Planning
[ Sutherland House: one of our problem sites ]
Richard and Heather speak regularly at meetings of the Development Control Committee (DCC), which handles planning applications. Richard is a member of the Council’s Planning Advisory Group and the DCC.
Our general approach is to seek to maintain the green, pleasant and suburban character of the Ward, particularly the part at the east end that is an Area of Special Local Character. We are concerned at the imbalance in the housing stock in the Ward, with too many small flats without gardens and not enough affordable family houses, and we have therefore opposed proposals to demolish houses in order to build flats.
SUTTON COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO PLANNING
Sutton Council has strong local policies to control unwanted development and rigorously enforces planning law. It enforces the law within the constraints of the planning system, which moves slowly and often leads people to complain about the length of time taken to correct breaches. We cannot control what is set down in national law.
The Borough has adopted a number of documents that between them ensure strong controls on unwanted development. These are the Core Planning Strategy, the Site Development Policies Development Plan Document and the Waste Plan. This means that the Borough is in a strong position to manage development in the Borough and ensure there are no “policy vacuums” in which the National Planning Policy Framework can over-ride local plans.
Richard and Heather were involved in initiating a debate on planning policy at the Sutton Council meeting on 17 October. Richard wanted to welcome some aspects of proposals for a National Planning Policy Framework while drawing attention to a number of problems involved in the planning system that have affected Sutton South Ward – the permissive nature of permitted development rights, the inconsistent decisions of the Planning Inspectorate and the slowness of the system, which does not help maintain public confidence.
At the Council meeting on 30 April 2012 Richard re-emphasised these points when seconding the following motion on support for local businesses.
Supporting local businesses
This Council notes the findings of the Portas Review and supports the Local Government Association’s response proposing a five point plan for our high streets.
This Council has produced its own response to the Portas review with specific recommendations it intends to implement locally in particular:
- That the Council support the Business Improvement District (BID) Steering Group in its application to become a Portas pilot.
- That we build up a package of tailored support for District centres.
This Council welcomes the devolution of powers in the Localism Act to improve our local area and supports the Local Government Association’s call on the Government to now go further by giving Councils the power to protect our high streets and district centres, specifically:
- To introduce new powers to enable councils to tackle the clustering of premises such as betting shops, fast food takeaway and late night off-licenses, and limiting the power of the planning inspectorate to overturn local community decisions.
- To improve existing planning powers, including Article 4 and to introduce a new umbrella use class, in to which local authorities can add types of premises they consider to be problematic in their area.
Thereby allowing us to defend the diversity of our high streets and district centres and ensure they are thriving and sustainable for years to come.
Council calls upon the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Communities to press for these important new controls.
The Planning Advisory Group (PAG) is the senior Council committee dealing with planning policy and the Development Control Committee takes decisions on specific applications. Richard is a member of both committees.
At the PAG meeting on 31 January we discussed consultation on the Community Infrastructure Levy, which we were disappointed to discover will only raise about £12 million over the period up to 2024, to add to about £2 million from section 106 contributions. We also discussed a paper Richard had requested on Section 4 Directions under the Town and Counctry Planning Act, which appear to give a route to extending planning law but in fact this is a route strewn with insurmountable difficulties.
Here is a note of some recent planning cases in the Ward that we have been involved in:
TWO BAYS, FARM ROAD: a recent application to turn this bungalow into a house was de-delegated by Richard as it is over-development and involves privacy issues for neighbours. It has now been refused.
MAYFIELD ROAD: Richard reported to the Council’s Enforcement Team a structure being built in the back garden of 76. However, on investigation, the Enforcement Team concluded that the dimensions of the building and its intended use meant that the development fell within what is permitted development. Other issues relating to the re-development of the property were resolved by the owner submitting a planning application.
A planning application has been submitted for the adjacent property to improve the hard standing at the front but also to erect a bin store, which some residents have objected to.
