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

Minutes of 56th AGM 2024

Minutes of the meeting held on 9th October 2023 at St Pauls Church Hall

The meeting commenced at 8.p.m.

The meeting was initiated by the Chairman Jeremy Gill

Our local MP, Chris Philp attended . The President of the Association, Mr Jaffer A. Kapasi OBE FFA , Councillors Danielle Denton, Michael Neal , Maria Gatland  and Mayor Perry sent their apologies

Committee officers present:

David Rutherford
Jeremy Gill
Jaffer Kapasi
Wendy Love
Michael Somers
Elizabeth Thomas
Shalin Shah

Minutes 

The minutes of the A.G.M. held on Wednesday 25th October 2023 were approved and adopted as an accurate record.

Matters Arising

There were no matters arising from the minutes.

Treasurer’s Report 

The honorary treasurer, Wendy Love, presented her report with the Statement of Accounts for 2023/2024 duly audited and signed. Copies were distributed to those present and they are available on cvra.org.uk Wendy’s report was approved and she was thanked for her work.  The Chairman pointed out that Wendy puts in more work for the association than any other officer and it was appreciated.

Election of Honorary Auditor for 2024/2025

Mr Peter Knight was elected.  Mr Gill proposed his appointment, which was seconded by Mr Rutherford.

Chair’s Report for 2023/2024

The Chairman updated the meeting. Please see cvra.org.uk for Chairman’s Report

Mr. Gill’s report was approved.

Election of the President of the Association and up to 4 vice-presidents for 2024/2025

Mr Jaffer A. Kapasi OBE FFA was proposed and seconded as President for 2024/2025 and the meeting approved his appointment.

Election of offices of the Association for 2024/2025

Mr. Jeremy Gill being the only nominee was proposed and seconded as Chair for 2024/2025.

There was no nominee for the office of Vice-Chair.  It therefore remains vacant.

Mrs. Wendy Love being the only nominee was proposed and seconded as Honorary Treasurer for 2024/2025.

There was no nominee for the office of Honorary secretary.  It therefore remains vacant.

Election of (no more than 9) executive committee members of the Association for 2022/2023

David Rutherford, Shalin Shah, Elizabeth Thomas and Michael Somers were the only nominees. Therefore, all four were proposed and seconded as committee members for 2023/2024.

There was no other business so Mr Gill thanked the meeting for their attendance and input. Thanking those present for attending and sharing their concerns the Chairman brought the meeting to a close at 9.30pm.

Sara Pevsner and Michael Somers were standing down. They were thanked for their work.

———————————————

Address by Chris Philp MP

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


There were additional questions from the floor

Q1  Can we encourage the Old Whits to manage their conifers?

Q3 Can we try to encourage the council to standardise the road markings along our roads? Some end too close to the intersections

Q4  It was felt there was too much speeding on the Avenues and Campden Road. Can we investigate?

Q5  The park of Lloyd Park used as parking for the tram upgrade work was left in a poor state.  Can we investigate?

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

 

Minutes of 55th AGM 2023

Minutes of the meeting held on 25th October 2023 at St Pauls Church Hall

The meeting commenced at 8.p.m.

The meeting was initiated by the President of the Association, Mr Jaffer A. Kapasi OBE FFA.

Our local MP, Chris Philp attended as did Councillors Danielle Denton, Michael Neal and Robert Ward and Mayor Perry.

Committee officers present:

David Rutherford
Jeremy Gill
Jaffer Kapasi
Wendy Love
Sara Pevsner
Michael Sumers
Elizabeth Thomas

Shalin Shah

Welcome

Mr Jaffer A. Kapasi OBE FFA addressed the meeting. He welcomed all attendees, announced apologies.

Minutes 

The minutes of the A.G.M. held on Wednesday 20th October 2021 were approved and adopted as an accurate record.

Matters Arising

There were no matters arising from the minutes.

Treasurer’s Report 

The honorary treasurer, Wendy Love, presented her report with the Statement of Accounts for 2022/2023 duly audited and signed. Copies were distributed to those present and will be available on the website.  Wendy’s report was approved and she was thanked for her work.  The Chairman pointed out that Wendy puts in more work for the association than any other officer and it was appreciated.

Election of Honorary Auditor for 2023/2024

Mr Peter Knight was elected.  Mr Gill proposed his appointment, which was seconded by Mr Rutherford.

Chair’s Report for 2022/2023

The Chairman updated the meeting. Please see cvra.org.uk for Chairman’s Report

Mr. Gill’s report was approved.

At this point Mr Barnett stood down from the chair and Mr Gill took over.

Election of the President of the Association and up to 4 vice-presidents for 2022/2023

Mr Jaffer A. Kapasi OBE FFA was proposed and seconded as President for 2023/2024 and the meeting approved his appointment.

Having been elected Mr Kapasi  presided.

Election of offices of the Association for 2022/2023

Mr. Jeremy Gill being the only nominee was proposed and seconded as Chair for 2023/2024.

There was no nominee for the office of Vice-Chair.  It therefore remains vacant.

Mrs. Wendy Love being the only nominee was proposed and seconded as Honorary Treasurer for 2023/2024.

There was no nominee for the office of Honorary secretary.  It therefore remains vacant.

Election of (no more than 9) executive committee members of the Association for 2022/2023

David Rutherford, Shalin Shah, Elizabeth Thomas and Michael Somers were the only nominees. Therefore, all four were proposed and seconded as committee members for 2023/2024.

There was no other business so Mr. Kapasi thanked the meeting for their attendance and input. Thanking those present for attending and sharing their concerns the President brought the meeting to a close at 9.30pm.

Chris Philp MP, the local councillors Danielle Denton, Michael Neal and Robert Ward plus Mayor Jason Perry (at the end of the meeting)  all attend the CVRA AGM on the 25th October 2023.

Thank you all for coming to our AGM

Chris spoke first about local issues.

The Purley Pool plans were progressing nicely. A publically run leisure centre and pool was a good thing for Purley.  An initial agreement between the Council and the developers was being signed that evening.

Regarding planning, the additional scrutiny shown by the current Councillors and by Michael Neal as Chairman of the Planning Committee has consistently resulted in more suitable development and enables more family homes to be retained in the Borough. There was general agreement on this point within the meeting.

ULEZ is stopping customers coming into Croydon and Purley businesses from outside the zone. Chris has tried to persuade Mayon Kahn but he is not minded to reverse his policy.

Mayday (Croydon University Hospital), ranks in the top 10 out of 160 Hospital Trusts for elective care (ie planned care, mostly surgery) .  St Hellier is taking away some of the critical care functions to help mayday focus more on elective care.

Purley is specialising in minor elective care and diagnostics.  There is a GP hub at Purley and Chris is trying to allow a patient to go straight from the GP hub to the diagnostics unit in Purley bypassing the patients’ GPs.

There will be movement on Croydon Town Centre in 2024. Due to the downturn in retail generally there will be no grand shopping centre in Croydon. The Whitgift centre will be demolished down to its foundations and a combination of retail residential and offices will be built on the foundations.  Allders will be retained. Planning permission is planned for Autumn 2024.

There will be additional Town Centre police patrols in Croydon as the  recently recruited  constables complete their training.

