WE SAY NO, AGAIN, TO OVERDEVELOPMENT IN OVERTON ROAD

54 Overton Road

WE HAVE SENT OUR SUBMISSION TO THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE, FOR THEIR WRITTEN PROCEDURE, ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 54 – 58 OVERTON ROAD. 

Sutton Council rejected the application to develop 54 – 58 Overton Road and the developer has now lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate, a remote body in Bristol that has been the main cause of inappropriate development in our Ward, overturning sensible local decisions taken by our Council. 

We have already put in our submission to the Inspectorate, in what is a purely written procedure. The full text can be found at the end of this post.

To put in your submission email it to teamp2@pins.gsi.gov.uk for the attention of Peter Lyne, Case Officer, quoting Planning Inspectorate reference  APP/P5870/A/12/2184339/NWF.

We object to the proposal on the grounds that it is overdevelopment of the site, with 50 dwellings crammed in. It is the type of low-quality accommodation that we continue to oppose in our Ward, where there are instances of the Planning Inspectorate overturning local decisions and allowing substantial family houses to be demolished to make way for blocks of small flats without gardens. There are current examples in Eaton Road and Albion Road, sites where building work is currently underway, the proposals rejected by Sutton Council but allowed by the Planning Inspectorate. Half the children in our Ward live in accommodation without access to a garden. There is a shortage of affordable family homes.

In addition, the provision for car parking (33 car parking spaces for 50 dwellings) is inadequate and will lead to great pressure on parking, with additional demand for parking in the area.

Our reasons are, unsurprisingly, almost identical with the reasons given by the Council for rejecting the application.

Our submission objecting to the proposal was included in the papers that went to the Council’s Development Control Committee on 5 September, and Richard attended the Committee meeting, though he was not called to be a member of the panel of Councillors reaching a decision that evening.

HERE IS THE FULL TEXT OF OUR SUBMISSION

 
For the attention of Peter Lyne, Case Officer
Postal Address:
Peter Lyne
The Planning Inspectorate
3/10 Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Bristol.
BS1 6PN
 
 
Appeal relating to 54 – 58 Overton Road, Sutton, Surrey, SM2 6RB
London Borough of Sutton Reference B2012/66079/FUL
Planning Inspectorate reference  APP/P5870/A/12/2184339/NWF
 
SUBMISSION
We understand this appeal is being determined by written procedure.
 
We would like to comment on this appeal, and ask that our comments are considered by the Inspector.
 
We are elected Councillors for Sutton South Ward in the London Borough of Sutton. 
 
Although the development is not in Sutton South Ward, it is very close to the Ward. The Ward boundary runs down Overton Road in front of the property. Our residents are among those affected by the proposal and objecting to it.
 
We object to the proposal on the grounds, first, that it is overdevelopment of the site, with 50 dwellings crammed in. It is the type of low-quality accommodation that we continue to oppose in our own Ward, where there are many instances of substantial family houses being demolished to make way for blocks of small flats without gardens. Half the children at the one primary school in our Ward live in accommodation without access to a garden. There are a lot of small flats but a shortage of affordable family homes. Couples who live in the flats in the Ward often find that when they have children, and the flat is too small, they cannot find a home they can afford in the area so have to move away.
Second, the provision for car parking (33 car parking spaces for 50 dwellings) is inadequate and will lead to great pressure on parking, with additional demand for parking in an area that is already fully parked up much of the time.
 
Our reasons are almost identical with the reasons given by the Council for rejecting the application.
 
We note that there is to be a site visit. We would like to be advised of the date and given opportunity to attend.
 
We would like to be informed of the outcome of the appeal when it is determined. We would be grateful if you could advise us of your likely timetable for reaching a decision.
 
We would be grateful if you could acknowledge this submission and confirm that having sent it by email we do not also need to send it in writing.
 
