April 2010

There is a message board on this site which also provides some useful information and discussion with many local residents. All residents are welcome to view the message board; however, to post any message you will first need to register in a simple process. Phil Thomas

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Network Rail mast at rear of

91/93 Brancaster Lane

I have received a number of calls about a mobile phone mast and associated line side equipment, which has been erected adjacent to the downside railway track (golf course side), at the rear of 91/93 Brancaster Lane. This item was previously reported in the Recorder in October 2008 and again in October 2009.

In April 2008, an application was submitted to Croydon Planners for a

15-metre-high telecommunication mast by Network Rail, who were seeking any observations from the Council.

Because it was a permitted development under the Planning Laws that allow Railway Companies the right to erect certain equipment without planning permission, it wasn’t advertised to adjoining neighbours in the normal way. The mast is solely for communication by the train operators on the rail network and is not being used by any of the commercial mobile phone companies. Network Rail were told to improve nationwide phone coverage between train drivers and signalling staff by Lord Cullen, who chaired the Inquiry following the Ladbroke Grove train crash.

The RRA did find out about this application but, as this is a private mast for railway safety, we did not object; we did raise comments as to why it had to be 15 metres high as it would protrude above the tree line and be seen by many houses higher up the valley. The Council subsequently responded to Network Rail that they had no observations to make. Unfortunately Network Rail did not take our comments on board and they erected this 15m high mast in January. The conifer trees in front of the mast and line-side equipment do screen it from the two properties concerned but it is plainly visible to many other properties higher up and overlooking the valley.

Waddon Leisure Centre

and Purley Pool

A planning application for one of the proposed replacement swimming pools, at Waddon (Purley Way, Five Ways junction), was submitted to Croydon Council in October. This Leisure Centre will in due course be one of the replacements for Purley Pool, which the Council have said will close, circa 2013.

The other proposed replacement pool is in Coulsdon but, as yet, no planning application has been submitted. The Waddon Leisure Centre proposal is for a 25m swimming pool, sports hall, gym, dance studio, community space,

café and crèche and is intended to be built in conjunction with 164 residential flats, 23 houses and an Education Centre.

A total of 46 car parking spaces (Pay & Display) will be provided for the Leisure Centre but within this provision, eight spaces will be for staff, four spaces will be for disabled use and three for mini buses.

As this application is outside our area, the RRA did not object to the proposed Leisure Centre for the local community in Waddon, but we did raise some comments to the Planners regarding the siting of this scheme and the possible implications for those in the Riddlesdown area.

Our comments were based mainly on the public transport aspect. Although the Council’s consultants said the proposed site in Waddon is well served by public transport for residents in the Riddlesdown and Sanderstead areas, this will involve at least two bus trips, either via Purley (412 & 289) or via South Croydon – a number of routes along the Brighton Road, and then the 119.

Although we have a good rail link at Riddlesdown Station, if a train is used, there will then be either a 15- minute walk between East and

West Croydon Stations to catch another train and alight at Waddon Station, and then a further seven minute walk to the site, or alternatively via a 119 bus from East Croydon Station. The nearest Tramlink station (Wandle Park) to the site is about a 20-minute walk from the proposed Leisure Centre.

Whichever form of public transport residents take, it will add considerable time, cost and distance compared with our current facilities in Purley.

As walking – about three miles each way from the centre of Riddlesdown (Mitchley Avenue) – will probably be out of the question for most residents, the alternatives are car or cycling. We said we believed that, at peak times, the number of car spaces would be insufficient to meet the demand with all other visitors to these facilities. In addition, coaches could at times be parking and taking up some of these car spaces. There is no nearby off-site overflow car parking or available on-street parking.

The Leisure Centre is to be located on the Fiveways junction, which was recently named as the most dangerous in Croydon for accidents between September 2008 and May 2009.

In addition there will be additional traffic flows on Purley Way for the proposed residential use on this site. Planning approval was also granted in March 2008 for a new B&Q Store in place of the current Homebase Store at Fiveways, although it is not clear whether this store will be built. Also there will be new developments at Wandle Park Village with 782 residential units, commercial units and workshops, near to Sainsbury’s.

In addition, John Lewis have also recently announced their intention of opening a Home Store, close to PC World. Purley Way is already one of the most heavily congested roads in Croydon, particularly at peak

weekday morning and evening times and also at weekends, and we believe all these developments are going to further increase traffic flows on this road junction and thereby cause further inconvenience for our members and families who, in some instances, will have little alternative but to travel by car.

