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