"Protect our green, pleasant, suburban character"

At Sutton Council’s “Bonfire night” meeting on 5 November, Richard moved a motion criticising the Government proposals annnounced on 5 September to weaken planning law. The Council agreed a motion directed to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government calling for a re-think. The motion criticised the proposed 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.

Here 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.”

Mayfield Road

The Council strenuously fought an appeal relating to an extension at a property in Mayfield Road, in Sutton South Ward (St Jude’s nursing home), and sought an award of costs due to the unreasonable behaviour of the applicant. The Council has won on both counts. 

There is a history of planning difficulties with this site, with three different extensions being the subject, at different times, of appeals to the Planning Inspectorate against Council decisions. 

This application sought the retention of an outhouse built in a garden at the north end of the site, without planning permission, which had already been the subject of earlier appeals that had been lost. 

Unusually, not only did the Planning Inspector dismiss the appeal but made an award of costs. He points out in his judgement that arrangements were made for visits to the site as part of the process of determining the appeal but the applicant did not turn up. He says in the judgement: 

“For these reasons, I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in Circular 03/2009, has been demonstrated and that a full award of Costs is justified.”

Richard has attended previous appeal hearings relating to this property. He says “I am not surprised at the view the Inspector took. This appeal was never likely to succeed. I have tried to assist in sorting out the planning problems the applicant faces by arranging meetings between him and local residents. I hope he will now take the necessary action to resolve the remaining planning issues.” 

The Inspector says “The proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of the residents of the adjoining property by reason of its overbearing nature contrary to DPD Policy DM2 and the Framework, which aims to protect amenity by ensuring no adverse affect (sic) on the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties.” The Inspector also makes reference to the importance of the Area of Special Local Character.