(Click for H
O M E P A G E)
PLANNING REPORTS by Phil Thomas
(taken from the respective
Riddlesdown Recorders)
APRIL 2008
As usual, all
the planning applications in the RRA area are updated weekly on our
website www.riddlesdownresidents. org.uk
There is also a link to the Council’s Planning Department to view all
plans and application forms, so you don't need to visit Taberner House to
view any application in your vicinity.
Woodland adjoining 108/110, Lower Barn Rd (The Parade of Shops)
Just as the last Recorder had gone to print in September, Taylor Wimpey
(who merged with Laing’s) submitted a planning application for the
erection of two two-storey buildings, comprising a total of twelve
two-bedroom flats with formation of access road and provision of
associated parking. The rear part of the site is Green Belt land and the
developers were not proposing to build on this part but to include it as
communal/recreational land for use by the flat owners.
As this was obviously a major application in the centre of our area, it
attracted a lot of interest. In total, 175 people objected, either
directly to the Council or via two petitions that were set up by a
concerned local resident.
Briefly, the main points of contention were the large size of the
development and the substantial loss of trees and damage to the adjoining
Green Belt land. There would be considerable disturbance to wildlife on
the site. There would also be an O2 3G mast within three metres of some of
the flats and within eight metres of all the flats. Government guidelines
say no mast should be sited within 25 metres of residential properties.
There was no parking provision for visitors or deliveries; these would not
be able to enter the site because of the gated entrance and would,
therefore, either have to park on the bend (yellow lined) which would
compromise highway safety, or in the bays outside the shops.
The possibility of flooding of the site was raised, as the highway
immediately abutting the land is subject to flooding and the run-off from
the highway drains directly on to this site.
It was thought, therefore, that some of the proposed properties would
flood.
At the end of the three-week consultation period, the developer amended
the application to the erection of one two-storey building comprising a
total of ten two-bedroom flats with formation of access road and provision
of nine parking spaces plus one disabled bay.
The original preliminary discussions with the Planners had been for
fourteen flats, each with a car parking space. The Planning Officers
decided the revised application was suitable and were recommending that
the application be approved. However because Ward Councillor Lynne Hale
had made a referral (a referral means that Officers cannot approve the
application under delegated authority but that it has to be referred to
the full Committee), it was presented to the Planning Committee on 15
November.
Our chairman, Brian Longman, and Councillor Lynne Hale made presentations
at the meeting and, following a long discussion, the Planning Committee
rejected the application, with eight councillors voting against, one
Labour councillor abstaining and one Tory councillor not taking part as he
declared a personal interest (the Committee is made up of six
Conservatives - the Tory chairman having the casting vote and four Labour
members).
The application was rejected on the grounds that the development would be
an overdevelopment of the site and would be harmful to the Green Belt and
nature conservation by reason of the siting and size of the building, the
quantity and form of the amenity space and the extent and form of the
parking and access arrangements. It was also not satisfactorily
demonstrated that the occupiers would not be affected by the existing
telecommunications mast to the front of the site. Given that the mast is
within close proximity to the building and clearly visible from within the
building, it is likely that actual or perceived health concerns would be
raised by the occupiers of the building. This decision was clearly a
victory for those residents living so close to this site and to the 175
who objected. The Committee would like to thank all residents who became
involved, by either signing the petitions or writing direct to the
Council.
However, on Monday 19 November, the owners, Taylor Wimpey, commenced some
tree felling on the site, despite the planning application being refused
four days earlier. Many residents and the RRA contacted the Council, MP
Richard Ottaway and Councillors about this. This complete disrespect by
Taylor Wimpey, for both the environment and nature conservation, did
receive attention at the highest level with senior Council Officers and
Councillors, particularly the Planning Committee Councillors. Councillor
Lynne Hale also raised a question, about the destruction of these trees at
the full Council meeting on 3 December.
Although the site has not been fully cleared, the larger trees have now
been felled. The developer may think they have pulled a ‘fast one’ but we
understand it has now hardened the attitude of the Council for any future
applications.
At the time of writing, no appeal has been submitted by Taylor Wimpey
(they have until 15 May to do so) and no new application has been
submitted. However, like many people in the area, I always thought this
piece of land was owned by the Purley Downs Golf Club and indeed whenever
there have been any fencing or overhanging tree issues, the RRA have
reported this to the Golf Club and they have promptly carried out any
works.
