Space at a premium: residents have produced evidence to back up their claims about the busy multi-storey car park. Developers misleadingly say there is no demand for parking in Purley
Our shadowy multi-millionaire developers based in off-shore tax havens correspondent, BARRATT HOLMES, on an outbreak of common sense, and serious reservations, over proposals for a massive retirement home complex
Prime development site: Purley leisure centre has been closed since March 2020, the adjacent Sainsbury’s supermarket has stood empty for a decade longer
Seven of the borough’s largest and most influential residents’ associations have filed a detailed and corruscating criticism of plans to build another 220 homes in Purley town centre, in a blatant attempt by profit-hungry developers to get around planning regulations over affordable housing by fobbing off Croydon with a “free” swimming pool and leisure centre.
The planning application for redevelopment of the site of Purley Pool, the disused Sainsbury’s supermarket and multi-storey car park has finally been submitted. The sharp-eyed experts of the residents’ associations have gone through the hundreds of pages of documents and found a stack of inaccuracies, misrepresentations, attempted deceits and potential breaches of planning law.
Many of the objections centre on the long-term damage to Purley district centre likely to be caused by the removal of 424 parking spaces in the existing multi-storey, to be replaced by just 50 in a 220-unit housing development with a leisure centre attached.
The objection letter also highlights the serious fire risk posed by the creation of a car park underneath some of the retirement flats that the developers want to build.
The plans, submitted on behalf of developers who are ultimately based in the British Virgin Island tax haven, have been warmly endorsed by Croydon Mayor Jason Perry and MP Chris Philp, who not so long ago was leading the campaign against over-development of the local town centre.
Signatories to the 10-page demolition job of Polaska and Perry’s plans are Riddlesdown Residents’ Association, Hartley and District RA, Selsdon RA, Croham Valley RA, Old Coulsdon RA, Coulsdon West RA and East Coulsdon RA.
Missing from that list is Purley and Woodcote RA, which might have something to do with their having had as their chair Samir Dwesar, a member of Perry’s Conservative council.
The objection letter states, “The seven RAs are very supportive of the rebuilding of a new leisure centre. However, we believe this development must not be at a detrimental cost to the viability and success of the Purley District Centre, primarily in relation to the much reduced public parking element of this scheme.”
The RAs have conducted a detailed check of the planning application, and have a better overview of all the developments either underway or recently granted planning permission than has been evident from our Tory-run council and planning committee.
Overdevelopment: the Polaska scheme is a massive complex of expensive retirement homes for sale, with a leisure centre tacked on, but no proper parking provision
“The seven RAs… believe this proposed scheme must now take into account the development at 26-52 Whytecliffe Road South and Purley Station Car Park (21/01753/FUL)… which was granted by the planning committee on 4 April 2024.
“This scheme is, of course, right opposite this site on Whytecliffe Rd South and will also involve the loss of some public parking for commuters using Purley rail station.”
And they state that, despite the developers having asked for pre-application advice on planning restrictions from the council on no less than 12 occasions, as well as input from the council’s secretive Review Panel, “we are not convinced that all the issues raised by council planning officers have been addressed in the final submission by the applicant”.
The RAs’ objection letter describes the loss of so many public car parking spaces as “ludicrous”, highlighting that the demolition of the mutli-storey will not just impact commuters using Purley station and shoppers visiting the high street, but also Purley Memorial Hospital, which uses the existing car park for patients and NHS staff.
“We’ve all seen what has happened to the retail trade in Croydon town centre and we are fearful Purley town centre will follow the same way should long-term public parking be severely reduced,” the objection states.
Somewhat politely, the RAs objection letter says, “The applicant has not taken into account the effect the loss of a public car park on this site will have, particularly in view of this large-scale development and the other nearby large-scale applications now granted.”
They even suggest that Tesco might even pull out of Purley if the business feels that their supermarket’s car park is being used as an overflow for the town centre.
The fire risk inherent in plans for the development’s on-site parking is also spelled out. “In view of the recent large scale fire at Luton Airport car park in October 2023 (and numerous fires in other car parks), is it wise to be accommodating car parking within the
lower floors of high-rise residential blocks, especially for the elderly?
“In our view, this is a substantial risk to the occupiers of the flats – considering the age of the occupants. All the parking should be separate, and away from the blocks with flats.”
Unaffordable: none of the flats in the development would be ‘affordable’ despite London planning regulations
They also raise concerns about flooding risks and sewage disposal (another 220 flushing lavs, plus the swimming pool… all in the dirty hands of Thames Water): “We believe that all these large-scale developments are increasing the flood risk to Purley town centre and surrounding areas.”
And they also nail the developers’ gaming of the planning system, by trying to dodge their planning responsibilities to deliver affordable homes.
A housing development of this size would normally be expected to provide at least 70 homes at social rent or equivalent.
“We note none of the residential units will be affordable,” the RAs’ objection letter states (our italics). “This site could potentially make a significant contribution to housing needs in the area.”
The scheme is about 25 residential units fewer than according to Polaska’s earlier versions of their plans. Nonetheless, the sale value of the properties proposed under the application could be at least £60million.
The planning application includes reference to a financial viability assessment which claims that “the scheme cannot viably provide any affordable housing”.
The planning application states, “The scheme is subject to significant viability challenges due to the high existing use value and the costs of reproving the leisure centre and associated facilities at nil cost to the council/public.”
The role of Croydon Mayor Perry in all this appears to be increasingly murky, as he and Tory councillors in and around Purley act as cheerleaders for developers, rather than representing their residents.
