the WVF, stated, The revised plans for Beddington Farmlands are a huge disappointment. All information demonstrates that they are not as good for both wildlife and public access as the original designs.
He continued: “Local people have been waiting in vain for years to enjoy the long-promised nature reserve, only to have their hopes dashed by the new owners [Valencia Waste Management]. Sutton Council must now stand fast and demand a far more ambitious approach that benefits wildlife, improves public access, and unites the entire expanse of open land between Mitcham Common and Beddington Park on both sides of the railway.”
Valencia Waste Management’s decision to cancel plans to develop an acid grassland site is a major point of dispute among campaigners. Acid grassland is an excellent breeding habitat for at-risk species such as bees and skylarks.
Despite first promising this type of grassland, Valencia has subsequently reneged, citing expense and environmental concerns. Valencia has now decided to adopt wet grassland on the site, which the WVF says will limit ecological advantages.
However, the WVF feels that the money Valencia saved by avoiding acid grassland has not been successfully reinvested in new habitats and improved tourist amenities. In their list of objections, the WVF said: “We acknowledge the grounds for not proceeding with the proposals for acid grassland and heath.
The alternative solutions are both less expensive to implement and produce poorer biodiversity effects. It is therefore necessary to not only improve the plans such that they give a net ecological benefit over the original plans, but also to minimise the loss of acid grassland and heath.
Biodiversity net gain was a particular emphasis for environmentalists, who saw the site’s development as a critical step towards protecting endangered animals in the predominantly industrial area. However, protesters claim that delays and mismanagement have already resulted in the extinction of species such as the tree sparrow, redshank, and yellow wagtail, all of which were designated for protection in the recommendations.
Local bird expert Peter Alfrey told the LDRS that this development is representative of other shifts that have occurred in recent years. Mr. Alfrey, who has studied and pushed for the project since its inception in 1996, told the LDRS earlier this year: “Our primary concern is that we have seen this process so many times in the past.
He continued: We went through all of this five years ago. All of the habitats are scheduled to be completed by December 31, 2023, but what’s happening here is that the can has been kicked down the road, and we’re basically starting over.
While Valencia has stated that the park would not be fully available to the public by the end of last year, environmentalists are concerned that they have fallen behind in developing crucial wildlife habitats. According to WVF, enforcement procedures have now been implemented to address Valencia’s failure to produce this by the deadline.
Another major issue that has sparked worry is the site’s public access.
While everyone agrees that nature is the most important issue for the property, protesters have highlighted that access to the site is currently limited for local households.
Valencia’s ideas, in particular, do not include the Mile Road east/west route, which is required by the current planning agreement. According to the WVF, the optimal approach would be to use the existing railway bridge, which would connect Hackbridge inhabitants to the site.
However, they fear the alternate path suggested is inconvenient and may put pedestrians and bicycles at risk from HGVs coming from the neighbouring incineration site. The WVF has also accused Valencia of neglecting to replace the lost bridge over the railway that connects Hackbridge Primary School; however, Valencia has stated that this falls under Network Rail’s responsibility.
The WVF stated, “We are deeply disappointed by the lack of ambition in providing public access to and through the site. Public access, which was agreed upon a decade ago, has yet to be delivered, and future plans anticipate more lengthy delays.
The WVF also criticised Valencia’s intentions to close the facility to the public at 2:30pm, claiming that this would further restrict public access to the farmlands. Valencia, on the other hand, answered that ‘all parks have closing times,’ emphasising that biodiversity was their first concern.
Campaigners saw the lack of specificity about plans to eventually administer the property by the London Wetland Centre as another evidence of Valencia’s lack of vision for the facility. Valencia agreed that they had worked closely with the conservation organisation throughout the process, but argued that they were under no duty to hand over the land to them.
A number of local politicians have questioned Sutton Council’s failure to hold Valencia and previous site owners Virirdor accountable for the lack of development. Criticism has come from across the political spectrum, but Beddington’s independent councillors have been the most vociferous.
Beddington Councillor Nick Mattey informed the LDRS that nothing had been done to turn this into the country park promised by Viridor and Sutton Council. Instead, Valencia is now responsible for the land.
They, too, have done little to convert this into an accessible country park. Sutton Council should have enforced, yet they did nothing.
When asked for response, a Sutton Council representative said: “The Council remains committed to delivering Beddington Farmlands.” It is an important project that will create new habitats in Sutton while also providing numerous advantages to local inhabitants.
Valencia Waste Management is in charge of delivering the restoration programme, and we will continue to closely monitor any suggested alterations to the scheme and completion timeline.
A Valencia spokeswoman stated: “We are dedicated to rehabilitating the Beddington Farmlands into a network of habitats in accordance with planning standards. Once restored, the Farmlands will transform a former waste site into a valuable resource for wildlife and the local community. The project is large and complex, requiring major investment and precise management to build the ecosystems. Significant progress is being made on-site, with the installation of new bird hides and a walkway network scheduled for the end of 2023.
Following significant engagement with stakeholders, Valencia conducted technical assessments to make ideas to modify the restoration plans to ensure they are feasible, sustainable, and viable. The proposals comply with the regulations, and the local planning authority has been kept informed throughout this process.
