Sutton South Councillors were concerned to learn about changes proposed to the organisation of the Police Cadets, who meet at a school in our ward. Currently there are over 120 cadets. However, the decision has been made to close junior cadets and cut the remaining senior cadets to just 46. Their future programme is also being severely curtailed. This will have a major impact on the youth of this borough who will no longer have the opportunity to participate in activities such as camps, parades and Duke of Edinburgh awards.
Councillor Louise Phelan, whose son has been a Cadet, commented “I’ve seen first-hand the benefits of being part of police cadets. They learn valuable life skills, and gain self confidence. They also support the local community and get to take part in things they wouldn’t otherwise have had the opportunity to do. For many this is a stepping stone into a career within the police force, for others the Cadets help to keep them on the right path and make better life decisions. I am incredibly concerned others will now not get these opportunities.”
Richard has been trying to get Network Rail to cut back the vegetation on the railway bank adjacent to the southern bridge in Kings Lane as it obscures sight lines for motorists. Every autumn, after the vegetation on the railway bank has grown up, he has this correspondence with Network Rail. They have now cut back the undergrowth sufficiently for cars to be able to see if there are vehicles coming towards them across the bridge.
The police met residents of Sutton South Ward again on the evening of 25 September 2024, at Devonshire Avenue school. There are open, public meetings held quarterly at which the police discuss the policing of the Ward with local residents. We were addressed by our Ward Constable, Constable Robyn Skivens, who went through the crime statistics for the Ward. Sutton has a lower crime rate than most outer London boroughs and our Ward has one of the lowest crime rates in Sutton. However, crime always has a significant impact on the victim and public concern remains high. The draft minutes of the meeting are as below.
SUTTON SOUTH WARD COMMUNITY/POLICE MEETING – WEDNESDAY 25 SEPTEMBER 2024
Held at Devonshire Avenue primary school
Constable Skivens gave an update on crime in the Ward since the last meeting, which was on 26 June 2024.
Burglaries: There had been 8 burglaries. Several were burglaries of garages but there had been some of houses and of commercial premises. There was a gang of four people who were now well known in the borough who had been behind a number of burglaries.
Motor Vehicle Crime: 11 crimes were reported – 3 of theft of cars (in Ambleside Gardens, Albion Road, Farm Close). The other offences were thefts from, damage to or interference with cars. There were again no catalytic converter thefts.
Drug offences: 5 crimes were reported, one of possession of cannabis and one of possession with intent to supply. The other offences were importation of drugs intercepted by Border Force where a local address was given for the consignment. Ward police would then have to visit the address but usually this was a fictitious or convenience address.
Violence against women and girls: 4 cases. These included a man exposing himself on a bus and cases of women being followed.
Major crimes: This is a broad category. There were 4 cases – two robberies, one attempted robbery, one case of a threat to kill.
Other crimes: There were 11 in this miscellaneous category, including:
2 of shoplifting from the BP service station
2 pedal cycles stolen
A woman who had an epileptic fit outside Sutton station had her bag stolen
A “street drinker” at the station had vapes stolen from him
A handbag was left on a bus and stolen, and efforts were made to use the bank cards
The theft of a wedding ring through distraction techniques (engaging in conversation to distract),
Staffing: Although Sutton South has a cadre of 3 officers – Constable Skivens, a second Constable and a PCSO – Constable Skivens was currently on her own. The other Constable is on restricted duties due to a hamstring injury and the PCSO has an injured knee. Constable Skivens spends about half her time on “extractions”, usually to the Response Team, to undertake other duties outside the Ward. The meeting expressed concern at the staffing level.
The meeting discussed a variety of issues raised by residents:
The success of Operation Nightingale in reducing crime in Sutton by monitoring and patrolling selected crime hotspots
The reduction of crime at Sutton station by closing the side entrance at certain times
The knife amnesty, and its success
Drug dealing, including at Sutton Court and Beauclere House
Concerns about “street drinkers” at Sutton station
Fire safety, including the threat posed by batteries on scooters and electric bikes
The importance of reporting crime (it was pointed out that reports via Crimestoppers are anonymous)
Keyless cars: the need to keep keys in a tin
The police speed traps in Chalgrove Road, including on 5 June
The cuts to the police cadets, which meet at Overton Grange school, and the reasons for this action. Councillor Clifton mentioned that the Councillors with the local MP were planning to take this up with the Metropolitan police at a more senior level.
The date of the next meeting was set as Wednesday 15 January, at Devonshire Avenue primary school. There was a discussion of what could be done to better publicise the meeting and get a better attendance.
The meeting thanked Constable Skivens for her work and for coming in on her day off to present her report to us, and Devonshire Avenue school for hosting the meeting.
