RIDDLESDOWN
RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION
LOWER FIELD, MITCHLEY HILL - sold for speculative development
You may have seen what has been happening in
Lower Field, Mitchley Hill, where the horses were until recently. It
appears that owners Mitchley Wood Estates have sold the site, including the
woodland at the top, to a Hertford firm, Ashgrove Land.
PLEASE
CLICK HERE FOR THE REPORTS FROM THE APRIL 2006 ISSUE
The RRA has launched
an Appeal for funds to buy Mitchley Wood. Please
This land is, of course, green belt, and the woodland is classed as
a conservation area, so no planning permission or building is imminent as
far as we know. The Council assures us that this is the position.
However, from the way that the owners have set out the stakes as
markers for plot-sized areas, they are presumably intending to sell the
plots to buyers speculating that planning permission will one day be
granted, by which time values should have appreciated significantly. The
practice is quite widespread and a good site to see what and where this sort
of thing has been happening is http://www.propertyscam.org.uk/
We are watching this matter carefully. Correspondence between
various interested parties is shown below.
OF THE RIDDLESDOWN RECORDER
by BRIAN LONGMAN, Chairman RRA, and PHIL THOMAS,
Planning Officer, RRA.
click here for a
PDF file of the
form to download to your
computer.
|
|
|
 |
 |
Richard Ottaway
An article dated 5 May 2006 in the local paper on the issue can be read by
clicking on the following link.
tm_objectid=17033096%26method=full%26siteid=53340-name_page.html
CORRESPONDENCE
On 7 Feb Cllr Lynne Hale wrote to Phillip
Goodwin, Croydon Council
From: HALE, Lynne [mailto:HALEL@parliament.uk]
On 13 Feb Phillip Goodwin replied:
Cllr Lynne Hale
Dear Councillor
Thank you for your e-mail of 7th
February, concerning the field and woodland off Mitchley Hill, Sanderstead.
The fields and woodland on either side of Mitchley Hill are designated as
Metropolitan Green Belt in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and
the Draft Croydon Plan. The woodland is also designated as a Site of
Metropolitan / Borough Importance for Nature Conservation. The relevant UDP
policies are RO1 and NC1 of the adopted UDP and Second Deposit Draft Plan.
Policy RO1 maintains the open
character of the Metropolitan Green Belt by refusing planning permission for
the construction of new buildings for purposes other than:
a)
agriculture, horticulture and woodland;
Policy NC1 resists development
proposals that would harm the nature conservation interest of Sites of
Special Scientific Interest, Sites of Metropolitan Importance, Sites of
Borough Importance, Sites of Local Importance and Regionally Important
Geological Sites, as defined on the Proposals Map.
Further details of the policies and reasoned
justification for them can be seen on the Council’s website
www.croydon.gov.uk.
If you click on “Planning” in
the “Useful Links” column of the front page, then click on a box called
“Croydon’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP)”, you will go to a page which
lists recent UDP documents, including the adopted UDP and the Draft Croydon
Plan. Please click on “Draft Croydon Plan”, then “Second Deposit Draft Plan”
and the chapters on Open Land and Outdoor Recreation or Nature Conservation.
The Greater London Authority’s
Biodiversity Unit, formerly the London Ecology Unit, is responsible for
designating nature conservation sites in Greater London. Mitchley Wood is
designated as a Site of Borough Importance, and covers 20 acres. The London
Ecology Unit’s publication “Nature Conservation in Croydon” describes
Mitchley Wood as an elongated area of woodland consisting of four
interconnected woodlands, running from Mitchley Wood in the north, through
Ragged Grove and Barnsfield Shaw to Ansley Berry Shaw in the south. Mitchley
Wood and Ragged Grove are remnants of ancient woodland and are the richest
parts of the site. The publication describes the site in more detail, and
can be seen in the Central Croydon Library, Katharine Street.
This Department has not been
contacted about proposals for the future use of this land. Previous owners
of the land have sought to change the boundary of the Metropolitan Green
Belt here, presumably to enable them to develop the land, during the periods
leading to the adoption of the District Plan in 1982 and the Unitary
Development Plan in 1997, but the Inspector has decided on each occasion
that the boundary should not be changed.
I hope this information is
useful, please come back to me if you require any further assistance.