Councillor Richard Clifton
  55 The Ridgway. Sutton. Surrey. SM2 5JX
Councillor Heather Honour
  29 The Ridgway. Sutton. Surrey. SM2 5JX
 
  Councillors for Sutton South Ward

BETTER LIGHTING IN WELLESLEY ROAD

Wellesley Road: the passageway

Wellesley Road is divided into two with a passageway linking the two sections. Residents in Wellesley Road have mentioned to us the quality of the lighting in the interconnecting passageway.

We took this up with the lighting engineers. Aiming to improve matters, they are going to replace the existing light fittings with units that provide a better light distribution. In addition they will arrange for a tree that is affecting one of the lights to be trimmed to remove blocking foliage.

The work may take six to eight weeks to implement. We have asked residents to let us know if there are other ways we can help as hard working local Councillors.

SOUTH SUTTON SPEEDING SURVEY AGREED

Richard and Heather have helped the residents of Cavendish Road to win another important battle in their bid to control speeding in their road.

And we have succeeded in extending the proposed speeding survey in Cavendish Road to cover a wider area of our south Sutton ward.

The petition on speeding in Cavendish Road, which Richard and Heather presented to Sutton Council on behalf of the residents in July, was discussed at the South Sutton, Cheam and Belmont Local Committee on 11 October.

In the discussion, Richard drew attention to a speeding survey conducted in the road in 2008 which showed that even then traffic was exceeding the speed limit, on average, by a factor of over 50%. But the same survey showed problems in other local roads.

The committee agreed to a survey of the area by traffic engineers, charged with finding out the facts and coming back to the committee by next February with costed proposals for dealing with the problem.

We persuaded the committee to extend the survey to a wider area. The roads to be surveyed now are:

Cavendish Road

Christchurch Park

Cedar Road

Cumnor Road

Devonshire Road

Devonshire Avenue

Egmont Road

The committee noted that any recommendations could cost money and decisions would be needed on priorities for spending.

Richard said “This is a good result. I am pleased we are going to undertake a full survey and get the traffic engineers to look at a range of solutions.”

Heather added “I am pleased we are going to look at a wider area. Residents in Cumnor Road and Christchurch Park have also complained to us as ward Councillors about the speed of traffic in their roads.”

The petition was signed by 77 residents of Cavendish Road calling for action on the speed of traffic in their road, where a number of blocks of sheltered housing for the elderly are situated. It was presented to Sutton Council at the request of the residents by Councillors Honour and Clifton on 16 July, and referred to the local committee.

The photo above shows the Cavendish Road residents at the meeting flanked by Richard on the left and Heather on the right.

LOCAL COMMITTEE DEBATES OUR RESPONSES TO THAMESLINK CONSULTATION

Presenting our Petition

Richard and Heather called for action by the South Sutton, Cheam and Belmont Local Committee to support our Thameslink campaign, when initiating a debate at the committee on 11 October.

We drew attention to the submission we had put in on behalf of local residents (go to the category of posts called “Thameslink Campaign” to see our submission) to the recent Department of Transport consultation. Councillor Mary Burstow drew attention to her submission.

We know that many of our residents, with our proximity to Sutton station being a reason to live in our Ward, commute into London every day to work. Richard and Heather themselves did this for many years. Some commute to north London and the proposal to terminate Sutton’s Capital Connect trains at Blackfriars will add more than ten minutes in each direction to their daily commute, almost two hours extra down time a week. Taken with the effect of cutting us off from international services at St. Pancras, and Luton airport, and the fact that our ability to attract businesses to Sutton has been greatly enhanced by our good transport links, this proposal has to be resisted.

The most recent stage in what will be a battle with further, continuing stages was the combined Thameslink franchise consultation on which responses were required  by mid-September.

Richard commented, in the discussion “The reputation of civil servants at the Department of Transport, following the West Coast Main Line fiasco, is not high, and having worked there during the time that I was chair of the Channel tunnel Safety Authority, I am not altogether surprised. We will need to be vigilant in watching and contributing to the further steps in this process.

I know that the way responses to consultation are analysed in the Department means that the volume of reaction is important. Councillor Honour and I put in our own response on behalf of our residents. Councillor Burstow did the same. ”

Richard made some suggestions to prepare ourselves for the further stages.