Gatwick airport is planning to upgrade its taxing runway into a full 2nd runway therefore creating more business for this area. This will be welcome by the industry as it is unlikely that Heathrow will build its 3rd runway anytime soon. A planning application is expected imminently.

 

Regarding national issues:

As Policing Minister Chris has instructed all police forces to follow up on all information received. There shall be no screening.  This is in response to an initiative in Greater Manchester where there was a 50% increase in convictions when the policy was implemented.

The police are increasing the use of technology such as the use of MNPR vehicle cognition  cameras to detect suspicious journeys (eg county lines gangs) and facial recognition technology (for example at football matches) to detect wanted individuals.

It was suggested that if ULEZ is reversed the cameras can be repurposed to help in crime prevention. Chris suggested that if that ever happens he would credit the initiative to CVRA AGM!

 

At this point there were questions from the floor for Chris and Councillors

Q1: Chris was asked about the closure of Old Palace School.  He had met with the Governors and they were adamant that the decision would not be reversed.  Chris is trying to ensure the two sites are to be retained as educational establishments.

Q2: Chris was asked about the issues regarding privacy and accuracy with facial recognition cameras. The answer for the first question was that (for government!) cameras if there is no match to the police database of offenders the image is immediately deleted. In answer to the accuracy of the technology a match can only lead to a suspect it cannot be used in evidence in itself.

Q3: Regarding the cycle lane on the Brighton Road. Consultation has just finished and the results are being looked at by the Council.

Q4: Regarding the lack of bus shelters, it was recently acknowledged that the company contracted (by the previous regime) to replace the shelters was now not going to deliver and remedial action was to be taken.

Q5: Blocked drains were still a recurring problem at the bottom of Croham Manor Road. Danielle Denton said she would look into it.

Q6: Blocked drains were also causing a problem outside Croham Hurst Golf Club. It was suggested that the drain at the top of the path in the woods leading to the Hurst was not doing its job as the ground levels have lowered and the drain is no longer capturing the water running off the Hurst. Danielle Denton said she would look into it (no pun intended).

Q7: Generally it was felt that reporting on lovecleanstreets.com was effective and the Council responsive

Q8: Regarding Bins left on the pavement.  These should be reported directly to the Councillors.

Planning Review: May 2024

CVRA – DR Planning Update 1st May 2024 

 

Croydon Planning – Major Changes Detected

 

Since the local elections on the 5th May 2022 across the South of the Borough there have been 160 planning applications up for decision that have been submitted by developers where the proposal was for the demolition of detached properties to be replaced with up to 9 flats or a mixture of up to 9 units of both flats and houses.  Of these 161 applications 125 applications have been refused planning approval under either the Council’s Delegated Authority or at Planning Committee meetings, with another 12 applications having been withdrawn and only 24 applications being approved.

 

Further since the 5th May 2022 local elections across the South of the Borough there are currently 30 new planning applications submitted by developers for the demolition of detached properties across the South of the Borough which have not yet been determined with 18 applications for houses, 0 applications for a mixture of both flats and houses and only 12 applications for flats.

 

Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document SPD2

 

Following Labour’s removal from power in Croydon in May, the new Conservative administration has been delivering on their planning promises.  The hated Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document SPD2, a developers’ charter, has now been scrapped.  Planning decisions are now being properly made after careful examination, instead of simply being waved through by Labour Councillors with no proper thought.

 

CVRA Local Planning Application Website

 

As previously mentioned, the above-mentioned application is live and covers all roads and post codes in your Association’s area, it’s available for use by all CVRA residents free of charge.  The application is updated weekly with all new and currently outstanding planning application information, as well as having multiple search capability of planning history.  Also, if you want to register your email address within the application, you’ll be advised weekly when the Planning Table has been updated, together with a direct link into the application.

 

The application can be accessed directly from the following web link:

 

http://www.localplanningapps.co.uk/croydon/cvra/anupdate/planningtable.html

 

Planning Area A

 

The Croft, 3 Binfield Road

This planning application is for the demolition of the existing bungalow and replacing it with a pair of semi-detached houses, one a 5 bedroom the other a 3 bedroom, which was Approved under Planning Dept delegated authority on the 10th July 2020In September 2021 a Section 73 notice was submitted to change the approved plans by removing the inset balconies and amending the forecourt layout and other minor changes, this was approved on the 6th July2022.

 

The Croft, 3 Binfield Road

This new planning application is an alternative to the above-mentioned application which is already approved but no work has commenced and is for a full width rear extension (19.2 Metres) by 5.3 metres in depth.  The proposal has been approved on the 28th February 2023 under General Permitted Development.

 

15A Campden Road

This planning application is for the development of the land beside 15 Campden Road which has been vacant for a good number of years, although in March 2017 there was a planning approval granted for 5 flats which has now lapsed but did establish a presumption of development on the site.  The new proposal is also for 5 flats with 2 parking spaces and as expected this Planning Application was Approved under Planning Dept delegated authority on the 7th August 2020As a number of discharge notices have now been approved it’s expected that construction will commence shortly.

 

78 Coombe Road

This planning application is for the demolition of the existing house and the erection of a 3 storey building (facing Coombe Road) with a 2 storey rear element (facing Croham Park Avenue) comprising 8 flats with only 4 off road parking spaces.

 

Good news, the above-mentioned planning application has been refused by Development Management under their delegated authority on the 18th April 2024 with the following reasons given.  

 

Reasons for Refusal:

 

  1. The proposed development fails to provide a policy compliant dwelling mix on site, in conflict with the borough wide requirement for 30% three (3) bed homes as needed for families. The development conflicts with Policy H10 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy SP2.7 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018).
  2. The development, due to its scale, bulk, massing, design, appearance, and materials, as well as the quantum of hardstanding would harm the character and appearance of the site, surrounding area, and streetscene, and it would result in an overdevelopment. The development therefore conflicts with the Croydon Local Plan (2018), in particular policy DM10 as well as the London Plan (2021), in particular policy D3.
  3. The proposed development, due to insufficient floor areas for Units 2 and 8, insufficient bedroom sizes throughout the development, lack of privacy for ground floor units, and the absence of sufficient private amenity space for the proposed flats would result in sub-standard accommodation. The development therefore conflicts with Croydon Local Plan (2018) Policy DM10 and London Plan (2021) Policy D6.
  4. The proposal, due to overlooking of 10m of the garden space of No. 78a Coombe Road and No. 54 Croham Park Avenue, would result in an unacceptable amenity relationship and this would be contrary to Croydon Local Plan (2018), in particular policy DM10.6(c).
  5. The proposal, due to the unacceptable vehicle access and movements and parking arrangements proposed, and an absence of pedestrian routes throughout the site, would result in unsafe impacts on the highway, pedestrians and other road users. Additionally, the cycle storage is
    unacceptable as it would not be enclosed and secure. The development is contrary to Policies DM29 and DM30 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and Policies T4, T5, and T6 of the London Plan (2021).
  6. In the absence of a legal agreement to secure financial contributions to improvements for sustainable transport to mitigate the impacts of the development and highways works to provide appropriate access, the development is contrary to policies SP8.3, SP8.15, SP8.16, and DM30 of the
    Croydon Local Plan (2018) and Policy T6.1 of the London Plan (2021).
  7. Sufficient measures have not been taken to identify and mitigate the impact of the proposal on bats and there is a lack of information relating the presence of roosting bats, contrary to Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) and DM10, DM27 and DM28 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018).