Yours sincerely
Phillip Goodwin
On 10 February, Phil Thomas wrote to Rory
Macleod, Head of Planning, Croydon Council
On 10 February, Mr MacLeod replied:
Dear Mr Thomas,
Phil Thomas replied on 13 February
Dear Mr MacLeod
On 13 February, Councillor Lynne Hale
wrote to Rory MacLeod
On 15 February Cllr Tim Pollard wrote to
Rory MacLeod:
Dear Mr McLeod
On 15 February, Brian Longman, Chair, RRA,
wrote to Tim Pollard:
On 3 March 2006, Phil Thomas wrote to Rory
Macleod
Dear Mr MacLeod
On 3 March, Ian Clark, Croydon Council,
replied
Dear Mr.Thomas,
From Cllr Lynne Hale
to Ian Clark, Planning, Croydon Council
For info.
On 15 March 2006, From Ian Clark,
Planning, Croydon Council Croydon Council
Dear Councillor Hale,
Ian Clark. On 16 March 2006, Richard Ottaway MP
wrote to Nick Bygrave, RRA Mr Nick Bygrave Dear Mr Bygrave, Re: Land at Riddlesdown Please find enclosed copies of responses which I have now
received from:
His view was that 'fools are easily parted from their money' as there was no
hope of planning permission ever being given for the Mitchley Hill site,
even under the current
He advised that residents should put up notices (outside the field perimeter
so that removal by the owners would be illegal) effectively saying to buyers
that the scheme was a scam and should be treated as such.
He thought that a specific danger was that the field could eventually be
owned by many non-local, probably overseas, purchasers, who might allow the
site to become an overgrown eyesore and have no interest in maintaining it.
The question of access to the site by travellers was raised, a worrying
possibility if owners had access to their individual plots through the main
gate. He and the Councillors agreed that this was a danger and vigilance was
necessary.
The Councillors advised that an Article 4 was being served by the Council on
the current owners which would prevent erection of fences over a given
height (higher than the current stakes). The Planning Department was taking
the issue seriously and the matter had been assigned to a specific
individual.
The question of whether purchase of some or all of the woodland and other
areas of the overall site by local interest was raised.
Sent: 07 February 2006 09:44
To: Goodwin, Phillip
Subject: FW: SALE OF WOODLAND AND FIELD IN RIDDLESDOWN
Dear Phillip,
I have been contacted by Sanderstead Residents' Association who are keen to
have some information about the field and woodland off Mitchley Hill,
Sanderstead. I enclose a copy of the e-mail for your information.
I would be grateful if one of your officers could advise me whether the
Council has been contacted about this land and what it's current status is.
Many thanks
Lynne
Cllr Lynne Hale
Sale of Woodland and
Field in Riddlesdown
b)
the extension, alteration or replacement of dwellings; and facilities for:
c)
nature conservation;
d)
outdoor recreation and outdoor sport;
e)
cemeteries; or
f)
other land uses which preserve the open character of the land and which do
not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Metropolitan Green
Belt.
Director of Planning &
Transportation
Dear Mr MacLeod
As you are probably aware posts, markers and signage have been erected
yesterday, to the above, by a Company called Property Spy plc, (Chaucer
House, 4/6 Upper Marlborough Rd, St Albans, Herts, AL1 3UR) in the hope of
attracting speculative buyers on this green belt agriculture land. This is
obviously causing great concern to local residents even though it is only
speculative.
I believe this is happening to other green belt areas, especially in the
South East and some Local Authorities have been issuing on the owners,
Article 4 directions under the TCP (General Permitted Development) Order
1995, to severely restrict the activities that can be carried out on the
land and in order to safeguard the character or amenity value of green
belt/agricultural land. Is this something that Croydon can do as a matter of
urgency to remove these unsightly markers posts and signage?
Your comments would be appreciated.
Regards
Phil Thomas MRICS
Committee Member (Planning)
Riddlesdown Residents Association
Brian Longman alerted me to this yesterday. An Enforcement Officer visited
the site straight away and obtained details of those present. We have been
investigating Property Spy.
A similar incident occurred 2 years ago in Kenley. At that time we did issue
an Article 4 Directions to curb development on site. An Article 4 Direction
takes away the entitlement to undertake development that would ordinarily
not require planning permission from the Council (e.g. fences below 2m in
height). We shall be working on the case to safeguard the visual amenity of
the green belt.
Rory MacLeod
Thank you for your prompt reply.
Please can you keep me/Brian advised as to what is happening, from the
Council's point of view. Further works to the fencing were being
undertakenon Saturday. As you can appreciate this is causing a great deal of
consternation within the Riddlesdown area and we would like to keep our
members advised.
