Local Matters
Scroll down this page to see the latest 'Hot Topics'.
This Forum is where you can raise any local issues that matter to you and see what issues have been raised by other members. If you see an issue that you have also experienced, or that you have a solution to, then please add an entry. We welcome the views of others to see if the issue is a common one. This will be helpful for us when assisting our members with a resolution. Click here to enter the 'Local Matters' Forum.
Once in the Forum, click 'New Entry' to add a new entry, or 'Post Reply' to add a comment to an existing entry.
Issues can be of any sort, be they to do with transport, street cleaning or other environmental concerns. The most common issue we are asked to assist with concerns planning and there is a dedicated planning section in this website that provides you with more information about this.
Please remember that we are a voluntary organisation and we can only suggest ways you can solve your problem or help bring pressure to bear on the relevant authority so that they will respond to your concerns. We are not resourced to actually fix anything ourselves.
Before adding a comment to the Forum, please make sure that you have taken advantage of all the links on the Useful Links page first. If you have found a novel solution to a specific problem, then please share this with others via the forum. Issues with Sutton Council services can be registered online by clicking here.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Hot Topics (Planning and Traffic)
For latest updates see section on The Avenue Nursing Home and Traffic
___________________________________________________________________________________
Planning Updates
The Avenue Nursing Home - latest application Refused 17/4/2007
The latest application for the extension to The Avenue Nursing Home (ref A2007/57129) was REFUSED by the Case Officer, David Hannam, on 17th April 2007.
Since it was being recommended for refusal, he agreed with Cllr Pinfold to ‘re-delegate’ it so that a decision could be made without it going to the Development Control Committee. We are quite happy with this.
In the event of an appeal, a committee refusal is always a strong point, but from the strength of his wording, our reading is that the officer is confident that any appeal would be dismissed.
The reasons for refusal cover the key points that we have raised and are as follows:
(1) The proposal, by virtue of its poor design, and excessive bulk and scale fails to integrate with the existing building and represents an inappropriate form of development detracting from the appearance of the property and the area generally. In this respect the proposal would be contrary to Policies HSG4, G/BE1, BE1, BE2 and BE39 of the Unitary Development Plan.
(2) The proposal due to its excessive height, siting, position and location of overlooking windows, would result in an overdevelopment of this site in a manner that would be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining occupiers in terms of loss of privacy, outlook and sunlight. It therefore contravenes the aims and objectives of Policies HGS1, BE4, BE5 and BE18 of the Unitary Development Plan.
So perhaps a little celebration. However, we must expect that the owner will either appeal or submit yet another revised application. So please be aware that we may be writing to you again asking for your help should this happen. We need to send out the strongest message that we will not get ‘objectors fatigue’.
Some of you may have received a letter from the council that omits the vital word ‘Refused’. I have notified them of this error, but be assured that the application has been refused!
In the meantime, thank you all for your support as always. If we stand firm on these issues, it proves that, collectively, we can have a major influence on what happens in our area.
Background History
In March 2006 we asked you to support our objection to a massive expansion of this care home. Over 100 members wrote in support of our objection and as a consequence the council asked the owner to withdraw the application, which he did.
However, in July the owner embarked on a significant expansion to the building without seeking any prior planning permission. After much delay, the Council was about to instigate court proceedings when the owner submitted a retrospective application in an attempt to regularise the unapproved building works. Over 60 of you wrote to object to this application which was promptly refused by the Council on 1st September. In parallel with this, the owner has also built a structure in the garden of the home that opens onto Northey Avenue. As a commercial business, the home owner has none of the permitted development rights available to private home owners and so this structure also requires planning permission. The Council placed a stop order on this structure to prevent any further work being carried out.
The owner appealed to the Government Inspectorate against both the enforcement action and the refusal of planning permission for the rear extension to the main building. On the 23rd February 2007 this appeal was DISMISSED by the Inspector. The owner has been given 6 months to reinstate the building. Click here for a copy of the Inspector's decision.
The Bin Store opening onto Northey Avenue, which was also built without first obtaining permission and which was the subject of enforcement action, was retrospectively approved by the Development Control Committee on 30th November 2006. While this may seem a disappointment, there have been some conditions imposed on how and when this entrance can be used which will go some way to making this more acceptable. Disappointingly the condition that would restrict the hours during which the clinical waste store can be emptied has been set to the hours of 02.00 to 13.00 Fridays. We feel that any form of industrial collection at this time of the morning is quite unacceptable, and will be taking this up further.