“First, I suggest that all those Councillors who put in submissions send them to the secretary so they can be included – along with his helpful note – with the papers for this meeting, so they are on the record to be used as necessary as an information quarry in further stages.

Second, we should consider, if it is appropriate at a later stage, passing a motion drawing attention to the difficulties this proposal causes for our residents, and send it to the Secretary of State, and seek a reply.

This is an important issue for our residents. On 23 August I presented a petition signed by over 5 000 residents, largely developed through Paul Burstow’s website, at the Department for Transport in Marsham Street, and the numbers wanting to sign shows how significant this is.”

SUTTON AGAIN THE BEST PLACE TO BRING UP CHILDREN

For the second year in a row Sutton has been named as one of the best places in London to bring up a child, in a national survey.

Children’s savings provider “Family Investments” names the Borough top of a list of Greater London areas, after comparing statistics including house prices, education statistics, low crime rates and expected annual salaries.

In the report, Sutton comes out ahead of areas including Bexley and Banstead, partly as a result of its excellent Key Stage 2 school scores, childcare provision, affordable housing, low crime rate, “green” suburban environment and earnings prospects.

The London list has been divided into two sections with Sutton heading the Greater London area and Islington being named as the best Metropolitan London area to raise a child.

Key Stage 2 test results, including English and maths, improved in Sutton in 2012 by over 3%, to 85%, compared to 2011. According to the report the average expected salary across the area was almost £34,500, and we know (see a post below) that Sutton is surviving the recession well with a high proportion of its residents in employment.

The “Family Investments” report is based on data on all 2,400 postcodes across England and Wales, analysing 67 different data sets covering crucial factors likely to impact a family’s decision-making process when they consider moving to a new area.

DEALING WITH LATE NIGHT DISTURBANCE

A number of residents of Cedar Road have drawn our attention to problems of late night noise and disturbance, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. We believe this is often from people walking along Cedar Road to get home from nightclubs in Sutton town centre, often in the early morning. We have resisted efforts to open more clubs and extend their hours of operation to yet later in the early hours of the morning (see our post below “Late Night Noise Danger Averted”).   

We raised the matter at a recent meeting with the police. The police say that their planned use of resources are mainly influenced by the priorities set in the ward (currently non-residential burglaries and vehicle crime) and what crime or anti-social behaviour is reported. They pointed out that they had received few reports from residents of noise problems.

We suspect residents are not reporting these incidents to the police at the time as they believe the police can do nothing immediately, or that it is not a serious enough issue with which to bother them. However it is still worth  reporting these incidents to the police – using 101 not 999 – as it gives the police a better picture of behaviour in our Ward and they can target their resources accordingly. 

We have written to residents in Cedar Road with this advice. If you want to discuss any aspect of local policing with a police officer you can contact our excellent Safer Neighbourhoods Team on 020 8721 2497, but let us know your views.

LATEST APPEAL ON St JUDE’S THROWN OUT

Mayfield Road

The Council strenuously fought an appeal relating to an extension at a property in Mayfield Road, in Sutton South Ward (St Jude’s nursing home), and sought an award of costs due to the unreasonable behaviour of the applicant. The Council has won on both counts. 

There is a history of planning difficulties with this site, with three different extensions being the subject, at different times, of appeals to the Planning Inspectorate against Council decisions. 

This application sought the retention of an outhouse built in a garden at the north end of the site, without planning permission, which had already been the subject of earlier appeals that had been lost. 

Unusually, not only did the Planning Inspector dismiss the appeal but made an award of costs. He points out in his judgement that arrangements were made for visits to the site as part of the process of determining the appeal but the applicant did not turn up. He says in the judgement: 

“For these reasons, I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in Circular 03/2009, has been demonstrated and that a full award of Costs is justified.”

Richard has attended previous appeal hearings relating to this property. He says “I am not surprised at the view the Inspector took. This appeal was never likely to succeed. I have tried to assist in sorting out the planning problems the applicant faces by arranging meetings between him and local residents. I hope he will now take the necessary action to resolve the remaining planning issues.” 