It is of no surprise therefore, to understand that there is now a land
ownership dispute in progress. We await the outcome with interest.
A full transcript of the application and correspondence is available to
read on the RRA website.
For those of you who may like to watch the Planning Committee meeting,
this can be viewed via the Council's website:
www.croydon.gov.uk/democracy; follow the link in the centre of the page
for webcasting, and then to associated links, webcasts on the right side,
then archived council meetings at the top, then go to the Planning
Committee 15 November 2007, index points and then click on the second item
of the broadcast.
68 and 81 Westfield Avenue
I reported last time on two planning applications that had been submitted
for back land development in this road. The first was at No 81 which was
for a second application for this site, and was for the erection of two
semi-detached four-bedroom houses at the rear, with the formation of a
vehicular access on to Copthorne Rise. The application went to appeal but
the Secretary of State dismissed this on 11 December 2007.
The second location related to No 68 and was for the erection of a two-
bedroom detached chalet bungalow at the rear with the formation of a
vehicular access on to Court Hill. The Council refused this application.
However the applicant appealed on 19 November and the Inspector’s decision
is now awaited.
Purley Fire Station
An outline planning application was lodged in November for the demolition
of the existing fire station and the erection of a replacement comprising
appliance bays for two vehicles, a three-storey drill tower and ancillary
accommodation. This proposed fire station is to form part of a
ten-station, £52m PFI project to provide new facilities which are designed
to accommodate the new generation of fire appliances. The current building
does not meet the needs of a modern fire station in that the bays are too
narrow and the rest and training facilities are required to a higher
standard. The proposed new building would be of three storeys and trebled
in size. The fire station would be open for 24 hours. This, of course, is
reassuring for the residents of Riddlesdown as this is our ‘local’ station
and gives further reassurance that the LFB are not proposing to close the
station or reduce its 24 hour cover. The Planning Committee approved the
outline application on
7 February.
30/32 St James Road
Another application has just been submitted for this site, which is on the
edge of our boundary. The previous application in 2005 was for the
demolition of two houses (Nos 30 and 32) and redevelopment in the rear
garden of the third (No 34), and the erection of twelve three-bedroom
houses and one detached three-bedroom bungalow and the formation of an
access road on to St James Road and associated parking.
The Council refused this application.
The application this time is for the demolition of the existing buildings
(Nos. 30 & 32) and the erection of two two-storey buildings with ten
two-bedroom flats and four one-bedroom flats, formation of vehicular
access and provision of 14 car parking spaces.
The application directly affects properties in our area, at the top end of
Downs Court Road. The Committee again feel that the provision of an access
road, very close to one of the most dangerous junctions in Croydon – St
James Road and Downs Court Road – is unacceptable and is no different to
the previous application; this was one of the grounds for refusal by the
Council. We have objected again on these grounds, together with noise and
disturbance of the rear car park to surrounding properties. We await the
outcome.
Grass verges, shrubs, litter, parking
The Committee have noticed recently how untidy the area has become,
particularly in respect of litter and damage to grass verges, potholes in
roads, poor white line road markings, particularly at junctions and
blocked gully grids. We are continually contacting the Council about the
well-known litter traps near the shops in Lower Barn Road and around the
Station. The Council do send their contractors out, or contact National
Rail to clear around the Station, when we ask. However the situation is
not made easy by the extensive commuter parking in the four principal
roads near the Station. This parking doesn’t allow the roads to be cleaned
easily by the mechanical road sweeper and we have asked for the streets to
be cleaned at weekends, but with no success. A couple of residents have
highlighted on the message board on our website, how they pick up rubbish
particularly in Lower Barn Road and they must be congratulated for this
public spirited action.
In respect of shrubs on grass verges, these do block/restrict sight lines
for some drivers when emerging from the driveways. This can be
particularly dangerous where there are parked cars, as in Lower Barn Road
and Ingleboro Drive. The RRA are not looking to have these shrubs removed
but reduced to a sensible and safe height. The Council have responded by
e-mail:
‘...that the shrubs and hedges in the Riddlesdown area, are all maintained
on a regular basis, some being pruned after flowering and the majority
being cut as hedges, once or twice a year depending on the species. We
have in the past reduced the height of these, at the request of residents
due to sight lines being obscured. We would not reduce the height of all
the shrubs, as I am sure that some residents are happy as they are, but
can do individual ones where they are a problem...’.