In total there were nine objections and comments, including some from the Waddon Residents’ Association. However, as expected, the Council’s Planning Committee, in January, unanimously voted in agreement to this application (the Council do not refuse their own applications). We did copy our comments to all three Councillors in both the Purley and Sanderstead Wards, and to our MP, Richard Ottaway.

We did receive back some encouraging comments and one from Councillor Donald Speakman, on behalf of the three Purley Ward Councillors, who said they all supported a pool in Purley and saw no reason why there should be a pool in Coulsdon. We wait to see what the future holds for Purley Pool! Interestingly, over the winter period, the Council have spent £70,000 on refurbishing the adjacent multi-story car park!

It is also interesting to note that other swimming pools – in Thornton Heath and New Addington – are in Labour-held Wards, and the other in South Norwood and the proposed one in Waddon are in key marginal Wards that swing between Conservative and Labour.

Yet our pool in Purley, which has excellent transport links and parking, and is in a reasonably strong Conservative Ward, is threatened with closure! Call me cynical, but I bet the threatened closure would be not happening if the Purley Ward was marginal!

Purley Oaks Recycling Centre

A planning application has recently been submitted for the existing Recycling Centre to be enlarged into the existing Highways Depot at the rear.

New additional compactor units and an increase in the number of car parking spaces, to try and reduce traffic congestion on the Brighton Road and Riddlesdown Road, are proposed.

The RRA have sent comments to the Planners supporting this application, particularly as some local residents can be affected by lengthy traffic queues, especially at weekends, when the barrier in the site is brought down for health and safety reasons. It is not uncommon for those who wish to go into Croydon to be caught up with this site traffic and to be tailing back up around the Capella Court office block and back into Riddlesdown Road. Also those coming in from the south along the Brighton Road and then returning up Riddlesdown Road can have the same problems.

It is an issue that we, as an Association, raised about 10 years ago with the Council! So hopefully this extension, if it happens, might reduce the problem.

We await the Council’s decision.

81 Westfield Avenue

As reported in a number of previous issues, planning applications have been submitted for back-land developments at 81 Westfield Avenue. On appeal, the Planning Inspector allowed, last year, a three-bedroom detached bungalow to be built. However, a new application was recently submitted for the erection of a three-bedroom detached chalet bungalow with vehicular access on to Copthorne Rise. The previously approved scheme provided accommodation within the roof space, serviced by roof lights in three elevations. This application removes that element and provides single storey accommodation only, but this building is larger than in the previous approval.

We understand that a number of residents and a Councillor objected to this new, larger bungalow. However, the Council’s Planning Committee recently backed their officers’ recommendation and approved the scheme.

PARKING PERMITS

It was interesting to see a report submitted last December to the Council’s Traffic Management Committee about limiting the number of new parking permits being issued, mainly in the town centres.

Because of the low ratio of parking spaces for new large town centre residential developments and conversions – usually half a space per flat – this is putting great pressure on street

parking bays.

The Council’s Parking Division said parking permits in future are going to have to be rationed, mainly in town centres. This is to some extent being caused by the current planning regulations.

Although the Council’s own Planning Car Parking Standards say developers should allow a maximum of two spaces for detached and linked houses, one and a half spaces for terraced houses and flats and one space for flats, this criteria is seldom met and approvals are sometimes given with less parking. This is part of the reason roads are now becoming clogged with parked vehicles and is something the RRA argued about on the proposed flats development in Lower Barn Road, but without success.

As it is now the norm for most households to have one car and sometimes two or three, the current Government, the Planning Inspector and some Councils appear to be on a different wavelength when it comes to off-street parking.

To a certain extent, it is they who are causing the parking mayhem on our streets now because of these ludicrous rules, especially half a space per dwelling!

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Flooding under the Bridge

in Lower Barn Road

Many of you will be aware of the flooding of Lower Barn Road under the railway bridge that occurred in November and December and which made the footpath and roadway impassable for those wishing to leave or enter the Station on foot, and also for those wishing to use the shops. For some people it meant wading through the filthy floodwater to catch trains or to get home, or to get to the local shops, but for those who didn’t, it could mean a detour of up to one mile. Because of the depth of the floodwater, some cars were also unable to pass through.

We did raise this flooding issue with the Council in 2002 but, because of budget cuts, they were not prepared to do anything then or again in 2006 when flooding recurred.

However, after these latest events, we again took the matter up with the Council and also got support from Ward Councillor Lynne Hale and another Councillor who lives locally. The Council told us the main reason for the flooding is blocked and silted up soakaways (this drainage is not connected to a surface water sewer).

