Last night I attended the Mayor’s Charity Dinner at the Shanghai Chinese Restaurant in Wallington. It was really nice to be able to attend a function like this in my own ward.

In celebration of the Chinese New Year the restaurant was beautifully decorated, and the place was packed.

The restaurant staff did us proud with lots of delicious food and we had a very enjoyable evening.

The proceeds of the event and raffle will go to the Mayor’s charity Sutton Work Start, which supports young people between 18 and 24, who are not in employment, education or training, to secure employment.

A single person caused thousands of pounds worth of damage in Wallington Square on Tuesday evening. The windows of five shops were smashed in an isolated and unusual incident. Police were on the scene within minutes after being alerted by CCTV and were able to prevent the vandalism spreading to other shops in the square or the high street. The perpetrator has been placed under arrest.

Cllr Hall and I visited Peacocks and Richard Marks today to talk to the owners. Peacocks was the worst affected, and are working to replace the windows as quickly as possible. It is important to get this done as boarded up windows and doors can attract further vandalism and make the area appear less safe than it really is. Well done to the discount shop for having replaced their broken windows already.

We also discussed with the shop managers the need to keep some lights on at night. Richard Marks was recently broken into in what appears to have been a targeted robbery. Police believe that lights in shops at night can be a deterrent to burglars and also enable the local SNT teams to check inside the shops for intruders.

As well as the building works to the front we know that the owners of Wallington Square are working hard to find tenants for the empty shops. The more shops we have occupied here the safer the area will be, as well as providing a welcome complement to the range of shops in Wallington.

Debt Drop in Sessions
At
Croydon Law Centre
79 Park Lane, Croydon, CR0 1JG
Friday 23rd December
and
Thursday 29th December
10.30 am—2.30pm
Struggling with bailiffs, having problems paying bills, rent or mortgage arrears or feel overwhelmed by your debt and unable to manage?
We are offering drop-in advice on a one-off basis.
Open to anyone, wherever you live or whatever your income. No need to book, just come along.
We do not offer advice on business debts or challenging parking fines.
Call 0208 667 9226 if you have any questions.

In a stunning act of political entrenchment the Conservative Group refused to support our amendment to their housing motion. The Lib Dem amendment had to point out that the housing policy they were calling for in their motion to give Armed Forces personnel and their families priority housing when they had historical or family links to Sutton was already our existing policy. Our amendment then went on to broaden the Council’s commitment to our Armed Forces by agreeing to develop a borough covenant in accordance with the Armed Forces current campaign.

This covenant recognises that the needs of existing and returning servicemen and women are much wider than just housing and seeks to enshrine the bond between the Armed Forces and the civic community.

Cllr Hicks, who put forward the original motion had the decency to apologise for his misunderstanding, but Cllr Tony Shields had to be asked to withdraw his remarks having embarked on a rant about the Council’s lack of commitment to the Armed Forces despite having had it explained to him that the commitment they were calling for is already enshrined in our housing policy. How he can square that with his own and his group’s failure to commit to the Armed Forces Covenant proposed by our amendment, which didn’t contradict their motion but clarified and expanded on it, is a mystery.

The Conservative’s second housing faux pas was on their requisition of The Executive decision to apply to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) for a variation of the Benhill leaseholder percentages to make them fairer to all. They had tabled an amendment which represented a backtracking on their original excuse for requisition and supported the application to the LVT. However the key humiliation was the part of their amendment suggesting that the council should act in such a way that would constitute a breach of the Housing Act 1989 and would therefore effectively swindle the council tenants on the Benhill estate out of at least £75,000 of funding towards necessary works to improve the basic standard of their homes.

Once it had been pointed out to them that their amendment would constitute an illegal act the Conservative bench was confused over whether they were actually able to vote in favour of their own amendment.

Conservative opposition members applied the following day to delay the application so that it could be debated at a full council meeting in December. They said that the desired outcome at council is to delay it even further by having it looked at by the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee.

