Category: Chairmans’ Chat

Purley Pool: Second Planning Application

Seven local Residents’ Associations (RAs) in and around the Purley area have got together to look at the controversial planning application from Polaska to demolish the multi-storey car park and current closed leisure centre in Purley, and to erect new buildings of 5 to 12 storeys high and to build a new leisure centre, an Integrated Retirement Community comprising a mix of Specialist Older Persons Housing and Care Accommodation for older people, car parking, and associated works.

Whilst all the RAs are very keen to see a new leisure centre built in Purley, serving our area, we believe this should not be at any cost.  In addition, to our concerns about the financial stability of the developer and the height of the buildings, which do not comply with the current Croydon Local Plan, we are particularly concerned about the loss of the 424 car parking spaces currently available in the public multi-storey town centre car park, serving the town.

In the new development, there will only be 50 parking spaces available for public use, including 5 disabled parking bays. There will also be 28 parking spaces available for the Integrated Retirement Community, including 4 disabled spaces which, although initially will be available for public use, will revert to the Retirement Community once the apartments have been built and occupied, if they need them. Effectively, this means there will not be an increase in the number of car parking spaces from the previous plans submitted. There will only be 50 public spaces in comparison to the current 424 spaces. The RAs believe some of these 50 spaces will also be reserved for electric vehicle charging, as well as 5 disabled spaces. There will be no priority for users of the leisure centre.

Additionally, planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment of the Purley railway station car park for 238 flats and up to 9 storeys high, plus a new smaller station car park, which is also on Whytecliffe Road South. We believe the loss of the 374 spaces from the multi-storey car park together with the reduction of spaces available after the development of the Purley Station site will surely have a significantly detrimental effect on the retail trade in Purley Town Centre. We know Purley has excellent public transport links, but we also know that many of the surrounding areas containing the customers who come to Purley, do not.

This belief is amplified by the parking projections in the application which show there is a deficit of 14 spaces at peak time in Purley once the 374 spaces are gone. This assumes the Tesco Car Park will not be available to take the users currently using the multi-storey, an eventuality the Council admits is a possibility in the long term.  Of course, these figures do not include future users of the leisure Centre (which has been closed since 2020), or the increase in the number of patients using Purley Hospital.  There has been a large increase in the diagnostics at the hospital with a resulting increase in patient numbers, many of whom will need to drive there, and at a time when the hospital has reduced its parking spaces available.

Additionally, a new significantly larger Mosque is currently being built on Whytecliffe Road South. When planning permission was granted in March 2021, it was inferred in the reports that their members would be able to park in the Purley multi-storey car park, the Purley station car park and Tesco car park. This will not be the case for this much reduced Council car park.

The seven RAs believe it is very difficult to see how there will be sufficient parking spaces for the users of the leisure centre, hospital, railway station and Mosque, in addition to people wanting to eat and shop in the town after the completion of all these developments and we believe it could be the ‘death Knell’ for some shops and restaurants in Purley town centre, through lack of custom. Also, can the leisure centre be viable with so little prioritised parking?

Please consider objecting to these new proposals by midnight on Thursday 6 February 2025 on this link to the Croydon Council’s planning website; 

https://publicaccess3.croydon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=S9U0INJLKLR00&activeTab=summary

 

Riddlesdown RA, Hartley & District RA, East Coulsdon RA, Selsdon RA, 

Croham Valley RA, Old Coulsdon RA, Coulsdon West RA

Tree Preservation Orders for 11 trees in the Old Palace Junior School site

The Council has this week placed preservation orders on 11 trees within the site. We thank Mr Goode of  Planning and Sustainable Regeneration Division within the Planning Department for registering these trees.  We also thank the Whitgift Foundation for preserving these trees during the sales process.

Details of the TPOs (including a map at the end of the document)  are below.

TPOdetails

Croydon’s Housing Targets:  Where are we?

Croydon’s Housing Targets:  Where are we as of March 2023?

Is Croydon building sufficient new homes – and the right mix of housing for Mayor Perry not to be reeled in by either Mayor Khan or the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities? 

The current target per annum agreed with Mayor Khan is 2,079 units starting in 2019 up to 2029. After 2029  Croydon Council are proposing around 1,200 units per annum until December 2040.  