The gully grids are also quite frequently blocked and, of course, during late autumn, the situation is made worse with leaf fall. Fortunately the Council did listen this time and have spent money on cleaning the surface water drainage system. You may have noticed large tankers in the area emptying all the soakaways and road gully sumps. Hopefully this will now go some way to alleviating the flooding problems under the bridge. Unfortunately a legacy of this is now some noisy manhole covers when traffic passes over the ironwork in the road!

We have also pointed out to the Council that there are blocked gully grids and soakaways in other hilly roads including Mitchley Avenue, Buttermere Gardens, Rectory Park, Copthorne Rise, Dalegarth

Gardens and Riddlesdown Avenue; they say that they will deal with these as well in due course, ‘as and when schedules and budgets permit’, which we hope will be from April 2010 onwards.

Salting and accidents in

Coombe Wood Hill

We have been told by local residents that during the recent snowy weather there were at least nine accidents in Coombe Wood Hill which involved damage to parked cars, and vehicles demolishing street furniture, garden walls. Most of the accidents were from vehicles travelling down the hill.

Although some people in cul-de-sacs and Coombe Wood Hill may not agree, we are pretty lucky that many roads in the RRA area do get salted fairly frequently by the gritters because of the hilly bus routes on Mitchley Avenue, Rectory Park and also most roads leading to Riddlesdown Collegiate. A number of our roads are classed as ‘primary routes’ for the

salting operation.

However this winter it seems that the gritting lorries have not been going up Coombe Wood Hill on a regular basis; it has now been classed as a ‘secondary route’ for some reason. This could be why there have been so many accidents in this road this year. A comment we have heard back from the Council is that very few people in Coombe Wood Hill have complained! Obviously the moral of this story is for residents of Coombe Wood Hill (and other roads not salted) to complain to the Council. It is highly unlikely that they will salt cul-de-sacs; Honister Heights is the exception,

because of access to the Collegiate.

However, be aware that Councils now solely use rock salt; this is not so noticeable on the road surface as the previous rock salt, which used to be mixed with grit. So they may have salted your road but it may not be obvious.

We are also lucky that the snow ploughs attached to most of the Council’s lorries can be used in streets in our area because there are no speed humps! Having less snow on the road improves the action of the salt and does reduce the time it takes to melt the snow, albeit salt needs to be laid a number of times to be effective and also needs traffic to grind it in. Also Councils, from mid-January, have been restricted in salting because of the severe salt-shortage nationwide due to the Government’s intervention. They have told prudent Councils, like Croydon, to conserve their stocks and reduce salt use by half! Hence the reason the green ‘Highway Only Use’ salt boxes have not been refilled since the beginning of January. The Government’s pre-winter advice to Councils was to stockpile supplies for six days use, but

fortunately Croydon ignored this and had supplies in excess, to take them through the winter period.

Tree planting

The Council have over the last few years been removing some trees and re-planting new ones in our streets. However, as usual the budgets are tight and for this year’s winter programme (2009/10), not all of our roads have had trees replaced. Some residents have made us aware of streets where trees are missing; we have reported these to the Council and they may be replanted next winter. However, because of health and safety concerns, the Council are a little selective as to where they replant. They will not plant new trees near street lights or telegraph poles/cables, illuminated traffic signs, near to driveway crossovers, buildings, known drains or underground cables and pipes. It would be interesting to know if there are any trees missing in your street and whether a tree can be replanted where one has previously been removed. We would like to hear from you and the location of your suggestion. This can be done either through the message board on our website, or advising one of the RRA Committee members, or the Forestry Section at the Council direct.

‘Report It’ and Highway Matters

Following the harsh winter, there are now a number of defective road surfaces in the area and these road defects, along with other problems, like an abandoned car, road or white line marking defect, blocked road gully, environmental problems, a loose, broken or defective manhole cover, defective street light, can be reported to the Council. This can be done either through their website - www.croydon.gov.uk – go to ‘Report it’ on the right side, or telephone 020 8726 7100 or 020 8726 6200.

We are also continuing to have dialogue with the Council on weekend street cleaning, poor white line markings to roads – particularly give way markings at junctions and on bends – and the appalling state of some grass verges and road surfaces. It does seem strange that Croydon, along with most other Councils, are obsessed with health and safety issues and spend a fortune of our money in rectifying problems. Yet when it comes to highway safety, where there are thousands of deaths a year, Councils along with the Government, seem to under-invest in our road maintenance programme, especially side streets. This is despite most of us paying thousands of pounds a year in road and fuel tax and also Council tax. Funny old world isn’t it !

Phil Thomas