FURTHER OPEN, QUARTERLY MEETING OF LOCAL RESIDENTS AND THE POLICE

Sutton police station

The police met residents of Sutton South Ward again on the evening of 15 January 2025, 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 COMMUNITY / POLICE MEETING. 15 JANUARY 2025
Attended by PC Robyn Skivens and PCSO Helen Maguire for the police.
A report was given on main crime trends from 1 September to the date of the
meeting.
DRUG OFFENCES
There had been 18 drug offences, mainly possession of drugs, mainly cannabis.
While this was higher than normal the increase was partly attributable to a
special police operation at Sutton train station.
Four of these crimes were the interception by the Border Force of drug
shipments. Where such a shipment is to premises in our Ward it will count in
our statistics.
BURGLARY
There had been 21 burglaries or attempted burglaries. This included residential
burglaries, burglaries of garages and sheds, and some burglaries of businesses.
It was noted that there was usually a seasonal increase in burglary at this time
of year as it was darker earlier.
There had been eight residential burglaries. However, some that had been
reported in sheltered accommodation in the Ward were later disproved and
attributed to dementia. A disturbing case was that of a landlord who was able
to let himself into a flat and commit theft. Two burglaries of garages had
involved theft of bicycles.
Mention was made of a shop in Brighton Road where the window was
smashed and the wooden panel that was then put in place to secure the
premises was pulled away to facilitate burglary. Mention was made of the
theft of tools from a construction site in the Ward.
Some burglaries had involved the theft of keys, which were then used to
commit further offences (theft of a car key leading to theft of a car). The police
stressed the need to make sure keys were kept out of sight – if the keys can be
seen from your letterbox you are inviting crime.

VEHICLE CRIME

There had been 14 instances of vehicle crime (theft of vehicles, damage to
vehicles, theft from vehicles). The police stressed the need to avoid leaving
anything of value on display in your car, or in the car at all. An unusual crime
had been the theft of an excavator and a dumper from the road works in
Brighton Road.
THEFT
There had been 23 crimes in a category the police described as “theft and
kindred (to theft)” events. This included shoplifting, parcel theft, theft of pedal
cycles and mobile phones. Examples mentioned included theft of scrap metal,
theft of a wheelie bin and theft of a wedding ring by distraction techniques.
MAJOR CRIMES
There had been nine major, violent crimes in the Ward. This included several
robberies at the train station, a large group altercation outside a restaurant, a
fight between two drug users, and a concerning incident of a woman who was
followed from the station and robbed. There were also two incidents of arson,
of a bin and of a Ford transit. A ULEZ camera was deliberately damaged.
There was an incident where a drug user was searched and a knife, and bladed
articles, were found to be in his possession.
There was a disturbing incident of an anti-semitic symbol being daubed on a
wall outside the synagogue in Cedar Road. There had been a succession of
incidents related to a woman living in Cedar Road who had engaged in anti-
social activities that had attracted a community of drug users to her premises.
This was now the subject of police reports to the DPS that were expected to
lead to her being charged with serious offences.
SPEEDING
The police had been conducting a programme of visits to local care homes and
sheltered housing to talk about scams. Residents had raised with them
concerns about speeding in Cavendish Road, which had led to police action in
that road. There was a discussion of speeding in local roads including
Chalgrove Road, Langley Park Road, The Ridgway and Cavendish Road. The
police had been carrying out speed checks in Chalgrove Road and Cavendish
Road. The action in Cavendish Road had led to twelve drivers receiving
warnings. The police would consider further action against speeding in local
roads, subject to resources.

OTHER MATTERS DISCUSSED
Staffing levels: There should be in theory be a third officer on the Ward to
support Robyn and Helen, but they were coping.
The number of “extractions” when they were called away to join police
exercises elsewhere in London, or at the Croydon custody suite, remained an
issue of concern but was now running close to 35% of their time rather than
the 50% it had once been.
Mention was made of local concern about a story that a body had been
discovered at a house in Egmont Road. The police assured the meeting that
there was no wider implication of this incident.
The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for Wednesday 14 May at Devonshire Avenue school (7pm) subject to the police checking their work rota.
The meeting thanked Robyn for coming back from leave to attend the meeting
and thanked the officers for their work for the community in dealing with
crime in the Ward. The meeting thanked Fiona Ostler for letting us meet at the school. The date of the next meeting was provisionally set as Wednesday 14 May, at Devonshire Avenue primary school and thought continues to be given to what could be done to better publicise the meeting and get a better attendance.

Constable Skivens, Louise, Trish and Richard with other Ward police officers at the Sutton South Hello Christmas party

SUPPORTING THE POLICE CADETS

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.”

KINGS LANE

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.

MORE APPLICATIONS FOR EXTRA STOREYS

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.

OUR CAMPAIGN OPPOSING THE CLOSURE OF THE TICKET OFFICE AT SUTTON STATION IS SUCCESSFUL

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.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR SUTTON: PLANNING APPLICATION IN MULGRAVE ROAD TURNED DOWN

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.

A VISIT TO CITY HALL TO PRESENT SUTTON’S PETITION OPPOSING THE EXTENSION OF ULEZ

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.

FURTHER PROPOSALS FOR NORTHUMBERLAND HOUSE

Northumberland House viewed from Brighton Road

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.

TACKLING GRAFFITI IN SUTTON SOUTH WARD

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.

NEW ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING POINTS PLANNED FOR MULGRAVE ROAD

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. 

https://sutton.citizenspace.com/highways-environment-and-planning/ev-survey/

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.