The Executive’s decision to apply to the LVT was at the request of leaseholders who had highlighted that similar properties on the Benhill estate were paying different percentage rates for services and major works. This request was supported by representatives of the Sutton Leaseholders Association.

Investigations showed that when ‘right to buy’ council homes were first introduced the percentage contribution towards shared services was calculated in a fairly simplistic manner. As right to buy became established the calculated charge detailed in the leases better reflected the relative size of the individual properties as well as any connected garages. The result is that similar properties are paying vastly different amounts towards the same works because they were purchased at different times.

A more detailed appraisal looking at what a fairer application of percentage charges would mean showed that some leaseholders had historically contributed significantly less than their appropriate share, whilst others had been paying too much.

It was agreed that an application should be made to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to vary the leases so that in future everyone pays the percentage that correctly reflects their share of the building. There will be winners and losers as a result of the ruling, and there is no guarantee what the LVT will decide.

The Benhill leaseholders had indicated an urgency to resolving this matter as they would soon be having major works undertaken to their properties which would have a big impact on the contributions they will be expected to make.

The delay poses a risk for council tenants as any overall under-recovery of charges comes out of the Housing Revenue Account thereby reducing the amount available for improvements to their properties. Any party to a lease can apply to have their terms changed so if overpaying leaseholders applied individually the Housing Revenue Account could lose funds without the compensatory adjustment from underpaying leaseholders. This is why the decision was for the council to apply and have all the leases reviewed at the same time.

I am sure that the delay to getting a decision from the LVT caused by the Tories will result in an extended period of anxiety and uncertainty for leaseholders who will have no assurance about the bills they are likely to face in the near future, and anger those leaseholders who already feel they have spent long enough contributing more than their fair share.

A careers fair for people aged 14-24 will be held at The Phoenix Centre, Wallington on Wednesday 23 November 2011 from 1-5pm.

The fair will help those who are thinking about their careers or looking for a course, and will give young people the opportunity to speak directly to employers.

All up to the age of 24 are welcome, as are parents and carers. School students should gain their school’s permission first before visiting during school hours.

Woodcote Green Garden Centre & Nurseries

Saturday 9am – 5.30pm, Sunday 10.30am – 4.30pm

B&Q in Sutton

Saturday 7am – 5pm, Sunday 10am – 4pm

Kimpton Park Way Reuse and Recycle Centre

Saturday 9am – 5pm, Sunday 9am – 2pm (Bring your own container)

The green at The Mount in Clockhouse

Saturday & Sunday 9am – 4pm

Don’t forget to bring your proof of address.

Combined with the big increase in grit bins across the borough, located on the advice of residents, Sutton should be well prepared for the coming winter.

Following completion of the improvement works to Wallington Town Centre as part of the Wallington Integrated Transport Package the Council is carrying out a survey to gain some feedback on what people like about the enhancements to the town centre.

The survey is available online at http://www.opinionsuite.com/sutton/consultation_finder and copies can be collected from Wallington Library.  Completed surveys can be returned to the council by post or handed in at the library.
 
The closing date of the survey is Friday, 28 October 2011.

Please note that there are also some unofficial surveys being carried out by parties trying to influence a return to on-street parking which we have received some complaints about. The council’s survey is in the form of a colour leaflet: Wallington Evaluation Final[1] and is being carried out by independant parties.

Before

After

Cllr Hall & I had prepared the motion to highlight current borough issues in the context of calling for the current planning policy reforms to be extended to look at permitted development rights.

In my speech I concentrated on the threat posed to backgarden land:

‘This council has a long history of seeking to protect the suburban character of this borough from the creep of backgarden development.

In true Liberal Democrat innovative tradition this council was one of the first to include specific policies with the aim of protecting backgardens from development, within its local planning policy framework.

In fact so new and unfamiliar was this idea to some planning inspectors that some very unsatisfactory decisions were made at appeal that didn’t fit well with our local policies.

However we have continued to update and strengthen our policies on backgarden development in our new Local Development Framework and the Government changes to remove garden land from the definition of brownfield, and therefore no longer seen as a priority area for development, means that national policy has finally caught up with us somewhat.

