Author: Tim Foster

On 7^th March, I wrote a blog http://sutton-independent-residents.london/unusual-priorities/ about the placement of an expensive Perspex sign on the hoardings around the Richmond Green development and questioned the priorities of the Council when the road/footpaths around the same development were being destroyed.

I pointed out in that piece that there was a web link on the sign referring people to sutton.gov.uk/newcouncilhousing and reflected that the previous September, Councillor Jayne McCoy, in Full Council, had been unable to indicate what proportion of the houses would be part owned and what proportion council rented.

Other Facebook users had said that similar signs were put up at the Fellowes Road site and the Ludlow site and had asked whether these were all Council Houses.  I said I didn’t know but would ask.  Today, I received the reply:

Dear Mr Foster

I acknowledge your request for information dated 9th March 2018 concerning Richmond Green.

Request: In reference to planning Application No: D2016/73695 – 23-50 Richmond Green – Demolition of 28 existing bungalows and construction of 21 new 2 and 3 bedroom dwelling houses, this build is currently in progress. Recently a large poster was put up on the hoarding surrounding the site that had stated “New Homes for Local People” and a website reference: sutton.gov.uk/newcouncilhousing.

Please can you confirm what proportion of the 21 houses will be council rented properties and what proportion will be marketed under joint ownership with, for example, a Housing Association?

Response:  I am unable to provide at this stage the tenure split on Richmond Green because this is still being determined.

This was from the Head of Housing Enabling and Development – I still cannot understand who would authorise a business plan that involved an expenditure of £7+ million and have no concept of the end game – but that is not the object of this piece.

Council housing and tenancy types are simply explained on the Government website https://www.gov.uk/council-housing/types-of-tenancy.

Whilst I have no doubt that a proportion of the housing built in these three developments will be Council Housing, to create the grandiose impression that they have with their headlines and expensive posters, the current administration is creating an illusion – a confusing one for those in need and an expensive one for Sutton Council Taxpayers.

#LOCALANDVOCAL #INDEPENDENTSDAY3RDMAY

Well today Tom Brake announces that Sutton are re-thinking their strategy on the Charles Cryer Theatre – the sort of news that someone thinks will make up for all the previous nonsense that we have been fed about “Commercial Rents”.

What has happened is that the leadership has finally realised that a Civic Council is supposed to listen to the electorate – the people they are supposed to represent.  The recent apologist document about the Incinerator that has been widely shared on Facebook is another indicator of this dawning realisation that they have relied on their organisation, the election machinery and bombardment of the electorate with their own biased perspectives rather than talking to people on the ground.

And anyone wondering just how insidious that election machinery is, should read the small print on the bottom of a typical Focus leaflet.  The following came from Sutton North and a self-congratulatory editorial about the recent library improvements.

The Liberal Democrats and their elected representatives may use the information you’ve given to contact you. By providing your data to us, you are consenting to us making contact with you in the future by mail, email, telephone, text, website and apps, even though you may be registered with the Telephone Preference Service. You can always opt out of communications at any time by contacting us or visiting www.libdems.org.uk/optout. For more information go to www.libdems.org.uk/privacy.

Fortunately, forthcoming changes in Data Protection under GPDR  mean this assumptive consent will no longer be adequate – sadly for us, the new rules don’t come in until 25^th May 2018 so you may still get an unwanted piece of literature.

From then on, you will have to positively consent to the use of your data and furthermore, if you do not consent, it will no longer be enough to delete you off their database, they can be required to effectively erase the history of contact.

I expect that the London Borough of Sutton has a complete implementation plan in place – yes, even if you are on the lists for Garden Waste, they will have to ask for your consent to write to you.

But at least when the next election comes round, if you once emailed Tom Brake about a constituency issue, you won’t have to read some piece of guff from his Lib Dem colleagues!

Politicians will all have to listen – that will make a change!

We have seen the publication of manifestos from both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party and it is worth understanding the definition of the word before everybody gets too excited!

A manifesto is defined as a public declaration of policy and aims, especially one issued before an election by a political party or candidate.

So, they are not promises, only aims – now read the line in the Labour document “However, we recognise that only the election of a Labour Government committed to the radical policies of its 2017 General Election Manifesto will enable s to fully deliver all the change that Sutton residents aspire to.”  That is one hell of a get out clause!

Then there is the terminology – “we demand more Borough school places for our children” – that is not a statement of policy, it is the strident tone of a placard waving protester.

They also seem to have referred to the David Cameron book of cock-ups – they are going to “negotiate an end to the incinerator contract and put a proposal to end the contract to residents via a referendum!”

Wherever you look in the 30 pages – a 10% levy on developers is hardly going to make Sutton the go to borough for house builders – there are more holes than Granny’s colander!  There is a certain amount of cutting and pasting from their 2014 effort “With you, for you” but at just 16 pages, that one was at least an easier read.