Regards
Phil Thomas
Committee Member (Planning)
Riddlesdown Residents Association
Dear Rory,
Thank you for copying me in to your response to Mr Thomas. I raised this
issue with Phillip Goodwin last week as it is clearly worrying a lot of
local residents.
Can you advise whether the Council will be issuing an Article 4 on all the
land? I believe that it is about 42 acres. Or will a Woodland Order (no
felling without licence) be placed on the woodland bit and the Article 4 on
the open land? Can the wooden stakes marking out the plots be removed?
Is there anything that can be done to protect the land from inappropriate
use - motorbikes and clay pigeon shoots have been raised
as examples?
Is the Council in contact with the Enforcement Officer for Hertfordshire
regarding the property company? I have contact details if you need them.
Thank you
Lynne
Cllr Lynne Hale
Just for clarity, can I enquire whether these measures will include the
trees behind the grazing land (Mitchley Wood)? Some residents have told me
that they believe that some of this land may also be on the market? I can't
see any evidence of this from the Property Spy web site. Do you know
anything about this, please?
It would be very helpful if we could have a map marked up with the details
of who owns what piece of land in the vicinity so that nothing falls through
the net!
Thanks
Cllr Tim Pollard
London Borough of Croydon - Sanderstead Ward
Tim
I now have a copy of the sale brochure with all the land for sale marked up
and yes it does include the woods and the fields beyond bounding the school
I will bring on Friday. I am looking to arrange a meeting of all
interested parties next week possibly Monday p.m. Tuesday p.m.
Thursday am or Friday p.m. I am currently awaiting the return of Mike
Enfield Corp of London and the school who are currently on Holiday
Brian Longman
Chair, Riddlesdown Residents Association
Further to our correspondence on 10 and 13 February last, are you able
toprovide any further updates on developments from the Council's side?
As you will appreciate, we as committee members, are continuing to
receiveenquiries from our residents, who are obviously very concerned about
the situation that is developing and would like to keep them updated. No
doubt the Council are receiving similar calls.
Has an Article 4 or 5 been served as yet ?
You are probably aware, but if not, a Company called Vantage Land
http://www.vantageland.com/
are now marketing 38 acres of this land, together with land in Hawkhirst Rd,
Kenley (click on London on the left hand navigation button).
I look forward to your reply.
Regards
Phil Thomas MRICS
Committee Member (Planning)
Riddlesdown Residents Association
Thank you for your email.
I attended a meeting on 22nd February 2006 with Councillor Pollard and
Members of the Residents Association. A Tree Preservation Order covering
Mitchley Wood has been issued and served on those with an interest in the
land. An Article 4 Direction will be served on the land owners and others
with an interest in the land during the coming week, this has been delayed
slightly due to office moves by officers in the Planning department and
staff shortages.
I will ensure that you are updated when the Article 4 Direction is served.
If you have any further queries, or require assistance, please don't
hesitate to speak to me.
Ian Clark.
Tree and Enforcement Team Leader.
Extn. 62956.
Can you confirm that the Article 4 has now been served. Also, is there any
news on the S125 Planning Act (untidy land) aspect?
Thanks
Lynne
Cllr Lynne Hale
You will note that the section being applied under the Planning Act is
215 not as early advised, 125.
Lynne
-----Original Message-----
From: Clark, Ian [mailto:Ian.Clark@croydon.gov.uk]
Sent: 15 March 2006 16:36
To: HALE, Lynne
Subject: RE: GRAZING LAND, MITCHLEY HILL, SANDERSTEAD
Dear Councillor Hale,
The Article 4 has been served and shortly information should be erected on
lampposts in the vicinity. I hope to deal with the Sec 215 by the early part
of next week.
Ian Clark.
Trees and Enforcement Manager.
I can confirm that the Article 4 Direction was issued on 9 March 2006 and
I have written to the owners requesting them to remove the stakes in the
ground with action to be taken under Sec 215 if they don't comply.
Trees and Enforcement Manager.
44 Riddlesdown Avenue Purley
Surrey 1 JJ
16th March 2006
 | Yvette Cooper MP, Minister for Housing and Planning, ODPM |
| Pete Redfern, Deputy Group Chief Executive, George Wimpey UK Ltd |
| Phillip Goodwin, Director of Planning at Croydon Council |
| Cabinet Member Bulletin from Cllr Adrian Dennis, L B Croydon |
I am sure that you will find these of interest.
Please do not hesitate to come back to me should there be any points arising but in the meantime I wish you every success with the Residents' Association `Protect our Ancient Riddlesdown Woodland' campaign.