 

80 Croham Road

This planning application is for the demolition of the existing house and the erection of two buildings, one of 6 flats with 3 parking bays the other for a terrace of 3 houses with 3 parking bays which by virtue of its bulk, mass and poor design will create an overbearing incompatible development.  This follows the withdrawal of an earlier application for 2 buildings comprising of a total of 9 flats.  The owner of this property has already paid for Planning Pre-Application advice from the Planning Department.  This application went before the Planning Committee on the 22nd April 2021 at which it was approved.  There’re Whitgift Educational Foundation Restrictive Covenants on this property.  Also, the site has gone up for sale with Foxtons for £2.5 million.  I’ve drafted letters for the surrounding residents to send to both the owner of 80 Croham Road and Foxtons, these letters put both parties on notice of the Restrictive Covenants, also reserving the right to take necessary further measures to protect their interests in this connection.  Subsequently the property was then being marketed with Appleton Estates at the reduced figure of £1.8 million and was initially under offer.  Again, a number of nearby residents have sent similar letters to those mentioned earlier.  Property listed again with Appleton Estates at a reduced figure of £1.6 million and is now under offer.  This latest offer appears to have fallen through as the site is now being listed for sale with Connect UK at a reduced guide price of £1.2 million and is now subsequently Sold STC.  The agent on behalf of Alim Properties submitted a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) on the 16th May 2022 which has been subsequently been refused under the Planning Dept delegated authority as it was not satisfactory in a number of aspects.

 

Melville Avenue, Old Palace of John Whitgift School

It has just been announced that the school will close permanently in August 2025 as the school has been struggling financially for many years, and the Foundation has supported the school from its general reserves in the expectation that the financial situation would improve at some point.  There will be concern over the potential development of this large site.  Recently announced that the school will now close a year earlier in July 2024.

 

Planning Area B

 

Land the Rear of Roselea Cottage, Ballards Farm Road

This new planning application has been submitted by the owners of this house for the construction of a granny annexe in the rear garden with the main house having had considerable extensions.

 

This so-called granny annexe will in all probability not be for the reasons stated in the application but will be to establish further rental accommodation for students (one can only guess how many students might be in this proposed outbuilding) and the house may potentially become a HMO.  This is based upon that at least two double rooms, in the existing house were recently being advertised for rent for students, advert as follows:

“There are two double rooms available in a beautiful detached house, located in a quiet area surrounded by woods and trees. The property has one big living room, a spacious conservatory, 3 bathrooms and one modern kitchen for tenants to share. The friendly and easy-going landlord live in the extension part of the house separating from the rented space, so you can enjoy your privacy and at the same time get help from the landlord easily when it is necessary. The house has a very big garden where you can play basketball or have barbecue during your free time. It is 5-10 minutes walk to the nearest bus station and it takes you 10-15minutes to East Croydon station”.  The good news is that the application was refused under the Planning Dept delegated authority on the 6th July 2023.

 

Since this refusal there has been a lot of work going in the rear garden of this property with large lorries both delivering / removing waste with trees taken down, such that 5 neighbouring residents have complained, I’ve asked planning enforcement to check this out, particularly as there are tree preservation orders (TPO’s) on 7 trees in the rear garden.

 

Land the Rear of Underwood, Ballards Farm Road

This new planning application has been submitted by Sterling Rose Homes which is back garden development for the erection of a terrace of 3 three storey 4 bedroom houses with 4 off road parking spaces.  There will be the loss of 11 mature trees to enable this development to take place.  There have been 55 resident objections plus your Residents Association and a local Councillor referral.  Like with 14, 16 & 18 Castlemaine Avenue application this developer has lodged an Appeal on the 16th January 2023 on the basis of Non-Determination within time allowed.  This is what some of the developers are doing when the Council has not complied with its own deadlines, which in many cases is the situation in Croydon, as they are still dealing with some applications from early 2021.  This will now potentially mean that the application will be referred direct to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol who will now make the decision without Croydon having the ability to make its own decision under either their delegated authority powers or at the planning committee meeting.  The Appeal is now in progress.  Good news the Appeal has been dismissed on the 12th December 2023 by the Planning Inspectorate.

 

Underwood, Ballards Farm Road

This new planning application has been submitted by Sterling Rose Homes which is in addition to the afore-mentioned development on the Underwood site.  This is for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension, two storey front extension and then conversion into 4 flats with 4 off road parking spaces.  There have been 46 resident objections plus your Residents Association and a local Councillor referral.  Like with the afore-mentioned application the developer has lodged an Appeal on the 16th January 2023 on the basis of non-determination within time allowed.  This is what some of the developers are doing when the Council has not complied with its own deadlines, which in many cases is the situation in Croydon, as they are still dealing with some applications from early 2021.  This will now potentially mean that the application will be referred direct to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol who will now make the decision without Croydon having the ability to make its own decision under either their delegated authority powers or at the planning committee meeting.  The Appeal is now in progress.  Good news the Appeal has been dismissed on the 12th December 2023 by the Planning Inspectorate.

 

Land the Rear of Underwood, Ballards Farm Road

This new planning application has been submitted by Sterling Rose Homes which is in addition to the two afore-mentioned planning applications that are currently pending.  This latest application is a back garden development for the Erection of a Terrace of 3 Three Storey 4 Bedroom Houses and an adjoining building of four storeys with 6 two bedroom flats with an overall total of 9 parking spaces.  The earlier pending back garden development on this site had a loss of 11 mature trees, as this latest proposal is much larger the loss of mature trees will be even greater.  To date there have been 34 resident objections plus your Residents Association and a local Councillor referral.  Like the two other applications on the same site, the developer has lodged an Appeal on the 12th January 2023 on the basis of non-determination within time allowed.  This is what some of the developers are doing when the Council has not complied with its own deadlines, which in many cases is the situation in Croydon, as they are still dealing with some applications from early 2021.  This will now potentially mean that the application will be referred direct to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol who will now make the decision without Croydon having the ability to make its own decision under either their delegated authority powers or at the planning committee meeting.  The Appeal is now in progress.  Good news the Appeal has been dismissed on the 12th December 2023 by the Planning Inspectorate.

 

Coombe Lane, Royal Russell School

This new planning application is for the demolition of existing Junior School with the erection of replacement Junior School including Multi-Use Games Area, sports pitch, play and landscaped areas, access and plant, and other associated works.

 

This proposed development has again raised the issue of the rear gate from the school in Hollingsworth Road, particularly as both the pre application and the resultant full planning application misrepresent the fact that there’s an access route into this road.  The situation is that school numbers will increase where at both around 8am and 4pm daily during school days parents are charging up the road causing total gridlock with around 50 additional cars in this cul-de-sac with parents competing for space nearest the gate, blocking resident’s driveways etc.  There are very serious safety concerns that this is a bad accident waiting to happen, as there was a recent situation of a pupil running out of the gate and into the side of a moving car and not to mention the number of prangs to resident’s cars due to the inconsiderate behavior of parents dropping off and picking up their children and having to turn around.  Residents would either like the gate totally closed off or some form of strong restriction on the road that would prevent parent’s cars entering Hollingsworth Road.