Now that our Core Strategy has been adopted and our Site Development Policies DPD currently at the submission stage, and therefore a significant document in terms of current planning applications, the full force of our revised and strengthened policies will start to take effect.

However, with strong and defensible policies protecting backgarden land we are unfortunately now facing some unintended consequences.

Having seen that backgarden development will not be accepted through normal planning processes, a new approach has become evident whereby developers are seeking to achieve their aims via the back door of permitted development.

These developers prepare plans that are very careful to meet the stipulations of permitted development, which gives them freedom to build without reference to the planning authority or the local community. The local authority can only intervene when there is a proven breach of permitted development rights.

With a full planning application the onus is on the developer to prove that the plans comply with planning policy. With a breach of permitted development the onus is on the local authority to prove that a development is not within national set guidance.

Planning experts across the country have raised concerns about the vaguaries of the guidance in respect of permitted development as amended in 2008, with too many opportunities for loopholes to be exploited.

In light of these recent developments and the government’s desire for review of planning policy we believe that now is the time to extend that review to permitted development rights, and this is the point of our amendment to add to the resolutions of the motion.

Our Planning Enforcement team takes a strong stance on breaches of permitted development and has a good track record of resolving issues at an early stage. However when our enforcement team finds it necessary to take legal action, we find that the courts are often unwilling to see planning cases as a priority. In my view there is no point having any planning policies in place if we do not have the support of the legal process to enforce breaches of planning law.

I attended a course recently looking at the built environment and design matters. On this course we were asked to think about what we meant when we talked about suburbia.

The answers were about well laid out streets, large houses set in spacious plots with generous gardens. Trees and greenery were seen as a key part, as well as good commuter links. A good quality of life was also mentioned, smaller shopping areas and distinct neighbourhoods.

 Sutton is Suburban. We do not deny it, in fact our residents are proud of it and want to preserve it. People move to Sutton to enjoy the suburban lifestyle.

It is our duty as a council to listen to our residents and seek to preserve that suburban character through our local planning policies. That is what we have done and that is what we will continue to do. We know that housing is scarce and we are happy to encourage development in the right places which fit well within the area.

But backgardens are not the place for new developments.

We call upon the Government to reinforce the powers of local authorities to respond to the desire of local residents to protect the suburban character of Sutton.

For if we do not we will become just another part of the inner city urban sprawl.

Please support the motion and our amendment.’

The agreed resolutions were:

 i) Write to the Secretary of State for CLG to express this Council’s view that permitted development rights should not be applicable to changes of use by commercial enterprises so that communities will continue to have a say in ensuring the vitality of their local areas, and

ii) request an overall review of permitted development rights and Certificates of Lawful Development to ensure that there is a suitable balance of a householder’s right to modify their property against the amenity needs of their neighbours and the local community.

iii)Encourage the Government to highlight the importance, and strengthen the enforcement of, breaches of Permitted Development when they reach the court system.

A condition of the planning consent was the landscaping of Jubilee Gardens – the patch of land between Mint House and the old Shotfield building leading on from theLibraryGardens. A design for this area has been prepared with input from the Friends of Wallington Library and ex-ward councillor Richard Bailey, who has expert horticultural knowledge. The design is being displayed in Wallington Library and Mint House and Colin, Monica & I are keen to hear your views so we can represent them when the plans are presented for planning permission in December.

Also raised by residents at the meeting was the issue of the junction at Sandy Lane South/The Drive and Woodcote Road. This matter had been discussed at the Local Committee back when I was chair and plans for the junction submitted by our highways team for comment. Unfortunately the cost of the proposed scheme has proved problematic in getting it progressed with Transport forLondon. Hopefully with a new surge of support from the local community it will give us the opportunity to ask for a fresh look at the issue.

 Other items agreed at the meeting relevant to Wallington South were double yellow lines at the bend of Onslow Gardens and public realm funding for replacement benches in the sensory gardens originally installed by the Carshalton Rotary between Sainsbury’s and Crosspoint House.