CROYDON COMMENTARY: The council will carry on striving to meet unnecessarily high planning targets just because they choose to do so. But their arbitrary targets have already been shown to have unacceptable consequences and to be unsustainable, writes GEOFF JAMES
One of the council-backed BxB intensification proposals for a ‘windfall’ site on Bramley Hill
Jason Perry, a Conservative councillor, recently summarised the current housing target for Croydon Council.
“The council has accepted a high housing target – much greater than Bromley and Sutton – from the London Mayor which it can only meet by building tall. The London Mayor’s Plan was recently modified by a government inspector because its target for intensification of the suburbs was too high.
“In Croydon, it is the small sites target which is too high, to the tune of 8,700 units. The council could have decided to comply with this and reduce its own target by that amount, but it has decided not to do so. This means Croydon has chosen to deliver 8,700 homes more than it is required to: it’s a political choice rather than an obligation.”
Councillor Perry is simply summarising the stated position of the council.
But can they defend this Carry On Regardless strategy given what was actually written by the examiners of the London Plan?
The draft London Plan underwent its external examination during the first half of 2019. The examiners published their formal comments on the London Plan on October 8. You can download a copy of the report by clicking.
It is clear that the examiners found faults with the windfall (aka small sites) housing targets. On average, the windfall housing targets will need to be reduced by 60 per cent, as the expectations from windfall developments in the outer London boroughs, such as Croydon, are far too high, as explained below.
Given that the draft London Plan has completed external examination, the examiners’ comments are available, and the Mayor of London has stated acceptance of the revised housing targets, it is clear that the draft London Plan now has a high weight in any current planning decisions for all London boroughs. Including Croydon.
The London Plan examiners’ report is very critical of the ‘arbitrary’ planning policies being followed by Croydon, saying its targets are not ‘realistically achievable’
While the examiners made comments that were applicable for all London, it is straightforward to identify comments that are most pertinent to the planning policies of Croydon Council that will impact the windfall sites.
The specific problems with the windfall housing target that Croydon Council is aiming for have been made clear by the examiners. The examiners have been quite damning in their statements concerning the windfall-related housing targets.
The London Plan Examination (para 161) stated that the expectations for the level of windfall sites have used unreasonably high assumptions and form unjustified targets.
The examiners went on to make several comments on the windfall expectations as expressed in the table below.
Any objective assessment of the behaviour of the Croydon planning system over the past five years would conclude that the issues identified in table are very applicable to this borough.
The examiners identified that planning authorities would focus too much on windfall target numbers and would fail to deliver the right sort of development in the right places.
The windfall targets do not contribute to “good growth” – they fail to consider cumulative impacts in terms of parking, pedestrian movements and character of the area. And sites with a poor PTAL rating – the planners’ acronym for Public Transport Access Level, ranked on a scale of 0 to 6, where anything below three is not acceptable, often with minimal access to local shops or community services – are wholly unsuitable to be intensively developed.
The examiners of the London Plan thought they were describing a future problem.
In reality, the residents of Croydon that live in the high windfall areas have been experiencing the impact of a “heavy-handed” and target-focused planning regime for several years.
- Geoff James lives in Kenley
Croydon Commentary is a platform for all our readers to off their personal views about what matters to them in and around the borough. To submit an article for publication, just email us at inside.croydon@btinternet.com, or post your comment to an Inside Croydon article that has caught your attention
- If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, or what to publicise your residents’ association or business, or if you have a local event to promote, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network- Inside Croydon works together with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and BBC London News
- Inside Croydon named Journalist of the Year at 2018 Anna Kennedy Online Autism Heroes Awards
- ROTTEN BOROUGH AWARDS: For three consecutive years, 2017, 2018 and 2019, Inside Croydon has been the source for award-winning nominations in Private Eye magazine’s annual celebration of civic cock-ups
- Inside Croydon had 1.6million pages viewed by 721,000 unique visitors in 2019
And all this extra development will do is mean even more empty rabbit hutches to join those already there. But hey ho, the council will be getting more council tax in the long term whether they a empty or not. Maybe this is the real reason behind all this planning madness.
This really makes for shameful reading. One day the Council will have to be held to account for the way it has wilfully ignored the recommendations and comments of the London Plan Examiners and other official bodies. One could understand the hell bent rush to build everywhere, regardless of the rights of care for residents and the environment, if most of the housing was for people currently unable to afford a home or those who just cannot raise the deposit to get a foot on the housing ladder.
The way it is organised now the Borough is simply acting a speculative housing facilitator and builder and tossing in a few notionally affordable homes as a garnish. And it is no use denying that the Council is a builder: Brick by Brick is dependent on the Council.
It is just a Housing Development Department of the council by another name.
And its no use Blobby and Tony and Not Stupid crying that the press are being unfair to them. The facts, as you often report, simply speak for themselves.
its just vandalism of what is nice housing areas. There is some kind of vindictive spirit in this council against the local people.