If you are concerned about a shrub on a grass verge outside your property
and would like it trimmed, then please contact the Council direct - Paul
Rest, Horticulture Section on 020 8726 6000 or email paul.rest@croydon.gov.uk
If you are one of the commuters who live in the Riddlesdown area and must
drive the short distance to Riddlesdown Station, then please consider
where and how you park. In the last six months, four cars have been
‘written off’ in these surrounding streets and perhaps if you saw the
number of ‘near misses’ by the ever- increasing number of commercial
lorries trying to pass one another and using, in particular, Lower Barn
Road, Brancaster Lane, Riddlesdown Avenue and Coombe Wood Hill, then you
might want to think again about driving and parking near the Station!
Under the Road Traffic Regulations Act, as well as parking on yellow and
red lines, there are some other parking offences which are not always
known about. They include no parking within ten metres of a road junction,
on the pavement (unless signs say otherwise) or on a crossover in front of
a driveway, this being particularly applicable where there are grass
verges.
It is also an offence to park on a grass verge, which can really churn the
grass up and make it unsightly, and to park across and in front of a
dropped kerb. A dropped kerb is defined as a pedestrian crossing point at
a road junction, and also across a driveway to a house or property. It has
been known for traffic wardens to ticket a car parked across a driveway
(even if it is your own driveway and your own vehicle) which means a
parking fine in the range of £60 to £120 (halved if paid in 14 days). In
addition, the vehicle could be towed away by the Council if it is causing
an obstruction, which means an additional £200 fine to recover. Wardens do
operate on their mopeds daily in this area, so be warned!
And finally...
The RRA is a non-political organisation and we have no affiliations
whatsoever to any political party. We do have a good working relationship
with the Ward councillors for both Sanderstead and Purley and also with
many Council Officers. I understand that it is believed in some quarters
that I am a Councillor. I would like to make it perfectly clear that I am
not a Councillor and I have no connections whatsoever with the
Conservative Party. It just so happens that I have the same name and
vaguely resemble the Cabinet Member for Streets and Environmental
Services, but he and I are not one and the same!
Phil Thomas
OCTOBER 2007
As it seems
the cost of moving is now astronomical, many people seem to be staying
where they are rather than moving and, therefore, the number of planning
applications within the RRA area remains high. Weekly updates on these can
be viewed on our website www.riddlesdownresidents.org.uk
There is also a link to the Council’s Planning Department, for viewing all
plans and application forms, so you don’t need to visit Taberner House to
view any application in your vicinity. There are also many other useful
topics to see on the RRA website, together with a message board for you to
have your say on anything within the area.
84 Riddlesdown Road
I reported in the last Recorder, that over the previous 20 months, three
planning applications had been submitted, to erect detached houses on this
site and that the last application had gone to appeal to the Secretary of
State in January 2007. This application was for two detached five-bedroom
houses and associated parking.
A fourth application was submitted in March 2007 for the demolition of the
existing building, the erection of two detached four bedroom houses,
alterations to vehicular access and provision of associated parking. The
Council subsequently approved this application. At the time of writing the
appeal is still outstanding for the erection of two five-bedroom houses
and no doubt the developer is awaiting the outcome of this appeal before
proceeding with either the four or five bedroom houses. The property has
now been demolished.
68 and 81 Westfield Avenue
I also reported last time on two planning applications that had been
submitted for back land development in this road.
The first application related to No. 68 and was for the erection of a
detached three-bedroom house at the rear; formation of vehicular access on
to Court Hill and the provision of associated parking. The Council also
rejected this application. However, another application was submitted at
the end of April for erection of a two- bedroom detached chalet bungalow
at the rear, the formation of a vehicular access onto Court Hill and
associated parking. Again the Council refused this application.
The second concerned No. 81 and the application was for the erection of
two semi-detached, four-bedroom houses at the rear, with the formation of
a vehicular access on to Copthorne Rise and provision of associated
parking. The Council's Planning Department refused this application.
However a subsequent application was submitted in April for the erection
of two four-bedroom detached houses, vehicular access and parking as
before. The Council again rejected this application. However the applicant
has appealed to the Secretary of State on the second refusal and this
decision is still awaited.