As for the Liberal Democrat effort, it lurches from a profound sense of entitlement to what one can only hope is unintentional irony.

Constant reference to “our” in their plans – our Sutton Town Centre Masterplan, our new school in Belmont, our council-owned company – they won’t acknowledge that the only collective “we” are the residents. Councillors of whatever persuasion are there to serve the residents – that’s us.

The irony? Having granted retrospective Planning Permission for the destruction of trees and nesting habitats for the convenience of their SDEN pipelines, they are going to “Support tree-planting schemes with the aim of achieving over 2,000 new trees across the borough”. If that was not ironic enough for you they will “Deliver one of the largest London Parkland areas in Beddington”. Just don’t forget your gas masks when you visit!

For a party of Government, the Conservatives seem a bit slow off the mark with their agenda although they were first in with the voting bribe of £10 refund on your Council Tax if your bin isn’t collected – the fact that they have promised that Veolia will pay it, not them, and in knowledge that the reporting system that the incumbent Lib Dems has in place it not working,  tends to put this into “Promises, promises.”

#LOCALANDVOCAL #INDEPENDENTSDAY3RDMAY

When I stood up at the second planning meeting about Richmond Green, I thought that they may review the position as the London Borough of Sutton  had applied to themselves for Planning Permission using the incorrect documentation.

When I took the matter forward to the Local Government Ombudsman I brought their attention to the fact that the Flood Prevention Plan presented to the Committee was prefaced with the warning that the following report should not be used to support a planning application.

The London Borough of Sutton defended themselves against my deposition with a legal opinion that they expressly forbade the Ombudsman to share with me.  The Ombudsman found in favour of the London Borough of Sutton but in spite of Freedom of Information requests I am still not aware how they managed to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

But of course, there were conditions applied to the planning permission but those have been persistently ignored – for example condition 18 that specifically demands the protection of the verges on the green to the South side of Richmond Green.  When these were pointed out – there were platitudes about re-instatement.  No effort at protection and you can see from the photographs a typical delivery and the damage caused.

As if to rub the residents’ noses in it, next to the main site entrance a sign has been erected asking people not to drive on the verge and it isn’t even the one they are contracted to protect!  You see, everyone seems to forget that people live here – they walk their children to school – they walk their dogs.  The building site is supposed to be behind the hoardings but instead they are destroying the road – currently deemed a footpath – the verges and the lives of residents.

Within the last 10 days, I wrote an email to the Director responsible with copies to the Project Director of the contractors and the Chief Executive of the London Borough of Sutton.  At the time, I pointed out continuing contraventions of planning conditions as well as security factors which included the fact that one of the security bollards was broken meaning that vehicular access was possible to Richmond  Green.

That remains unrepaired and around 10 metres away is green heras fencing leaning unsecured against a hedge.  It still has the warning “Danger of Death” and given the collective weight of these panels and the Easter holidays with children playing – it is dangerously prophetic.

But the final irony is reserved for that Flood Prevention Plan – in spite of everything, before the London Borough of Sutton entered their defence to the Local Government Ombudsman, a new Plan was submitted.  This involved the creation of a “Balancing Pond” on the green south of Richmond Green to route surface water from the new development via a hydrobrake directly into the Wandle.  The problem is that what they have created is a flood creation plan – amply illustrated during its current construction phase where without any connection to the drainage of surface water from the site, after an averagely showery day in South London, she is filling up nicely.

Where the blame is apportioned, I have to leave to the local people – I know what I think and it is one of the reasons I have stuck my neck out to represent this ward because we residents do not have full representation.  One Councillor, however noisy, is hard pressed against the apathy of the others – three of us have a chance!

#LOCALANDVOCAL #INDEPENDENTSDAY3RDMAY

The emphasis on Local in the title is deliberate because it is about the streets that we live in, the schools our children attend and services to support the local community.

Your vote is not a vote about Corbyn or May – it is not about the NHS or Brexit – it is about local representation of your ward in the London Borough of Sutton.

We are familiar with the way career politicians are parachuted into General Elections – Emina Ibrahim, who represented Labour in last year’s General Election is a local Councillor …… in Haringey.  (There must be something about Haringey – Niall Bolger, the Chief Executive of the London Borough of Sutton and his financial right-hand man, Gerald Almeroth both came to us from Haringey!)

But local issues need local representation – people who live with the day to day outcomes of Council policy.

To the main political parties, representative numbers in Council are everything – in Beddington North for example, the Liberal Democrats have brought in an established political figure…….. from Carshalton.  That’s a long way from the lorries in Beddington Lane or the planned development chaos of Sheen Way!

And Labour too – every one of their Beddington North candidates has stood for election in other wards.  It seems party representation first, residents second. Of course, the Conservatives had a replacement ready to fill the breach left when one of their candidates withdrew – to all major parties, it’s just about the numbers.

