PR-Apr2009

However, the Inspector has imposed a condition: ‘No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the telecommunications mast sited on the footway of Lower Barn Road adjacent to the site has been removed or moved to another part of the site.’ This will not only require the agreement of 02 but also planning permission.

It must be done within three years of the appeal decision – by 18 February 2012. We wait to see whether 02 will move the mast, as we understand that part of the reason for its current position is to provide a mobile phone service for commuters on the railway when trains are in the Riddlesdown tunnel. By moving it further back from the tunnel entrance, it will not provide this service.

All the other objections raised – the effect on the adjoining green belt, ecological interest, proposed amenity areas, flooding, additional on-street parking – were rejected by the Inspector.

What happened earlier

Last year Taylor Wimpey submitted a planning application to build twelve

2-bedroom flats on the small area of woodland adjacent to the parade.The Association made a formal objection and the application was refused.

Wimpey lodged an appeal with the Secretary of State, to be decided at a public planning inquiry at the Town Hall in September. However a legal dispute between Wimpey and Purley Downs Golf Club, who had managed the land for 50 years, meant the inquiry was postponed. The ownership dispute was eventually settled in favour of the golf club.

The Association was disappointed with the actions of the club following this decision. Up until the time it assumed ownership of the small plot of land on a point of law it was, with the Association, against the development.

We understand that, at the golf club’s EGM in early October, members voted and agreed to actively encourage Taylor Wimpey to continue with the planning appeal – which is why it hadn’t been withdrawn. The club intends to sell the land to a developer/builder.

It is interesting how views can change when financial considerations arise. We have made our views clear: the golf club sought our help in opposing the application, and then submitted their own application after assurances that this would not happen.

At the January Inquiry both Brian Longman and local Croydon councillor Lynne Hale argued that the development was not in the interest of the local community. They were told that a survey on street parking, recently commissioned by the applicant, found that car parking in Lower Barn Road near the shops was not a problem and, apparently, that there were plenty of places to park. (Interestingly, the survey was completed before the double yellow lines were painted under

the bridge.)

The survey findings did not consider the large 15-metre high 3G-telephone mast, only 12 feet away from some of the flats, to be a problem. Nor that it was an issue that part of the area is within the green belt and is also a designated Site of Nature Conservation. Nor that visitors to the flats, a gated community, might park on the designated shop parking bays. Nor

that the large new building and car park on the slope up to the golf course would increase water run-off and increase the risk of flooding under the bridge.

The Inspector seems to have agreed with all but one of these survey points even though a late-afternoon site visit after the hearing ought to have

dispelled the argument that parking would not be a problem and access to the flats on the bend would not be an issue. You can read the full decision on our web site.

COMMUTER PARKING

Brian Longman and Phil Thomas

The last report raised the issue of commuter parking in the relatively narrow roads close to the station. To ensure we had an understanding of what, if anything, you wanted the Association to do, we distributed a simple tick box questionnaire with the last issue of the Recorder. Roads included in the survey were Lower Barn Road, Rydal Close, Barn Crescent, Dalton Close, Coombe Wood Hill, Hill Close, Riddlesdown Avenue and Brancaster Lane.

Parking schemes can be very contentious and this is not an area in which the Association can lead unless it has an overwhelming mandate from the residents involved. While the Association now has a better understanding of some of the issues involved, with only 36 of the 244 questionnaires returned we do not have an overwhelming mandate to proceed and therefore will not be taking this issue forward.

Before leaving this subject it might be worth mentioning just one of the comments received. This was that some local residents drive only a relatively short distance to the station and leave their car there all-day and in some cases several days. Without getting into the rights and wrongs of this debate it might be useful to tell you about a recent discussion with a resident in Lower Barn Road.

On returning after a big shop at a local supermarket the lady found the nearest she could park to her house was over 100 yards away. It then took her four long trips to the car to carry the heavy bags of shopping in. Most of us can understand her frustration at this situation.

Postscript: We did have some very interesting suggestions in the questionnaire responses! For example, building a multi-storey car park on the woodland beside the shops and widening Lower Barn Road by removing all the grass verges! Some residents felt that some house owners weren’t using their own driveways and garages enough and were exacerbating the parking problems on the road. A number of comments were received that many commuters who live in the Riddlesdown area couldn’t be bothered to walk the short distances from their homes to the station and thereby clog up the streets around the station. Local residents who do this, please take note!