7 Hill Close
The RRA was alerted in June, by a number of concerned residents, about a
planning application that had been submitted for 7 Hill Close, for the
erection of a side extension and change of use of part of the ground floor
as a nursery, for a maximum of 30 children and seven staff. The RRA along
with 26 residents and the Sanderstead Ward Councillors objected to this
application, principally on the grounds of loss of privacy and noise
disturbance within this cul-de-sac, additional traffic flows and parking.
The Council rejected the application on the grounds that the proposed use
would result in an unacceptable level of traffic, which in turn would
result in parking and highway safety. Also the first-floor extension would
detract from the appearance of the dwelling and spaces between buildings.
Finally the proposed use would cause unacceptable noise and disturbance
that would be harmful to the character of the area and the amenities of
the surrounding residential properties.
T Mobile Mast Adjoining 95 Downs Court Road
As previously reported, the Council refused this application for a 9.5m
high 3G mast (fronting Mitchley Avenue) but T Mobile appealed to the
Secretary of State, who in turn allowed this application. The works have
now been completed by T-Mobile to erect this mast and associated
equipment.
Residential Applications Generally
It is not normally the RRA’s policy to intervene in disputes between
neighbours or to raise objections to the Council regarding each and every
residential application. This is usually left for adjoining residents to
make comment to the Planning Department, if they so wish. However, we are
contacted on a number of occasions by residents asking us to intervene in
disputes regarding planning, boundary walls and hedges. We normally refuse
this request as it should be something that neighbours should discuss
between themselves. We only intervene if the Committee considers it is in
the best interests of many residents in the locality. If you are thinking
of extending your property or erecting a new structure within your garden,
then please do discuss and talk it through with your neighbour, as
discussions at an early stage can alleviate many problems and the ill
feeling that can subsequently develop.
Home Information Packs
As I reported last time, the Home Information Packs (HIPs) were due to be
introduced on 1 June under a mandatory piece of legislation for anyone
wanting to sell their residential property after that date. However the
Government, under threat of a judicial review from the RICS, partially saw
sense and deferred this pack, but only until 1 August, when it was
introduced as only applicable to four-bedroom houses. However, they are
now proposing the pack will be applicable to three-bedroom houses from 10
September 2007. This, of course, will apply to the majority of houses
within the Riddlesdown area. It is due to be introduced for other houses
and flats in 2008.
The main contents of the pack, are to be an Energy Performance Certificate
(EPC), a sale statement (summarising the terms of sale), Land Registry
title documentation, Local Authority searches, leasehold documentation
(where required) and a voluntary Home Condition Report (HCR). The pack is
estimated to cost about £500. The pack is also to be subject to VAT, which
of course is why the Government wants it introduced – to raise this extra
tax revenue. The EPC which covers areas like the walls, roof, floor,
windows, heating, hot water and lighting, is slightly flawed in some
respects, in that it will look to see whether energy- efficient light
bulbs are installed in the property, and will be scored favourably if so.
However these bulbs can quite easily be removed by the vendor, thereby
reducing the EPC score, although of course energy-efficient light bulbs
will be the only type of bulb available in a few years.
Where trial schemes have been implemented in some parts of the country, it
is reported that most vendors and purchasers haven’t a clue what the
energy rating means and totally ignore the EPC content.
It has also recently been reported in the press that some mortgage lenders
will not accept the searches within the vendor’s pack unless the
purchasers solicitors sign them off, but solicitors may only do this by
undertaking their own search, thereby clogging up the Local Authority
system twice on the same property and increasing costs for both the vendor
and purchasers. It is generally agreed by most bodies associated with
property and the opposition parties, that these HIP proposals are an
unmitigated disaster and will slow down the housing market, not speed it
up. One needs to look at property buying/conveyancing in Scotland, which
is so much easier than ours. We need to follow suit in that direction and
not be bogged down with more bureaucracy.
We also need to ask why this HIP legislation is only applicable in England
and Wales and not to Scotland, although Scottish MP’s were allowed to vote
on it for us! It is one crass piece of legislation that needs to be
repealed immediately!
