A MAJOR BOOST TO OUR LOCAL ECONOMY

 

subsea reduced

On 8 April Sutton Council’s Strategy and Resources Committee gave the major international engineering firm Subsea7 the go ahead to build their new international headquarters in Brighton Road, but subject to making a successful planning application, in which they will need to satisfy concerns about parking.

This is good news for Sutton and good news for local residents. There is immense competition between local authorities for job-creating inward investment. Jobs are gold dust.

As your local ward Councillors we are aware of residents’ concerns about the possible negative impact on parking in nearby streets. We explained these concerns very clearly at the Council meeting and the importance of encouraging car users to use the other public car parks nearby. We will continue to work to ensure that a proper solution is found.

Both of us spoke at the Committee meeting, welcoming the new jobs that will be created and calling for mitigation measures to deal with any impact on local parking. The Committee responded to this by agreeing that officers would look at mitigation measures including offering a substantial financial incentive to users of the Brighton Road car park to move to Gibson Road.

Richard said “I am pleased the Committee responded to my concerns about the possible impact on parking by agreeing to examine mitigation measures including incentives to users to move to Gibson Road.”

The full text of Richard’s speech to the Committee is on his blog, for 8 April.

Jobs

  • Subsea 7 is a hi tech engineering company already based in Sutton.  Any sensible local authority would welcome their expansion with open arms.  Their further investment in Sutton safeguards the 350 jobs they already have here. Without this development they would move elsewhere because  their current office space is no longer suitable.
  • Neither Sutherland House nor Sutton Point meet the needs of their business plans.
  • Their investment will bring around 400 new jobs to Sutton, some highly technical engineering jobs others support staff
  • The impact of the extra spending power in the local economy of these office workers and the company’s visiting clients will further stimulate and bring jobs to Sutton, jobs for a wide range of people, not just engineers.

Opportunities for Sutton’s children

  • Subsea 7 is already  works with local schools to stress the importance of studying maths and physics and explain how boys and girls can become engineers.  They plan to do more and we have asked them to work with Overton Grange and Devonshire Primary School in our ward.  They are keen to do so.

Improvements to the Area

  • The building will be designed by  top class architects.  It will be more attractive than the existing building and greatly improve the appearance of that part of the Brighton Road.
  • The area from the new Subsea 7 building up to Sutton Station will be upgraded as part of the Sutton Gateway plan. 
  • This will include opening the side of the station, regenerating the immediate area, as well as improvements to the public areas of Brighton Road itself and the flow of traffic.
  • Talks are underway with Network Rail about adding another deck to the Station Car Park which will provide more car parking spaces for commuters and people working locally

Car Parking

  • When it makes its planning application, Subsea 7 will provide  a detailed report about the car parking issues which might arise from the redevelopment of the Brighton Road car Park and how to rectify them.
  • Council officers have planned that the 380 or so vehicles currently parking on weekdays in the Brighton Road Car Park should transfer to the nearby Gibson Road Car Park
  • We have asked the Council  to provide financial incentives to make sure this happens.  This will be discussed as part of the planning application
  • We have raised with Subsea 7 and the Council  the concerns of the residents of Sutton Court, directly opposite the proposed new building, about  non-resident car parking.  We have asked Subsea 7 to assist with a residents’ car parking scheme.  They are willing to meet residents and discuss this.

A Can Do Attitude

We understand that residents have concerns and we are treating them very seriously.  But we also recognise that we need  new business, we need jobs and we need new skills for the children of Sutton.  We want to welcome Subsea7, a top flight engineering company, to our area and work with Subsea 7, a company which wants to be involved in our community, and strike a blow against recession.

SUCCESS AGAINST OVERDEVELOPMENT IN OVERTON ROAD

54 Overton Road

54 Overton Road

We have won. The case we put to the Planning Inspectorate, in a carefully prepared written submission, has been successful, and the Inspector has almost used the words of our submission in rejecting the case for the development proposed in Overton Road. 

We objected to the appeal made to the Planning Inspectorate by the developers at 54-58 Overton Road, appealing against the sensible decision of Sutton’s Liberal Democrat Council to reject their planning application, which was to cram 50 dwellings onto the site while failing to offer adequate parking. This appeal followed the Council’s rejection of the scheme on 5 September, on the basis of objections we set out.