Parking in Lower Barn Road

Phil Thomas writes: While on the subject of parking, I would like to make it perfectly clear, despite some suggestions to the contrary, that the RRA did not request the Council to place double yellow lines in Dalton Close and Lower Barn Road near to the station.

Apparently the Council received a complaint from a resident in Dalton Close that lorries and the dustcart, emergency vehicles etc. could not enter or deliver to four houses at the back of Dalton Close because of parking, mainly by commuters.

The RRA did raise objections with the Council in March 2008, during the consultation period, about the double yellow lines returning into Lower Barn Road, at the junction with Dalton Close, as we believed parking would occur on the north side of Lower Barn Road and pinch parking could be a problem when such vehicles as lorries, ambulances, fire engines and dustcarts would not be able to pass through. However the Council ignored our concerns and laid the double yellow lines at the Dalton Close/Lower Barn Road junction, in June 2008. Within a few weeks, as we predicted, pinch parking became an issue through thoughtless commuters parking opposite one another in this narrower section of Lower Barn Road. On many an occasion, HGVs hooted their horns in frustration, because they could not get through the small gaps left by motorists.

We took up with the Council the problem they had created and Ward Councillor Lynne Hale and my namesake, Councillor Phil Thomas (Chairman of Traffic Management), became involved. As far as the Council were concerned, it was a Police matter, because obstructions were occurring and only the Police can ticket and remove vehicles due to obstruction. The Council then decided that further double yellows lines would have to be laid on part of the north side of Lower Barn Road and on the south side near the four-way junction, and also under the railway bridge going towards the shops. Following a consultation period in November, these additional double yellow lines were laid in December 2008. However, by now allowing some parking on the north side of Lower Barn Road, near to the four-way junction, sight lines for traffic turning left into Lower Barn Road from Brancaster Lane are now partly obscured by parked vehicles and this could cause accidents. This situation may need to be monitored.

As I have said above, only the Police can issue tickets and remove vehicles causing an obstruction. There have been instances recently, where vehicles have been parked either immediately opposite or diagonally opposite, one another in other narrow roads like Buttermere Gardens, Dalegarth Gardens, Riddlesdown Avenue and Coombe Wood Hill. These at times have caused obstructions to large vehicles trying to pass through the

gaps left.

Sometimes it is not very easy for a large vehicle to turn around if the road is blocked and this type of parking can lead to some nasty aggressive confrontations. The moral of the story is: beware, if you park in a narrow road in Riddlesdown, that you or someone else don’t cause an obstruction. It may cost you a lot of money to get your vehicle back if it is towed away (at least £250 plus any daily storage charges). If you require any Police assistance in this respect then, depending on which Ward you live in, contact the Safer Neighbourhood Police Teams. For the Sanderstead Ward, the telephone number is 020 8721 2470 and for the Purley Ward, the number is 020 8721 2467. Any rapid enforcement action that comes within Croydon Council’s remit, such as a vehicle causing an obstruction on a yellow line(s), or if a vehicle is blocking the dropped kerb to your driveway or property, then contact the Council on 020 8760 1966.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

As usual, all the planning applications in the RRA area are updated weekly on our website: www.riddlesdownresidents.org.uk

68 and 81 Westfield Avenue

As reported last time, a number of planning applications have been submitted for two back land developments in this road.

The first site was at No 81, which had two previous applications turned down by the Council and one of them refused on appeal by the Planning Inspector. A third application was submitted and the Council again refused this application for the erection of a three-bedroom detached chalet bungalow at rear, the formation of vehicular access onto Copthorne Rise and provision of associated parking. This application went to appeal again on 11 September 2008. We await the decision.

The second location was at No 68 and was for a third application for a two-bedroom detached chalet bungalow at the rear, the formation of vehicular access onto Court Hill and provision of associated parking. Again the Council refused and it also went to appeal on 19 September 2008 and we await the decision.

30/32 St James Road

I also wrote last time about this site which is just outside our area but does back on to houses in Downs Court Road. The proposal was for the demolition of the existing buildings (Nos. 30 and 32), the erection of two,

2-storey buildings with ten two- bedroom flats and four one-bedroom flats, the formation of vehicular access and 14 car parking spaces.