APRIL 2007
As usual,
there continues to be a high number of planning applications from within
the RRA area submitted to the Council. Weekly updates on these can be
viewed on our website: (www.riddlesdownresidents.org.uk). There is also a
link to the Council’s Planning Department where you can view all plans and
application forms, so you don’t need to visit Taberner House to view any
for properties in your vicinity.
Mobile Phone Masts in Riddlesdown Road and Mitchley Avenue
In my last report, I advised that T-Mobile had appealed against the
Council’s decision to erect a 9.7 metre-high 3G mast on land adjoining 95
Downs Court Road, fronting Mitchley Avenue. On appeal the Government’s
Planning Inspector has allowed T-Mobile to erect this mast.
Another application was submitted by Hutchison 3G for the siting of a 12.5
metre-high mast and equipment at the junction of Mitchley Avenue and
Riddlesdown Road (top end nearest the Common) which the Council again
refused. Hutchinson took this to appeal; however the Planning Inspector
dismissed this appeal. They obviously took the view that there couldn’t be
two masts within 100 metres of each other in a residential area.
However, in the RRA’s and Council’s opinion, this is one mast is too many
in our area and mast sharing should be the way forward.
O2 mast in Dunmail Drive
As reported last time, it was noted that the O2 mast which was erected in
Dunmail Drive near the junction with Mitchley Hill a few years ago, had a
number of new galvanised antennae recently attached to it. This mast is
painted dark green to blend in with the surrounding landscape. We reported
this to the Council’s Planning Enforcement Officer and, to their credit,
the Department has pursued O2 to paint the galvanised antennae green as
part of the planning conditions. It transpired that
T-Mobile, who have shared the mast with O2, erected the antennae. They
have now been painted to match in with the remainder of the mast.
84 Riddlesdown Road
As I reported last time, over the last 20 months or so, three planning
applications have been submitted to erect detached houses on this site.
The latest application is for the demolition of the existing building,
erection of two detached five- bedroom houses, alterations to vehicular
access and provision of associated parking. The Council again refused this
application; however the applicant has now taken it to appeal. Again, we
await the outcome.
Westfield Avenue
There have recently been two planning applications for back land
development in this road. The first was at No. 81 and the application was
for the erection two semi-detached, four-bedroom houses at the rear, the
formation of a vehicular access onto Copthorne Rise and provision of
associated parking. The Council’s Planning Department has recently refused
this application on the grounds that the development would be out of
keeping with the character of the locality and be detrimental to the
visual amenity of the street scene by reason of its form, siting and
design. It would also be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of
adjoining property by reason of visual intrusion, and would thereby
conflict with Policy UD8 of the Croydon Plan. It was also rejected on
grounds of highway safety. In addition there are public sewers crossing
the site and no building works will be permitted within three metres of
the sewers without Thames Water’s approval. Any development would need
these sewers to be diverted.
The second application relates to No 68. This application is for the
erection of a detached three-bedroom house at rear, formation of vehicular
access on to Court Hill and the provision of associated parking. At the
time of writing the Council’s decision is awaited.
The RRA raised an objection to the application for No 81
Purley Town Centre
As reported in the last issue, Tesco want to demolish and redevelop their
existing store to double the size and make it into the largest Tesco store
in the country. They also want to build four levels of social housing
above, with additional car parking and the complete re-organisation of the
road layout. The Council is also looking at redeveloping the old
Sainsbury’s site, car park and swimming pool. Publically, it appears very
little has transpired on this proposed application, apart from a meeting
of the Purley Forum on 18 September last. A full transcript of the Forum
minutes can be seen on our website.
At the time of writing Tesco have not submitted a planning application.
Home Information Packs
On 1 June 2007, the Home Information Pack (HIP) will be a mandatory
requirement that will come into effect for those wanting to sell their
residential property after this date.
The pack will have to cover everything potential buyers need to know
before making a decision on a property and is likely to cost in the region
of £500 to £1,000 plus VAT, which the vendor (seller) will have to pay
before advertising his/her property for sale. The responsibility for
producing the HIPs rests with the person responsible for marketing the
property – the Estate Agent. Or, if sold privately, then this is the
vendor’s responsibility. If your property is on the market before this
date then you need not acquire a HIP, unless it is still on the market on
1 November 2007 (this date may change).
The main contents of the pack are to be an Energy Performance Certificate
(EPC), a sale statement (summarising the terms of sale), Land Registry
title documentation, Local Authority searches, leasehold documentation
(where required) and a voluntary Home Condition Report (HCR). It is this
HCR that the government said last summer would no longer be mandatory and
which has caused so much controversy for both the vendor and purchaser.