The Inspector has described the proposed design as “unduly bulky and dominant” and “overly large and unremitting.” The only unsatisfactory aspect of the judgement is that he appears to consider that enough parking spaces were provided, something we dispute.

We will continue to campaign against the demolition of family homes in the area to make way for developments that cram in low quality accommodation. And we object to the remote Planning Inspectorate in Bristol having the power to overturn sensible local decisions by your Liberal Democrat Council.

BATTLE TO SAVE St HELIER CONTINUES

paul at St Helier

The BBC London news has reported tonight that, despite our efforts to date and the many flaws and criticisms of their proposals, the local NHS Better Services, Better Value (BSBV) team has decided to press ahead with recommending the closure of both St Helier and Epsom’s A&E and maternity units. 
 
This is an appalling decision that flies in the face of the facts. It is not the end of the matter. It is still not too late to stop these ill-conceived plans.
 
Next Wednesday (9th May) Sutton’s Clinicial Commissioning Group (CCG) will meet to consider whether it wants to consult on BSBVs proposals.  The meeting will start at 1pm at St Bedes Conference Centre, St Raphael’s Hospice, London Road, North Cheam.  This is not a public meeting, though it is a meeting held in public.  There will be a large number of residents attending the meeting to make a silent protest against BSBVs plans and send a powerful message to the GPs and other clinicians who sit on the CCG board. 
We are, with local MPs Paul Burstow and Tom Brake, urging as many other people as possible to write to their local GP to support St Helier. 
 
Despite St Helier being the best performing hospital in SW London, today’s quality has been discounted by BSBV in favour of a hope that the quality of the rest will improve in the future.  You can compare the performance of our local hospitals by following this link: www.epsom-sthelier.nhs.uk/compare.
 
BSBV assumes that as many as six out of ten people who use A&E do not need to be there.  Even if that were true, and it is not, there are no credible costed plans to deliver the expansion in community health and GP services necessary to reverse the rising demand for A&E.
 
BSBV claim that their proposals are necessary to improve patient safety.  They want to have more consultants on hand, which is a good idea.  But rather than taking the steps necessary to recruit them, they want to embark on a £350 million building programme to expand the remaining hospitals.  They do not have any guarantees that this money will be available from the Treasury and no idea what they will do if it is not provided.
 
Rather than looking for the simplest, lowest cost way of delivering improved patient safety they are set on a disruptive, highly complex and risky enterprise.
 
Please write to your GP and urge them to lobby the CCG to drop the plans and opt for a less expensive and less risky alternative.  Ask them to join with you and other residents in supporting our local A&E and maternity units.

SUTHERLAND HOUSE PROPOSALS PUT PROFITS BEFORE PEOPLE

sutherland house

The latest proposals for redevelopment of Sutherland House go to the Development Control Committee on Wednesday 8 May. Richard and Heather support the recommendation of the Council’s Planning Department to oppose the proposals.

We want to see Sutherland House re-developed, but not at any price. What is most objectionable is the lack of inclusion of affordable housing, despite evidence to be presented to the Committee that massive profits will be made by the developers and that they could afford to make such a contribution to the local community. There will be 160 private, luxury flats in the development. Richard and Heather, in their casework, meet local families with small children living in horribly over-crowded conditions. These developers can afford to do more for the community! An independent assessment of their proposals shows that the profits they will make are £3.67million beyond what would be “normal” profits.

The proposal will go to the Planning Inspectorate who will, we hope, insist of some provision of affordable housing, something that would be normal in such a big housing development. The reasons given for opposing the current proposal are, in full:

 

 The proposal does not include any affordable housing which would cause harm to the promotion of mixed and balanced communities and would fail to contribute towards addressing the lack of affordable houses in Sutton and London in general. In addition, the lack of employment generating uses proposed would undermine the policies that underpin the future economic growth of Sutton and would fail to promote the vitality and viability of the Town Centre. Having independently reviewed the applicant’s viability assessment submitted with the application the Councils independent experts disagree with some of the assumptions that underpin the applicant’s figures. The Council’s independent consultant considers the scheme has a surplus of £2.9m in addition to the £670,000 the appellant allows for S106 payments and the developers profit, whilst still providing a viable scheme. This means that approximately £3.67m could be spent on providing affordable housing, planning contributions and/or employment uses along with a CIL payment of approximately £40,000.
 • The over-concentration of restaurant uses proposed at ground floor level is considered unacceptable and would mean the over-supply of food and drink uses, which would limit the range, choice and interest of uses in this parade.