39A EATON ROAD: an application to demolish this house and build flats was turned down by Sutton Council. As the area has an unbalanced housing stock due to houses being knocked down and small flats without gardens built, there is merit in this decision. However, the decision was overturned by the Planning Inspectorate, in 2008.
The owners submitted a further application turning the entrance round so there is a central atrium facing number 39 next door, and still with an inadequate number of parking bays.
Richard met local residents and de-delegated the application so it would come to the Development Control Committee.
However, the Planning Department agreed that this application was un-acceptable in design terms and the application was withdrawn. As well as meeting local residents, we met the developer to discuss their further proposals.
A further application was submitted. We opposed this, and Richard de-delegated it so it came to the Development Control Committee on 28 September 2011, where he spoke against it and it was rejected.
At the meeting, the owner of the house indicated his intention not to pursue the original application, but to sell up and move away. However, he later indicated that he intends to develop the site on the basis of the earlier planning application accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. Demolition has taken place. We regret this, and regret the decision of the Planning Inspectorate to over-turn the decision of the Council.
REGENT PARADE: an application to open a pizza restaurant, using motorbikes as delivery vehicles, at Regent Parade (just south of Sutton station) was turned down, in part on the basis of concerns as to where these bikes would be parked. However, the decision was overturned on appeal.
[ Regent Parade ]
TUDOR COURT: Richard addressed the Development Control Committee on an application to open a minicab office in Tudor Court, opposite Regent Parade (see above). This was turned down on the basis of concerns about parking.
[ Tudor Court ]
36 ALBION ROAD: there have been a number of applications to demolish this house and build flats, continuing a process we oppose that is leading to a lack of balance in the housing stock in the Ward (many small flats without gardens, too few family houses). Richard discussed the latest application with the Planning Department. It was turned down, for various reasons. However, this decision has now been overturned on appeal. It is a matter of regret when the Planning Inspectorate overturn decisions taken locally by democratic, elected bodies.
[ 36 Albion Road ]
83 LANGLEY PARK ROAD: again, an application to demolish a family house to build flats. This was also turned down. A further application was submitted. Richard de-delegated the application which was discussed at Development Control Committee on 8 February 2012. Richard spoke against it and it was rejected. It is likely to be the subject of an appeal.
We made the following statement on this application in a letter to local residents “We are aware that a further planning application (B/2011/65244) has been made for the demolition of 83 Langley Park Road and its replacement by a three storey building containing six two-bedroom flats, with six parking spaces.
As Councillors for South Sutton Ward, we believe that the area has suffered from the progressive loss of detached family homes and their replacement by blocks of small flats, often with little or no garden. It has led to an imbalance in the housing supply, with an over-supply of small flats compared to family homes. About half the children in this area live in flats with no garden, and people often move out of the area if they have an expanding family, due to the shortage of affordable family homes. We regret the loss of original buildings of character. These are among the reasons why we oppose this application.
The new application is little different from that rejected on appeal in 2009 and seemingly identical to a later application rejected in 2010. The development is out of scale and too bulky, and will have an adverse effect on the street scene.”
SUTHERLAND HOUSE: Sutherland House (see below) is a decaying, near-derelict montrosity just south of Sutton station, in our Ward. We hope that there will be development of the site in the near future, with a sympathetic and well thought-out development, as the current state of the building is lamentable and an occupied and functioning building would be good for the economy in Sutton. Office workers would spend money in local shops and restaurants. Matters are in the hands of the owners. There is extant planning permission for a scheme to develop the site, but it seems unlikely that the owner will take this forward in the near future. Heather spoke to the Development Control Committee on 2 March 2011 and Richard on 8 June, concerning the need for local residents to see some benefit from any development through the Community Infrastructure Levy or section 106 funding. Another post on this site has details [see archive for June 2011]. We have been assiduous in ensuring that if the building is developed some benefit will accrue to Sutton South Ward through the Community Infrastruture Levy and section 106 funding. We understand the owner may seek to simply develop the existing building as residential appartments.
