BARRATT HOLMES, our housing correspondent, on the mounting anger and opposition to the council-owned house-builder’s plans, with objections coming even from the local Labour MP
Planning chair Paul Scott: will he wave through another sub-standard Brick by Brick scheme?
Another day, another planning disaster looms from Brick by Brick and Tony Newman’s Labour-lite council.
While chief exec Jo Negrini couldn’t give away free beer at poorly attended, council-backed events staged to promote Croydon’s development plans in Cannes last week, the local Tories were drumming up public opposition to Brick by Brick schemes at what was a genuinely well-attended meeting last Thursday.
The Tories are now orchestrating a “non-political” group to march on the Town Hall next Monday, the final full meeting of the council before May’s local elections, where they will protest against the council-owned builder’s overdevelopments. Pitchforks and flaming torches optional.
The news that Newman’s deputy, Alison Butler, the cabinet member for housing, has quietly tripled Brick by Brick’s house-building target, to 3,000 units, is being used to stir-up further fears about the council’s true agenda, with the Tories pointing to the ease with which Green Belt protection was waved away to enable the council to build a large, selective free school on playing fields.
The Tories are now questioning whether 31 open spaces and parks around the borough might be under threat of similar bulldozer treatment, after the sites were denied protection from development under the recently approved Local Plan.
Steve Reed: MP is backing residents’ objections against Brick by Brick’s Avenue Road plans
But it is not just political opportunism from Croydon Tories which has created such strong feelings over proposals by Brick by Brick. Recently, 17 residents’ groups united in their opposition to the house-builder’s plans. And now, Newman’s Labour-lite council is even receiving objections to one of its schemes from a Labour MP.
Before next week’s astroturfing demonstration of public outrage, there’s a planning meeting this Thursday where residents from a usually Labour-voting area in the north of the borough will be opposing a scheme to demolish garages on Avenue Road and build an ugly block of flats.
The local MP, Steve Reed OBE, is among those who have filed formal objections to the proposal, but despite very strong grounds – contained within both the Local Plan and council planning rules – residents affected by this latest Brick by Brick in-fill scheme are not hopeful that the planning committee will do the right thing by them and refuse permission.
Brick by Brick, after all, is funded by a £10million loan from Croydon Council, which they have used so far to buy £9million-worth of public property from Croydon Council.
So far, every Brick by Brick project presented to Croydon Council’s planning committee has been granted permission, often despite strong objections from existing residents. The council planning committee is chaired by Paul Scott. Scott is married to Alison Butler.
The residents affected on Avenue Road ought to have planning law and precedent on their side.
A previous, similar application, on nearby Warminster Road, was denied planning permission for reasons of over-development. That, though, was not submitted by a house-builder owned by the council.
One resident offered this photograph of their back garden in their objection to the Avenue Road proposal…
Residents have also found multiple instances in the council officer’s report – which, as they always do, is recommending that planning permission should be granted – where Brick by Brick’s scheme breaks the guidelines laid out in the Local Plan.
The area’s existing housing stock is largely two-storey semis and terraces, some with dormers. The Brick by Brick plan is for a three-storey building with 12 flats which will overlook or overshadow several residents’ homes and gardens.
Croydon’s Local Plan states, “Proposals should be of high quality and, whilst seeking to achieve a minimum height of three storeys, should respect: a. The development pattern, layout and siting; b. The scale, height, massing, and density; c. The appearance, existing materials and built and natural features of the surrounding area.”
… with this architect’s drawing of the impact that the Brick by Brick block of flats will have on their private amenity
Existing residents insist that Brick by Brick fulfils none of those requirements.
As one resident states in their submission, “The development fails a basic design principle of back land development, where the form and height of any development should be subordinate or the same as the frontage development that surrounds it. It should never be more.
“The council endorsed this principle in 2014, when planning permission was refused to erect a three-storey building on the adjoining back land site (40a Warminster Road/ ref 14/00980/P).”
The evidence that this proposal is a gross overdevelopment is readily found in the council’s own planning report. The report submitted to the planning committee states that the density of the development is 302 habitable rooms per hectare.
The London plan sets an upper limit of 200 habitable rooms per hectare for this area.
