THE COUNCIL BUDGET APPROVED

On 4 March the Council discussed the budget proposals for the coming year. Legally, the Council is required to set a balanced budget. With so many Councils going bust or in great financial difficulty, this was always going to be a difficult task. The problems are due to Government cuts but also a big spike in demand for services. While people think of the Council as the people who mend the potholes, empty the bins and fix the street lights, 70% of spending is on adult social care and children’s services (particularly for those children with special educational needs), plus the cost of finding accommodation for the homeless. There has been a major increase in demand in the past year, particularly in the number of adults whose social care has to be paid for by the Council and in the number of homeless families.

Trish and Richard both spoke in the debate, Trish on the role of audit and governance (she chairs the Audit and Governance Committee) and Richard on homelessness – a subject in which he has a special interest due to the work history of his daughter, Ellie, and because as chair of Planning Committee he has a role in increasing the supply of affordable family accommodation.

Here is Richard’s speech:

“There is a statistic buried on page 21 of the main paper that an
extra £2.75 million is needed due to the additional demand for
temporary accommodation. This is the cost of homelessness – and
tonight 1045 Sutton families are homeless and living in bed
and breakfast accommodation, many of them some distance from
Sutton. I find this a frightening figure.
I commend what the Council is doing – not set out at length in
these papers before us tonight – to help people avoid
homelessness and to assist them if it happens. And I am pleased at what we are doing to increase the supply of affordable family homes.

But what a local authority can do is limited. This is a national issue.
There has been a major spike in homelessness in the last year,
not just in Sutton but nation wide.
We ought to recognise the causes of this – that families have been
priced out of their homes by the cost of living crisis and the 14
consecutive monthly increases in interest rates that followed the
famous budget based on the principles associated with those
revered icons of the Conservative right Kwasi Kwarteng and – Lis
Truss – who I see is now re-inventing herself as an icon of
American and British deep state conspiracy theorists.
Who cares about homelessness ? Not the Government, which
ignores reasonable policy proposals that would help, such as the
proposals last week from the LGA to lift the cap on housing benefit
subsidy for temporary accommodation, increase
discretionary housing payments and – most important – ensure that local housing
allowance rates track market rates.
Not Rishi Sunak, whose often repeated targets we are asked to
judge him on – not that he is achieving them – do not include any
target on reducing homelessness, which he clearly does not see
as important. I find that shocking.
And can I mention the contribution to the debate of that other great
icon of the Conservative right Suella Braverman who told us the
homelessness crisis was largely caused by foreigners and by
people who chose homelessness as a life style, and that the big issue was
“Should they be allowed to sleep in tents ?”
That seems cruelly remote from our homeless residents worried
about how to get their kids to school in Sutton when they are in B
and B accommodation in Slough or Heathrow, or somewhere.
This is a problem causing destitution and poverty.
We are doing what we can – but it requires Government action and the Tory Government is in
complete denial.”

ADVANCES IN OUR WARD

We are always seeking ways to improve the quality of life locally. The defibrillator installed in Brighton Road outside Northumberland House, pictured above, is a potentially important facility, but we were disturbed to learn that the one at the railway station a few hundred metres north of this location has been stolen. Action is in hand to replace it.

Many new street trees have been planted in the Ward including, in the recent period, new trees in Farm Road, Devonshire Avenue, Effingham Close, Prior Avenue and Kayemoor Road, adding to the pleasant, green, suburban feel of our Ward. We are delighted that the tree that had to be felled in Brighton Road, outside Northumberland House, as it was diseased, has been replaced, thanks to funding we obtained from the Council’s Public Realm budget.

The fencing in The Quadrant, nearby, which had become damaged has been repaired, also with funding we obtained from the Public Realm budget.

In addition, Sutton Council was delighted to be successful in obtaining funding to upgrade rail services to Belmont Station. The funding will allow train services to double from two to four trains per hour and will also facilitate improvements to the station. This will improve transport to the Cancer Hub.

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.

NEW HOMES LOCALLY TO MEET THE HOUSING CRISIS

On 30 November Richard and Trish sat as members of the Council’s Planning Committee, with Richard chairing the meeting, to consider the fate of the B and Q site in central Sutton. This is just outside our Ward. B and Q plan to close the store next June. Richard commented that, though he is no do-it-yourself fanatic, he regretted the closure of the store, but B and Q say it no longer makes them money and they have decided to close.

It is inevitable that the site will be developed as housing. There is no demand for new office space (more people work at home) or new shops (more people shop using the internet) but there is a housing crisis. On the day of the discussion 970 Sutton families were homeless and living in bed and breakfast accommodation, at the expense of the Council and thus our Council tax payers. More homes are desperately needed. The philosophy in the Sutton local plan is to meet our housing targets partly through a more intensive area of development close to the town centre and near the railway station. As public transport links are good in this area it is possible to envisage a car free or “car light” development – if you have to provide a parking space for every house many fewer homes can be built. This reduces development pressure on the borough’s suburban heartland and Green Belt areas. Planning Committee often considers proposals to build on the Green Belt which we resist, but the new homes must go somewhere. The more intensive development in the town centre will inevitably include some tall buildings, and there is a cluster close to the railway station.

Evidence was presented to the committee on action taken to deal with some of the consequences of this development, such as a need for places in local schools, demands on health services and additional strain on water and sewage systems. Richard commented that there were attractive features to the proposed development, 60% of which would be open space, including an area of public parkland, a water feature, an amphitheatre and terraced roof gardens. The most important aspect, though, was the plan for 337 “affordable” homes where Sutton Council can place the most deserving of the 2 600 families on the housing register. This will include families that are homeless or those we meet, in our Ward, who are living in dreadful housing circumstances – sometimes families with three or four children living together in tiny flats.

The planning application was approved. Initially all that local people will observe is the closure of the store, hoardings put up round the site and the store demolished. Then there will be building work but it will be several years before anyone moves in. Eventually, it will be an attractive, landscaped site. On the website

www.chalkgardens.co.uk

there is a video of a walk through a CGI representation of what the final product will look like.

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.

“COMMUNITY WALKABOUTS” AT KINGSLEE AND THORN COURTS, SUTTON COURT AND BEAUCLERE HOUSE

On 21 September Richard attended a “Community Walkabout” organised by Sutton Housing Partnership (SHP) at Kingslee Court and Thorn Court in Worcester Road. These events are organised to provide an opportunity for residents to raise issues of concern with SHP staff. SHP’s Chief Executive and senior SHP staff attended. A high proportion of the residents are leaseholders and many took part. The residents said they appreciated the recent re-location of the refuse bins and the re-painting of the entrance gate. Some “snagging” arising from the recent renovation work on the buildings was noted and various other concerns of the residents explored.

On 19 October all three Councillors attended similar “Community Walkabouts” at Sutton Court and at Beauclere House, in Brighton Road. These were again well attended by residents. A wide variety of issues were raised including the use of the garages, parking, dealing with anti-social behaviour and lighting. These exercises were thought to have been very useful by those who took part. The photo shows the group at Kingslee Court.

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.