April 2011

I reported last time on the application to replace the existing O2 15-metre high mobile phone mast with a new combined O2 and Vodafone one, just east of the railway bridge. A decision was made by the Council, just prior to the Recorder going to print last September, to approve the mast scheme.

We are aware from the Planning Officer’s report, that 12 residents objected to the application, mainly on harm to the visual amenity of the locality; also that there were enough masts already in the area and the risk to health and safety of local residents. The Planning Officer made the comment that mast sharing is welcomed and actively encouraged by the Government and Councils and, as this mast was a combined replacement for O2 and Vodafone from a single O2 mast, then this was not grounds to dispute the reasons for the mast.

The main point of contention raised by the RRA was the planning approval to build ten flats on the woodland at the rear of the mast. The Planning Inspector did say in his report on appeal that ‘No part of the flats development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the telecomms mast sited on the footway of LBR adjacent to the site has been removed.’ The general consensus by local residents appears to be that a mast on the pavement is preferable to a flats development.

The Planning Officer said in his report that the proposed flats development had been brought to O2/Vodafones’ agents’ attention. They had responded: ‘The application must be considered on its own merits but you will appreciate that it merely constitutes a replacement of the existing installation with very minor changes.’ Furthermore the Golf Club, who own the woodland, had been in touch with the mobile phone agents to progress the issue of moving the mast to a more suitable location. The agent has advised the Golf Club that ‘although they are aware of previous discussions, the concern at the moment is to establish the site-sharing principle, as envisaged by the current mast application.’

In November, O2/Vodafone installed the new mast and additional cabinet, and we believe it is now operational although it is not clear whether there is a 2G output. It was also a stipulation that the new mast should be painted a dark green colour, the same as the old mast. However the new mast when it was installed was a very light green colour. After the RRA made comment to the Planning Officer about this, the mast was painted a darker green just before Christmas. However, at the time of writing, we still have three different colours for the installation and we have again taken the matter up with Planners.

Purley Oaks Recycling Centre

I reported last time that a planning application had been submitted in January 2010 for the existing Recycling Centre to be enlarged into the existing Highways Depot at the rear. We understand the application has now been withdrawn and the scheme will not be progressing.

We have taken up with Purley Ward Councillor Donald Speakman as to why the application was withdrawn, but no doubt cost has come into the equation.

61 Mitchley Hill

In the previous issue, I reported that the owners of this property have submitted an application for outline planning permission to erect a detached two-storey house at the rear with attached single garage and formation of vehicular access onto Holmwood Avenue. This proposed new property, would adjoin 2 Holmwood Avenue. Although the RRA did not object, we understand that Councillors Yvette Hopley and Tim Pollard did so, together with five local neighbours. The Council refused the application; however the Planning Inspector on appeal, has recently overturned this decision and it opened the way for a full planning application in the near future.

The Council’s main grounds for refusal were about the potential loss of a mature ash tree close to where the vehicular crossover would be. The Planning Inspector in his report was of the view that it was not the end of the world if the tree died from root damage, as the varying size of trees in the street gave the indication that trees had been replaced in the past.

Local residents had also raised concerns that the proposed development would run counter to the changes to PPS3 ‘Backland Housing Development’ announced by the Government last June, whereby garden land is no longer included in the definition of previously developed land (brownfield sites). The Government recently instructed Local Authorities to change the planning rules (known as PPS3) to remove the classification of back gardens as developed lands, making it harder for such areas to be built on. However, such proposals are still succeeding in certain circumstances (apparently, primarily where new developments directly front a highway). Other appeals against such refusals elsewhere have also been successful. The Inspector in this report said, ‘although the garden of 61 (Mitchley Hill) would be relatively shallow, the unusual width of the plot there, would mean that an adequate garden would remain. I therefore find that, notwithstanding the changes to PPS3, the principle of development in this location would be acceptable’.

Yet again, we have a Planning Inspector based in Bristol, overruling the local Council and going against the wishes of local residents!

Just prior to the Recorder going to print, a full planning application has now been submitted.

Salt and Accidents in Coombe Wood Hill

As you may recall, I reported last time about the high number of accidents during the winter of 2009/10 in Coombe Wood Hill because the road was no longer being salted as a primary gritting route; gritters were salting Lower Barn Road instead. The Association is of the view that both Coombe Wood Hill (as a steep gradient) and Lower Barn Road (approach to a Railway Station) ought to be salted. The gritting also applies to frost, when Coombe Wood Hill can be extremely slippery.

We are continuing to have dialogue with Council Officers and Ward Councillors about this; however the Council’s Highways Department, for some reason, seem rather reluctant to reinstate Coombe Wood Hill on the primary gritting route schedule and won’t tell us why it was changed in 2007 and 2009. The response from Steve Illes, Head of Highways is: ‘Coombe Wood Hill is correctly assessed as a secondary gritting route and is appropriately assessed.’