The HCR is basically the survey report on the condition of the property
and must be obtained by the vendor rather than purchaser. However Building
Societies have said they will not accept them and will commission their
own survey which the purchaser will have to pay for. The EPC is meant to
show how green and energy-efficient your house is. A bit like the colour
coding when you buy a fridge or freezer!
The Government is convinced that these HIPs will make life easier for both
the vendor and purchaser and will reduce the time taken in property
transactions. However, others argue that it is another stealth tax, in
particular the EPC. The argument against this is that most of the costs
relate to searches etc., which have to be paid by the vendor regardless.
However, this is usually at completion of the sale rather than up-front.
The EPC and the voluntary HCR need independent surveyors to undertake
them. Unfortunately the recruitment process for these Inspectors is slow
and it is expected there will not be enough by 1 June to carry out the
surveys. The Government estimate that between 2,500 and 4,500 inspectors
will be required. I am rather sceptical about the effectiveness of these
HIPs and, as a Chartered Building Surveyor with the RICS, with over 33
years’ experience, I will be unable to carry out these inspections unless
I go on a course and obtain the new Home Inspector credentials. However
Joe Bloggs can be recruited off the street, have no property knowledge or
qualifications, attend the course and become an inspector all within a
number of months! There must logic in that somewhere!
It remains to be seen whether the Government defers the start date again;
however, in the meantime, further information can be obtained from the
government website: www.homeinformationpacks.gov.uk
OCTOBER 2006
The Croydon
Planning Department continues to receive many applications for our area
and as usual these are updated weekly on our website
www.riddlesdownresidents.org.uk If you have internet access, then give it
a try. You can also view on-line all planning applications, including
plans.
We have a link to the Council's website, so just look up the application
for the corresponding week that it was registered in. Most planning
applications, when approved, now have a 3-year period in which development
must commence rather than the previous 5-year period. Check it out to see
what is happening in your locality!
Mobile Phone Masts in Riddlesdown Road and Mitchley Avenue
We seem to have been blitzed again by mobile phone mast companies,
with applications being lodged for a 9.7metre high 3G mast, by T-Mobile on
land adjoining 95 Downs Court Road, fronting Mitchley Avenue. The Council
stated that prior approval was required on this one, saying ‘the siting
and prominent appearance of the mast would be detrimental to the open
character and visual amenities of the locality and would thereby conflict
with Policies SP1, SP3 and BE22 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy
CS6 of the Second Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan (the
Croydon Plan)’. T-Mobile went to appeal on
16 May and we await the outcome. Another application was submitted by
Hutchison 3G for the siting of a 15m high mast and equipment at the
junction of Mitchley Avenue and Riddlesdown Road (top end nearest the
Common). The Council refused this application; however Hutchinson then
submitted another application for a 12.5m high mast and the Council have
just refused this one as well. The RRA, along with many local residents,
objected to all these applications. There seems to be an influx of these
3G phone masts throughout the borough and, on the whole, the Council do
refuse most of the applications. However, the phone companies are now
resorting to appealing to the government inspectors and any appeal is in
the lap of the gods, as they do sometimes allow these appeals. The
unsightly mast situation on the South Croydon Bus Garage is a classic
example.
O2 mast in Dunmail Drive
We recently noted that the O2 mast which was erected in Dunmail Drive near
the junction with Mitchley Hill a few years ago, has recently had a number
of new galvanised antennae attached to it. This mast is dark green to
blend it into the surrounding landscape and these galvanised antennae
stick out like a sore thumb. We have taken this up with the Council's
Planning Department who are investigating further.
Former Petrol Station, Limpsfield Road
As reported in the last Recorder, a planning application was submitted for
the erection of a two/three storey building, comprising nine two-bedroom
flats, alterations to vehicular access onto Mitchley Hill and provision of
associated parking. The Council have just approved this
.
84 Riddlesdown Road
Over the last 15 months or so, three planning applications have been
submitted for this plot. The first application was for demolition of the
existing building, erection of three detached four bedroom houses with
detached garages, alterations to vehicular access and provision of
associated parking.