Constable Skivens, Louise, Trish and Richard with other Ward police officers at the Sutton South Hello Christmas party
The owners of Harrow Lodge, 28 Eaton Road, have used a device known as “Prior Approval” to obtain planning permission to extend the building – adding a storey to the top of the building, with some other changes. This will add 10 new flats to the building. In Mulgrave Road the owners of The Rowans, 47 Mulgrave Road, have similarly obtained planning application to add 8 new flats by adding two storeys to the top of the building. This is a current trend – to add extra storeys to the top of blocks of flats.
The applicants both used a device in national planning law known as “Prior Approval” which means that Councillors cannot take the application to the Council’s Planning Committee. We consider that this procedure was introduced to undermine the planning system and reduce local control of planning decisions. We are not able to stop these changes taking place as the system means the application has to be assessed by Council officers against a narrow set of criteria and if the application is refused the Planning Inspectorate, based in Bristol, has the power to over-ride local decisions.
As your local Councillors, we are concerned about these developments. While there is a need for more accommodation, these changes will involve building work that will impact on residents. However we seek to ensure that conditions are stipulated in any planning permission, if it is granted, to protect the peace and quiet of the residents during construction work. These include that access to the roof should be via an external hoist, the interior of the building should not be a storage area or building site, there should be a construction management plan, the contractors should join the Considerate Contractors’ Scheme, and there should be a liaison officer residents can contact. If scaffolding is erected it should only be erected when needed and removed as soon as it is not needed.
A similar application for extra storeys on the roof of the building at Chelsea Court in Mulgrave Road was turned down on the basis of our representations that it would have made the building look incongruous.
We welcome feedback on your views on planning proposals. You can see the details of and comment on planning applications via the Sutton Council website (go to the section on planning) or comment by post to
Development Management, Civic Offices, St Nicholas Way, Sutton, SM1 1EA.
As local Councillors, we responded to the consultation exercise on the closure of ticket offices in local train stations. The closure of the ticket office at Sutton station, which is in our Ward, was threatened. We responded to the consultation opposing this move.
We drew attention to instances where family members were able to get a cheaper deal on tickets than they could have got buying tickets over the internet by getting the advice of the staff at the ticket office. Having staffed ticket offices is essential to giving people advice on travel. People need advice on travel when they arrive at the station. Having these staff wandering around the station means you will not find them when you arrive at the station. There are particular difficulties for those who are partially sighted or disabled.
The consultation was, after an outcry over the limited nature of the consultation proposals, extended to 1 September. The decision has now been taken not to proceed with the closure plan but we will monitor the situation as effective closure of the ticket office by stealth, in particular the progreesive reduction of the hours of opening, is entirely possible.
The owner of Chelsea Court, 54 Mulgrave Road has had planning permission to extend the building – in effect adding two extra floors to the block of flats – refused by Sutton Council. This was the latest in a series of applications in our Ward where owners of blocks of flats have sought to extend the building upwards.
As local Councillors, we were concerned about these proposals. While there is a need for more accommodation, the changes to the building would in our view make it look incongruous, not good enough for Sutton. The block is an attractive architect-designed building (see photo), one of the more attractive blocks in Mulgrave Road, and the proposed changes would destroy the symmetry of the building. The Planning Department at Sutton Council agreed with our objections. The changes would also have involved building work that would greatly disturb the current residents of the block.
The owners used a mechanism called “prior approval” when submitting their planning application. This mechanism, in our view, was introduced by the Government to undermine the planning system. As a result, we could take the application to the Council’s Planning Committee, which Richard chairs, for decision by Councillors. We may still not be able to stop these changes taking place given the powers of the remote Planning Inspectorate based in Bristol to over-ride local decisions.
We always seek to ensure in such cases that a number of conditions are stipulated in any planning permission, if one is ever granted, to try to protect the peace and quiet of the building during construction work. These include that access to the roof should be via an external hoist with all materials for work on the roof transported to the roof by an external hoist and not brought up via the well of the building. The interior of the building should not be a storage area or building site. There should be a construction management plan to minimize disruption to existing residents and ensure there are controls on dust and noise, and on hours of work. The contractors should join the Considerate Contractors’ Scheme. There should be a liaison officer that residents can contact if they observe poor behaviour. If scaffolding is erected outside residents’ windows it should only be erected when needed and removed as soon as it is not needed.
We have successfully opposed this development but wait to see if the developer will appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the decision of the Council.
Louise, Richard and Trish travelled to City Hall, the HQ of London Mayor Sadiq Khan, on 30 June to join other Sutton Liberal Democrat Councillors in presenting a petition to the Mayor. The petition, signed by over 10 000 Sutton residents, expressed our opposition to the extension of the ULEZ zone to outer London boroughs. Our views on why we opposed the extension of ULEZ can be found in posts further down this site.
Despite our opposition, ULEZ has now been extended by the London Mayor to outer London.
We are again involved in arguments over proposals to add extra storeys the top of Northumberland House.
Northumberland House is the tower block at the corner of Brighton Road and Wellesley Road, about 200 yards along Brighton Road if you turn left when coming out of Sutton station.