The proposal fails to provide any retail units, which would cause harm to the vitality and viability of the Town Centre and result in a significant break in the retail frontage within this town centre location.
 • The proposed part single, part two storey, extension to the east is considered to be of a poor design. This part of the proposal lacks architectural coherence, integration and appears to be an afterthought contrived in its design to facilitate additional residential accommodation. This extension would be hard up to the boundary, unacceptably increasing the scale of the building along a large section of the Cedar Road frontage, resulting in a monotonous elevation with little articulation. It is considered that this part of the proposal would not be in keeping with the prevailing character of the area or appearance of the streetscene.
 • Significant concern is raised regarding the standard of amenity provided for the future occupiers of the duplex units fronting directly onto Cedar Road. Due to the poor layout and arrangement of four of the duplex units in the extension fronting Cedar Road, the proposal would result in unacceptable living conditions for the future residents, including poor lighting and substandard levels of privacy.

RICHARD WINS PARTIAL SUCCESS ON OPPOSITION TO PROPOSALS TO WEAKEN PLANNING LAW

end of devonshire

The post immediately below this describes the efforts Richard has made, including successfully moving a motion at last November’s meeting of Sutton Council, to resist Government plans to make it possible to build larger extensions to houses without need of planning permission.

These efforts have been to some degree successful as on 19 April the Government introduced an amendment to their proposals that goes some way towards meeting the objections we raised. However, the statement is confused and we await sight of the Regulations to be made nder the Act to really understand what is now the position. The Minister indicated that, in respect of extensions that would otherwise require planning permission but these proposals wanted to exempt, the occupier would need to provide a written description and a plan of the proposed development and give it to the local planning authority. The owner or occupier of any land or property “adjoining” the property where the changes are to be made will be notified of the proposed development and of the period they have to object. The local planning authority will then consider whether it will have an unacceptable impact and if a planning application is needed.

The statement quoted figures of 6 metres and 4.5 metres and says these provisions will be repealed in April 2016. This is consistent with Government statements that the objective was to create work for builders as a temporary provision to increase economic activity. We have always disputed that it would have such an effect, and that any such effect would be at the expense of neighbour disputes and the erection of ugly buildings. We assume the current proposal involves a return to the status quo in April 2016

RICHARD CONDEMNS GOVERNMENT ACTION TO WEAKEN PLANNING LAW

 end of devonshire

On the day when the House of Commons approved Government proposals to weaken planning law in respect of house extensions, Richard has drawn attention to the motion he successfully moved at the Sutton Council meeting last November, calling for this policy to be scrapped.

And he has congratulated our MP Paul Burstow on voting against the proposal.

The motion moved by Richard at the Council meeting on 5 November said:

“This Council opposes … the Secretary of State’s proposals for planning permission – currently required for extensions of more than three or four metres from the rear wall of any home – to only be needed for those reaching beyond 8m for detached homes and 6m for others.”

Richard says “Sutton Council passed my motion to call on the Government to change its mind. I am sorry it has not yet done so. This policy weakens planning law further and will lead to neighbour on neighbour disputes over ugly extensions. It is a recipe for neighbourhood disputes and the erection of ugly buildings that society does not want, and that we certainly do not want in Sutton.   ”

The motion pased on 5 November was also critical of the envisaged interference of the Planning Inspectorate in local decisions on planning applications, affordable housing and section 106 contributions.

This is the full text of Richard’s speech:

“It is right that the London Borough of Sutton, which has been at the intellectual vanguard of so many policies in local Government, should be at the forefront in leading a campaign against the proposals of the Government to weaken planning law.

The motion is a balanced motion in that we are complimenting the Government on aspects of the announcement made on 6 September that we support, but we are making clear what we oppose.

