ANOTHER PROBLEM SOLVED

redruth house white line

Week in and week out, Heather and Richard deal with a mass of casework on behalf of residents of the Ward.

The story connected to the “dropped kerb”, seen above, is an interesting example.

An inspection of the Borough’s waste clearing services conducted by the Health and Safety Executive last year led to the HSE identifying certain improvements in working practices that they wanted the Council to adopt. This included not requiring workers to have to manipulate heavy metal bins that were damaged and would not roll on their wheels, and not bumping the heavy bins up and down kerbs. At Redruth House, in Grange Road, this created a problem as one of the bin stores, built when the block was constructed in 1969, faces onto the pavement in Camborne Road. It was only possible for the binmen to empty the large metal bins if they could be bumped across the pavement and down the kerb into the road, to the cart. The rough treatment had damaged the bins.

Approached by the Residents’ Association, Richard’s solution was to work with Council officers to get the bins repaired and a “dropped kerb” put in so the bins can be rolled into the road. A white line deters car users from blocking the dropped kerb by parking there.

The Association (the Redruth House Sutton Residents Co. Ltd.), which is in effect a committee of residents who act as “managing agents” for the block, invited Richard to their Annual General Meeting on 24 October, where he was warmly thanked. Richard said he endorsed the view of the chair of the Company, in his annual report that:

“Redruth House enjoys the reputation of being one of the best managed blocks in Sutton.”

He thought this was, in part, because the blocks are managed by a committee of residents and not a remote and disinterested managing agent company.

OUR COMMENTS ON THE 39A EATON ROAD APPEAL

39A during demolition of the detached house that stood on the site

39A during demolition of the detached house that stood on the site

Richard and Heather have submitted their comments on the appeal to the Planning Inspectorate by the developers of 39A Eaton Road. The appeal seeks to overturn the decision of Sutton Council to reject the latest planning application for the property, and seeks an award of costs against the Council. We oppose the appeal.

Our comments are as below. The history of this development is described in our comments. Designs for a block of four small flats were twice rejected by the Council, Richard speaking to the Development Control Committee on the successive applications, but the developer has still built something without planning permission and asked the remote Planning Inspectorate, based in Bristol, to overturn democratic local decisions. We invite residents to use any of this material in framing their own objections.

Submissions should be marked “For the attention of Peter Lyne, The Planning Inspectorate.” Quote the reference

APPEAL. APP/P5870/A/13/7205143. 39A EATON  ROAD, SUTTON, SURREY. SM2 5EA

The email address is teamp2@pins.gsi.gov.uk

Postal address: Peter Lyne, The Planning Inspectorate

3/10 Wing, TempleQuay House

2 The Square, Bristol, BS1 6PN

“Submission by Councillors Richard Clifton and Heather Honour, Liberal Democrat Councillors for Sutton South Ward, London Borough of Sutton.

APPEAL. APP/P5870/A/13/7205143.

39A EATON  ROAD, SUTTON, SURREY. SM2 5EA

We are Councillors for Sutton South Ward in the London Borough of Sutton, where this property is situated. We ask you to consider the following concerning this appeal.

The process followed by the developer has aroused much local disquiet. It is a tale of three designs. The first design was rejected by Sutton Council but passed by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal. There was then a change of ownership of the property and a second design was proposed. This was also turned down by Sutton Council. The developer could at that point have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate but chose not to do so. Instead he demolished the house and built something different from what he had permission for, the third design.

Regardless of what the Inspectorate now decides on the substance of the case, there would be no justice in any award of costs to the developer, as he has ignored planning law in building something for which he does not have permission, perhaps hoping no-one would notice. Nor would it be right not to ask the developer to mitigate some of the negative effects of the structure built without permission.

The structure as built departs from the design for which permission was obtained in a number of ways that we find objectionable. In particular, the overall height is greater and the design of the windows at the front is different. The comment was made by a Councillor at the Development Control Committee discussion that the approved design made it look like a house but the design built made it look more like a block of flats. It is a far less attractive design. 

There is an oddness about the boundary wall with 6 ConistonGardens. The block of flats has been built right up to the boundary and is so close to the wall of number 6 that it abuts it. This seems to ensure that there will eventually be damp problems for the flats adjacent to this wall and no way of dealing with the problem. In addition the guttering overhangs the adjacent property at this side and it seems inevitable that there will be significant damp problems.