Criterion Capital, the owners of Northumberland House, are again seeking planning permission to add two storeys to the top of the building. The owners are again seeking to extend the building, creating a further 29 flats by adding two extra storeys on the top of the ten storey part of the building and an extra storey on the lower part, with some additional flats in the “undercroft” above the parking area. Some of the current parking spaces would be lost.
An earlier similar application was not supported by Sutton Council on the basis of design of the proposed tower extension and issues about the alignment of the windows. Planning law allows developers to seek to over-ride the decisions of local Councillors by appealing to the remote Bristol-based Planning Inspectorate, whose decision is final. The developers went to appeal, to the Planning Inspectorate, and on 5 October Richard and Louise attended and spoke on behalf of residents at a hearing organised by the Planning Inspectorate.
We had noted that there would be some positives, such as the creation of a community amenity and play space on the tarmaced area at ground floor level. However, while there is a shortage of accommodation in London and more housing is needed, we were concerned that the building work had the potential to be extremely disruptive to the lives of current residents. And an extra two storeys on the top of the building looks incongruous and out of keeping with the design of the rest of the building. Richard told the Inspector the design “looked like a couple of portacabins had been dumped on the top of the building.” At the hearing we told the Planning Inspector that residents of Northumberland House are concerned about the likely disruption involved in this proposed work, and have long standing concerns about frequent lift breakdowns in the building and the general standard of housekeeping, particularly in the bin area. We pressed the Inspector to impose conditions, if he were to agree to the scheme, to protect the interests of residents, and include these conditions in any planning permission they eventually obtained. We asked that access to the roof areas would be only by external hoists, and that the peace and quiet of the interior of the building would not be disturbed or the interior turned into a storage area, or building site. We sought controls on scaffolding to ensure any scaffolding that is required is removed as soon as the requirement has passed. We insisted there must be a construction management plan to control hours of work and control noise and dust nuisance. We asked that the contractor joins the “Considerate Contractors Scheme”, which provides a route for residents to raise concerns if they observe poor behaviour. We were pleased that the developers indicated they would accept all these conditions.
The Inspector supported our views and commented that the proposed building looks “incongruous” – the exact wording Richard had used at the hearing. He turned down the application and also refused the application for costs.
The owners have now submitted a further, similar application. Residents can see the proposals via the Council’s website (go to the section on planning and follow leads to get to comment on planning applications). It is application DM2023/00796. We are keen to learn of the views of residents on this matter, particularly those who live in Northumberland House. Do contact us at the email addresses given in the first post on this site.
This picture shows Louise and Trish cleaning off the graffiti we found in the area outside Northumberland House in Brighton Road. We want residents to report to us instances of graffiti, which is one of the scourges of our times, worldwide. In general, the Council has a good record in cleaning off graffiti quickly. A difficulty is when the graffiti is on private property and the owners of the property have responsibility.
Here is an example of graffiti we got cleaned off, on the bridge at Kings Lane.
In support of our policies to combat global warming and reduce carbon emissions, the programme to fit electric vehicle charging points in lampposts in our Ward continues. A further consultation exercise is about to take place on the installation of two new electric vehicle charging points in Mulgrave Road, close to the junction with Worcester Road. A preliminary consultation found majority support but few residents responded.
There are now charging points at the following locations:
Opposite 49 The Ridgway
Opposite 26 Langley Park Road
Opposite Foxley Court in Christchurch Park
Opposite 10 Cumnor Road
In Cedar Gardens
Opposite Grange Court, Grange Road
Opposite Thomas House, Grange Road
Opposite 13 Stanley Road
Opposite Fairford Court, Stanley Road
We want to draw attention to the Sutton Citizen space survey where residents should log their suggestions for EV charge points.
The photo shows the first vehicle that used the first charging point in the Ward, in The Ridgway. Given the policy to ultimately phase out petrol driven vehicles, a big and continuing expansion will be needed.
Sutton Council is working with Siemens to install Ubitricity lamp column electric vehicle charging points. Ubitricity lamp column charging points are compact and fit into the door of a lamp column. The aim of lamp column charging is to give residents the ability to easily charge electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles on the street where they live, especially if they do not have off-street parking or are unable to install their own home charging point. Installing residential charging points is important because a key barrier to people switching to electric vehicles is the concern around where they will be able to charge their vehicle.
Not all lamp columns are suitable for lamp column charging points. The lamp columns need to be “electrically suitable”, be positioned near the kerb and have enough internal space to fit the charging point. They need to be sensibly located so that a vehicle could safely park and charge next to the lamp column. The lamp columns also need to be made of metal, not concrete.
An “earth mat”, a small metal grid, is also installed in the footway next to the lamp column. This is to make the charging point “electrically safe” if there is a fault. There are signs to indicate that the lamp column has a charging point fitted, though this sign will not prevent non-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles from parking next to the lamp column.
This is a major advance in our drive to promote electric vehicles and combat global warming.