In February 2007 the owner submitted another planning application to extend the building which was even larger than the one in March 2006. We strongly recommended that members write letters of objection opposing this application which in our view was just too large for this site. More details of the application and our objection to it are contained in the flyer which you can see by clicking here. This application was refused on 17th February 2007.
If you have any comments about this case please contact Peter Mattey (see Contact Us) or the local co-ordinator Roger Stafford on 8642 4736
___________________________________________________________________________________
Glaisdale School Redevelopment - Latest Application Refused
The latest application A2006/56827 submitted for the old Glaisdale School (at the junction of Manor Road and Arundel Road) proposed demolition and rebuilding two blocks of flats. The proposed blocks would contain 11 self-contained flats to house 35 people and with front and rear parking areas for 15 cars.
This site was originally two detached family homes and is situated on the corner of two roads that comprise only detached family homes. It is set prominently at one of the key entrances to South Cheam.
In our view, this application was not significantly different to the last application which was turned down unanimously by the Council’s Development Control Committee at their meeting last June. The fundamental point remains that we do not want or need a high density development of flats in South Cheam.The council received over 220 individual letters of objection against this application (compared to 160 for the previous application), but despite this the council planners recommended the application be granted.
However, at the council’s Development Control Committee on 14th February the councillors unanimously REFUSED the application.
This is a tremendous result, not only for the immediate neighbours, but for the area as a whole. There had been a lot of cynicism that the result was a “done deal” and that residents’ opinions count for nothing. But result shows that this is not true and if we are well organised and united then we are listened to.
Mind you, with an unprecedented audience of over 140 residents displaying fluorescent yellow badges all squeezed into the public gallery that normally seats a maximum of 60, it is not surprising that the committee took note. Afterwards, a number of the councillors told us that they had never seen anything like it before!
I am sure you will join me in offering special thanks to Paul Lincoln who gave the objectors’ presentation brilliantly and to Deborah Atkinson for the immense amount of hard work in organising to get everyone there on the night.
I would also like to thank our Ward Councillors, Eleanor Pinfold who spoke passionately in support of our campaign and Graham Whitham who argued strongly in our favour from within the ranks of the Committee.
Click here to hear Paul and Eleanor's speeches (scroll through to 27 minutes in).
But mostly we thank all of you who turned out on Valentine’s Day to support this campaign. You were such a courteous audience, cheering and clapping in the right places; but you could have heard a pin drop during the presentations! We can do as much as we can to organise, but at the end of the day it’s your support we need. And you didn’t let us down.
High profile events such as this really do make a difference, and make developers think twice before attacking our area.
See also the article in The Guardian.
___________________________________________________________________________________
7 Northdown Road
There has been a long history of applications to build flats on the site of this family home on the corner of Northdown Road opposite the Belmont Rest Garden.
The latest application to build a block of 8 flats was submitted in January 2006 and refused by the council planners in March 2006. The applicant appealed against this decision.
The Government Inspector appointed to assess the appeal called a local hearing at the end of January 2007. The Association supported members from Lymbourne Close and Northdown Road in presenting their objections to the application. Having heard the evidence, the Inspector dismissed the appeal.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Smith & Byford – 50 and 56 Upper Mulgrave Road
We have had a fantastic response in support of our objection to this company’s application to regularise the use of two of the retail shops they use in Upper Mulgrave Road as offices. This application is in response to enforcement action by the Council. The problems caused by parking and traffic congestion during the morning rush hour have been a constant source of complaint from members. We have copied our handout to Smith & Byford senior management who have replied that they are surprised at the extent of our objection as they believe their operation only inconveniences a small minority of local residents and that we are out of touch with the majority! We have only circulated a handful of roads in the immediate area and around 70 letters of objection have been received by the Council. Click here for details of our objection.
We are currently waiting for this application to be decided by the Council's Development Control Committee. As at 1st March 2007 there is no scheduled date for this.
Smith & Byford – St George House, Station Approach, Cheam
While busy telling us how open they have been with the residents about their future plans, Smith & Byford purchased St George House over a year ago in the name of a subsidiary company 'Silent Water'. Through this company they have made two applications to add a further floor to the top of the building. The first was refused but has gone to appeal. This appeal was DISMISSED by the government appointed inspector on 20th February 2007.