The window at the side, facing number 6, is of a changed design that increases overlooking. It is not frosted in any way.

We would draw your attention, in particular, to the comments made by the neighbour at number 6, Mrs Kite, and the comments of the Council, both of which we support.

RICHARD CLIFTON

HEATHER HONOUR

  Councillors for Sutton South Ward, London Borough of Sutton.”

HEATHER PROMOTES A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE

Care Minister Norman Lamb MP with Heather, launching Sutton South Hello!

Care Minister Norman Lamb MP with Heather, launching Sutton South Hello!

An exercise class is reaching out to the Borough’s mums and older people by showing them the benefits of a healthy lifestyle.

Heather’s brainchild, the Sutton South Hello! Project, is collaborating with diet and exercise group LiveWell to promote its 10-week diet advice and exercise class.

The project aims to show people the advantages of a healthy lifestyle and to promote the number of mums and older people exercising.

Representatives from LiveWell have been touring the Borough and making stops at AgeUK meetings as well as teaming up with the Council’s Community Wellbeing Department to provide information to mums while they pick up their children from school.

Heather Honour has been one of those pushing the advantages of LiveWell and said: “I went to the “Weigh2lose” part of the LiveWell session and I was impressed. The dietician was very professional the lady who took the exercise class was also first class.

I’ve been so impressed by what I’ve seen that I want to get more people involved with LiveWell so they can experience the benefits it brings. The Sutton South Hello Project has backed this scheme as it does make a real impact on the lives of local people.”

For more information about LiveWell visit www.nhs.uk/LiveWell.

FEWER EMPTY HOMES IN SUTTON

end of devonshire

With continuing pressure on housing in the Borough, it is a matter of concern if houses are left empty for long period.

Last year Sutton Council introduced a number of technical changes to Council tax collection arrangements that changed financial incentives to keep properties empty. Richard, in his role as vice-chair of the Housing, Economy and Business Commmittee, was closely involved in the design of these changes, which involved the removal of discounts on Council tax previously enjoyed by owners of second homes and owners of empty properties.

At the meeting of the Housing, Economy and Business Committee on 8 October Richard commented on figures the Committee discussed that showed a fall in the number of empty properties. However, while the figures are moving in the right direction there is clearly some way to go. They show that there are still 200 properties in Sutton empty for over two years (excluding those in probate), down from 210, and over 450 properties unoccupied and unfurnished (470 down from 573). 

Richard said “at a time of housing pressure these empty properties are a cause for concern. The policy the Council introduced last year to remove financial incentives to keep properties empty has been a success, in that the numbers have fallen, but there is still a way to go.”

JOBS ARE GOLD DUST: SUCCESS IN BRINGING JOBS TO SUTTON SOUTH

subsea reduced
A survey across Sutton South Ward in the period immediately before the Brighton Road car park closed and immediately after shows that the closure of the Brighton Road car park has not had an impact on parking in the Ward.
 
The results are shown below.
 
Now that the decision is reached on the Subsea7 proposal to build their new offices in Sutton, Richard has written to residents setting out his thoughts on the impact locally. He claims that that he and Heather are probably the most successful local Councillors in Britain, as few have been involved in attracting 500 new jobs to their Ward. He writes:
 
“When I was elected in 2010 I observed that Sutton South is a generally affluent area but there are pockets of poverty, particularly in the social housing estates in the Ward. Many of these people are people who are at the margins of the labour market, often single mothers or people in their 50s who have been made redundant, unskilled and struggling to find work, people whose lives would be transformed if they could get back into employment. Jobs are gold dust.
 
I cannot pretend that the Subsea7 proposal was something I was responsible for. But when it was proposed, I felt that to have a major, successful, expanding engineering company create 500 jobs in my Ward by building a modern, attractive HQ building, replacing a half empty car park, was something positive. So, with Heather, I had a lot of discussions with Subsea7 and we would like to think that we were responsible for many of the improvements made to the plans as they developed. 
 
There were three sets of objections put to me by residents.
First, Subsea7 could have gone to one of the other empty office buildings in Sutton. I discussed this with them. They had a number of technical objections, in particular that the size of their work teams meant any conventional 80s or earlier tower block would not be suitable as the teams would be spread over several floors. But it became clear to me that they wanted their own, prestige building, being prepared to spend surprising amounts of money employing a top firm of European architects to design it, and if we could not accept that they would go elsewhere – Epsom or Leatherhead seemed likely. In fact Sutton has suffered a decline in the number of office buildings, as many are converted to residential uses, and it is a bonus to have this new prestige office development.
 
