Richard and Heather have submitted their comments on the appeal to the Planning Inspectorate by the developers of 39A Eaton Road. The appeal seeks to overturn the decision of Sutton Council to reject the latest planning application for the property, and seeks an award of costs against the Council. We oppose the appeal.

Our comments are as below. The history of this development is described in our comments. Designs for a block of four small flats were twice rejected by the Council, Richard speaking to the Development Control Committee on the successive applications, but the developer has still built something without planning permission and asked the remote Planning Inspectorate, based in Bristol, to overturn democratic local decisions. We invite residents to use any of this material in framing their own objections.

Submissions should be marked “For the attention of Peter Lyne, The Planning Inspectorate.” Quote the reference

APPEAL. APP/P5870/A/13/7205143. 39A EATON  ROAD, SUTTON, SURREY. SM2 5EA

The email address is teamp2@pins.gsi.gov.uk

Postal address: Peter Lyne, The Planning Inspectorate

3/10 Wing, TempleQuay House

2 The Square, Bristol, BS1 6PN

“Submission by Councillors Richard Clifton and Heather Honour, Liberal Democrat Councillors for Sutton South Ward, London Borough of Sutton.

APPEAL. APP/P5870/A/13/7205143.

39A EATON  ROAD, SUTTON, SURREY. SM2 5EA

We are Councillors for Sutton South Ward in the London Borough of Sutton, where this property is situated. We ask you to consider the following concerning this appeal.

The process followed by the developer has aroused much local disquiet. It is a tale of three designs. The first design was rejected by Sutton Council but passed by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal. There was then a change of ownership of the property and a second design was proposed. This was also turned down by Sutton Council. The developer could at that point have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate but chose not to do so. Instead he demolished the house and built something different from what he had permission for, the third design.

Regardless of what the Inspectorate now decides on the substance of the case, there would be no justice in any award of costs to the developer, as he has ignored planning law in building something for which he does not have permission, perhaps hoping no-one would notice. Nor would it be right not to ask the developer to mitigate some of the negative effects of the structure built without permission.

The structure as built departs from the design for which permission was obtained in a number of ways that we find objectionable. In particular, the overall height is greater and the design of the windows at the front is different. The comment was made by a Councillor at the Development Control Committee discussion that the approved design made it look like a house but the design built made it look more like a block of flats. It is a far less attractive design. 

There is an oddness about the boundary wall with 6 ConistonGardens. The block of flats has been built right up to the boundary and is so close to the wall of number 6 that it abuts it. This seems to ensure that there will eventually be damp problems for the flats adjacent to this wall and no way of dealing with the problem. In addition the guttering overhangs the adjacent property at this side and it seems inevitable that there will be significant damp problems.

The window at the side, facing number 6, is of a changed design that increases overlooking. It is not frosted in any way.

We would draw your attention, in particular, to the comments made by the neighbour at number 6, Mrs Kite, and the comments of the Council, both of which we support.

RICHARD CLIFTON

HEATHER HONOUR

  Councillors for Sutton South Ward, London Borough of Sutton.”