The last time I wrote on this was in December 2023 with March 2022 data and the Council was meeting these targets and in addition had a pipeline of 11,893units. You need a pipeline to show you are going to meet the targets in future.  This data was published in the Annual Monitoring Report for 2021/2022.

I suspected that by December 2023 Croydon was well in excess of its targets given the number of blocks completed around East Croydon in that year. As I have said before, to me all this high rise development around East Croydon is on balance good.

We now have some new numbers. For the four years from the start of this plan cycle up to March 2023 Croydon has built 8,754 units vs a target of 8,316.  This is 105% of the target. Well done Croydon Council in facilitating this.

To compare this with the whole of London, the London wide target is 52,287 units per annum. So for the four years the cumulative target is 209,148 and the actual completions are 145,444. So completions are 69.54% of the total.   This puts Croydon’s performance in even better light. Especially as Croydon has the seventh highest housing target of all the 33 London boroughs and the highest for an outer London borough.  However we should have a high target as we have East Croydon Station. Can you Spot it on the “Access Map”?This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is jeremy-target01-1.jpg

However how is Croydon doing in meeting its targets on affordable homes and family homes? The answer as of March2022 was – badly.   For affordable homes the target is 50% and the current run rate is 17%. For family homes – homes with three bedrooms or more – the target is 30% and the current run rate is 16%.  An update on these numbers to follow.

This is a follow up of the original piece here

Chris comes to at our 2024 AGM

Chris talked about the 4 Ps and 2 Cs

Policing
Chris was proud that the offender facial recognition system first rolled out in Croydon has now expanded nationally. He indicated that there is evidence offenders avoid Croydon to avoided being recognised and detained

Chris is working with the police to counter phone theft particularly from children in specific areas eg South Croydon Station. More police on the streets is the answer

An Eastern European gang has just been arrested for wholesale catalytic converter theft which should bring the incidences of this theft down.

Planning
Chris and Mayor Perry continue to reject applications fir the demolition of family homes to build flats.

Purley Pool
The planning application of the development of Purley Pool should be assessed by the Council later this year. The application does not contain as much parking as Chris would like but its the most Mayor Khan will allow under the current regulations for a site with such high levels of public transport infrastructure.

Purley Hospital
Services are increasing. It now contains a community diagnostic centre. It needs to be used.

Coulsdon Non-Profit banking centre
As there are no banks left in Coulsdon, Chris is working to set up one of the above. This will be one of 50 sponsored by the Government in the country.

Coulsdon Medical Centre
Chris is working to replace the old Cavat Classrooms with a Medical Centre

Chris answered the following questions

 

Q1     Will any of the old regime face any criminal convictions for the bankruptcy of Croydon Council
A1     Chris believes the four main individuals in charge were the Chief Executive, the Financial Director, the Head of Council and the Councillor for Finance. A file has been handed over to the police to see whether there is a possibility for Malfeasance in Public Office. But it is a high bar to cross.

Q2   Are the flats in the Centre of Croydon full!
A2  As far as Chris was aware they are full.

Q3  When will the old Nestle building be completed.
A3  Unfortunately it is owned by a Chinese developer who is having financing problems. Similar for the old Georges Walk Site.

Q4  Will the Purley Pool and Leisure Centre be self financing after completion.
A4 Yes experience from the existing leisure centers show they break even.

Q5  What about the Whitgift Centre development.
A6  It is hoped there will be a planning application early in 2025

 

Details of call with Helen Gough, Director of Property for the Whitgift Foundation