THE FIRS, WORCESTER ROAD: An application was submitted to build on vacant land at the back of The Firs where garages belonging to the occupants of The Firs have been demolished. This was rejected by the Planning Department of Sutton Council as overdevelopment of the site – too many small units crammed into a small area. This type of overdevelopment has been a continuing problem in the Ward. Surprisingly, the application came to the Development Control Committee as over ten residents of The Firs submitted letters in support of the proposal. Richard spoke against it, on 8 June 2011. The committee refused the application. This was the subject of an appeal. Richard attended the appeal hearing on 27 November 2011. The appeal has been allowed, although the application involves eight units of accommodation on a small site. Some years ago an application was accepted to build just two detached houses on the site.
The application does, however, involve some action to improve the existing blocks, and a condition of occupation of the new properties is that the renovation of the existing blocks must be completed first, so there is some benefit to the residents from this decision.
52 – 54 OVERTON ROAD: this is not in our Ward but on the border of it. It is a very large development involving demolition and building a large complex of flats. Heather is submitting comments on the application which appears to be deficient in terms of parking and over-development of the site.
St JUDE’S NURSING HOME, MAYFIELD ROAD: an extension at the north end of the property will need to be modified and re-built, on the basis of a decision of the Development Control Committee in May 2010. This was the subject of further planning applications seeking retrospective permission for the extension. The applications have been rejected and enforcement action will follow if a yet further appeal is dismissed. Richard commented to the Planning Inspectorate, on 7 May 2012, on the latest appeal, as follows:
“PLANNING APPEAL RELATING TO ST. JUDE’S NURSING HOME, 29-31 MAYFIELD ROAD. SUTTON. SURREY. SM2 5DU
I would like to make the following comments on this appeal.
The building in question was built without bothering to seek planning permission.
A retrospective application for permission to retain the building was refused in May 2008, and an appeal against this refusal dismissed by the Planning Inspector. In that decision, the Inspector also upheld the requirements of an enforcement notice that required the removal of the building and the land restored to its previous condition as garden land.
The applicant next put forward what was described by his agent, at the Sutton Development Control Committee meeting on 26 May 2010, as a “compromise proposal”, involving the partial demolition of what is an over-large and ugly building, and smartening up of the part retained.
I spoke against this proposal at the DCC meeting. I think the building is over-development of a small patch of garden and an ugly intrusion into the Area of Special Local Character. I urged the Committee to stick to the requirements supported by the Planning Inspectorate require that the building is demolished. However, on a split vote they agreed the “compromise proposal.”
I am disappointed that the applicant has not honoured what was agreed that evening as a compromise. I object to his continuing to seek to retain this large and ugly building at its current size, and the offer of demolition of some other building is frankly irrelevant. I believe that if the Inspector allowed this appeal it would be wholly inconsstent with the previous decision of the Inspectorate in respect of this very building.
Councillor Richard Clifton, Councillor for Sutton South. London Borough of Sutton.”
A similar requirement for further work applies in respect of an extension at the south end of the garden, following the rejection of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate by the occupier, to retain a building erected in contravention of the planning permission obtained. The occupier made a further application to amend the planning permission obtained for this extension. This was turned down by the Council and is the subject of an appeal. Subsequent to that, a further application has been made which has been successful, being a proposal for a building no larger than the building for which the owner already has planning permission. However the owner has still proceeded with his appeal against the rejection of the application for the larger structure. A hearing was held on 7 February 2012 and Richard attended. This appeal has been allowed, but the owner will still need to partly demolish the existing structure.
The fire escape at the centre of the property will require modification unless a change to the current planning permission is agreed. This is in part a consequence of a decision by the Planning Inspectorate to overturn a decision by Sutton Council to reject an application for a development at the centre of the nursing home. The application the Council was thus required to accept was poorly specified and has led to uncertainty concerning the fire escape. This has been the subject of a further planning application, later withdrawn. A further application is awaited.
