The further and final stage of the Council’s consultation on parking is underway.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR

The Council decided that, as parking is often raised as a problem in the regular surveys of residents on what they like about living in Sutton, it would ask all Sutton residents if parking was a problem in their road and what they would like done. Earlier rounds of consultation in our Ward led to proposals that were not given sufficient support by residents for the Council to proceed with them.

Responses to consultation highlighted two problems. First, unless the controls cover the whole local area parking will be displaced into roads without controls. Second, “free to park at any time” bays would be a magnet for commuters and long stay parkers, squeezing out residents. The only alternative to schemes that have these disadvantages is a residents-only Permit Parking Area.

WHAT IS NOW PROPOSED

Consequently, the Council is now consulting on a proposed Permit Parking Area. As roads not within the scheme will suffer from displaced parking if the roads nearby are in the scheme, the area consulted on is wide and runs from Egmont Road to Willis Avenue and Prior Avenue – including Chalgrove Road, The Ridgway, Mayfield Road, Farm Road, Farm Close, Upland Road, Kayemoor Road, Downside Road, Willis Avenue and Prior Avenue.

Individual roads in this area could be left out of the scheme if there is strong resident opposition in their road, but they might then find they suffer significant parking pressure if adjacent roads are all in the scheme. This would be a problematic outcome for those roads so one we hope to avoid.

The way the Parking Permit Area works is that only residents can park their vehicles in the road for a “control period”, 9 to 11 AM each day on weekdays, thus removing commuters and long stay parkers. Residents who need to park a car on the road rather than in their drive during the “control period” can obtain a parking permit to display on any vehicle they want to park in the road during the “control period”, and obtain “visitors’ permits” for their visitors. As this scheme will involve some costs of administration and enforcement there would be a charge for a permit, to cover costs. The Council can only cover costs, not use parking charges to subsidise other services. Parking charges in Sutton are amongst the lowest of any London borough. Charges per vehicle for permits in the CPZ area are on a scale you can find on the Council website and start at £40. A similar charge in Croydon is £80, Merton and Kingston £90, Richmond £99. You only need a permit if you need to park a car in the road during the “control period.” A Permit Parking Area involves notices to advise of parking controls but there is no need for yellow lines.

The Council is consulting residents on this proposal. Consultation closes on 21 November.

Residents of the area described above can fill in the online form at www.sutton.gov.uk/parkingstrategy, or write to

Parking Strategy, Highways and Transport, London Borough of Sutton, 24 Denmark Road, Carshalton, Surrey, SM52JG.

Even if you are indifferent to the outcome, it would be helpful to know that, so please respond. If you support the proposal, say so. If you are opposed to this proposal make sure you explain your reasons, related to parking, for not favouring the scheme.

We are not making any recommendation – as local Councillors we simply want to do what our residents want. But you should be aware that the Council’s consultation is comprehensive and it is possible that almost all the roads in the area from Sutton station to Carshalton Beeches station will eventually have parking controls, so those roads left out will inevitably attract commuter parking.

Many residents are concerned about parking and we are pleased they now have the opportunity to put their view on a concrete proposal developed on the basis of earlier consultation.

We hope residents will respond to the consultation so we have a full picture.

Trish and Richard intervened in the debate over an application for a licence to sell alcohol, from the Registrar’s Office in Worcester Road, The Russettings. They persuaded the office to limit the hours sought so that it did not extend into the evenings.

The office was happy to do this as they are closed in the evening. It seems the application for a licence in the evening was a mistake. They want to be able to provide the happy couple at the weddings they conduct with a glass of champagne. These weddings are always daytime events.

Richard spoke at the hearing on the licence application. This is his speech:

“The task of the committee is to satisfy itself that two very important objectives can be achieved simultaneously. There is no reason why they cannot be.

These are:

First, the Registrar’s Office should be able to properly perform the important functions it discharges for the residents of Sutton, in a world where (I accept) the expectations of the community as to how these functions are discharged has changed a little.

Second, the Office should be a good neighbour and not disturb the peace and quiet of the residential area where it is situated.

I would like to say a word about each of these objectives.

The Registrar’s Office has been in Worcester Road for over 50 years and its functions have changed little over time. I have been to weddings at the office, as a guest, to meetings and conferences there, and to Citizenship Ceremonies. During my year as Mayor I attended these every week to make a speech of welcome to new citizens. The importance of these functions to those who take part needs to be recognised. The day you get married, the day you take British citizenship, these are massive moments in life that stay in the memory and I know the office does all it can to ensure these are happy events. I have been to these events and found champagne is being served when it has been brought by the happy couple or, very occasionally, the new citizen. I think it quite appropriate that a glass of champagne should be available at these events. Those involved all want to make this a happy day and there is no reason atall to suppose that this will lead to disorder in the context of these carefully organised and conducted ceremonies. In fact, there is more of an element of control if champagne is being provided in a managed way rather than people bringing their own.

On the second objective, the expectations of the Councillors and the residents is that the Office will continue to be a good neighbour. That is vital and I am pleased the Office has emphasised its commitment to do this. I am pleased with the assurances that have been given about a limit on the supply of champagne and how these events will continue to be carefully organised. The changes the Office have made to the application to limit the hours and to daytime are, of course, of massive importance and re-assurance.