I have lived in my ward for nearly 40 years, I raised a family here and I am standing as a candidate for Beddington North because we residents have become a secondary consideration to the current administration and, it appears, all political parties.

It is rewarding to know that I am not alone in believing in the need for Independent local action and I am proud to join Jillian Green and Nick Mattey to offer local residents a real choice on May 3^rd, because it is really all about local residents not National political interests.

We are passionate about restoring pride in the where we live, helping to create a Borough to be proud of!

#LOCALANDVOCAL #INDEPENDENTSDAY3RDMAY

Chatting to a resident who lives on Richmond Green the other evening she was saying how distressed she was at the desolation of the area and the fact that she can often not park outside her house because of cars and vans parked there by people working on the  building site adding a rather plaintive comment.

“But what can you do?”

That is right up there with comments like “What’s the point?” when you ask if someone voted in an election.  It is a very simple point – the more people who vote, the less the politicians like it.

Remember the Referendum – a record turnout and the result none of the politicians or pundits expected.  They may talk about proportional representation, but the politicians, especially the radical left or right, love low turnouts.

Consider the ward of Beddington North – blighted by an incinerator, endless issues in Beddington Lane, blighted by a Local Plan that will destroy Green Spaces (Sheen Way Playing Fields and Metropolitan Open Land) and by the destruction of a settled, elderly community in Richmond Green.  For the Local Election on May 3^rd, there are 8,011 registered voters in the ward – at the last election there was a 42.4% turnout down by a massive 28.8% on the previous election.

So, put the difference between those two turnouts into the context of May 3^rd this year – at 42.4% 3,396 people will cast their votes – the higher number represents a 59.55% turnout or 4,770 people – an additional 1,374 voters each of whom have 3 votes.  In the 2014 vote that elected the current Councillors, the top three polled respectively 1,299,1,290 and 1,048 votes – those 1,374 people could have and probably would have made a big difference.

“But what can you do?” – PLEASE VOTE – whatever your ward, whomsoever you support, your vote makes a difference for today, tomorrow and future generations.

And of course, if you live in Beddington North, there are three Independent candidates who will make a huge difference in Council:

Tim Foster – Jillian Green – Nick Mattey.

#LOCALANDVOCAL  #INDEPENDENTSDAY3RDMAY

There was a meeting on Monday evening about the administration of the electoral processes run for the benefit of candidates and agents.  Good to see that there were five Independent candidates – three for Beddington North – and there were also candidates from Greens and UKIP but the major parties were represented only by agents – you can understand why the front page of the main party websites all ask for donations to pay for their own infrastructure – we Independents rely on hard work and enthusiasm, but then as simple residents, it is a little hard to understand the l nature of the main parties’ approach to simple economics.

My route last night took me past the empty structure of the Charles Cryer theatre – empty as the Liberal Democrats seek “commercial rent” leaving the Borough a cultural desert, the more so as they plan to demolish Wallington Hall to build more flats.  So why do they allow the charity EcoLocal to take the Lodge in Carshalton at a discounted rate – of course Tom Brake’s patronage of the charity may have something to do with it but you either drive a “commercial” policy or you don’t.

But then you read the recent Conservative newspaper sized leaflet which headlines the offer to give residents a refund if their bins are not collected.  Look further down the page in the right- hand column and the same paper criticises the incumbent party of spending a huge amount on a computer system for monitoring waste collection and the continued weekly expenditure because the systems are not properly recording failure.  So, if you don’t know the size of the problem and people cannot properly report the failure to collect bins, how on earth do you make the promise to refund money?

And the promise is not out of council coffers but those of the contractor – dangerous when you have not clearly established breach of contract.  But, like my student son and friends duped by promises about Student Loans made by another party at the General Election, we are all of us familiar with election promises!

Then there are the multiple limited companies established by the current administration – “start-ups” in business parlance – who have borrowed eye watering sums of money to “invest” in property. The reputed £30 million in Oxford on an office building is a monumental commitment and not sure how that compares with the £7.39 million spent on buying residential property locally.  I cannot think of any circumstance where a start-up company could take this level of commercial risk – but then it is us, the residents, who are taking the risk.

Any surprise that this authority has appeared so often in Private Eye’s “Rotten Boroughs”?

We know the constraints put on local authorities by Central Government – nothing new there, whatever the political colour – remember the Liberal Democrats were part of the Coalition who introduced austerity because the outgoing Labour Government had left little option.

Every political party has a portion of responsibility – it is we residents who have to cut our cloth.

Fat cat salaries at the executive level, over generous allowances to Councillors all need review but most especially a close look at the assets this wonderful Borough has and make the most of them on behalf of the residents, not some notional balance sheet or pursuit of political dogma

The most important asset isn’t, in fact, the bricks and mortar, it is the people and as an Independent candidate, I say cut the promises, cut the politics and let’s work together to make a Borough we can all be proud of.