Yours sincerely
Richard Ottaway MP
Letter from Yvette Cooper, Minister for Housing and Planning, Office of Deputy Prime Minister to Richard Ottaway on 6 March 2006
Richard Ottaway MP House of Commons LONDON, SW1A OAA
Dear Richard
SELLING PLOTS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO SPECULATORS
Thank you for your letter of 16 February about the practice of selling plots of agricultural land to speculators where there appears to be little or no chance that development would be allowed.
Since the debate of 8 December 2003 mentioned in your letter, guidance on this subject was sent by my officials to Chief Planning Officers on 19 April 2004. It is on the planning pages of the ODPM website, www.odpm.gov.uk. My predecessor Keith Hill's Statement on Agricultural land was made the same day [Hansard 19 April 2004 Cols 3 and 4 WS]. This set out the background to the issue and the measures considered. My officials held meetings with colleagues in Defra and the Department for Trade and Industry, and invited local planning authority representatives to discuss their views on possible ways forward.
However, planning law does not govern selling methods, nor could it be used to supervise the purchase or ownership of land. Any complaint about misleading advertisements or the trading standards aspects of the sale of rural plots should be taken up with the Office of Fair Trading. Neither they nor the DTI feel it would be feasible to try to interfere in other aspects of internet sales of land, which may well be transacted abroad and are in any event generally impossible to keep track of.
Returning to planning controls, you will recall that several aspects of the problem relate to permitted development, and the permissions currently set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. To bring the story up to date, there will shortly be an opportunity to make further representations. As part of our ongoing review of permitted development rights, we expect to begin public consultation on proposed revisions to the Order very soon. These include measures to make article 4 directions more swiftly effective, so as to prevent some unsightly minor development, even where the owners of field plots cannot be located.
Yours
YVETTE COOPER
Letter dated 2 March 2006 from Pete Redfern, Deputy Chief Executive, George Wimpey to Richard Ottaway MP
Dear Mr Ottaway,
Land at Riddlesdown, South Croydon, Surrey
I refer to your letter dated 20th February, which I have discussed with Mike Parkhouse, the Strategic Land Director responsible for the above parcel of land.
We had previously been made aware by local residents of the sale of land to Property Spy and the concerns it has raised in the community. I can confirm that, to date, we have received no approach from Property Spy or any similar company expressing interest in acquiring our own holding.
We are, indeed, currently preparing to bring our entire land holding at Mitchley Avenue/ Mitchley Hill to the market. All offers to purchase the land, from whatever source, will be carefully scrutinised by our Board before any particular offer is accepted.
We would always be prepared to re-enter into discussions about the possibility of some of our land being used for residential development. At an early stage, our clear objective would be to obtain a clear indication from the local planning authority that it is prepared, and able, to accept the need for a release of Green Belt land in this area in order to address the concerns you have raised.
Yours sincerely,
Pete Redfern
Deputy Group Chief Executive George Wimpey UK Ltd
Dear Richard
Re: Land at Riddlesdown
I refer to your letter of the 16th February 2006 and to the attached correspondence from an unnamed resident. I apologise for the delay in replying.
I have recently become aware that there is renewed activity in the property market concerning land in the Mitchley Common, Riddlesdown and Sanderstead area and have had one of the deliberately misleading advertisements selling plots of land in the area drawn to my attention. I am also aware that some local residents and Councillors have become concerned about where this activity might be leading. Consequently I have taken the following steps.
I briefed Cllr Dennis, the Cabinet Member for Planning so that he is able to issue the attached Cabinet Member statement as part of his regular bulletin.
I have also instigated taking an Article 4 Direction for land in the area to prevent the erectiorn of enclosures on the land and its use for purposes that would not otherwise require a grant of planning permission from the local planning authority. As you are aware the lower level of land adjacent to Mitchley Hill has been sta..ced with white posts to subdivide it into plots. I have directed that a Section 215 Notice for untidy land be issued requiring the removal of the posts.
