The so-called ‘pop-up’ library at Harlow Hall is a pathetic facility. The only books being provided are those being returned by library users. There are no newspapers and not even one computer. The information leaflet about its opening hours and the alternative facilities at Thornton Heath and Broad Green Libraries can’t even spell the Oakhill and Stanford Rds properly. Only one member of staff is on duty raising concerns about health and safety. A second alleged ‘pop-up library is at the Norbury Lawn Tennis Club.
‘It has been absolute chaos for fly-tips across the borough of croydon this weekend.’
– James Cridge, Veolia’s Environmental Manager message to Ken one of Norbury’s Street Champion this week.
To 14 September. Get your blood pressure checked
The Council is promoting the benefits of having your blood pressure checked and is advertising a number of chemists where this is being done free. Here in Norbury it is Day Lewis Pharmacy, 1351 London Rd. Usual opening times.
Co-op Shop news
Delay in the start of work on the London Rd shops for the Co-op local store has been partly caused by problems negotiating with Transport for London on closing a parking bay to enable parking for works vehicles and deliveries. Work is expected to start soon. Some minor amendments to the planning approval will be submitted in the next few days, but these should not hold up the works.
The developer has decided to retain and convert and extend the building rather than demolish the existing red-brick Co-op complex. It is hoped that the pre-application plans will be available soon for consultation with residents.
Antic Pub works re-starting
Antic Pubs has finally apologised publicly for the delay in completion of the works to its new pub on Norbury Crescent. The last phase of the structural works is to re-start soon followed by internal fitting works. It is hoped to open in the New Year.
New Planning Applications
2 Christian Fields (19/03156/FUL)
Retrospective application for the erection of outbuilding
Comment: Norbury Park Residents Association PRA may wish to recommend to the planners that (1) it cannot be used for residential and (2) a water butt be provided.
Planning Applications Granted
92 Stanford Road (19/03547/HSE). Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, comprising a two storey rear extension, provision for two new window openings to the western elevation and provision for two new roof lights to the eastern roof slope.
3 Beaufort Gardens (19/03241/HSE). Retention of orangery to rear. Conditions include:
(1) ‘no windows shall be inserted or constructed in the flank elevations (other than shown on the approved drawings) of the building hereby approved without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the visual character of the area.’
(2) ‘At least one water butt of 100 litre volume shall be installed on a downpipe attached to the roof of the development prior to occupation/commencement of the use and shall be retained and maintained for so long as the development remains in existence. Reason: To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into the development and to reduce the impact of flooding’.
(3) ‘The roof area of the structure hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar area … or any amendment or replacement thereof no alterations shall be carried out to create access to it. Reason To protect the privacy of adjoining occupiers.’
3 Springfield Road Planning Application Refused
Conversion of garage to habitable roof, first floor side extension, extension of existing roof, dormer extension in rear roof slope, rooflights in from and rear roof slopes, single storey extension and outbuilding. (19/03150/HSE) Reasons for refusal:
(1) ‘The proposed works would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of 1 Springfield Road by reason of the height, depth and massing of the proposed rear extension resulting in an unacceptable loss of outlook and daylight and oppressive impact on the rear habitable rooms’
(2) ‘The garage conversion and first floor side extension, and extension to the original roof would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and the character of the townscape by reason of its poor design due to the introduction of several different roof forms; and size, massing and dominant appearance of the side extension due to the lack of set backs from the original dwelling’.
Low Emission Parking Charges Start on 1 October for new permits and when residents current permits come up for renewal and for
In response to the Council’s consultation on the charges the following comments were submitted re-their effect in Norbury
(1) ‘Concern that by being Borough wide the proposals fail to address the particular air pollution problems along and off the London Road running through Norbury & Pollards Hill Ward.’
The Council’s response: ‘This scheme is an initial phase and is intended to influence an uptake in lower emission vehicles amongst Croydon residents living within CPZs south of Norbury and commuting by car through London Road in Norbury. The subsequent proposed phase of emission-based destination parking charges and the wider public opinions formed by the proposals are is also likely to stimulate an uptake in lower emissions amongst car commuters who do not live within a CPZ. The fact that the average emissions from cars travelling through Norbury is being lowered, would help improve air quality along London Road. The Council is taking parallel measures to discourage the school run, which also contributes to peak time traffic in London Road, with currently proposed School Street restrictions in Abingdon Road, Norbury, and consideration to identifying other candidate schools in the area.
(2) ‘ Consider the introduction of a low emission zone along London Road, with at least two levels of charges: (1) Croydon residents, (2) non-Croydon residents.’
Council response: ‘The suggestion is similar to the London Mayor’s ULEZ scheme, which is a binary charge and is concerned with moving traffic. The London Mayor does not currently have any plan for extending the ULEZ to Croydon. The Mayor instead requires the outer boroughs to define and implement their own schemes, whether they call it ULEZ or something else and to use measures that that are appropriate for local conditions. The aim is a reduction in car ownership and use.’
(3) Comment: ‘Consider the re-trenching of public utilities under the London Road pavements in order to allow for the planting of more trees which will help absorb air pollution. Extend Tree Preservation Orders. Require developments to be set back from the road and include mature trees planting. Influence Network Rail to stop cutting down or replace with mature trees. Identify parts of the Borough where there may be more scope for tree planting.’
Council response: ‘The Council has a policy on tree planting, although it is not directly linked to emission-based parking charges. The council’s active tree planting program aims to plant 650 trees each year and this year alone it is expected to deliver 1200 trees.’
(4) ‘Develop charging for diesel vehicles as the first stage in any future proposed emission-based charging to encourage owners to change their cars.’
Council response: ‘This current scheme for emissions charges for permits includes a diesel surcharge. The future phases will incorporate diesel surcharges.’
(5) ‘if the proposals are adopted there will be an incentive for residents to consider turning the fronts of their houses into off-street parking, reducing the number of front gardens, reducing the parking spaces for other residents by the creation of cross-overs, and increasing the risks from surface water draining into gutters.’
Council response: ‘Restrictions apply to making a pavement cross-over and hardstanding for parking on private property, and these take into consideration road conditions, dimensions, underground services and surface water effects. The required works to strengthen a foot path and install a pavement cross-over tend to be extensive and, in many cases, may require prior planning consent and the associated cost is significantly higher than a parking permit charge. The Government’s Planning Portal states that specific rules apply for householders wanting to pave over their front gardens, such as if the surface to be covered is more than five square metres then planning permission will be needed for laying traditional, impermeable driveways that do not provide for the water to run to a permeable area. Residents who choose to install pavement cross-overs do so to secure access, not to avoid the permit charge and need to obtain permission from the council to drop the kerb and strengthen the pavement. The emission-based permit charge scheme has potential for helping to reduce the number of cars parked in a road, hence improving access and reducing the incentive for residents to concrete over their front gardens.’