MAJOR STEP FORWARD AS LIBERAL DEMOCRATS CONTINUE BATTLE TO SAVE St. HELIER

Local campaigners have won a victory in the ongoing battle to save St Helier Hospital.

Liberal Democrat campaigners are celebrating the announcement that the immediate threat to St Helier Hospital’s Accident and Emergency, maternity and children’s wards has passed – although the future remains very uncertain.

The Better Services Better Value (BSBV) review, which in May recommended the cuts to these hospital services, has now recommended delaying going out to consultation on the plans saying, ‘This is because NHS Surrey wish to more fully understand the impact of BSBV on their residents who use NHS services in south west London, and implications for the NHS in Surrey, before public consultation begins. 

‘This means that the BSBV programme and NHS Surrey now need more time to carry out further detailed analysis of the impact of the proposals.’

In May,  BSBV recommended that St George’s, Croydon and Kingston hospitals remain as they are while St Helier should lose these crucial services, and instead become a centre for planned surgery across south west London.

The Liberal Democrat campaign to save St Helier immediately swung into action and months of effort reached a climax on 8 September when a Fun Day outside the hospital attracted protesters from across the area, who presented petitions carrying thousands of names to health service representatives.

The proposals were due to go out to a three-month consultation period at the beginning of October and we were preparing to continue the fight.

Heather Honour is one of two Sutton Councillors sitting on the pan-South West London committee investigating the proposals.

She said: “From the start we have made it clear that this was a deeply flawed process. What a pity that so much taxpayers’ money has been wasted by the BSBV team before they came to their senses.”

Councillor Mary Burstow, Chair of Sutton’s Scrutiny Committee, said: “Of course this is a reason to celebrate, but now we must work to secure the future of St Helier Hospital for generations of Sutton residents to come.

“This is now a real opportunity for residents, politicians and medical staff to work out exactly how we want to see healthcare delivered in years to come.

“And it is crucial that that discussion covers the entire capital. London’s health services need to be looked at as a whole and decisions need to be reached that meet the needs of all Londoners.”

However, the uncertainty remains for hospital staff and patients, who are still unclear about what the future holds.

WE CALL FOR RE-THINK ON WEAKENING PLANNING LAW

"Protect our green, pleasant, suburban character"

At Sutton Council’s “Bonfire night” meeting on 5 November, Richard moved a motion criticising the Government proposals annnounced on 5 September to weaken planning law. The Council agreed a motion directed to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government calling for a re-think. The motion criticised the proposed 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.

Here 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.”

SUCCESSFUL PROGRESS ON PARKING AND TRAFFIC ISSUES

Blackbush Close

Following an important meeting with officers on 5 November, progress is now being made on a number of parking and traffic management schemes we have been progressing on behalf of residents.

BLACKBUSH CLOSE – residents approached us about the shortage of parking spaces on the Blackbush Close / Bonchurch Close estate. Following a meeting with residents last January, we agreed to pursue proposals to remove yellow lines on one side of a stretch of Blackbush Close to provide more parking spaces. This is now likely to go ahead in the New Year.

EASTLEIGH CLOSE – residents have been concerned at the difficulty of parking in their own cul-de-sac, as it is often parked up with the vehicles of people who do not live in the Close. The concerns of residents led to a major survey of views on parking across the whole of the west end of our Ward, in early 2012. The results indicate a desire for parking controls in Eastleigh Close but not elsewhere. It is proposed to hold a final consultation on a proposal to extend the Controlled Parking Zone from its current boundary at the east end of Camborne Road as far as the junction with Stanley Road, taking in Eastleigh Close.

LORRAINE COURT, CAMBORNE ROAD – some residents were concerned at the difficulty of exiting into Camborne Road if cars were parked close to and thus narrowing the entrance. We have obtained agreement for yellow lines to be put across the entrance.

We are also continuing to pursue action on the KINGS LAND BRIDGE safety improvements and speeding in CAVENDISH ROAD.

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.”

GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED PLANNING CHANGES – A RECIPE FOR DISASTER

We must preserve our green and pleasant Borough

As Vice-Chair of the Council’s Housing, Economy and Business Committee, which deals with policy on planning, Richard has joined other Council colleagues in warning that the Government’s proposed planning changes are a recipe for disaster

Sutton Council has joined its south London neighbour Richmond in slamming proposals to relax planning laws for a three-year period. The Borough dubbed the plans a ‘recipe for disaster’ which will split communities, hit house prices and do nothing to encourage economic growth.

It is understood that next week’s Lib Dem Conference in Brighton will call on the Coalition to reject the proposal, arguing that current planning laws do not block development. It will also argue that the proposal goes against the spirit of localism and it will encourage more neighbourhood disputes.

Richard says “The motion we adopted at our Council meeting last October, on which I spoke, went in a different direction. I believe current planning law is quite reasoanable in requiring that a proposed extension is examined to see if it will harm neighbours or the envirnoment. I would like to see plannng law strengthened not weakened.”

Councillor Ruth Dombey, Leader of Sutton Council, said: “These proposals are a recipe for disaster. They have not been properly thought through.”

The proposal came from Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, earlier this month. He issued a nine-point plan entitled ‘Housing and Growth’ in which he announced a relaxation of planning rules for the construction industry and owners of homes and businesses in England. So far the proposals are not law and there is no White Paper. In the absence of such laws Sutton Council is warning businesses and homeowners to think twice before building an extension without checking if planning permission is required.

If the proposals did become law, owners of mid-terrace homes could find their rear windows flanked by six metre extensions on both sides, plunging them into darkness for most of the day – and they would have no opportunity to object. Developers could be allowed to bypass council planning controls to “fast-track” commercial and housing applications. Offices would be permitted to convert to residential use all without planning permission, irrespective of this impact they will have on a neighbourhood.

Cllr Dombey added: “If this is allowed to happen it will set neighbour against neighbour and split communities for years to come. On top of the resentment and loss of quality of life, some people’s houses will also plummet in value if they’ve got no light or a noisy factory is within a few metres of their front door.”

The Chair of the Housing, Economy and Business Committee, Councillor Jayne McCoy, said “There is no evidence that this will do anything to promote economic growth and I strongly advise that anyone considering a project seeks advice, otherwise it could prove very costly.”

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.