We support proposals concerning the funding of new affordable housing, the refurbishment of empty homes, support for the FirstBuy shared equity scheme and support for housing associations.

But we are critical of the extension of permitted development rights, and the envisaged interference of the Planning Inspectorate in local decisions on planning applications, affordable housing and section 106 contributions.

What we are saying tonight is entirely consistent with our actions and our words on planning issues.

It is consistent with our words in that we had an excellent debate on planning policy at the Council meeting on 17 October last year. I remember speaking in that debate and noting what we have achieved in Sutton in adopting and refining a planning policy that has secured the green, pleasant, suburban character of Sutton that we all treasure. But we noted in that debate threats and concerns that arose from national policy. We welcomed many aspects of the National Planning Policy Framework but saw four difficulties with the planning system that should be addressed – and for each of these I could cite specific examples in Sutton South Ward:

1. that what is permitted development is already quite permissive and is leading to people building large and intrusive structures that should be brought within planning controls

2. that the planning system is slow moving in dealing with developers who are recalcitrant and play the system

3. the decisions of the Planning Inspectorate are sometimes inconsistent and unhelpful

4. the Courts do not always seem to take breaches of planning law seriously.

These problems remain but, sadly, the Government has not taken our advice set out in the motion we passed. Indeed, it has moved in an opposite direction in what is now proposed.

What is proposed seems to abandon the National Planning Policy Framework, does not address any of the problems that concerned us, and loosens further permitted development law.

I do not believe for one second that the relaxation of requirements to seek planning permission for extensions to domestic properties is going to unleash an avalanche of building work, thus creating jobs. To the extent that this happens, it follows that this will be through the erection of buildings that would not be permitted under current arrangements. So this is a recipe for neighbourhood disputes and the erection of ugly buildings that society does not want, and that we certainly do not want in Sutton.   

I also particularly object to the way the package deals with affordable housing and section 106 contributions. Like most of you, I find that quite a lot of my casework as a Councillor involves families that are living in poor circumstances, often because they cannot find and afford accommodation that fits their needs. We desperately need more affordable housing. There are already “get out” clauses for developers who present financial analyses seemingly proving their development is unviable if they have to provide affordable housing. I am deeply suspicious of those processes and now there are to be further “get out” routes involving the Planning Inspectorate.

What we say in this motion is also consistent with our actions. We have adopted stringent controls on development to ensure it meets the local needs of Sutton, particularly on the development of major sites and on back garden development. We do not want these interfered with by remote bodies in Whitehall and Bristol.

We have worked hard to control development in Sutton in a way that meets what local people want. And so much flows from the way the character of the area is preserved by our planning policies, making it an attractive environment for businesses and families. I never tire of telling people of the virtues of Sutton – low crime, good schools, attractive leafy streets, good transport connections, voted the best place in London to bring up children, a local economy that is surviving the recession well. All these things, to my mind, hinge crucially on having an attractive local environment and street scene.

I hope these proposals will be re-thought.

I strongly believe, in the words of the motion, that it is local people, through democratically elected local authorities, who are the best judges of what development is acceptable in an area.

I commend this motion to Council.”

RICHARD AND HEATHER CONDEMN NEW DELAY ON SUTHERLAND HOUSE

Sutherland House

Sutherland House

Criterion Capital, the owners at Sutherland House, are further delaying  progress on the development of this almost derelict building.

 Having submitted a planning application to develop the building as residential units they have abruptly cut off further discussion with Sutton Council’s planners and, using one of the devices open to developers who wish to bypass local arrangements, got the application referred to the Planning Inspectorate. The route chosen means we are now faced with a lengthy delay and a set of formal hearings.

The building is an important feature of the “gateway to Sutton” from the South and Gatwick Airport.

After the Criterion Capital got agreement to plans for a hotel, flats and shops at Sutherland House some years ago, they changed their mind and opted for a development involving only  private flats.  This proposal did not include plans for any affordable housing, a usual requirement for large-scale residential development, to meet the current shortage of affordable homes. Richard and Heather would like to see some affordable housing offered in this proposal, and it was this issue that was still under discussion when the developers decided to involve the Planning Inspectorate.