Early in 2011 the proprietor of St Jude’s asked Richard to arrange a meeting so current developments could be discussed with neighbours. This meeting took place on 13 April 2011. For the record, the following is a note of the meeting.
“NOTE OF AN INFORMAL MEETING TO DISCUSS PLANNING ISSUES RELATING TO St JUDE’S NURSING HOME, MAYFIELD ROAD, SUTTON. HELD ON 13 APRIL 2011. AT THE HIGHFIELD LAWNS TENNIS CLUB PAVILION.
The meeting was attended by Councillors Richard Clifton and Heather Honour, Mr and Mrs Manji (proprietors of St. Jude’s), Peter Stanway (architect), two other staff from St. Jude’s and about twelve local residents. Councillor Tony Shields sent apologies.
Councillor Clifton chaired the meeting.
Mr Manji and Mr Stanway explained the background to the work of St. Jude’s and the difficulties that had arisen over planning issues. These difficulties were considered to have largely resulted from poor advice given by the previous architect, prior to Mr Stanway taking on this role.
One or more further planning applications would be required to deal with matters consequential on previous applications and the decisions of the Planning Inspectorate on them. When this further phase was completed, there was no intention to seek further expansion of the nursing home, and it was recognised that planning permission for any further exapansion would be most unlikely to be obtained. Thus we are entering the final phase of the work.
The outstanding issues are:
1. the building used as an office at the north end: it was intended to make the alterations to this building as set out in planning application 2010/62178, for which permission was granted in May 2010. A difference of view emerged on the date by which this work should be done, which Councillor Clifton thought was May 2011 and Mr Stanway thought was November 2011. Councillor Clifton agreed to seek a view from the Planning Department. [Note: The Planning Department subsequently accepted that there was scope for different interpretations of the condition attached to the planning consent, but that in practive Mr. Stanway's interpretation would prevail.]
2. the fire escape at the centre of the building: a further application would be needed due to uncertainty concerning the plans previously submitted.
3. the extension at the south end: planning permission for a conservatory was obtained in 2004 but the building subsequently built was not as the permission. This was then the subject of an appeal decision in August 2010. The Inspector rejected the appeal, indicating that the building as built was not acceptable, but also indicated that a design other than the one for which planning permission had been granted might be acceptable. He had extended the deadline for the building to be altered to comply with planning law from six months to a year to allow for options to be investigated.
Mr Stanway provided a paper which included drawings of the building that has been built, the building for which planning permission was obtained, and two options for other designs of building to replace the current building. He explained that the conservatory was not now considered a good option, as it would be difficult to heat in winter and keep cool in summer.
Of the two options, views expressed at the meeting generally favoured the second option, which was considered more aesthetically attractive than the first option and the conservatory structure, and smaller in scale than the first option.
Mr Manji and Mr Stanway would consider the views expressed at the meeting. When a final decision was reached on the further application(s), an opportunity would be provided for neighbours of the nursing home to see the final designs.
Opportunity was taken to discuss a number of other issues including noise, disturbance and the maintenance of trees.”
As indicated in the note of the meeting above, a further meeting was proposed, and was held on 24 May 2011. The following is a note of the second meeting.
”NOTE OF A SECOND INFORMAL MEETING TO DISCUSS PLANNING ISSUES RELATING TO St JUDE’S NURSING HOME, MAYFIELD ROAD, SUTTON. HELD ON 24 MAY 2011. AT THE NURSING HOME.
The meeting was less well attended than the first meeting but was attended by Councillor Richard Clifton, Mr and Mrs Manji (proprietors of St. Jude’s), Peter Stanway (architect) and two residents (Susan Waton and John Reeves). Councillors Heather Honour and Tony Shields sent apologies.
Mr Manji and Mr Stanway had given further thought to the planning issues raised at the first meeting, in the light of comments made at that meeting.
