PR-Oct2008

It is noticeable that there has been a marked drop in the number of local applications being submitted in the last six months or so. A sign of the times perhaps!

Woodland adjoining 108/110, Lower Barn Road (The Parade of Shops)

As you may recall, I wrote in the last issue that Taylor Wimpey submitted a planning application for the erection of two two-storey buildings, comprising a total of twelve two-bedroom flats, the formation of an access road and provision of associated parking on the woodland next to the shops. The Council’s Planning Committee rejected the application in November 2007.

As we expected, Taylor Wimpey lodged an Appeal with the Secretary of State on 2 April 2008. The RRA wrote to the Planning Inspector and highlighted our further concerns. These related primarily to the continuing land ownership dispute between the applicant and the Purley Downs Golf Club, where we commented that the applicant, to our knowledge, had not maintained or repaired the fencing, trees or any part of the land for at least the last 50 years; yet within four days of refusal of the planning application by the Council, the applicant’s contractor entered the site and felled many mature trees – this despite Croydon Council refusing the application on environmental grounds.

We raised again the risk of flooding. In the previous 17 months or so, the carriageway and pavements immediately in front of and beside the proposed site had flooded on at least four recent occasions. We also reminded the Inspector that the proposed development site does provide ‘run off’ from this flooded highway area and any development on the land could hinder this and perhaps create new problems.

We again highlighted the fact that the 15m high 3G mast on the back edge of the footpath, immediately in front of the proposed development, would be within two to three metres of at least three of the proposed flats and within ten metres of all the remaining seven flats. We did comment that, by felling the remaining trees on the site, the street scene for this mast would be changed and the mast would no longer merge into the woodland behind.

However, to cap it all, on 11 July, Taylor Wimpey’s contractor entered the site again and felled further trees just behind and beside the mast!

The Local Public Inquiry was initially set for 16 July and then 12 August but these dates were postponed. The RRA has just learnt, the Purley Downs Golf Club was successful in their claim and they are now the registered owners of the land. However they are now actively encouraging Taylor Wimpey to continue with the appeal. If successful the Club intend to sell to a developer/builder. This is disappointing news and the RRA will continue to fight the application at the new appeal set for Tuesday 28 October 2008.

68 and 81 Westfield Avenue

I reported last time on two planning applications that had been submitted for back land development in this road. The first site was at No 81 which had had two previous applications turned down by the Council and one of them refused on appeal to the Planning Inspector. A subsequent application was submitted on 22 April 2008 for the erection of a three-bedroom detached chalet bungalow at rear, the formation of vehicular access on to Copthorne Rise and provision of associated parking. The Council again refused this application.

The second location related to No 68 and was for a second application for the erection of a two-bedroom detached chalet bungalow at the rear with the formation of a vehicular access onto Court Hill. The applicants appealed on this refusal and the Planning Inspector has now dismissed this appeal. A subsequent planning application was submitted on 12 June for the erection of a two-bedroom detached chalet bungalow at the rear, the formation of vehicular access on to Court Hill and provision of associated parking. Again the Council has refused this application.

The RRA has not objected to either of these applications as it is not normally our policy to become involved in schemes involving small, single, residential schemes.

30/32 St James Road

I also wrote previously 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) and the erection of two two-storey buildings with ten

two-bedroom flats and four one-bedroom flats, formation of vehicular access and provision of fouteen car parking spaces. There were 31 objections on this application together with a referral from Councillor Graham Bass, and objections from our MP Richard Ottaway, the RRA and also the Kenley and District Residents Association. The Council refused this application, principally on the grounds of pedestrian and highway hazards, that the development would be out of keeping with the street scene of the adjoining locality and it would also have a detrimental affect on adjoining properties by reason of visual intrusion, loss of privacy and disturbance.

However, we have learnt that the application has gone to Appeal on

7 August. We await the outcome.

29 Dalegarth Gardens

Three applications have been submitted over the past few years for some form of development on this site, but all applications have been refused. The latest is for a detached three-bedroom house with vehicular access on to Ingleboro Drive and associated parking.

The Council again refused this application but we learnt that it went to Appeal with the Planning Inspector on 21 July.

Telecommunications mast at rear of 91/93 Brancaster Lane

In April, an application was submitted to the Council for a 15-metre-high telecommunication mast, adjacent to the railway line at the rear of Nos 91/93. It is proposed to site the mast adjacent to the downside track (golf course side). National Rail were seeking any observations from the Council on this application; 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 in the normal way. As this is a private mast for railway use only, the RRA did not object but we did raise comments as to why it had to be

15 metres high as it will protrude above the tree line and be seen by many houses higher up the valley. We hope our comments have been passed on to National Rail. The Council responded to National Rail that they had no observations to make and it will no doubt be erected shortly.

Parking in roads adjoining Riddlesdown Station

Some residents may have noticed that the Council has recently installed double yellow lines in the Dalton Close cul-de-sac and returning at the junction into Lower Barn Road near Riddlesdown Station. Apparently this action followed a complaint from a resident in Dalton Close that lorries, the dustcart and emergency vehicles could not enter or deliver to four houses at the back of Dalton Close because of parking, mainly by commuters.