I sent a mail to the Whitgift Foundation saying some residents wanted to have a meeting about the covenants I received a reply  from Helen Gough suggesting we had a chat.  So I called.
I said that we, the residents of the Croham Park Estate (the land sold by the Whitgift Foundation to Donald Young in  October 1905 comprising Castlemaine, Melville, Pilgrims Way and the parts of Coombe and Croham between them);
– were aware of the restrictive covenants on the land
– believed them to be still relevant as the nature of the core of the estate has not changed significantly.
– would like any purchaser to take into account our views whilst making plans for the site.
– we were happy to be relatively flexible.
Helen said the following;
– the WF had taken extensive legal advice regarding the covenant without giving any indication as to what that advice was.
– our concerns would be passed onto any potential buyers of the site and she was sure they would want to get in contact in due course.
– in fairness to remaining pupils the marketing of the site will only progress after the Summer Term finishes
– the main outcome for the WH was to maximise the benefit for the WF, this was not necessarily the same as maximising sale proceeds.
– they had not ruled out selling to another educational organisation
Helen said that the WF were logging all interaction with interested parties.  She gave an example of a call to the WF expressing concern about the retention of the stained glass windows in one of the buildings.
I I propose we do nothing more for now (except to ask the Council for TPOs).  The WH knows we are concerned and are aware of the covenants. They will pass on our concerns to any purchaser.

Croydon Development Plan Revisions – What do you think?

The Local Plan provides an overall strategy, guides decisions on future development proposals and addresses the needs and opportunities of the borough over a 20 year time horizon. The Current plan was drawn up in 2018 by the Labour administration. The Plan must be consistent with the London wide plan and UK government planning guidelines.

Changes to the plan are being made to reflect Mayor Perry’s views on development which is called his “Business Plan 2022-2026”.  Final consultation on these revisions will be taking place during Jan and Feb of 2024 and adopted later in the year. The main changes from the current plan – the 2018 plan are as follows.

In terms of Urban Design, the Mayor has already revoked SPD2 which the previous regime used to justify many inappropriate infill developments. The new recommendations are for the removal of all suburban intensification areas and the removal of 3 storey blanket policy.  The Mayor will also promote design over density, respecting Croydon’s unique character and identity and allocate larger brownfield sites and sustainable locations to meet housing targets.

All this is much appreciated and a confirmation of what we have seen recently in Planning Committee decisions over the last 18 months.

However is Croydon building sufficient new homes – and the right mix of housing for these policies to continue and Mayor Perry not to be reeled in by either Mayor Khan or the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

The current target per annum agreed with Mayor Khan is 2,079 units up to 2029 and Croydon Council are proposing around 1,200 per annum from 2029 until December 2040.  The Council is currently meeting these targets and had a pipeline of 11,893 as of March 2022 – the last time figures were published.

I suspect Croydon is well in excess of its targets given the number of block completed around East Croydon in the last year. As I have said before, to me all this high rise development around East Croydon is on balance good.

However how is Croydon doing in meeting its targets on affordable homes and family homes. The answer is badly.   For affordable homes the target is 50% and the current run rate is 17%. For family homes – homes with three bedrooms or more – the target is 30% and the current run rate is 16%.

Whilst Croydon is not alone in not meeting its targets I think these targets are worth trying to achieve. For example what is going to happen to all those 20 somethings living in the new 1 and 2 bed flats in the towers all around East Croydon.  Are they all going to have to leave us when they turn into new families. And what about those people who cannot afford these new flats and there is insufficient affordable housing.

We at the CVRA will be raising these affordability and size issues in the January consultation.  If there is anything else you would like us to raise, please get in touch.

The Council’s update document can be found below:

Plan Revision Document

Consultation on the Lloyd Park bowling green and the Council’s plan for the evolution of the park

The Friends of Lloyd Park are consulting with local residents’ associations regarding the Council’s plan evolution of the park.  Examples of questions are “do you want areas of the park where dogs have to be on leads?” and “do you want more events (such a music festivals) in the park.

It was a three minute survey for me (so probably a two minute survey for most) so if you are a user of the park or impacted by it please fill in the survey.  The link , below.

CVRA survey about Lloyd Park Bowling Green and Croydon Plan for Lloyd Park with Frequency of Park usage

Turkish Kangol Dogs in Lloyd Park

 

A follow up from our MP Chris Philp.

Below is the email from Chris.  I was concerned that the only thing we had heard from the police or MPs regarding this incident was from Croydon Central MP Sarah Jones who stated “The dogs have once again been seized and the local police are doing everything they can to ensure they don’t get released back to the owner.” So I asked Chris Philp MP to request an update from the police.  The response is below. It says the investigation is ongoing under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and also that the courts will decide whether the dogs are released back to the owners. The fact that the courts will make the decision (which I believe is under the Dogs Act 1871 and is independent of a any proceedings under the 1991 Act) is, to me, reassuring.
Thank you Chris for this update

Dear Jeremy, 
Following from our previous correspondence, I have now received a response from the Metropolitan Police. Please find a copy of this response attached for your reference which I do hope you find helpful.

