Sutherland House

Tonight, the Council’s Development Control Committee supported the call by Richard and Heather – who both spoke to the meeting – to oppose the current planning application for Sutherland House as it contains no provision for affordable housing. They both deplored the fact that the building has been empty and derelict for years, but said this should not drive us to accept a thoroughly objectionable proposal.

Richard quoted the phrase coined by a Conservative Prime Minister of the 1970’s, Edward Heath, no militant socialist, that a particular set of actions he dealt with was “the unacceptable face of capitalism.” He said “What the Committee has before it tonight is exactly that. It is a project that puts profit before people.”

The proposal of the developers is to take an existing large building which, for reasons still obscure, has been empty and derelict for years, and renovate it so there are 160 luxury, private, residential apartments. These will in due course be available to be sold or rented for sums of money most of us would find astonishing, but because Sutton remains a thriving area despite the recession (due to the good management of its affairs by its Council) there will be no shortage of demand.

But the developer claims that the whole project is so financially marginal that they cannot possibly include any affordable housing atall. This seems unlikely, and the Council’s independent study suggests there is £1.91 million of profit in the proposal over and above what one would regard as a normal and acceptable margin. Some affordable housing can be included without the project becoming unviable.

Heather and Richard deal with a lot of casework concerning housing in our Ward. They come across many families, often families with small children, that live in desperately overcrowded conditions. There is a massive need for affordable housing in the Britain of 2013. It is a national problem, it is a problem here in Sutton, and it is a problem in a seemingly affluent area like Sutton South Ward.

Richard said “I do not know why the developer has kept the site empty for so long, as, I am told, it did with the Root and Brown tower in Merton. I deplore the fact that it is an empty and derelict eyesore, a blot on the landscape. Perhaps the expectation was that eventually we would be so fed up with it we would accept anything to get it developed. I am almost at the stage where I would accept anything to get it developed and am at the stage where I would accept almost anything. But not this scheme.”

The Committee agreed to support the proposals of the officers to oppose this proposal at the forthcoming hearing by the Planning Inspectorate and seek some affordable housing provision.   

54 Overton Road

We have won. The case we put to the Planning Inspectorate, in a carefully prepared written submission, has been successful, and the Inspector has almost used the words of our submission in rejecting the case for the development proposed in Overton Road. 

We objected to the appeal made to the Planning Inspectorate by the developers at 54-58 Overton Road, appealing against the sensible decision of Sutton’s Liberal Democrat Council to reject their planning application, which was to cram 50 dwellings onto the site while failing to offer adequate parking. This appeal followed the Council’s rejection of the scheme on 5 September, on the basis of objections we set out.

The Inspector has described the proposed design as “unduly bulky and dominant” and “overly large and unremitting.” The only unsatisfactory aspect of the judgement is that he appears to consider that enough parking spaces were provided, something we dispute.

We will continue to campaign against the demolition of family homes in the area to make way for developments that cram in low quality accommodation. And we object to the remote Planning Inspectorate in Bristol having the power to overturn sensible local decisions by your Liberal Democrat Council.

The post immediately below this describes the efforts Richard has made, including successfully moving a motion at last November’s meeting of Sutton Council, to resist Government plans to make it possible to build larger extensions to houses without need of planning permission.

These efforts have been to some degree successful as on 19 April the Government introduced an amendment to their proposals that goes some way towards meeting the objections we raised. However, the statement is confused and we await sight of the Regulations to be made nder the Act to really understand what is now the position. The Minister indicated that, in respect of extensions that would otherwise require planning permission but these proposals wanted to exempt, the occupier would need to provide a written description and a plan of the proposed development and give it to the local planning authority. The owner or occupier of any land or property “adjoining” the property where the changes are to be made will be notified of the proposed development and of the period they have to object. The local planning authority will then consider whether it will have an unacceptable impact and if a planning application is needed.

The statement quoted figures of 6 metres and 4.5 metres and says these provisions will be repealed in April 2016. This is consistent with Government statements that the objective was to create work for builders as a temporary provision to increase economic activity. We have always disputed that it would have such an effect, and that any such effect would be at the expense of neighbour disputes and the erection of ugly buildings. We assume the current proposal involves a return to the status quo in April 2016

On the day when the House of Commons approved Government proposals to weaken planning law in respect of house extensions, Richard has drawn attention to the motion he successfully moved at the Sutton Council meeting last November, calling for this policy to be scrapped.

And he has congratulated our MP Paul Burstow on voting against the proposal.

The motion moved by Richard at the Council meeting on 5 November said:

“This Council opposes … the Secretary of State’s proposals for planning permission – currently required for extensions of more than three or four metres from the rear wall of any home – to only be needed for those reaching beyond 8m for detached homes and 6m for others.”

Richard says “Sutton Council passed my motion to call on the Government to change its mind. I am sorry it has not yet done so. This policy weakens planning law further and will lead to neighbour on neighbour disputes over ugly extensions. It 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.   ”

The motion pased on 5 November was also critical of the envisaged interference of the Planning Inspectorate in local decisions on planning applications, affordable housing and section 106 contributions.

This 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.”