 

Land the Rear of 128 Coombe Lane

This new planning application has been submitted by the owner of 128 Coombe Lane which is back garden development for the erection of a pair of 2 storey 3 bedroom semi-detached houses with 3 off road parking spaces; demolition of existing garage to provide access to the rear.  A number of local residents are objecting plus your Residents Association.  To date there have been 18 resident objections plus your Residents Association and a local Councillor referral.  The good news is that the Planning Dept has under its delegated authority refused the application on the 9th February 2023.  An appeal has been lodged against the refusal decision on the 26th June 2023 which will now be decided upon by the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol.  The good news is that the Appeal was dismissed on the 7th November 2023.

 

Land R/O 55 Crest Road Fronting on to Croham Valley Road

This planning application was submitted by the developer Red Banksia is for the erection of a terrace of 4 two storey 3 bedroom houses with accommodation in the roof space in the rear garden of this property fronting on to Croham Valley Road.  This is a massive overdevelopment of the site which will add 12 bedrooms and potentially 20 persons without providing any off road parking.  Prior to this latest application going before the Committee for decision the owners of 55 Crest Road sold the bottom part of their back garden to Blue Banksia Ltd.  The application received 196 objections including 3 objections from the owners of 55 Crest Road, as that it was assumed by the owners of 55 Crest Road that when they sold part of their rear garden to Blue Banksia Ltd that they would just build the approved 4 bedroom detached house, however the developer obviously had other plans for the site.  This planning application went before the Planning Sub-Committee on the 21st October 2021 where it was approved by a vote of 3 to 2.  This is also another property where there are Walton Heath Land Company Ltd Restrictive Covenants where I’ve drafted letters for the surrounding residents to send to Blue Banksia Ltd.  These letters advise Blue Banksia Ltd of the Restrictive Covenants and reference to prior court case Whitgift Homes & Ors vs Pauline Stocks & Ors where almost identical Walton Heath Land Company Ltd Restrictive Covenants where upheld by the court even upon appeal which prevented development in Ruffetts Close, also the letters reserve the right to take necessary further measures to protect their interests in this connection and further advise  should they decide to on sell this plot of land with the planning approval, that they are under notice from us that all potential buyers must be advised by them or anyone acting on their behalf of the Restrictive Covenants and the Court Case upholding the Restrictive Covenants.  A number of the nearby residents that wrote to the developer have just heard from the developers Solicitors asking some questions which I’ve drafted the appropriate reply for the residents to send.  The developer has submitted 6 discharge notices on the 23rd May 2022 which has only been partly approved with the remainder not being approved.  Clearly the developer has ignored the threat of action over the Restrictive Covenants.  The Developer has started construction on the site which shouldn’t have happened, as they don’t have an approved Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) to permit construction.  I’ve reported the issue of construction to the head of Development Management for action.  The developer has submitted 5 new discharge notices which are currently pending, presumably to regularize the situation of the discharge notices, however these are part approved / part not approved.  This developer has now built the houses without ever having the appropriate approved discharge notices in place, in spite of this issue being reported to the head of the Planning DeptThe developer has submitted 3 discharge notices on the 29th March 2023 which have subsequently been refused approval on the 12th May 2023.  All discharge notices have now been approved 9th November 2023.

 

5 Croham Valley Road

Planning approval was granted on the 27th February 2020 at the Planning Committee meeting for the demolition of the existing house and the erection two blocks of 3 houses with accommodation in the roof spaces.  One block will front on to Croham Valley Road being 4 floors 4 bedroom houses with only 2 parking bays, the other block will front on to Ballards Farm Road being 3 floor 3 bedroom houses with 2 parking bays.  Construction of the shell of the terrace of houses fronting on to Ballards Farm Road is complete with the terrace of house fronting on to Croham Valley Road having the shell of the houses almost completed for a 3 storey building.

 

At the same time Sterling Rose continue to try to change the design of the 3 houses fronting Croham Valley Road from 4 floors to 3 floor houses and a changed layout and to what we consider to be a better appearance but have not been successful in obtaining approval up to now and are on their third attempt of trying to get the change approved as a non material change which of course it isn’t.

 

The latest supposed non material change was refused on the 17th September 2021 which will give Sterling Rose a major problem as they’ve completed construction is based upon a 3 storey building of a different design and not the 4 storey building that was approved.  This has the potential to be another 54 Arkwright Road situation – see later entry under CARA.  As a result of asking Planning Enforcement to look into this, they’ve advised that Sterling Rose will now have to submit a new planning application to try to get retrospective planning approval, which has now been submitted under a Section 73a Minor Material Amendment (Retrospective), plus they also want to remove the planning approval condition of yellow lines on this part of Croham Valley Road as they’re only permitted to have two parking spaces.  There have been 26 objections including the CVRA and a Councillor referral to this retrospective application.

 

Land R/O 35 and 37 Croham Valley Road – Fronting on to Ballards Rise

The above-mentioned outline planning application that’s currently pending approval, however the developer Silverleaf has also submitted another new outline planning application on the very same site for the erection of 2 two storey buildings with accommodation in the roof spaces comprising of a total of 4 large semi-detached houses with the provision of 6 parking spaces.  The alternative proposal is almost the same size as the one for 8 flats and will add 15 bedrooms and potentially 24 persons, the same objection reasons apply equally to this alternative new application.  More details as regards the Restrictive Covenants are in the prior item above.

 

This application went before the Planning Sub-Committee on the 11th August 2022 and was refused permission with three Labour Councillors voting in favour of approval and three Conservative Councillors voting against approval with the Conservative Chair using his Casting vote to refuse.  I spoke as an Objector in person at the meeting on behalf of the CVRA and the local residents, as did our ward Councillor Michael Neal.  The developer Silverleaf has on the 28th October 2022 lodged an Appeal against refusal of the planning permission, which has subsequently been validated in December 2022; this appeal will now be decided upon by the Planning Inspectorate in BristolThe Appeal is now in progress.  Unfortunately, the Appeal was allowed on the 23rd August 2023.  However, on both the land at 35 and 37 Croham Valley Road there are the Walton Heath Land Company Limited Restrictive Covenants that restrict the land to not more than one dwellinghouse.  The validity of the  Walton Heath Land Company Limited Restrictive Covenants and the class of neighbours entitled to benefit from it was tested in the Court Case Whitgift Homes Ltd & Ors v Pauline Stocks & Ors where similar  Restrictive Covenants was upheld which legally prevented development on the land at 14 and 16 Ruffetts Close.

 

Croham Valley Road – Lower Part Where There’s Been All the Construction

Numerous residents have complained about blocking of the road with all the construction workers vehicles being parked on both sides of the road – some residents want double yellow line along the whole road, other have complained to our Councillors.  Although all construction is complete there are now a good number of cars now parking on both sides of the road causing limited obstruction.

 

Planning Area C

 

155 Ballards Way

Whilst the above-mentioned Appeal is pending the developer has submitted a new alternative planning application which is for alterations / extensions to the existing property and then the subdivision of the property into 2 three bedroom houses.  The affected next door neighbour is neutral with regard to this latest proposal and as such the CVRA has not objected.  Subsequently the application was approved on the 2nd February 2022 under the Planning Departments delegated authority.  Work has commenced on the site for the alterations and extensions to the existing property and then conversion into 2 three bedroom houses.  Work is now complete with the two properties up for sale.