These tactics mean that the residents of Sutton South are still confronted with a dilapidated building, with shops boarded up, that drags the whole area down, and we now have to await the outcome of a long-winded formal enquiry process.

Heather and Richard have been demanding action on the building since they were elected. 

Richard said,  ” The dilapidated building pulls down the whole area.  It is not fair that residents should be confronted with this eyesore. Developers know that they need to provide affordable housing in a residential development such as this, and I will be disappointed if no affordable housing is required.”

Heather further commented,” The location of Sutherland House is at the gateway to Sutton.  With Opportunity Sutton attracting new business to Sutton, this site needs to brought up to standard.”

In the past a cannabis factory has been found in the building by police.  Criterion Capital also were the developers of a site in Colliers Wood that remained empty for years.

 

SPEEDING SURVEY RESULTS BRING ACTION

speed survey

SPEEDING IN CAVENDISH ROAD AND CEDAR ROAD

On 16 July last year we were pleased to present to Sutton Council the petition signed by over 70 residents of Cavendish Road concerning cars speeding in the road. We then discussed with Council officers how to deal with the concerns raised. We noted that residents of Cedar Road had also raised concerns about speeding.

We obtained funding for a survey of the speed of vehicles in Cavendish Road, and got this extended to other local roads, including Cedar Road. The survey was conducted last November and December – local residents may have seen the measuring equipment (pictured above) at the roadside and with the tubes straddling the road. The traffic engineers concluded that the volume and speed of traffic in Cavendish Road has “created an environment in Cavendish Road that is perceived to be unacceptable for pedestrians and vulnerable road users to cross the road in confidence and safety.”

In the light of this, it is proposed to introduce traffic control measures at two locations in Cavendish Road, either a crossing with “road narrowing” build-outs from each side and one lane in the middle or a pedestrian refuge centre island. One will be close to Fiske Court and Hampton Lodge, one will be close to Richard Sharples Court.

The traffic engineers also concluded that the volume and speed of traffic in Cedar Road has “created an unfriendly and difficult environment for the pedestrians and the vulnerable road users to negotiate the traffic and cross the road in a safe manner.”

As a result, it is proposed to introduce traffic control measures at two locations in Cedar Road – a crossing with “road narrowing” build-outs from each side and one lane in the middle near Ashdown Court and Cedar Court, and a Zebra Crossing with a raised table near the Friends’ Meeting House and Forest Dean Court. The Zebra Crossing is something we have long campaigned for.

The precise date for this work is not yet agreed as financial restrictions mean there is no funding available till next year, but we are working to try to get the date brought forward.

We believe these improvements will help reduce the speeding problem and help people cross the road. We are delighted to have been able to get this result, following from the petition and the concerns raised with us by Cavendish Road and Cedar Road residents.

CRIME FALLS FURTHER IN SUTTON SOUTH

Sutton police station

Sutton police station

One of the themes Richard and Heather return to from time to time is the good things about Sutton.

In his speech to the Council on 4 March (you can find the text of this on his blog under 4 March) Richard mentioned how employers he has met through the “Opportunity Sutton” programme tell him of the things their employees like about Sutton – low crime, good schools, voted the best place in London to bring up children, a pleasant green and suburban atmosphere.

This week we met the local police for the quarterly consultative meeting of the Sutton South Police Panel. Again, the police were able to present statistics showing a fall in crime in the Ward.

There is a full report on the meeting on the page on this site titled “Sutton Police.”

A NICE DISPLAY !

SUTHERLAND HOUSE FLOWERS

After extensive correspondence with Council officers and raising the matter at the Local Committee, we have succeeded in getting a very good display to brighten up the crossing outside Sutherland House, in the Brighton Road. The baskets are an attractive display.

This “Gateway to Sutton” area needs brightening up. We hope to get Sutherland House sorted out and occupied in the next year, despite the current delay (see our article below). If the project to build a dramatic-looking new building on the site of the Brighton Road car park were to come to fruition (and there is a long way to go on this, including consideration of a planning application against local development policies), the gateway to Sutton from the South would be much improved. The baskets are an important contribution.