Second, the development would only create jobs for engineers, and not for local people. This is not so. An office complex of this size will create jobs for cleaners, receptionists, clerks, drivers, catering workers etc. The site is surrounded by social housing estates ( Sutton Court , Beauclere House, Westmoreland Drive , Ambleside Gardens ) and local people within walking distance will be well placed to compete for these less skilled jobs. The workforce in this office complex will spend money in local shops and restaurants. The clients will come to these offices from, we are told, all over the world, spending money in local hotels and restaurants. This is the type of upward momentum the area needs.
 
Third, it would displace parking into local streets to an unacceptable extent. The current evidence, in the immediate aftermath of closure, is that this has not happened. Heather and I insisted on a substantial discount being offered to drivers to move to Gibson Road , and the deal done by Reed to enable their staff to park in the underused B and Q car park has been significant. For the longer term, we know Network Rail is interested in expanding the station car park. There still is a problem of parking in some roads in the Ward, though the closure of Brighton Road has not affected it.
 
From my point of view, my term as a Councillor ends next year and I would like to think I am leaving some legacy in the location in our Ward of such a prestige development by an expanding company, creating local jobs. There are very few Councillors in the UK who have got 500 new jobs in their Ward.”
 
CAR PARKING SURVEY: SEPTEMBER 2013
This survey of the number of parked cars was carried out on a number of dates, between 9.30am and 10.30am, this being late enough for any commuter parking in local roads to be in place.
The count covers all roads in Sutton South Ward outside the Controlled Parking Zone, except those with other parking controls in place such as yellow lines preventing commuter parking.
The dates were as follows. Results below are in the order of these dates:
  1. Thursday 26 September, in the week before the car park closed
  2. Monday 30 September, the day before it closed
  3. Tuesday 1 October, the first day that it was closed
  4. Thursday 3 October, for comparison with the previous Thursday.
 
EAST OF BRIGHTON ROAD
 
Chalgrove Road   18   14   12   17
Downside Road   28    22   21   24
Farm Close   3    4   3   3
Farm Road   3    4   4   4
Kayemoor Road   14   14   12   16
Langley Park Road (section outside CPZ)   34   30   30   34
Mayfield Road   91   87    90   79
Prior Avenue    18     16    16    12
The Ridgway north of Farm Road junction   59   59   61   53
The Ridgway south of Farm Road junction     9   11   12    7
Upland Road south of Farm Road junction     7     7      4    6
Upland Road north of Farm Road junction   18    14    16    20
Willis Avenue    20    18    18    16
 
WEST OF BRIGHTON ROAD
 
Abbotsleigh Close   11   8   6   8
Audley Close   29    26    27   29
Camborne Road (section outside CPZ, east of Overton Road )    38    41    35   32
Chanctonbury Gardens   (outside marked bays for residents)   0   0   0    0
Grange Road (section outside CPZ, east of Overton Road )    30   30   30   29
Leslie Gardens   15   11   14   15
Lyndhurst Way   2     2    2   2
Overton Road (section south of junction with Grange Road )   35   31   29   35
Overton Road (section between junctions with Grange Road and Worcester Road ) 
   15   15    15    15
Stanley Road (section south of junction with Grange Road )   21   22   19   21
Stanley Road (section between junctions with Grange Road and Worcester Road ) 
   19   17   16    19
Summers Close   7   7   4    7
Tapestry Close   (before reaching signs saying residents parking)   5   6   5   5
Turner Mews   5    5    5    5
Ventnor Road (section outside CPZ)   9    7    7    10
Westmoreland Drive   (outside marked bays for residents) 31    26    34    34
Worcester Road (section outside CPZ, east of Overton Road )   20    24    24     21
 

An ugly and half empty car park, or 500 jobs

An ugly and half empty car park, or 500 jobs

SUTTON STATION PROJECT STEAMING AHEAD

 

The side entrance

The side entrance

Since they were elected Richard and Heather have campaigned for the opening of the side entrance to Sutton station. We are now reasonably certain that this ambition will be realised by next February.