 

11 Chapel View

This new planning application is for the erection of a very large outbuilding in the rear garden measuring 9 metres by 9 metres for use as a gym / office and has in all probability the potential to never be used for the purpose indicated on the planning application based upon the owners track record at this property of letting rooms out.  The owner of this property is currently advertising multi rooms of accommodation on Airbnb at this property; this proposed structure will in all probability be used for this very purpose.

 

It now seems that under this type of application residents cannot make objections with the following statement on the Councils online planning site:

 

This notifies the Council of proposed work or development not needing its permission. The Council will not be approving or refusing the proposal, so comments are not invited.

 

This is totally unacceptable; I’ve sent an email to both the case officer and the head of Development Management expressing concerns that a structure of this size doesn’t need planning approval and also the very real concerns over the future use of this outbuilding with the probably renting out of rooms.

 

The good news is that the Council has refused a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development on the 10th January 2024 for the following reasons:

 

No justification has been provided to demonstrate that the size and use of these rooms are genuinely or reasonably required for the purposes stated. It is therefore considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate, on the balance of probability, that an outbuilding of this size and scale is reasonably required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the existing dwellinghouse, contrary to the criteria of Paragraph E (a) of Class E, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

 

Subsequently the owner has now submitted in February 2024 another planning application under a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development for a large outbuilding this time to be used supposedly as a gym albeit somewhat smaller in size being 7.55 metres by 6.5 metres.  Again I’ve sent an email to both the case officer and the head of Development Management expressing concerns that a structure of this size doesn’t need planning approval and also the very real concerns over the future use of this outbuilding with the probably renting out of this building.  The bad news is that the Council have approved this latest application on the 18th April 2024.

 

142 Croham Valley Road

Residents have raised an issue that the owners of this semi-detached bungalow are running an Indian take away business from a building in their rear garden which has resulted in vermin including rats.  I’ve advised the residents to contact Environmental Services which has been done, also there are bound to be Health and Safety issues.  An inspector did visit the property; however the owners said that they were no longer running the take away business from there.  Subsequently they have started cooking again on a more limited basis.  Nearby residents are keeping a close eye on this matter.

 

6-8 The Gallop

This new planning application from Macar Developments is for the demolition of 2 small detached bungalows and the erection of 4 two storey 4 bedroom semi-detached houses with accommodation in the room spaces and a terrace of 5 two storey 3 bedroom houses.  This is a massive overdevelopment of the site that will add 31 bedrooms and potentially 44 persons.  Even before the application had been submitted 8 The Gallop had been cleared of trees including specialist trees of 2 silver birches and a pine tree that should have been saved.    The developer has already paid for Planning Pre-Application advice from the Planning Department, however the Planning Department has not yet replied to the developer.  The CVRA has already lodged an objection and Cllr Helen Pollard has raised a Councillor referral.  This application went before the Planning Committee on 13th January 2022 where David Rutherford spoke on behalf of the CVRA and the 306 local resident objectors as did our local Cllr Robert Ward and all 4 of the Conservative Councillors on the committee spoke against and voted against the application.  When it came to the vote it was tied at 4 in favour 4 against including the Chair, however the Chair used his additional casting vote to approve the application.  Some residents are considering going through the Council’s complaints process which has 3 separate stages, after which if there’s no satisfaction you can then go formally to the Local Government Ombudsman with a complaint.  The developer has on the 8th April 2022 submitted details of their Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) which has subsequently been approved.  Also a number of further discharge notices have been submitted 26th May 2022 which have subsequently been approved on the 24th August 2022A further discharge notice was submitted in August 2022 which has subsequently been approved on the 20th October 2022.  Further discharge notices were submitted 6th March 2023 which have been subsequently approved on the 20th June 2023.

 

46 The Gallop

I’m advising you of yet another new planning application on this site by the same developer for the partial demolition and extensions to the existing bungalow upwards and to the side and rear to create one 3 bedroom dwelling and one 5 bedroom dwelling, effectively a pair of semi-detached houses in a two storey building with also accommodation in the roof space with one parking spaces for each house.  The developer already has obtained planning approval on this same site for a pair of semi-detached houses of one 3 Bedroom and one 2 bedroom as detailed below.  There’s concern that both proposed semi-detached houses have studies, in the 3 bedroom property it’s on the 2nd floor which could easily be a bedroom potentially making this a 4 bedroom property, in the 5 bedroom property the study is on the ground floor but unusually there’s a full bathroom next to this study which could easily be a bedroom potentially making this a 6 bedroom property.  There have been 28 objections and the CVRA has asked for this application to be referred to the Planning Committee for decision.  At the Planning Sub-Committee meeting on the 14th September 2023 the application was approved in spite of David Rutherford speaking on behalf of the CVRA and the local residents as an objector as did our local Councillor Robert Ward5 new discharge notices have been submitted that are currently pending for the construction of this application which have subsequently been approved on the 20th December 2023.

 

1 The Ruffetts

This new planning application is for the erection of a pair of two storey 3 bedroom semi-detached houses plus accommodation in the roof space to the rear of the existing property 1 The Ruffetts.  Strangely part of the roof space has a room allocated as being a writing area but could easily be another bedroom meaning in reality it’s a pair of 4 bedroom houses.  Of further concern is that this proposed development borders directly on to the approved development in the rear garden of 55 Crest Road for a terrace of 4 houses.  There have been 46 resident objections to this application plus the CVRA and a Councillor referral.  This planning application was heard at the Planning Sub Committee on the 1st December 2022 where David Rutherford spoke as an objector on behalf of the Croham Valley Residents Association (CVRA) and the local resident objectors as did our local Councillor Robert Ward, unfortunately the Sub Committee approved the application by a vote of 3 to 2 with one abstention.  Subsequently the site with the planning approval for the pair of semi-detached houses in the rear garden plus the original host property has been put up for sale at £1050K this month.  Discharge notices were submitted on the 10th March 2023 which were refused permission.  Three amended discharge notices were submitted on the 4th July 2023 which have subsequently been approved and a further discharge notice was approved on the 20th December 2023.

 

1 The Ruffetts

There are a couple of new applications as regards the existing detached property for the demolition of existing extensions and the erection of a new single storey rear extension and the erection of a single storey side extension.  The single storey rear extension was approved on the 1st December 2023 with the single storey side extension being refused on the 24th November 2023.

 

29 The Ruffetts

The owner of this property continues to be a problem in that the approval obtained for the erection of a single / two storey front /side / rear extensions in December 2020, however it has not been built in accordance with the approved plans hence there has been the need for a new retrospective planning application, which many local residents are against, there have been 39 resident objections to this retrospective application, as they would like it built in accordance with the original approval.  The owner of this property has now amended the plans in the proposed retrospective planning application which is all about the owner of this property building what he wants and not what was approved and expecting to get approval after the event which is totally unacceptable and as a result of this having to go out for further comments there are now 78 objections.  The bad news is that at the Planning Sub-Committee on the 3rd August 2023 that the Committee approved the retrospective  planning application in spite of David Rutherford speaking on behalf of the CVRA and the local residents as an objector as did our local Councillor Robert Ward.  Further the owner of this property has now started construction of a large brick built outbuilding in the rear garden without any planning approval which has been reported to Development Management in order that hopefully Planning Enforcement officer will visit the property.