Mr Stanway provided a paper which included drawings of the building that has been built, the building for which planning permission was obtained, the option discussed at the first meeting and described there as “option 2” (the option that was generally preferred in comments made at the first meeting) and a further proposal. It was explained that “option 1” discussed at the first meeting had been abandoned in response to comments at that meeting.
The further proposal was a variation of option 2, adapted to further meet concerns expressed at the first meeting. In particular, the roof of the fire escape staircase was resurfaced with glass to make it a much lighter and more visually attractive structure. The existing building would be reduced in size, cut back by one metre. The rear wall would be removed and replaced by a glazed screen and French doors. This would give a more lightweight appearance to the building, which would be similar in design to a traditional conservatory, similar to the building for which planning permission had been obtained.
Discussion of the proposals included consideration of the case for a “grass roof” (or “green roof”) on the conservatory structure.
Those attending looked at the existing buildings from the outside and also from the inside, to gauge the impact of the proposals on the amenity of the residents of the home.
It was noted that the next step would be the submission of one or more planning applications, relating to the modification to the fire escape and the further proposal for the conservatory structure.”
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
SUTTON COUNCIL DEBATE ON PLANNING – 17 OCTOBER 2011
The full text of Richard’s speech is as follows – published here as it sets out his views on the strengths and weaknesses of the planning system.
“I would like to support the motion’s cautious welcome for the National Planning Policy Framework, as a set of planning policies that respect a localist agenda,
while at the same time expressing our concern that there are some aspects of the direction of policy that we still need to work on to get them right.
I believe that the planning system, as it operates in Sutton, has worked well to protect the interests of the community.
We have in particular, over many years, adopted a strong policy to protect backgardens and control backgarden development. There are two important aspects to this:
- we have adopted planning policies that carefully control what types of backgarden development might get planning permission, and even this year have strengthened that policy with amendments to planning policy DM30 to ensure that aspects of character, appearance and amenity are fully considered: and
- we have devoted significant resources to ensuring planning requirements are strongly enforced.
To this end, every site where an infringement of planning law is alleged is visited and the enforcement staff work carefully through the processes required by law to get any breach corrected.
I am impressed by the statistic that in the last year the enforcement team have met their target times for early site visits in 97% of cases.
The processes they follow are, because of planning law, sometimes slow – but every case is doggedly pursued to its conclusion.
This policy, however, comes under pressure from several sources that we cannot as a Council control.
First, from the legal requirements concerning what is permitted development.
I think the reforms of 2008 took out of the planning system buildings that really ought to be within it.
I was surprised recently when, in my Ward, a large building was built in a back garden but found – due to the dimensions and overall size of the plot, and its planned use – to be permitted development, though it has certainly affected the amenity of neighbours, some of whom are here tonight. We must be on guard against any further relaxation of permitted development law.
In taking forward the National Planning Policy Framework, none of us would want to see rights of permitted development widened still further, and a key point in the motion is the statement that extending permitted development rights further will reduce rather than enhance the power of the community to stop inappropriate changes.
I am therefore delighted that the amendment to the motion calls for a full review of permitted development law.
Second, there are the decisions of the Planning Inspectorate – not mentioned in the motion, but I cannot let pass the opportunity to say their decisions are less consistent than I would have expected – and indeed some of their decisions have done real damage in my Ward.
Third, the legal processes do not help. They provide those who breach planning law with myriad opportunities for appeals and delay, all of us have examples from our own Wards. And at the end of the process we sometimes face the seeming lethargy of the Courts in dealing with such breaches. All of this hinders our strong enforcement efforts and leads to a public perception that things take a long time, which affects public confidence in the planning system.
These are all factors we cannot control, but we must take every opportunity to make representations to seek their amelioration – and this motion is a part of that campaign.
So – a cautious welcome for the National Planning Policy Framework, recognising that this is a policy area central to our efforts to maintain the pleasant environment of our Borough. It is right that we should intervene in this national debate to make clear to all our determination to be able to continue those efforts to cherish and protect the green and pleasant character of Sutton.”
