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!