“The South BCU take all dog related matters, that are reported directly to police, very seriously. Regardless whether we have a complaint that meets the threshold of an offence under s.3 of the Danger Dogs Act legislation or not.
 
We have a working practice were all irresponsible dog owners or owners of problematic dogs, will be engaged with, regardless of social background of the owner and the breed of dog involved. There is legalisation in place for police to deal with prohibited breeds, i.e. Pit bull terriers, Japanese Tosa, Dogo de Argentino and  Fila Brasileiro and we will looked to enforce this piece of legislation where applicable.
 
The LEAD (Local Environmental Awareness on Dogs) Initiative is a police led initiative that deals with ALL dogs related incidents that do not meet the threshold of an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act legislation. Through engagement and early intervention we, (and through working with partner agencies), offer intervention by way of  police engagement regardless of the breed of dog and the social background of the owner.  LEAD has highlighted that through early intervention we can prevent escalation. If during the process offences are highlighted or it is felt that enforcement is required, this will be taken. LEAD encourages partnership work and shares the responsibility/risk. LEAD helps in dealing with Safe Guarding communities.
 
LEAD is endorsed by Government departments (DEFRA) and Government ministers, National Dog Charities, RSPCA, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs Home etc.  While also being recognised as ‘Best Practice’
 
In relation to the community’s concerns in regards to the three Turkish Kangal Dogs linked to Coombe Farm. Firstly, and most importantly, ALL THREE DOGS are currently being held in secure police kennels and will be staying within police kennels until such time the courts have made a final decision.
 
We currently have two ongoing  investigations into these dogs and their actions under s.3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act. One non-aggravated offence, (NO injuries caused to a person or Assistance dog) and an aggravated offence, (injuries Caused to a person or an assistance dog).
 
As these are still ongoing investigations you will understand that we are unable to quote on the matters at hand. But we can assure you that police are working diligently to uphold the legislation under the act, in a way that will protect and safeguard the local communities. However the final decisions will lie with the courts and it will be up to them to decide the final outcome on the evidence produced.”

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me and if I can be of any other assistance please let me know.
 

Kind regards,

Chris 

Rt Hon Chris Philp MP
Member of Parliament for Croydon South
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
www.chrisphilp.com | @chrisphilp_mp

Purley Pool Development – Some Questions

Would you use the proposed new pool in Purley? Would you go there by public transport? Do you currently use any of the four public pools currently in operation in the Borough? Would you prefer more affordable accommodation provided by the developer rather than a Leisure Centre?

The contentious issues surrounding the current plans are;
– The considerable reduction in parking available, down to a proposed 40 spaces for both the residents and the users of the leisure centre.
– The height of the tallest tower  –  twelve stories.
– The lack of affordable accommodation because of the costs of building the leisure centre.
– The running costs of the pool and leisure centre.
Both Chris Philp  and Jason Perry are in favor of the scheme but agree that the residents need to be consulted and listened to.
There are interesting trade offs here and just because we do not live in Purley it does not mean we do not have a say – as for example it will be our Council Tax used to support the leisure centre if it can not cover its costs. Another issue might be that if this is a say 40 year development then within 15 years it will probably be the case that cars are no longer a polluting problem and we will be regretting restricting parking availability.
More information is here:  https://purleypool.co.uk/
We are liaising with other residents associations to come up with a consistent set of comments.
What are your views?

Eyesore Fixed in Castlemaine Avenue!

April 2023

Well done to Councillor Denton, the developer and the Castlemaine resident who reported the mess in the first place.
For some reason the developer of 86 Coombe Lane had left a gap in the boundry wall. Over the last year this gap, around 2m by 2m, has filled up with rubbish (and worse) and became an eyesore and health hazard. Councillor Denton got involved and as you can see a fence has been put up. This might be a temporary solution but it has removed the eyesore. I said when this was built it was a nice looking block. It is again. Well done all.