The Council refused this application; it went to appeal but was turned
down as invalid. The second application was for the demolition of the
existing building, erection of one detached five-bedroom house with
attached garage and two detached four-bedroom houses with integral
garages, alterations to vehicular access and provision of associated
parking. The Council again refused this application. Another application
has recently been submitted for the demolition of the existing building,
erection of two detached five-bedroom houses, alterations to vehicular
access and provision of associated parking. The Council's decision is
currently awaited.
Purley Town Centre
Some of you may have read in the local press that Tesco are intending to
double the size of their store in Purley Town Centre. Although no formal
planning application has yet been lodged with Croydon Planners, it is
expected to be deposited within the next few months.
These proposals are to include four levels of social housing above a
revamped store. It is claimed that, of the 732 car parking spaces in the
original planning application, this has now been reduced to about 460 by
Tesco and it is estimated that the store can attract up to 9,000 people
per day. Obviously the main effect for Riddlesdown could be increased
traffic flows through our locality together with parking changes for a
larger store and social housing. Ward councillor for Sanderstead, Tim
Pollard, who is cabinet member for finance and regeneration, is quoted as
saying, "in the event that the application is forthcoming and it is
approved, we have potential to gain significantly from this expansion in
terms of facilities for Purley. I will make sure we exploit this while
ensuring Purley ward colleagues' views are taken on board. If the
expansion of the store becomes inevitable then we must make sure that as
much benefit is ploughed back into Purley as possible".
The Committee will be keeping a close watch on this possible planning
application. More details about this are available on our website.
Householder Development Consents Review
Are you thinking of building a new conservatory or an extension? Then from
next year this should become easier when the Government proposes to relax
planning regulations. A review, which was published in early July, called
for a revamp of the planning rules. The new rules will look at the impact
of your proposed building work on your neighbours and the local
environment so this maybe more important than size. If both your next door
neighbours have a loft conversion it is likely you could also build one
without the need to obtain planning permission, even though it could take
you over the current rules that restricts the building of extensions which
are greater than 10 or 15 per cent of the cubic capacity of the house,
depending on the type of property.
Opinion at the moment is divided as to whether it is worth waiting for the
new rules or to get planning permission now. You will still need to get
Building Regulation approval and these regulations are constantly being
up-dated and made more stringent. Further information can be obtained from
the Government's Department for Communities and Local Government at
www.communities.gov.uk. Don't forget, though, that these are still
proposals. You still need planning permission for most development, so
seek advice from the Council's Planning Department first.
Party Wall Act
One area that is frequently forgotten about, and can cause disputes
between neighbours, is the Party Wall Act 1996. Previously this Act, which
only applied to central London, is now relevant to the whole country. If
you intend to carry out any building work which involves work on an
existing wall shared with another neighbour or owner (a party wall), damp
proofing works, building work on the boundary with a neighbouring property
(which includes some types of fences and brick walls but not wooden
fences) and any excavation, like foundations within 3 or 6 metres from
your neighbours property, then you must notify all neighbours affected.
This is normally in writing and by way of formal documentation. This needs
to be undertaken either one or two months prior to commencing work,
depending on the type of notice served. The adjoining owner can then
either consent in writing or give a counter notice objecting. There are
fairly strict time limits in which this applies. Usually a Schedule of
Condition with photographs is then prepared, to verify the state of all
adjacent structures before the works commence. Generally all costs for the
Act should be borne by the person carrying out the building work. If you
have not notified your neighbour of building works, then they are
perfectly entitled to take court action and obtain an injunction to
prevent you from undertaking the work, until it is resolved.
If a tenant or leaseholder is in the building next door, you will need to
tell the Landlord, as well as the person living in the property, that you
want to carry out building work to the party wall or excavate nearby. The
Act also applies to the floors and ceilings in flats. The Act is designed
to minimise disputes by making sure property owners use a surveyor to
determine the time and way in which work is carried out.
Obviously the best way of avoiding disputes is to discuss things with your
neighbour before you submit a planning application. This Act doesn't cover
everyday minor jobs that don't affect the neighbour’s half of a party
wall, including fixing electrical sockets, screwing in wall units or
shelving, or replastering your walls.
Further information can be obtained from the Department for Communities
and Local Government website; alternatively, appoint a surveyor who is
qualified to undertake this, to act on your behalf.