Residents accuse the council of ignoring its own, and London-wide, planning requirements with the in-fill proposals on Avenue Road
As another resident told Inside Croydon this week, “If the density exceeds the limit by 10-20 habitable rooms, then it might be possible to argue the form and design a development is appropriate. But there is no justification for a development that exceeds the limit by 100 habitable rooms per hectare.
“The London Plan does not mince its words when it comes to developments that exceed the appropriate density ranges. It states: ‘Development proposals which compromise this policy should be resisted’.”
The proposal, which comprises nine one-bed flats and only three two-bed flats, also fails to meet planning requirements for the proportion of family housing that needs to be provided, and for the amount of play space provided for children.
And citing the requirements of planning policies of Croydon Council, the resident adds, “What distinctive qualities of this suburban environment have been used to inform a development that proposes to squeeze a large three-storey flatted building on to a restrictive back land site? How does it enhance the sense of place? How does the design of the flat roof make a positive contribution to an area that is characterised by pitched roof slopes?
“It doesn’t.”
Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network- Inside Croydon is the borough’s only independent news source, and still based in the heart of Croydon
- 1.4 MILLION PAGE VIEWS IN 2017
- “Monitored” by the council CEO since 2010
- ROTTEN BOROUGH AWARDS 2017: Inside Croydon was source for two award-winning nominations in Private Eye magazine’s annual celebration of civic cock-ups
- If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, a residents’ or business association or a local event to publicise, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
Please note that the Tories are not organising the event, I am one of those organising it and it has nothing to do with any party, it is just the local Residents Associations etc that are involved.
The informant who gave Inside Croydon the fake information about this being a Conservative led protest is just trying to stir up trouble.. They will know its not a political protest but a group of communities trying to do something about the awful planning practices and the builds that are destroying communities. I suggest they and Inside Croydon come up to Tollers Estate so we can show them the plans and the areas affected We cant stop ours community being destroyed but we can try and stop others. I personally made up the poster without help from any political party. The only person who had imput was Nix Glover. Please do not tar us with the Political brush. I do not nor ever will take part in political party led protests.
No “informant” and no fake information. Though its noticeable that you don’t object to our reporting that a Labour MP is also objecting to some of these plans (as he did previously, with Auckland Rise, and was ignored then, too).
The Tories have held their meeting in Addiscombe last week – yes, it did actually happen, nothing fake about it. And they are distributing leaflets encouraging people to attend Monday night’s rally, too.
You might think you have never taken part in a party political protest. But am sure Tim Pollard and chums will have a warm welcome for you on the steps of the Town Hall on Monday.
Silly me!… I don’t understand why any ethically or morally-minded local politician has not gone to Local Government Organisation, or even central governmnent, to protest at the obvious irregularities of Brick by Brick and their mentors — Croydon council.
Incidentally, how can our ‘beloved’ CEO not publicly engage on the side of residents in this saga, as she is supposed to do under her terms of reference?
Is it political? Perhaps not in the sense that Councillors Scott and Butler bear as much relationship to Labour values as the so called “Affordable housing” does to “Social housing”, which is zero.
This pushing-pushing of development by Croydon Council in residential areas against the wishes of residents is worrying. Croydon Council is not going about it the right way.
You expect a private developer to sometimes ignore residents. But Brick by Brick is Croydon Council – why is it therefore ignoring residents? Brick by Brick employees are employed by Croydon Council and receive Croydon Council pensions. They are funded by our council tax.
Brick by Brick needs to be reminded that good and progressive social housing is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of amenity and with it, public responsibility.
A successful social housing outcome in Croydon will not be about diverting under-qualified staff to a branded development ‘company’ nor is about easy routes to land and funding and dishing out commissions to your mates….
Brick by Brick should be careful. There were a handful of iconic and notorious case studies of the 50’s and 60’s where over-densified housing polarised opinion and acted as symbols for the wider community unrest.
The original dream of social housing as “a living tapestry of a mixed community” was replaced in the 1970’s by welfare housing, which established a low cost rented stock but created deep social problems. Brick by Brick, aka Croydon Council is at risk of repeating this.
Pingback: Town Hall Tapes #22 | onionbagblog