There was no reason why the licence should extend into the evening. These weddings are daytime events and the office is normally closed in the evening.

I think it important this hearing today had taken place so we can get these assurances from the Office. The officers who run the Registrar’s Office know that were there to be any disorder and disturbance to local residents in the future, the Councillors and their employers would be immediately investigating. I very much hope the Office will continue to discharge these very important functions – which bring happiness to those who take part are are important, memorable days in their lives – without any undue disturbance to the neighbourhood beyond what has happened for the many years the Office has been in Worcester Road. “

Richard and Trish had major concerns about a planning application
DM2019/00925 for a site that includes numbers 2 and 4 Copse Hill plus an adjacent block at 52-54 Brighton Road. The application proposed over-intensive development of the site, to erect a block of flats with 65 flats. We considered this overdevelopment of the site, incongruous in the local context and likely to cause unacceptable problems relating to parking in the area, with an inadequate number of parking places proposed for 65 flats in an area that already has a shortage of parking spaces.

Following representations that we, together with many residents, made concerning this planning application, it was turned down by Council Planning Officers.

It was been turned down for a number of reasons including the scale, mass and bulk of the development, the quantum of development representing an overdevelopment of the site, the lack of affordable housing and technical reasons such as the lack of biodiversity accounting.

The developer now has a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and we cannot control that part of the process. Also, we will watch out for a revised application as developers often go through the reasons the Council has given for rejection and submit a further application tweaked to, in their view, dispose of the objections.

The Boundary Commission is reviewing the boundaries of the local Government Wards in Sutton prior to the next local elections in 2022. You can write to the Commission if you think the boundaries are not right.

The Ward runs from Sutton station in the north to Devonshire Road in the south, Banstead Road South in the east, Overton Road in the west. It is mostly a Ward of residential roads with three schools, one small park, three places of worship, split into three parts by Langley Park Road and Brighton Road running north-south. Should the boundaries change?

The independent Local Government Boundary Commission for England is asking local people for their help to draw up a new pattern of council wards for Sutton Council.

The consultation is the first part of an electoral review which will re-draw ward boundaries across the council.

In drawing up new boundaries, the Commission aims to deliver electoral equality for voters in council elections so that each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters. The review also aims to ensure that the new council wards reflect, as far as possible, the interests and identities of communities across Sutton.

Residents will have a further chance to have their say after the Commission publishes draft recommendations in January 2020.

Local people can submit their views in this consultation. Further information on the review and interactive maps of the existing wards can be found at

consultation.lgbce.org.uk and www.lgbce.org.uk. 

After a debate on 14 October Sutton Council has submitted some proposals. Richard spoke in this debate, commenting in particular on the proposals fro Sutton South Ward. He said:

“I recognise that there is always a tension between drawing lines on maps that create sensible geographical structures in terms of communities and natural boundaries and getting the numbers right in terms of residents per Councillor. I would like to stress that where these create tensions I think it important to give priority to getting the boundaries right, creating areas that residents recognise as communities, in particular respecting natural boundaries such as main roads and railway lines, and keeping recognised communities together, and this should be the priority even if it does lead to some unevenness in Ward sizes. I think that in the south of the borough the right decisions have been taken though it does lead to some disparity in the size of Wards.

So, in any exercise like this there will inevitably be some disparity in the size of Wards with some outliers. I was interested to note that my own Ward seems to be an outlier.

Now this is all information to the Local Government Boundary Commission who will have a lot of representations and could throw all this in the bin. But this could be adopted.

I could be a candidate in 2022 (no promises) with these new boundaries.

Should it worry me that Councillors for Sutton South will have to do a bit more work than the average Councillor? No, of course not.  

My particular focus is on my Ward and the south of the borough. I think the proposals are right.

In the south of the borough there are some natural community hubs such as Belmont village and Cheam. But there are other factors that create communities including the location of churches and schools – where, for example, the geographical area a school draws from creates a community with a shared interest. We have very good schools in Sutton, including, adjacent to my Ward and taking the children of many of my residents, a new one – the Harris Academy. I was delighted to attend the opening of the school and to learn that the school is proving a popular choice for parents.”

On 8 October we both attended the opening of the new Harris Academy secondary school in Belmont. We were very impressed by the school, which is already vastly over-subscribed. We recollect the fuss and opposition when building a school on this site was first proposed. Quite a few of our residents in Sutton South Ward now have children at this school. ~It was opened by the broadcaster Jim Al-Khalili.

Richard and Trish visited Sutton Court, one of the largest estates in our Ward, having learned of a fire in a flat at the block. We spoke to the next door neighbour, who lives in the flat opposite on the top floor of their block. She had been concerned at the fire but we are all relieved that no-one was hurt and the damage confined to a single flat.

The work involved in repairing a major electricity cable has caused real problems outside Sutton station and the closure of a bus stop. Trish and Richard had to intervene when the pavement was shut and no walkway established, so people were walking in the road. Eventually we got a walkway put in.