The Inspector says “The proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of the residents of the adjoining property by reason of its overbearing nature contrary to DPD Policy DM2 and the Framework, which aims to protect amenity by ensuring no adverse affect (sic) on the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties.” The Inspector also makes reference to the importance of the Area of Special Local Character.

 

SUTTON IS SURVIVING THE RECESSION

Sutton continues to survive the recession.

At the meeting of the Housing, Economy and Business Committee on 18 September Richard drew attention, during a discussion on economic trends in Sutton, to a number of indicators of good economic performance.

House prices in Sutton in June of this year were 2.9% up on the figure for a year previously, with the average price of a house sold in Sutton standing at £ 246 449. This is very slightly down on the figures for the previous two months, with the peak figure being in April (£ 246 935). Rising house prices are taken to be a sign of buoyancy in the local economy, though Sutton remains an area of London that has a comparably large amount of housing that people can afford.

Other indicators paint a varied picture, but with most showing that Sutton is surviving the recession well.

For example:

The unemployment rate in Sutton, measured by the proportion of the working age population claiming Job Seekers Allowance, is 2.7% compared to a London average of 4.1%. 

The economic activity rate (percentage of the working age population that is economically active) is 78.3%, above the London average of 75.1%.

The number of unfilled job vacancies locally is over 50% higher than a year ago, an indicator of strong local growth, though at 869 vacancies are well below the numbers unemployed (3391 claiming JSA).

The percentage of empty properties, Borough wide, is over 1% down on the figure for a year ago.

Sutton will be bolstered by the decision of businesses in the town centre to vote in favour of  the establishment of a Business Improvement District, which will bring more money into Sutton town centre. This will support the Council’s “Opportunity Sutton” programme to attract inward investment, promoting Sutton as one of the few metropolitan centres in south London with a skilled workforce, available industrial and office sites, good transport links, a pleasant suburban environment and low crime.

Richard drew attention to a firm he had visited in Sutton South Ward, Synergy UK, that has been very successful as a recruitment and training adviser. The firm has grown from nothing to employ over 40 people locally, in just a few years. Aside from providing a service to its clients it takes young people from unemployment into training, providing a City and Guilds qualification in social care work, and finds them jobs.

Richard said “I believe Sutton has great strengths. It is a good place to live and people locally are finding work, despite the recession.”

SUPPORTING NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING

The Devonshire Avenue Nature Area could be an element in a Neighbourhood Plan

Richard made an important speech at the meeting of the Housing, Economy and Business Committee, of which he is vice-chair, on 18 September, setting out his views on the subject of Neighbourhood Plans. Several organisations in the Ward have indicated an interest in preparing a Neighbourhood Plan, but none has made a specific proposal so far.

Richard said “I am an enthusiast for Neighbourhood Plans as any process that brings the community together to discuss such plans for their locality is an integrating process promoting social cohesion, which I applaud. But I think such plans should be ambitious in their scope rather than looking narrowly at the design of buildings. The impetus for such plans must come from the community, so the role of the Council should be largely advisory (in particular advising on the definition of a neighbourhood, how to ensure a neighbourhood forum is representative and how bodies can ensure draft plans are consistent with broader planning strategy), and undertaking certain statutory functions (arranging independent review of any plan and a referendum on the plan).

The Council should give a basic level of support to all bodies preparing plans – including signposting to sources of advice and application arrangements – and additional support for the process in areas where there is more scope for development, where plans will help meet other Council objectives such as tackling social isolation and social exclusion, and where there is deprivation.

Neighbourhood plans could be an important step to promoting social cohesion, motivating the local community, spreading good practice on tackling loneliness and tackling social isolation, by community action. This has happened in Hackbridge, with their plan, and is happening in the village in Oxfordshire where my brother is leading the development of the village Neighbourhood Plan.”