The Council refused the application and the applicants took it to appeal which the Planning Inspector dismissed on 18 November 2008.

29 Dalegarth Gardens

Three applications have been submitted over the last few years for some form of development on this site, but all have been refused. The latest is for a detached three-bedroom house with vehicular access on to Ingleboro Drive and associated parking. The application went to Appeal and the Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal on 22 January 2009.

71B Mitchley Avenue

An application for a change of use for this new ground floor shop, which has recently been built adjoining Saban’s Newsagents, was submitted in mid-January. The change of use requested is from A1 (retail use) to A5 (hot food take away) together with new extractor ducting at the rear. We understand the proposed use is for a fish and chip shop, hours from 11am to 10 pm, Monday to Saturday, closed on Sunday. This application has been met with a mixed reaction. On the one hand, there will be the possible noise disturbances, with children, mainly from Riddlesdown School, congregating outside, parking and traffic issues and rubbish, to name a few. But on the other hand, it would save residents from having to travel to either Sanderstead or South Croydon.

The application is expected to be decided by the Council before the end of March.

Former Sainsbury’s Store, Swimming Pool and Car Park, 52 High Street, Purley

In mid-October, the Head Lessee of the old Sainsbury’s store (Polaska Assets Ltd), set the ball rolling, in respect of planning, by submitting to Croydon Council’s Planning Department an application for a decision from the Council as to whether an Environment Impact Assessment for a mixed use redevelopment, which includes demolishing all the existing store, multi-storey car park and swimming pool, would be required. The Environmental Impact Assessment is a prelude to any possible full planning application, likely to be sometime this year. The Council are the freeholders of all the land but they are not submitting this application. However this scheme has been prepared in consultation with them.

The new scheme, submitted by Polaska’s agents, Hyder Consulting Ltd, is for a new library, cinema, four live work units for use as craft shops, a cafe, car parking for 230 spaces (currently 424 spaces) and flats – possibly 286 dwellings but this maybe increased. There are no plans to replace the existing swimming pool and it is not clear whether there will be any parking for the new flats and where car parking will be provided during the construction period.

Polaska Developments, who took on the Head Lease from Sainsbury’s about five years ago, were due to refurbish the store but never proceeded with this work.

The full Environmental Impact Assessment can be viewed on the Council’s Planning website, typing in the full application number: 08/03428/DT. The Council decided in November that a full Environmental Impact Assessment was required and further details are awaited.

The Council’s plans for new swimming pools at Waddon, Coulsdon and New Addington have all recently been thrown into doubt for a variety of reasons. The Purley swimming pool is due to close in 2010 and together with the current run-down state of the car park and the vacant former retail store, perhaps now is the time for the Council to consider demolition of this poorly designed and unattractive building and replace it on the same site with a modern swimming pool and car park. The general consensus seems to be that the people of Purley want a swimming pool rather than a cinema, so why can’t Croydon Council do something that the residents want for a change? Over to you, Purley Ward Councillors, to take this forward!

Tesco’s wind turbine

Whilst on the subject of Purley, Tesco submitted an application in late January for the siting of a 10.6m high (35 ft) wind turbine in the car park, just on the western side of the petrol station. This will mean the loss of four car parking bays (more parking lost in Purley!).

This six kilowatt turbine will just about be enough to boil a 3kw kettle and possibly also heat one 3kw immersion heater on a windy day! Bearing in mind that for many days in both winter and summer, the UK has high pressure over us and therefore very little wind, the turbine could be somewhat redundant. Also bearing in mind the amount of electricity consumed by the Tesco store, this turbine would only provide a very small fraction of their electricity. The blades are not of the conventional type of three or four blades protruding out from a central core but two sets of rectangular vertical blades, one on top of the other, set at 90 degrees to one another. It does look strange!

These wind turbines have now blighted many parts of the countryside and the majority are located in windy areas near the sea or on hills. Do Tesco really think this turbine will produce much electricity in a valley where their store is sited? I believe this is a publicity stunt by Tesco to try and prove their green credentials and their planning literature says this.

Will this turbine become a blot on the Purley landscape if the Council approve it? Details of the turbine can be viewed on the Council’s Planning website - application no. 09/00165/P. Their decision is awaited.