 

Planning Other

 

Restrictive Covenants

 

The following properties have either planning approval but not yet developed or have pending planning applications that are awaiting decision or are being prepared for the submission of planning applications.  All of these properties have Restrictive Covenants that restrict the sites to either only having one dwelling either detached or semi-detached and if enforced could potentially stop the sites being developed.  However restrictive covenants are a complicated legal business and can only be enforced by properties under the Touch and Concern rule (nearby but don’t have to necessarily physically adjoin) unless it can be proved that it was a Building Scheme.  Also taking legal action to enforce covenants can be expensive plus there’s always the risk that a developer might appeal the decision which would further add to the costs.  A potential cheaper alternative is to take out an Injunction to enforce the Restrictive Covenant.  Meanwhile we’re letting affected residents write to the developers making them aware of the Restrictive Covenants, reserving the right taking further action if they’re going to proceed with the development in the hope they will walk away.  Jeremy has investigated using the legal cover one has with many household insurance policies, the indication from his insurer was positive but one would need to be certain if one was to go down this route:

 

  • 55 Crest Road The Walton Heath Land Company Ltd
  • 80 Croham Road Whitgift Educational Foundation
  • 35 Croham Valley Road The Walton Heath Land Company Ltd
  • 37 Croham Valley Road The Walton Heath Land Company Ltd

 

Croydon Alliance of Residents’ Associations (CARA)

The Croydon Alliance of Residents’ Associations (CARA) was set up three years ago and have held a number of Zoom Meetings which has been very useful with sharing information with a number of interesting things coming out these meetings and subsequent email exchanges across the Group.

 

Croydon Local Plan Review

Due to be adopted in 2022, the review will update the vision and strategy for Croydon’s growth up to 2039 and set out how the council will continue to deliver much-needed new homes, jobs and community facilities.

The first stage of the review was to gain feedback from the community with a period of consultation referred to as the Issues and Options consultation.  This took place between November 2019 and January 2020 and is now closed.

All representations made during the consultation period are now being reviewed and will be used by the Spatial Plan to shape the Local Plan Review Preferred Option.

The Preferred Option will be published during a second period of consultation late 2020.  At this time a summary of what we heard during the Issues and Options consultation and the subsequent decisions that have been actioned will also be published.

The Local Plan Review was to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination early in 2021 and adopted in early 2022 but there’s slippage on the dates.

However, as a result of now having a hung Council and a newly elected Conservative Democratically Elected Mayor, the local plan review will for sure be revisited.

Further information on the status of the review will be uploaded on to the Council site as the programme continues.

Croydon – Local Plan Partial Review – Call for Evidence on Local Green Spaces

 

Only site within our area that was under this category is The Ruffet, which many residents provided information back to the Council on why this site should have some level of protection to safeguard it from potential development.  We’re still waiting to hear if this has been successful.

 

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?

Chairman’s Chat

Chairman’s Chat

This Post has moved here

April 2023

Eyesore Fixed in Castlemaine Avenue!

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.

March 2023

Meeting with the Planning Department March 7 2023

Your Chairman went along to the 6 monthly meeting with the Planning Department (PD) earlier this month.

At the previous meeting, which was the first under the new administration of Mayor Perry, the whole meeting was spent talking about new build targets, the levels of completions against those targets and the adverse impact of the cumulative numbers of new developments on the availability of school places, transport and health services for residents in some of the other areas of Croydon. However there was less animosity as there had been at previous meetings as it was already apparent that the rate of approvals in the suburbs of Croydon was slowing down.

As I wrote at the time, listening to the complaints from other RAs made me realise that on balance most of us within Croham Valley had not been badly affected by the last administration’s desire to build so much in the suburbs of Croydon.

This time the PD gave us an update on the internal workings of the department and the plans over the next few years.

In 2022 the Department had been reviewed by the Government’s Planning Advisory Service (PAS) and the results have just been released. Not surprisingly the PAS stated that the department had somewhat fallen behind in processing applications as it had been under resourced (see below). In addition the PD had some bad practices and had lost the confidence of Croydon residents. The PAS did say however that the department was willing to learn.

The PAS made many recommendations;

  • The PD make the process of validating new applications more efficient along with many other working practices recommendations.
  • The PD becomes better at communicating citing poor communication (rather than actual use) around the use of the monies from the CIL and Section106 received by Croydon from developers.
  • The Department become better at Enforcement against developers who build something other than that which has been approved!
  • The Department improve their IT. See more of this below regarding Tree Preservation Orders.

I wondered whether some of the bad press the PD received was due to their poor IT.

The PD then went on to talk about enforcement. The council have a bad reputation for enforcement. The three new townhouses down Croham Road are three story but the plans said they should be four. This was reported over a year ago but no action has been taken and the townhouses are now occupied. As an aside we obviously prefer three stories but want to make the point that compliance is compliance.

Councillor Jeet Bains (Conservative – in charge of the Planning process) explained that Brent – a similar sized Council has many times the number of enforcement officers. We were told that recruiting the right type of people (someone ready to have a vigorous discussion) is difficult. Since May 2022 outstanding cases are down partly as a result of having a “no phone answering” session”.

The numbers since May 2022 are:

Cases outstanding then 1,350.
Now 1,100
Closed 800
New cases 550 (my calculation)
6 Enforcement Notices
2/3 Prosecutions

We did not have a chance to discuss the apparent low levels of enforcement notices/prosecutions compared to the number of cases closed. The Council acknowledged that it needed to publicise its successes, prioritise the big cases give more information of what is being enforced generally and going forward communicate progress a lot better.

A part of the discussion on Enforcement it was agreed that protecting trees was a priority and that both planning and enforcement officers would “drop everything” if it was reported a tree with a TPO was in danger. It was acknowledged however that the TPO details were on paper and should have been computerised by now in common with many other Councils.

Steve Pennington from the PD talked about planning policy in general.

The “Local Development Scheme” (LDS) which is the project plan for the planning policy process (if that makes sense) is out of date and is to be replaced. The new Scheme is to go to Cabinet in March. The timetable for the Local Plan Review is attached below.

The Local Plan Review (for consultation early next year) is to focus on;

  • design criteria
  • removal of intensification areas
  • long term new build numbers
  • post current planning cycle
  • HMO policy
  • Strengthening of Green Belt

The PD made the following comments

  • No change in existing targets following the recent Governmental NPPF consultations.
  • Despite retraction of the SPD2 document the Local Plan still has to be in compliance with the London Plan. However no specific issues were raised.
  • The small sites target is still in operation – although there was no further discussion on this. I think it was implied that going forward there will be better designed applications to fill the small site target.

The last topic presented on by the PD was in terms of Validation of planning applications. This was one of the items of improvement mentioned by the PAS. Most of the changes suggested seemed common sense. Many changes were directed towards clarifying the requirements for small developments/extensions.

What was more interesting were the statistics regarding timing of approvals. In addition to individual decisions going to the Inspectorate if a desicion is not made within 8/13 weeks for a small/large application (if I am correct) I was not aware that the Inspectorate will start the process of making all decisions if a PD falls below 70% compliance for less than 8 week for small and 60% compliance within the 13 weeks (or longer if prior agreement with the developer) for large.