#LOCALANDVOCAL #INDEPENDENTSDAY3RDMAY

In the early seventies the Conservative Government of Edward Heath had to contend with an oil crisis prompted by new demands from the Middle East which coincided with a miners’ strike lead by Joe (later Lord) Gormley.  The country really suffered – workers went on a 3-day week and many of our offices were lit by candles.

The Labour party was lead at that time by Harold Wilson and, according to Joe Gormley’s autobiography, he and Mr Wilson met in the Turkish Baths near Westminster and discussed the crisis – quite understandable at that time that a committed Union leader would meet with the Labour leader. During that discussion Joe Gormley told Wilson, in confidence, that he had worked out a compromise that if miners were paid for the time that they showered after a shift, then the Government’s wage freeze would not be compromised and everyone could get back to work.

The next day in the Commons, Harold Wilson put Joe Gormley’s idea to the House as his proposal and, by making a political point of it, made it politically impossible for the Prime Minister to adopt the idea.  Joe Gormley said that never spoke to Harold Wilson again and our 3-day weeks continued up to an early General Election won by Harold Wilson.

Whether you blame the political intransigence of Heath or the deceit of Wilson, playing politics in that way cost us all money, drove us further into recession and illustrates the flaws of the tribalism that has infected our democracies.

In Sutton, when the Conservatives abstained from the vote on the local plan, their abstention, rather than voting against the plan, was said to have been influenced by not wanting to appear to be against building a school.

Well to our ward, that plan represented a further land grab of Metropolitan Open Land in Beddington Lane as well as the disruption of Sheen Way as they look to develop a school on the playing fields.  And so it was left to our Independent Councillor, Nick Mattey to represent our views – of course the other Beddington North Ward Councillors, Liberal Democrats Pathumal Ali and Nighat Piracha followed their party line rather than consider local sensibilities.

We are poorly served by the present administration of the London Borough of Sutton.  We need voices in Council that are not constrained by political diktat or PR, not guided by a complex party manifesto and not full of financial inducements and promises that may not be kept.  Local people deserve representation by their peers – local people who live in the same environment who want to be proud of where they live.

#LOCALANDVOCAL  #INDEPENDENTSDAY3RDMAY

Jayne McCoy is a Liberal Democrat Councillor representing Wallington South and she Chairs the Housing Economic and Business Committee.

Councillor McCoy and her committee were confronted by the problem in June 2013 of what to do with Richmond Green – there were 28 brick built bungalows built by the Council in the 950’s that had served the elderly residents in pleasant surroundings. A flood in 2007 had rendered one of the blocks with four units uninhabitable and the rest of the bungalows had been neglected by the property managers, Sutton Housing Partnership(SHP).

Professional surveys had been carried out with reports in 2009 and 2012 the latter stating that there was remedial work needed totalling £2.5 million but conditions of the properties varied to the extent that 10 were considered to be good enough that remedial work could be carried out within the context of routine maintenance.

Dismissing these professional reports, Ms McCoy and her committee preferred the SHP routine audit, referred to in the HRA Business Plan, that claimed imminent collapse of the structures and recommended the immediate rehousing (eviction) of the tenants.  At the time it was stated that the bungalows would be replaced with 28 semi-detached houses.

Steamrolling residents’ concerns about building on a flood plain and the associated costs, planning permission for just 21 houses was granted by the London Borough of Sutton to itself – the reduction in numbers because their own rules on housing density would not allow the 28 houses originally stated. (one assumes that they were aware of PTAL ratings so why didn’t someone flag up that less houses could be built?)

So, in 2018 demolition of the bungalows (6 years after SHP said they were falling down!) was followed by the build – it is still ongoing and the approved construction cost is a shade over £7 million (this does not include the estimated £500,000 cost for repairing a mains electricity cable or the water pipe repairs x 2 that clumsy builders have managed so far!)

We could have had 28 serviceable bungalows for the elderly at £2.5 million but now we (will) have 21, 2/3 bedroomed houses for £7 million.  And now the London Borough of Sutton’s new acquisition arm reported to Councillor McCoy and her committee that acquisition costs for a total of 33 properties currently purchased or in pipeline will be £7.943 million proving that value in the housing market does not need to come at the expense of settled communities and the elderly.

Put another way, for the same total “investment” that Councillor McCoy is managing, she could have had 28 bungalows, 18 other properties and the 33 that have been bought, a total of 79 properties wholly owned by the London Borough of Sutton for the benefit of local residents of all ages.  Instead she has “acquired” a total of 54 properties, some of which appear to be heading the way of joint ownership.

And Ms McCoy is a member if the Institute of Chartered Accountants!

#INDEPENDENTSDAY3RDMAY #LOCALANDVOCAL