NEW ACTION BY YOUR COUNCILLORS TO SAVE CROSS-LONDON TRAIN SERVICES

Richard, with Councillor Simon Wales, presents the Thameslink petition signed by Sutton South residents at the HQ of the Department for Transport

As so many Sutton South residents commute into London to work every day, and we value our direct connections to St. Pancras, the loss of our cross-London train services, if the Thameslink / Capital Connect services terminate at Blackfriars, will be a blow to local people.
On 23 August Richard joined Councillor Simon Wales, together with Liberal Democrat activists from neighbouring Boroughs, to present our petition to the Department for Transport at their Head Office in Marsham Street, Westminster. The petiton called on the Department to put a stop to these proposals.
 
September 15 is the deadline to comment on the Department for Transport’s consultation document making this proposal, following a decision by the DfT to extend the consultation period. The link to their consultation document is HERE. You can email comments to     Thameslink@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Below is our own submission.
 

Response to the Department for Transport Combined Thameslink Franchise Consultation

From Councillor Richard Clifton and Councillor Heather Honour, Liberal Democrat Councillors for Sutton South, London Borough of Sutton

1. We are the elected Liberal Democrat Councillors for Sutton South Ward, which is just south of Sutton railway station. Passengers leaving Sutton station to the south, by the side entrance (when it is open), pass into Sutton South Ward as they leave the station.

2. Our Ward is almost entirely residential and a significant number of our residents commute daily into central London for work. Many of these commuters use trains on the Thameslink Loop Line to travel to stations north of Blackfriars, including Farringdon and St. Pancras. Residents of the Ward also tell us they consider they benefit greatly from having a direct service to St. Pancras International, for Continental Europe, and Luton airport. 

3. For that reason we are concerned at the proposal, first set out in the London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy (July 2011), that all Sutton / Wimbledon Thameslink Loop Line trains will terminate at London Blackfriars from 2018.

4. Terminating Wimbledon Loop services at Blackfriars would result in our residents losing their cross-London service. This will penalise those of our residents who have made their residential, employment and educational location decisions on the basis of the existence of the cross-London Thameslink service. These residents, who chose to live in Sutton South on the basis of an existing pattern of transport connections, would lose a service that they have had for many years, and based their life around.

5. Any decision should take account of the impact of changes on the travel patterns of existing passengers, and of consequent requirements to change established travel patterns. It is because of the impact on our residents that we object to any proposal that would result in terminating Wimbledon loop trains at Blackfriars.

6. Not only would our residents lose a through service they have come to depend on, they would lose their connection with Eurostar and domestic long distance trains at St. Pancras International and Kings Cross. Instead they would have to change trains at Blackfriars, carrying possibly heavy luggage onto already crowded trains. This movement could be particularly difficult from the western bay platform when travelling north and to either bay platform when travelling south because of the platform lengths and the position of lifts and stairs at each end of the platforms. The recent Passenger Focus passenger survey found that having to change trains was a strong disincentive to train travel.

 

7. Sutton is identified in the London Plan as one of only four Metropolitan town centres in south London , with a large and growing population and employment base. It is a major business centre with many commuters and business travellers. It is therefore essential that Sutton, as a strategic south London destination, retains its connections to central and north London and beyond, and maintains its direct link to St. Pancras and the City.

 

8. We also believe that the attractiveness of Sutton to employers considering re-location away from expensive offices in central London would be affected. Sutton is a location from which one can travel to Brussels with just two train journeys, one taking 45 minutes and one two hours, and the journey to Paris is only fifteen minutes longer. We have been successful in attracting businesses to Sutton and this change would have a negative impact, particularly given the expected mushrooming of international train travel from St. Pancras over the next few years. These negative effects would impact on the residents of our Ward who want to work locally in Sutton.

9. We thus strongly object to any proposal that would result in terminating Wimbledon loop trains at Blackfriars from 2018.

10. We are aware that Sutton Council is submitting comments, and support those comments. However, we are making this submission to draw particular attention to the impact on our residents in Sutton South Ward.

RICHARD CLIFTON

HEATHER HONOUR

  Liberal Democrat Councillors for Sutton South, London Borough of Sutton