The PD stated that after significant extra work they are currently at 75% compliance for both small and large whereas in May 22 they were very close to breaching both targets. The RAs were appreciative that the PD had retained its own decision making abilities.

Overall I sensed a PD coming to terms with the new administration and seeming to enjoy the more relaxed relationships with the RAs arising from the policies of the new administration.

November 2022

Talk by Mayor Perry to the CVRA 3 November 2022

We thank Jason and Maria and Danielle for attending our AGM. Here is a write up of Jason’s talk.
Jason said he had come from a production at the Fairfield Halls reminding us that it is open!

Jason told us that it is a privilege to be Mayor. The Council is in a “no overall control” status but the Mayor is in charge of everything except for the quasi-judicial aspects of planning and licensing. The Planning Committee is split 50:50 but in addition with a Concervative Chair

A brief overview of the current issues were:

The debt is still there at £1.5bn. Interest costs are £50m per year.

The main short term priority is to clean up the Borough. Jason is talking to Viola whereas no-one from the previous regime had talked to them for over 6 months. In addition Jason has given the police additional powers to deal with anti-social behaviour issues.

Jason is also concentrating on Regeneration both in terms of encouraging inward investment and and applying for every type of development grant available.

In terms of planning policy the new new emphasis is on design rather than density.

Jason took questions from the audience.

Q1: Was Jason worried that despite Planning Committee rejection of various proposals the developers will win on appeal to the inspectorate especially as the Planning Department have been recommending acceptance.
Jason replied that most recent appeals have been won. Twelve recently. This has given Jason the opportunity to nudge the Planning Department towards interpreting the current guidelines in light of the “design rather than density” objectives of Jason’s regime.

Q2: Funding for Community Groups has been reduced.
Jason agreed but referred to the debt levels. He said that they are encouraging community groups to work together. Previously there was some overlap.

Q3: What is Jason’s view on the Borough’s social responsibilities in terms of providing housing and helping the homeless
Jason replied that there were over 1,000 refugees in Croydon’s hotels – which was more than their share. In terms of other homeless he was trying to promote a more holistic strategy as many homeless have not previously wanted to engage with the help offered. In terms of Social Housing, Croydons stock was in a bad way from actions from the last regime.

Q4: Jason was asked about the lack of bus shelters for over 18 months
Jason replied that the supplier – Valo Smart City is having problems fulfilling the contract. This is potentially a legal issue.

Q5: There were complaints regarding blocked drains at the bottom of Croham Manor Road. The resident complained that she was fed up with repeatedly pulling leaves out of the drains.
Maria mentioned she would report to the relevant department.

Q6: There was a report of a dangerous dog in Lloyd Park.
Maria said she would work with Fairfield Councillors and the Dog team to deal with.

Q7: There were complaints that the Coombe Farm site in the middle of the park was in poor condition and continued to be an eyesore.
Jason indicated that it was a difficult issue as it is privately owned but was been looked at.

Q8: Jason was asked when there would be full recognition that “wrong had been done” by the previous regime.
Jason talked about the Penn report (on the how of what happened) and the Kroll report (possible illegal actions in the redevelopment of Fairfield Halls) and said they would be published in due course.
It was agreed that the electors had recognised wrong had been done because if not he would not be Mayor.
Lastly Jason pointed out that moist of the current regime’s efforts were trying to help provide better services going forward.

Q9: The cycle lane on the Brighton Road has harming local businesses
Jason and Maria agreed and said it would be looked at.

Q10: What was the Council’s response to the Cost of Living Crisis.
Jason said they were doing what they could but there were not additional C.O.L.C. funds available from the Government.

Jason and Maria and Danielle were thanked for their time and their competent and considerate replies.

October 2022

Letter Sent to the South Croydon Ward Councillors 13 October 2022 objecting to Melville Avenue turning into a Healthy School Street

Dear Michael, Maria and Danielle,

Croydon Council is proposing that Melville Avenue becomes a Healthy School Street and therefore access to non-residents is restricted during school opening and closing times. It is claimed this will make for safer and quieter streets and therefore encouraging more walking and cycling resulting in healthier pupils and better air quality.

I do not believe any of these objectives will be met in any significant way to overcome the inconvenience involved for many of the residents in Melville Avenue and the surrounding streets. This view is shared by many other residents.

Melville Avenue, Castlemaine Avenue and Croham Park Avenue run in parallel between Croham Road and Coombe Road. They are linked via Ballater Road and Binfield Road. My view is that if the scheme goes ahead the vast majority of the traffic that currently enters Melville Avenue will go via Castlemaine Avenue and Croham Park Avenue instead.

Why do we think this? We conducted a survey of the traffic going along Melville Avenue on Thursday the 6th October (attached). Of the traffic in Melville during the proposed restricted periods 239 cars dropped off or picked up pupils with 125 for Old Palace Junior School and 114 for Coombe Wood School. This was out of a total of almost 1,600 journeys – so around 15% of journeys were school drop offs or pick ups. The numbers are below.

Results of Traffic Survey of Melville Av, Castlemaine Av and Croham Park Av on Thursday 6 October 2022. A Term time day with no rail or tube or tram strikes.

Traffing Turning INTO Melville Castlemaine and Croham Park Avenues
       
  From Coombe From Croham Total
08:00 – 09:30      
Melville Av 0 247 247
Castlemaine Av 208 78 286
Croham Park Av 105 185 290
Total 313 510 823
       
14:00 – 16:00      
Melville Av 154 50 204
Castlemaine Av 225 49 274
Croham Park Av 148 142 290
Total 527 241 768
       
AM + PM      
Melville Av 154 297 451
Castlemaine Av 433 127 560
Croham Park Av 253 327 580
Total 840 751 1,591
Traffing Turning OUT OF Melville Castlemaine and Croham Park Avenues Ins less Outs
         
  Into Coombe Into Croham Total Total
08:00 – 09:30        
Melville Av 168 62 230 17
Castlemaine Av 75 196 271 15
Croham Park Av 204 101 305 -15
Total 447 359 806 17
         
14:00 – 16:00        
Melville Av 245 50 295 -91
Castlemaine Av 30 195 225 49
Croham Park Av 143 126 269 21
Total 418 371 789 -21
         
AM + PM        
Melville Av 413 112 525 -74
Castlemaine Av 105 391 496 64
Croham Park Av 347 227 574 6
Total 865 730 1595 -4
Notes: The Numbers look consistent : Well done Peter, Helen, Angela and Sharon (and her CPA team) We would ecpect more cars into the network than out AM and for this to reverse PM as teacers and others park AM and then un-park PM The number of cars exiting Melville into Coombe turning right was 67 AM (40%) and 107 PM (45%) The number of drop offs/pick ups outside Coombe wood School was 66 AM and 48 PM The number of drop offs outside Old Palace Junior School was 80 AM / 45 PM, (62 AM / 30 PM from cars going towards Coombe and 18 AM / 15 PM from cars going towards Croham) Only 129 AM / 94 PM of the cars in the network are dropping off or collecting pupils.

Why do we think most of this traffic will divert? There are three reasons for this.