On 10 September Richard attended the Project Board for the Sutton Gateway Project. This project is designed to improve the “Gateway to Sutton” from the south, along the Brighton Road and around Sutton station. The main elements include:

– opening the side entrance to the station

– further development of the facilities for cyclists

– re-design of the steep steps up to the side entrance so they are at an acceptable angle

– better landscaping, street furniture and paving around this area and the station entrance area.

 The station manager confirmed that the side entrance would be manned from 7am to 7pm and at other times open but monitored on screens at the front entrance.

Richard says “For twenty years of my life I commuted into London for work, walking every morning past the barricaded and barriered side entrance round to the front to catch (or just miss) my train, and in the evening – since the station is officially classified as overcrowded – shuffling in a mass of people to get out the front. All our local residents who commute to London, walking down Wellesley Road from the east end of the Ward, will benefit from the overdue decision to open the side entrance. And it will benefit all those who arrive at Sutton station to work in The Quadrant.”

The project will also involve some re-design of the Cedar Road junction, long a concern of ours, and a “stakeholder group” to include trepresntatives of the South Sutton Neighbourhood Association and the Highfields Residents’ Association will be asked to comment on design issues.

ROAD SAFETY A PRIORITY

The Triangle

The Triangle

The cotoneasters that make an attractive display, together with the trees, at the “triangle” where Mayfield Road and Farm Road meet The Ridgway, can block the view of drivers if thet get to large. Richard keeps an eye on their growth and recently arranged for them to be cut back, as he did last year, when residents suggested to him they were getting too large. The triangle looks neat and tidy now.

DEALING WITH SCAMS

Richard’s computer was hacked this week. A number of people received an email saying he had been mugged and asking for money. If you received this email, we trust you realised it was a scam.
 
Richard says “I am astonished at the number of people who contacted me to say this has happened to them. Interestingly, there is a very good article on Scams in the recent, excellent newsletter from the South Sutton Neighbourhood Association (SSNA). This advises, if you suspect a scam or are a victim, to contact Action Fraud on 0300 123 2040, and advertises a booklet produced by the Metropolitan Police Operation Sterling Team which can be obtained by calling 0207 230 1228.”
 
We recommend joining the SSNA if you live in the area the Association covers. Contact us for details of how to join.
 

SUTTON COURT COMMUNITY DAY

The inflatable

The inflatable

On Saturday 17 August Sutton Court held its Community Day. Richard visited the event twice during the day and reports that the inflatable (bouncy castle) was one of the biggest he has seen. The biodiversity team were there with an interesting display and the police had a kick about on the ball court with local kids. A good time had by all despite a little rain.

Look at Richard’s Blog for 17 August to discover some other interesting things he did on this day and the name of a film he saw that he particularly recommends. 

 

SUTHERLAND HOUSE – PLANNING INSPECTORATE SUPPORTS VIEW THAT AFFORDABLE HOMES ARE REQUIRED

Sutherland House

The owners of Sutherland House will make sufficient profit when they re-develop Sutherland House as 160 luxury flats that they can and should include some “affordable homes” in the proposal.

This is the view of the Planning Inspector who has rejected the appeal by the owners of Sutherland House against the view taken by the Council and supported by Richard and Heather. The Inspector awarded the Council costs on the grounds of the unreasonable action of the developers.

Richard and Heather have appealed to the developers to now get on with the re-development of the site taking on board the Inspector’s views – that we need some affordable housing and a better design for the units in Cedar Road.

Richard spoke at the appeal hearing on 17 July.

The Council supported the re-development of Sutherland House as residential units but argued for some affordable housing and that the proposed development fronting on to Cedar Road included accommodation of a quality that was not acceptable. The Inspector supported the Council on both points. The Inspector accepted a financial analysis of the viability of the project that showed there was sufficient profit to make it possible to include some affordable housing.

Richard says “The views of the Inspector accord exactly with the case I put to the hearing. I feel vindicated, in saying this proposal was not good enough. The developer will make a lot of money from turning this building, close to the town centre and Sutton station, into luxury flats. The appraisal accepted by the Inspector showed there can be some affordable housing included without threatening the financial viability of the project. As a Councillor, I meet local families living in extremely overcrowded conditions and we desperately need more affordable housing. The building has been empty too long and I call on the developer to now get on with it and come up with a scheme that reflects the Inspector’s decision.”