Perry had promised the borough that he would re-open Purley Pool if he was elected in 2022. In November 2021, Perry and Conservative councillors claimed that there was “nothing structurally significant that is keeping [Purley Pool] closed… and nothing costing £3million”.
They either didn’t know what they were talking about, or they were deliberately lying, because the costs of re-opening the pool and leisure centre, which was closed in 2020 because of covid, was way out of budget for Croydon’s cash-strapped council.
And then, as if by magic, Polaska appeared on the scene, “generously” offering to build replacement facilities. Turns out, this is likely to deprive the borough of at least 60 affordable homes.
According to the RAs’ objection letter, Perry has been briefing more misinformation about the development of the Purley Pool site. “The seven RAs were recently advised by the Executive Croydon Mayor in an email dated 10 January 2024, that the ‘Later Living’ flats will be rented rather than purchased.
“However, we see from the documentation that this is not the case and they will be purchased on the open market.”
Got him sussed: some residents have already got the measure of piss-poor Perry
This, the residents’ associations say, would break London planning regulations: “As the proposal represents a key regeneration opportunity for Purley, there needs to be greater transparency as to why affordable housing cannot be provided,” the objection says.
The Polaska planning application has so far attracted almost 1,200 comments, the majority opposing the plans.
The residents’ associations conclude their objection: “Whilst the RAs would be very supportive of a new leisure centre and some elderly residential units (including affordable), we cannot support this scheme as presented with a distinct lack of public parking for the [Purley District Centre].
“We would ask that the council take on board the seven RAs objections and all the many other residents’ objections… and refuse this application.”
Read more: Residents ‘deeply concerned’ over developers’ parking claims
Read more: Tories warn residents: don’t dare complain about Purley pool
Read more: Residents backlash over Perry’s 200-flat scheme at Purley pool
Read more: Council backs Purley Pool tax dodge by off-shore company
Our panel discusses the overdevelopment of the central Purley site and the large ‘Later Living’ scheme in our latest Croydon Insider podcast. Click here to listen in to our regular monthly look behind the news headlinesA D V E R T I S E M E N T
FREE ADS: Paid-up subscribers to Inside Croydon qualify for a free ad for their business, residents’ association or community group, just one of the benefits of being part of our online community. For more information about being an iC subscriber, click here for our Patreon page
PAID ADS: To advertise your services or products to our near 10,000 weekday visitors to the site, which is featured on Google News Showcase and followed by 16,000 on Twitter/X, email us inside.croydon@btinternet.com for our unbeatable ad rates
- If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, or want 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
As featured on Google News Showcase
- Our comments section on every report provides all readers with an immediate “right of reply” on all our content. Our comments policy can be read by clicking here
Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network
- Inside Croydon works together with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as well as BBC London News and ITV London
ROTTEN BOROUGH AWARDS: In January 2024, Croydon was named among the country’s rottenest boroughs for a SEVENTH successive year in the annual round-up of civic cock-ups in Private Eye magazine
With part of the car park by the railway going for development too there will also be stress on car parking for congregation members if Purley Mosque returns to the district centre.
Good luck with objecting to a car park beneath the block. Any number of apartment blocks have undergound parking, planning applications will have been vetted by the fire service.
The world is always turning Nick. Most underground parking and fire permissions were made before the realisation of risk presented by a huge number of vehicles reliant on lithium batteries. What this means also for building insurance coverage also has to be considered.
Has anyone asked PWRA what their views are on this? It’s disturbing that the very RA that has a local councillor involved has not joined with the others. Maybe they’re still making their minds up……
As an add on, I wonder if Perry’s strategy was to offer a new leisure centre, work with an external provider to come up with a monstrosity of a plan like this and then, if it’s rejected, to turn round and say “well I did come up with something but you rejected it so tough, I can’t build anything”. I know that sounds awfully cynical but I don’t trust a word that comes out of his or most other politicians’ mouth.
Genuinely curious if the Croydon planning committee has ever been recommended approval and the Councillors did a sudden last minute u-turn because of objections? I just get the feeling they force anything through with no compromise no matter how unpopular something is if it’s been recommended. I only have look at the decisions that have been made in central Croydon over the past decade.
I can just remember Perry’s complete assurance that the leisure facilities would be reopened on his watch if elected as Mayor. Any realistic assessment of the Council’s financial situation would have realised the speculative hogwash this was before the magical appearance of Polaska who had been purchasing on the site way before this election. At least he and his fellow grifters have a fight on their hands with this one.
Nothing magical about the appesarnce of Polaska – they’ve held the lease on the site for years.
How and when did they acquire it?
Apparently electric cars are no more a fire risk statistically than internal combustion-engined vehicles, despite the Daily Torygraph’s campaign.
This is not the correct framing of the risks posed by electric cars. Indeed it appears so far they are less likely to catch fire, but also cover so far a stock of vehicles that are more modern and it is unclear of the increased risk of older batteries not maintained to a high standard. The undoubted higher risk of fire provided is the runway effect of the furious infernos that occurs when they become involved in fires and the difficulties in putting out such electrical fires.
Part-time Perry puts the poo in Purley Pool
Seems there has to be a gesture to the council similar to that made by Sainsburys when they built their store on the site.
This Polaska plan is unacceptable in my view
500 yards to the nearest bus stop. Lack of disabled parking spaces: 12 down to zero.
When will Croydon get the leadership and respect it deserves? Perry has proven himself to be unworthy of his position in acting against the interests of residents time and time again. The proposals for yet more retirement housing in the middle of Purley are ludicrous and unneeded. Any plans that lead to the decimation of yet more vital parking spaces are wholly unacceptable and misguided. Perry promised to revitalise and refurbish our pool, yet we are still waiting.