Old Palace School is a private junior school and nursery with a large catchment area. This cannot be ignored. I spoke to a parent who said he came from Shirley with no realistic other way of his daughter getting to school. He said he would have to park either in Castlemaine Avenue or Croham Road or come earlier. I suspect most will.

For Coombe Wood School parents currently driving up Melville, I cannot see that parents dropping off or or picking up in Castlemaine Avenue will be much of a deterrent for them as Castlemaine Avenue is less than 400 yards from the Coombe Wood School gates via Ballater Road and is less than 150 yards to the school gates from its junction with Coombe Road. This latter distance is closer to the school than locations along Melville Avenue where many of the cars dropped off/picked up during the survey.

Lastly all the cars not dropping off will mostly be commuters. This is the majority. Closing Melville Avenue to them will also force the overall majority into Castlemaine Avenue and Croham Park Avenue.

However I agree Melville will be safer. But Melville is already safe – whereas the Castlemaine/Coombe junction is not (as per crashmap.co.uk).

Before I go to the downsides, I am interested in what targets you have for sustainable/healthy journeys to school. There were at maximum about 120 pupils dropped off / picked up at Coombe Wood School from Melville. Now that is 120 of around 1,250 pupils so I would say the vast majority of pupils are already choosing either to walk, cycle or use public transport – as the school said they would do when it set up. Well done to all of you at the school. So what is the Council’s target!

Now for the downsides to the scheme. If our survey is representative and our assumptions are correct you are going to increase the traffic in Castlemaine by around 95%. This will increase queuing time whilst exiting Castlemaine Av to greater than currently from Melville and Castlemaine. Therefore your overall intention of improving air quality will not happen.

The other downsides are of course for residents having to arrange permits for themselves and for visiting trades people and helpers whether professional or family. We have many older people and some disabled living in Melville (and Castlemaine Avenue and Croham Park Avenue) who need a multiple of helpers. One said to me this scheme is discriminating against the old and disabled. I agree.

If you want to be sure you will improve the already good sustainable journey percentage for Coombe wood school and to force Old Palace Parents to not drive you should include Castlemaine Avenue. However if you do you have to include Croham Park Avenue as well as traffic will increase there by 180% if all Melville and Castlemaine traffic go through there.

Whilst I applaud the aims of the scheme for our roads based on our experience and our survey numbers – it will not work in its current state. If you are determined to go ahead without Castlemaine and Croham Park Avenue I make two requests:

First you wait until the results of the consultation of the previous trial schemes – which the ended April 2022 – is published.

Second and most importantly please do your own traffic surveys before and during implementation of the trial period on our roads so we can all see your actual results and all be guided by them.

Finally if you insist on bringing in this scheme then I suggest you do not need to make Melville one way as planned as the poor behaviour caused by the small number of parents who reverse and u-turn whilst picking up at present will obviously disappear. Therefore the only remaining people going up Melville from Coombe Road during the restricted times will be the very small number of residents in that part of Melville.

However if you do not bring in this scheme then you can eliminate this poor parent driving by putting a traffic warden outside the school at 15:15. If will undoubtedly be revenue raising.

Regards

Jeremy Gill
*** Address ***

September 2022

Why is Croydon’s housing target so high?

Recently I went to the latest six-monthly meeting between the representatives of the local resident associations and Croydon’s Planning Department.  We now have had a few Croydon Council Planning Committee meetings since our Mayor has been elected and the new Committee have been reversing some of the approval decisions by made by the Planning Department so overall we are seeing a reduction in approvals but it is still worth getting an insight into the Planning Department.
 
Even though Croydon is behind its target for the current ten year planning cycle which started in 2019 (albeit not by much),  many of the reps were complaining that the extra infrastructure needed to support the additional housing already built was not there. The planners told us it was their responsibility to consult with the  infrastructure providers. The ones mentioned repeatedly were  Thames Water, primary school providers, transport providers and the NHS.  However we were told the adequacy of infrastructure could not be a determining factor in making individual planning decisions.
 
This all seems reasonable enough for individual decisions but you would think that at some point someone would say ” we are already too stretched in that bit of the Borough, we better slow down over there”.  You would think the housing targets by ward would take this into account but the planners say the targets are discretionary and every application is judged on its own merits! Interestingly almost immediately after the meeting three West London Boroughs announced an indefinite  ban on all new approvals due to electricity shortages.  This will be pointed out at our next meeting!
 
So how do we get to a situation where infrastructure is not keeping up yet we are below target. Is it because our target is so high?
 
Croydon’s 10-year housing target is 20,790 units (2079 per year).  This is significantly higher than our outer London neighbours with Bromley’s target being 7,740 units (774 per year) and Sutton’s target 4,690 (469 per year).  Looking across London, four boroughs have similar targets.  These are Barnet, Brent, Ealing and Southwark.  Only three have higher targets.  These are Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets. Of these seven boroughs only Barnet like Croydon is an outer London Borough.
So why have Barnet and Croydon been allocated such high targets?  Part of the answer for Croydon is simple. If you look at “The London Plan 2021” page 165, the only outer London area with the highest Public Transport Access Level (which is 6b) is Croydon Town Centre.  So it is planned for a significant majority of the new builds to be built in the centre of Croydon, as we can see happening.  As long as these flats are of sufficient quality to be a credit to Croydon in the future then to me this is good.  Interestingly there is no 6b equivalent for Barnet – a reader might know what they did to be allocated such a target.
 
However out of our 2,079 target,  640 is for Small Site developments. These are on sites of 1/4 hectare or less ( just over 1/2 an acre or less).  Here Croydon really sticks out.  We have the second highest SS target of 641 per annum – just behind  Hackney with 658.  Even unlucky Barnet does not even come close with 434.  Comparing with our neighbours, Bromley is 379 and Sutton is 268. Whilst the SS targets for Bromley and Sutton are closer to Croydon’s SS target as a percentage compared to the large and small sites target combined, you would initially think that Bromley’s should be higher than ours and Sutton’s smaller than ours based solely on size. I hope you are keeping up.
Here we have to go back again to the maps within the London Plan 2019.  One of the determinants of high SS development is being close to Public Transport Access Level 3-6 or within 800yards of a train tube or tram station or stop. Looking at page 169, all of Croydon above Croydon town centre (except Crystal Palace) is caught by this definition as is a lot of the south as it is along either the Brighton Line, the Caterham Line, the East Grinstead Line or the Tram up to New Addington. Shirley is not designated neither is the area around Sanderstead/Selsdon or the Old Coulsdon area.
 
Comparing to our neighbours, Sutton is half our size but has the same percentage of SS eligible areas so a target of about half of ours makes sense whereas almost all of Bromley below Bromley town centre is not eligible for high SS development so their target also seems reasonable if access to transport is the main criteria.
 
The only research I have done to write this article is to look at the London Plan 2019. I am sure there is more to this than meets the eye (Barnet again!) but our target looks reasonable given the criteria which again seems reasonable 
 
Also this does not answer the infrastructure issue and whether the recent SS development is within the 800m from transport but might explain one factor in the Planning Department recommending the recent development in The Gallop.  By my calculations  as  the crow flies parts of the Gallop are within 800m of Coombe Lane Tram Stop.
 
More implications of all this  to follow.