The second application to add a redesigned fourth floor has also been refused. We did not object to either of these applications.
A third application has been submitted to change the use of the ground floor into a storage and distribution centre. We have supported local neighbours in objecting to this application.
We are very disappointed that Smith & Byford have not taken the opportunity to move their service vehicle fleet activities to a more appropriate area and away from the heart of a residential area and where it will now clog up commuter traffic at the station. Applications three above has to be decided by the Development Control Committee, but as at 1st March 2007 no date has been scheduled.
If you have any comments about either of these cases please contact Peter Mattey (see Contact Us) or the local co-ordinator Lyn West on 8642 7508
___________________________________________________________________________________
Chegworth Nursing Home
An application to build three rear extensions to this care home was refused by the Case Officer in October 2006 following a major campaign by The Association. The applicant has since appealed and we have supported the local residents in making representations to the Government appointed Inspector. We await a site visit from the Inspector and his decision. This will probably not be until May 2007.
In parallel with the above appeal, the applicant erected two large metal sheds in rear garden, one as a staff room and one for storage. The council enforcement team requested that a formal planning application be submitted. This was done, but then promptly refused by the council. The home has now been served with a notice to remove the sheds, but has yet to comply.
_______________________________________________________________________
Traffic
Results of Recent Traffic Calming survey in South Cheam
The results of the traffic survey carried out last year by the council have at last been published by the council. The report is not particularly insightful and really only tells us what we already know, namely that residents would like measures put in place to stop speeding in Burdon Lane, Sandy Lane and Northey Avenue!
A list of possible measure has been proposed for consideration by the local councillors. They comprise (I quote). Click here for a map.
(a) A series of speed cushions in the section of Burdon Lane between Sandy Lane and Warren Avenue including vehicle actuated signs.
(b) A series of speed cushions in Northey Avenue narrowing to slow the traffic and reduce number and severity of accidents.
(c) A series of speed cushions in Banstead Road with priority give systems to slow the traffic and reduce number and severity of accidents.(f) Junction improvement at Manor Road junction with Burdon Lane to slow the traffic and assist pedestrian to cross at the junction.
(d) A series of speed cushions in Sandy Lane between Burdon Lane and Northey Avenue to slow the traffic and reduce the number and severity of accidents.(h) Stop sign in Wray Road junction with Burdon Lane to alert drivers to lack of visibility at the junction and a table at this junction.
(e) A series of speed cushions in both Avenue Road and Shirley Avenue to stop traffic using these roads as a cut through as an alternative once Sandy Lane is calmed.
(f) Junction improvement at Manor Road junction with Burdon Lane to slow the traffic and assist pedestrian to cross at the junction.
(g) Build-outs in The Avenue between Sandy Lane and Northey Avenue Combinations of priority give-ways and speed cushions in Banstead Road to slow the speed and reduce number of accidents and casuality.
(h) Stop sign in Wray Road junction with Burdon Lane to alert drivers to lack of visibility at the junction and a table at this junction.
Click here for more details about the survey.
We intend making our views known, and would welcome the thoughts of members on this important issue. It is vital that half baked measures are not implemented which merely move the problem from one place to another and which could be even more dangerous than the original! Please give us your views via the forum, or email me directly.
Controlled Parking Zone Changes
The controlled parking zone changes proposed for our area affect West Drive and Burdon Lane close to Burdon Park. Click here for more details about CPZ proposals.
_______________________________________________________________________
Other Committees and Associations
Safer Neighbourhood Team
___________________________________________________________________________________
Forum RulesAll the forums on this site are run ’post moderated’, that is anyone can add any comment they wish and it will immediately be available for public view. This makes the site more responsive. However there are rules:
a) please keep your comments relevant to the objectives of the forum
b) No blatant commercial advertising
c) Nothing offensive, defamatory or libellous
Any comment that we find that breaks these rules will be deleted, although this may take a day or two. If you notice an entry that breaks these rules before we do, then please email webmaster@bscra.com .
Remember also that a comment entered into any forum is available for public view. Do not enter anything into a forum that you want to keep private, use email instead.
The views expressed on the forums are those of the submitting members and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Association. We accept no responsibility for any distress caused by a comment added to a forum, but will endeavour to remove it as soon as possible.