Perhaps residents living in this road and Hill Close now need to purchase 4x4s and perhaps also the Council now want this hill to be Purley’s new ski slope! The RRA will continue to talk to the Council about this issue but we would suggest that those residents who find themselves stranded on this route in deep snow or frosty/icy conditions contact either Steve Illes or one of the Sanderstead Ward Councillors direct.

According to the Council’s website, the following roads in our area are gritted as primary gritting routes: Riddlesdown Road (not the section to the Common), Brancaster Lane, Lower Barn Road, Mitchley Avenue, Ingleboro Drive, Eskdale Gardens, Honister Heights, Dunmail Drive, Buttermere Gardens only up to Derwent Drive, Derwent Drive, Rectory Park, Mitchley Hill, Copthorne Rise and Westfield Avenue up to and including Court Hill. Other secondary residential roads maybe gritted but these will only be done when the primary routes are all clear. However, if you live in a cul-de-sac the chances of it being salted are virtually nil.

The Council also advise that all their vehicles are now fitted with tracking devices and they are able to see which roads their vehicles have been in and precisely how much salt has been laid (10 grams per sq m for a frost warning and up to 40 grams per sq metres for snow). If your road is on one of the priority listed roads and you do not believe it has been treated, then contact the Council by e-mail at: highwaysmaintenance@

croydon.gov.uk or by telephoning 020 8726 7100. Full details can be found on the Council’s website at: www.

croydon.gov.uk/transportandstreets/rhps/roads/gritting/

Interestingly the Red Routes of the A23 (Purley Way and Brighton Road), the A22 (Godstone Road) and A232 (Croydon Flyover, Chepstow Road, Addiscombe Road, Wickham Road) are gritted by TfL (Transport for London). Croydon Council are also not responsible for any repairs to these routes. Any complaints about the gritting on these routes need to be sent to TfL.

I personally think that Croydon do a very good job in treating our roads and we are lucky to have the Highways Depot so close at Purley Oaks. However, many people are of the view that the salt works like magic and will melt the snow immediately.

Unfortunately this is not the case as it will not work in really heavy snow or be very effective below -6C. I did witness, just before Christmas, the gritters laying salt in Rectory Park and in Limpsfield Road a few minutes before it snowed, yet, after 45 minutes of a blizzard, these roads became almost impassable!

We have also been contacted by a number of residents about the Council’s green salt bins at various roadside locations. To be absolutely clear, the salt in these bins, supplied by the Council, is for Highway use only. Highway use is defined as a road (carriageway) or pavement. It is not intended for use on householders’ own driveways, paths or private roads.

Parking – Honister Heights

I reported last time that the Council’s Traffic Enforcement Officers had started ticketing vehicles parked at the far end of Honister Heights, close to the junction to Dunmail Drive and Riddlesdown Collegiate. There is space at the end to park three vehicles and the middle of the three vehicles is being ticketed. A ruling was brought in about 10 years ago that a vehicle parked more than 50cm (or other specified distance) from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking space can be ticketed. The Council said this was the reason why tickets are being issued.

We now understand that a resident, John Cox, who received a PCN (Penalty Charge Notice) while parked in the middle, has appealed to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service and has won his appeal. Apparently the key to his successful appeal was that the carriageway (road) at the end of the cul-de-sac extends to the edge of the grassed area. As the vehicle parked in the middle of three, had a pair of wheels within 50cm of the edge of the carriageway, the Adjudicator said this complied with the law.

A response from a Croydon Council Officer is, ‘I can confirm that only when a complaint is received from a driver, that they are unable to leave a space due to being blocked in, will we take action against a vehicle parked at the end of a cul-de-sac. There is a debate about the 50cm rule and whether this should apply at the end of a cul-de-sac. I would hope that logic dictates that we only deal with this if complaints are received and leave other vehicles alone.’

Basically, what this is saying is that any vehicle that is parked in the centre of the three spaces at the end of Honister Heights could be liable to be ticketed (and possibly removed – cost to recover circa £250), if it is causing the vehicle in the extreme south west corner to be blocked in (furthest away from the Dunmail Drive junction).

What could happen, is that you may park in the centre of the available spaces but, some time later, another vehicle then comes and parks up tight to the corner vehicle and blocks it in. If the owner of the vehicle in the corner returns to his or her vehicle and complains to the Council because they are boxed in, the Council may/will come and ticket and if necessary remove the centre vehicle. This scenario could indeed be applicable to the end of any cul-de-sac in Croydon and indeed London!

Basically, the moral of this story is, beware if you have to park in the centre of these three spaces, as you could be penalised by the actions of another driver!