The areas in question are all Metropolitan Green Belt. There are no proposals in hand to change that status and no proposals in any respect which might conflict with the purposes of the designation. The ownership of land and its disposal to others, whether developers or individuals, does not alter that situation at all. I am not aware of any suggestion that the proposal identified in your letter and in the resident's correspondence be revived. It would not, however, alter the planning and development status of the land. Acquisition of the land by Croydon Council would not serve any real purpose as it would be bound by the same rules concerning its use and development as all other parties and owners. Furthermore this would not overcome the strong planning objections to the development of another part of the land for residential purposes. A planning application for residential development would
be a departure from the development plan and the circumstances would not be able to justify a recommendation to grant permission.There were objections to the Replacement Unitary Development Plan which sought to get areas of Green Belt allocated for housing development. The Inquiry Inspector did not support these objections and did not recommend any Green Belt changes and allocations for housing development. The only comment he did make is that when the Council has to reassess the adequacy of its provisions for housing development it may need to look at the potential of the MGB if it is concluded that it is not possible to make sufficient provision within the built-up area. I can inform you that as Croydon's housing provision requirements as set in the London Plan, both the existing Plan and the proposed altered Plan, are based upon an assessment of the capacity of the built-up area to accommodate more housing, it is extremely unlikely that there will be any need to consider any part of the Green Belt. Moreover it is likely that any review of the adequacy of Croydon's planned provision for housing development will only take place after the proposed changes to the London Plan are finalised and adopted which is not likely to be before the end of this year. Any review will have to be programmed as a Development Plan Document in the Local Development Scheme. It is not in the current Local Development Scheme.
I am not aware of any powers or steps which the Council can take which will prevent, in advance, illegal encroachment onto land and use by travellers. Ownership appears to make little difference to whether or not illegal encampments arise. The Article 4 Direction and the issue of a Section 215 Notice will add to our powers to control attempts to divide up sites with barriers and to use it and develop it for purposes which are not permitted but it will not actually prevent illegal encroachment and use.
You sincerely
Phillip Goodwin, Director of Planning and Transportation
The Cabinet Member Bulletin referred to above:
CABINET MEMBER BULLETIN LAND FOR SALE
The Council has recently become aware of a number of adverts selling plots of land in the Mitchley Common area near Sanderstead. These adverts are composed so as to give the unwary buyer the impression that what is being sold is potential housing land, although the adverts also do state at the bottom of the page that land is currently without planning permission.
I would like to make it clear to all who see these adverts and may be concerned about them that the area in question is part of the Metropolitan Green Belt and there is at present no suggestion that this designation should be changed. Croydon Council remains steadfast in its determination that for the present time all undeveloped areas of the Green Belt should remain undeveloped. At the present time the likelihood that planning permission will be forthcoming for any housing development on this land or any other part of the Green Belt is so remote as to be almost non existent.
Any party who is interested in buying a plot of this land should ensure that they are fully conversant with the planning status of the land and what they may or may not be allowed to use it for.
Contact Officer: Andy Day
On 20 March, from Lynne Hale to Ian Clark, Planning, Croydon Council
Many thanks Ian. Your
swift attention is much appreciated.
May I ask you, what sort of timescale is there on a request under S215
and what sort of action can the Council take?
Lynne
Cllr Lynne Hale
Dear Councillor Hale,
In dealing with any allegation of untidy land, the first stage is to request the owners of the land to tidy it, in this case to remove all the stakes and that request has been made. The owners are then written to again and informed that the Council intends to take formal action.
If the owners still fail to comply and it is decided that the land is so untidy as to warrant the service of a Notice to tidy (the Director has already decided that this should be the case) then under Delegated powers a request is made for the authority to issue a Sec. 215 Notice under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the file is forwarded to the Solicitor to check the draft.
Having issued the Notice the owner of the land will have a period of time in which to comply with it, probably a month in this case. During this time they have right of appeal to the Magistrates Court.
At the end of the time, if they haven’t complied they commit a criminal offence, dealt with in the Magistrates Court.
If they fail to comply, the Council has power to tidy the land and charge the owner for the work.
I trust that this explains the procedures to be followed.
Ian
Clark.
Trees and Enforcement Manager.
On 18 August, Ian Clark wrote to Phil Thomas
Dear Mr Thomas,
In respect of the Sec. 215 Notice, you are probably aware that we sought Counsel’s advice about this. The matter has been delayed awaiting the result of a High Court case where the written judgement is expected soon and this is being chased up by the Barrister and others including the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England. The case seems similar but until we get the full judgement the Barrister is unwilling to commit herself fully. I will ensure that the Residents’ Association is updated when I have certain information on our direction in this matter.
Kind regards.
Ian Clark.
Trees and Enforcement
Manager,
Planning Control,
Planning and Transportation Department
ALSO, PLEASE SEE AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE
MESSAGE BOARD THREAD
(STARTED BY PHIL THOMAS) ON THIS SUBJECT - HEADED MITCHLEY HILL/MITCHLEY
WOOD