Although the RRA could not argue that Dalton Close is narrow, we did raise the question as to why the Planning and Highways Departments had allowed such a narrow access road to be built adjoining the Station, where commuter parking would be an issue, in the mid-1990s!

We also raised objections with the Council in March about the double yellow lines returning into Lower Barn Road as, to our knowledge, there has never been a serious accident at this junction. The section of road between the railway bridge and the four-way junction of Coombe Wood Hill, Riddlesdown Avenue and Brancaster Lane is not as wide as the remainder of Lower Barn Road.

We did also tell the Council that we believed parking would therefore occur on the north side of Lower Barn Road and pinch-parking could be a problem with lorries, ambulances, fire engines and dustcarts unable to pass through. It could have far more serious consequences for many more residents in the Riddlesdown area should any emergency vehicle be delayed attending an incident.

Unfortunately, the Council didn’t take on board our concerns and installed these double yellow lines regardless. However, since then, a number of vehicles are now being parked in Lower Barn Road for the full length on the north side, in front of Nos. 130 & 132 and beside 141 Brancaster Lane and, on the south side, beside 48 Coombe Wood Hill. In some cases they are creating obstructions on the road and stopping lorries and emergency vehicles from passing through the gaps. A fire engine and some large lorries are three metres (about ten feet) wide and need this gap to pass through safely.

The RRA and Councillor Lynne Hale have been in contact with the Council about this and they have admitted that there is now a new problem and are looking at a longer-term solution. This may well mean placing some further double yellow lines on part of the north side and maybe on the south side near the four-way junction.

As an interim measure, the Council’s traffic wardens have now started issuing warning notices to any vehicle parked in this section of Lower Barn Road which, in their opinion, is causing an obstruction, advising the drivers that the Police will take action to issue fixed penalty notices or remove vehicles.

Only the Police can issue fixed penalty notices and remove vehicles causing an obstruction, and not the Council. The Police have been told by the Council of this problem and they could remove, or issue penalty notices, to all vehicles causing the obstruction, regardless of who came second and caused the obstruction. This could mean that you parked on one side of the road first when the other side was clear but someone else has come along later and parked opposite or diagonally opposite you. It could also mean that if your vehicle is removed, it will cost about £250, plus any daily storage charges, to get your vehicle back.

Unfortunately, on one day in August the Council wrongly issued warning notices to vehicles parked in the section of Lower Barn Road between the shops and Rydal Close and this caused a number of telephone calls to the Council and the RRA!

As Dalton Close now has these double yellow lines, it may also mean that vehicles that previously parked here could now park opposite one another in other areas of Riddlesdown, on narrow roads like Coombe Wood Hill, Riddlesdown Avenue and slightly further afield in Buttermere Gardens and Dalegarth Gardens, where the Police could take similar action.

The moral of the story is – beware if you park in a narrow road in Riddlesdown that you, or someone else, doesn’t cause an obstruction. It may cost you a lot of money to get your vehicle back. Also, remember if you park near the Station that it could also be your home that is on fire one day, or it is you who could be involved in a local road accident and require an ambulance or fire engine in an emergency, but the emergency services are delayed due to inconsiderate parking by some drivers in our narrow streets.

As the Chairman has said in his report, the RRA has also received a number of complaints from residents about general commuter parking in the roads surrounding the Station.This is causing danger to residents who use their driveways and have their sightlines blocked by commuters parking on the highway or preventing residents from parking near their homes.

The Riddlesdown area now seems to attract a huge number of commuters from outside the area (as well as some from close by) as our roads are around one of the last Stations in the south of the Borough that has free parking, even though the Zone 6 has now been extended to Upper Warlingham and Caterham.

We are currently working with the Council’s Parking Division and Ward Councillors Lynne Hale and Donald Speakman to try and find a solution to this. It is also worth remembering that drivers have no right whatsoever to park a vehicle on the highway that causes an obstruction and that technically the Police could prosecute each and every driver who parks their car on the highway, although, of course, in reality this rarely happens.

Paving over front gardens

You may have seen some publicity over the last few months that the Government is considering bringing in Planning Controls to stem the practice of creating hard stands in front gardens. According to the Government, more and more householders are laying hard surfaces in their front gardens to provide off-road parking. At present there are no restrictions on a householder’s ability to do this.

They say hard surfaces lead to accelerated run-off of surface water, which can overload sewerage systems, in more urban areas.

The Government intends in future that paving of front gardens will not be a permitted development under the Planning Acts and permission will have to be sought.

If permission is granted, any material used will have to allow water to drain away naturally. This can be achieved in a number of ways – most simply by ensuring that water runs off to an unpaved area such as an earth border or grass verge or alternatively using materials that allow the water to drain through – known as SUDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems).

The Government did suggest this regulation may come into force in October 2008 but, at the time of writing, this has not been confirmed. My view is that unless these hard stands are controlled under the Building Regulations, no one will check on-site that they are drained correctly.

Planners may make the aesthetic decisions but only Building Control Officers can inspect and enforce the materials used. The planners and politicians also need to accept that, in the real world, many households now have more than one vehicle and, especially on new developments, the allocated parking space of maybe one vehicle per unit, and no visitor or delivery parking, is insufficient and will lead to more vehicles being parked on our already congested roads.