Overhanging hedges, shrubs AND trees

With spring and summer fast approaching, we would like to remind residents again that we do receive a number of complaints/comments, about the number of households within the area who allow vegetation from their gardens to overhang the pavement and public footpaths. This vegetation can particularly cause inconvenience for people with buggies, in wheelchairs, the disabled and more importantly the visually impaired who could walk directly into the vegetation and injure themselves. All property occupiers are legally responsible for ensuring this does not happen and could well have damages awarded against them by a court for any injury. The Council also have the power to serve a notice on the household and, if necessary, undertake the work themselves by removing the danger and charging the owner accordingly.

So please check whether any of your vegetation is overhanging the pavement and, if so, please arrange to cut it back to level with your boundary. If you want to report an overhang to a particular property to the Council, it can be done on the Council’s website by going to the ‘Report it’ section and then ‘Street Pavement Obstruction’ and follow the online instructions. Alternatively telephone the Council on

020 8726 6000.

Grass Verges, Street Cleaning and Parking

We are continuing to have dialogue with the Council officers and Councillors on street cleaning, and the poor state of a number of grass verges damaged by vehicles and pedestrian traffic. There are, in particular, bad sections at the bottom of Copthorne Rise, in Lower Barn Road, Derwent Drive where the schoolchildren walk daily, Rectory Park and various parts of Mitchley Avenue, but particularly near the bus stops. The Council did in fact repair and re-seed many of these verges in early November; however, they did it too late in the season and the snow at the end of the month meant none of the seed germinated. During the winter months, damage has again occurred due to vehicles and pedestrians and we have again asked the Council if they could remedy the situation in the Spring.

We are very lucky to have these areas of green in our urban concrete jungle. We do receive a number of complaints about grass verge damage; some is caused by drivers from outside the area but also by some residents entering and exiting their own driveways. In some cases, the crossover is not wide enough for the width of the driveway to the property. If this applies to you, perhaps you would consider contacting the Council and having your crossover extended in width. Damage to these verges can be a tripping hazard for pedestrians and, if an accident occurs outside your property, then the Council could possibly take further action against the house owner. It is also an offence in London to park on the pavement and/or grass verges and the Council have said they will be enforcing this policy in the area by the issuing of PCN’s.

The Council do their best on street cleaning; however, with the ever-increasing number of cars now parking on the streets in our area, it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to clean them properly. Fortunately we do have a number of residents who litter-pick in the area and the RRA is extremely grateful to them for undertaking this civic act. The area could be a lot more unsightly without their actions, especially with 2,000 school children visiting the area daily!

There are three main areas that now do have a parking problem and it is virtually impossible at times for the Council’s mechanical road sweeper to access these roads. These include a number of roads close to the Station, Honister Heights and Dunmail Drive by the Collegiate and, during the summer, Purley Bury Sports Club (which is situated just outside the RRA area).

Many motorists may not realise it, but there are a number of pieces of legislation that make parking of a vehicle on the highway (unless it is in a designated marked parking bay), an offence. Under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980, it could be considered to be causing a wilful obstruction. Also under Regulation 103 of the Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, it is stated that no person in charge of a motor vehicle should cause their vehicle to stand on the road so as to cause an obstruction. Furthermore in Section 22 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by the 1991 RTA), if a person in charge of a vehicle causes it to remain at rest on a road in such a position or circumstances as to involve danger of injury to other persons using the road, then they will be guilty of an offence. Obstruction of the highway is usually only enforceable by the Police. It is also an offence to park across a dropped kerb, which the Council will enforce, although currently this is usually on complaint from the occupier. Certainly with the increasing tendency for more vehicles that are taller 4x4s or people carriers to be parked in the area, the chances of serious injuries or deaths are increasing all the time. Many properties have driveways around here and some house owners are exiting their driveways blinded by these parked vehicles and can’t always see through or around them. Not to mention the increasing difficulty of keeping our streets clean! If you have off-road parking, then please consider using it and, if you live close to the station, then consider walking instead of driving!

Proposed No Cold Calling Zone (NCCZ)

Following the success of this scheme in Norbury and Shirley, the RRA are currently looking into the feasibility of having the scheme introduced in Riddlesdown for the 1,350 properties in our area. The scheme in these other areas does appear to have reduced the number of bogus callers and rogue trading offences.

The scheme can only operate with the full co-operation of residents, the Police, and the Council. There are some costs associated with the set up and we are currently looking into the feasibility of this. Some feedback from residents at this stage would be useful to gauge the amount of support. You can do this either by leaving a message on the Message Board of our website or by contacting myself or Brian Longman, preferably by

e-mail or alternatively by telephone, through the contact list on the inside cover of this magazine.