The fix is in. Council planning officials who describe the ‘harm’ that 220 retirement flats would do to Purley have still recommended approval ahead of a committee meeting next week. And there could yet be hidden costs for Croydon with Mayor Perry’s new pool. By our south of the borough correspondent, SANDRA STEAD
Broken promise: will Polaska get Mayor Jason Perry off the hook for his failure to reopen Purley Pool
Tories Jason Perry and Chris Philp, with the backing of the double-voting chair of the council’s planning committee, will next week push through plans for 220 later living homes in Purley town centre, despite local residents’ associations predicting that the over-development will be the “death knell” for the area.
And to add insult to injury, the new Purley Pool and leisure centre that Mayor Jason Perry claimed would be provided for the borough at zero cost now looks like it will come with a price tag, all to be paid for by cash-strapped Croydon’s long-suffering residents.
The controversial planning application from Polaska Assets Ltd has finally made it through to a planning committee agenda, for Thursday, February 27, and extraordinarily it carries with it a council official’s recommendation to the committee to approve.
Polaska’s original scheme was dismissed by the Greater London Authority as “wholly unacceptable” because of the absence of any affordable homes. Even this revised scheme is only offering 10% affordable (although there is some suggestion that the developers may have even got their sums wrong on that).
Tall order: Croydon’s planners say the four blocks of up to 12 storeys tall will block out neighbours’ light and go against aspects of the Local Plan
The planning application system is not a “democracy”, where the public has a referendum to vote for what they like or dislike, but it is nevertheless remarkable that this application attracted more than 2,000 comments, of which 75% opposed it.
One petition that was raised in support of the project attracted signatures from 26 people…
In the public consultations, various reasons were offered by the public for their hostility to this scheme, including that the four residential blocks of up to 12 storeys tall are too big and dominating of Purley town centre – exactly the objections raised by MP Chris Philp when he opposed the “Purley Skyscraper” a few years ago. For some reason never properly expalined, Philp is backing this scheme enthusiastically.
The biggest concern centres on parking, or the loss of it, since the site being used is that of the disused Purley Leisure Centre, the former Sainsbury’s supermarket and multi-storey car park.
The removal of around 350 public car parking spaces, according to seven residents’ associations who have co-ordinated the opposition, will make it much more difficult for people to visit Purley’s shops, bars and restaurants, and will also make it more of a challenge for patients with an appointment at the Purley Memorial Hospital nearby to find somewhere to park.
Many residents are sceptical of the forthcoming stitch-up. “How can they have assessed the application in so short a time with so many objections?” asked one local, a former member of the council’s planning staff who knows how these things are supposed to work.
The planners’ report also includes another little bit of weasel wording which suggests that what was supposed to be a new pool and leisure centre provided to Croydon Council by the developers free of charge is now to be “provided to the council at a subsidised cost” (our italics).
Site at centre of the storm: Purley Leisure Centre closed in March 2020. The multi-storey car park remains open. A Tory councillor claimed they closed 25 years ago
Elsewhere in the report, it notes: “The financing of the leisure centre is subject to commercial discussions between the developer and the council in its capacity as landowner.
“The planning application viability appraisal assumes a cost to the council for the leisure centre.” No further details are provided, but it appears increasingly obvious that what Perry and Philp are delivering up to Purley is a pig in a poke.
The Purley Pool is Perry’s political elephant trap. Four years ago, he was promising that if elected Mayor he would reopen the existing pool with funds drawn from previous development levies, and it would cost the already penurious council no more than £5million. A bargain! It certainly proved to be a vote-winner…
At the time, Croydon’s Tories even produced a video, featuring ward councillor Simon Ward and Perry sidekick Jeet Bains, boasting how they would get the job done quickly and (relatively) inexpensively. The video’s still out there to be seen on social media, as if Croydon’s Conservatives have no problem being caught out in a blatant lie.
But Perry’s brilliant plan proved to be an(other) empty promise, and the Purley Pool was beyond repair. Which is where developers Polaska came to Perry’s rescue, offering to deliver a new pool for nothing. Getting the scheme through planning next week is essential to Perry’s political career, to give him something – anything! – to put on his re-election leaflets in the next year that he might claim to have achieved during his mayoralty.
Hence the apparent haste by the planning department wading through those thousands of objections so speedily…
The lies haven’t stopped, though.
‘But it is all perfectly recoverable within reasonable measures’: Cllrs Simon Brew (left) and Jeet Bains mislead the public over the state of Purley Pool in late 2021
All three Purley ward councillors (all three are Conservatives) have given the scheme their support, with Perry’s fool/tool [delete to taste] Brew starting his submission claiming that the site has been out of use for 25 years.
The multi-storey car park remains in use today. The leisure centre was still operating until covid lockdown five years ago.
Only the supermarket has been closed any longer than that.
It is a strange, and unnecessary, overstatement for a local councillor to make, but indicative of the Tories’ desperation to push this multi-million-pound scheme through.
And while it ought to be no surprise that the Tories are exercising what looks very much like a party whip on a planning matter – which is supposed to be a quasijudicial matter above such petty interests – the report by the planning official strongly suggests that political interests have also been at play in the council offices at Fisher’s Folly.
The case officer is listed as Thomas Wilson.
In his findings about the scheme, he has written: “The proposal has attracted significant public interest, and substantial local opposition has been received to the reduction in public car parking spaces from local residents and visitors to the local mosque (currently being redeveloped).
“Following the demolition of the 412-space car park, a new 78-space car park will be provided, with four blue badge spaces reserved for new residents (increasing up to 12 depending on demand).
“The applicant has proposed the remaining spaces being provided as 24 private IRC [the acronym for Integrated Retirement Community] parking spaces and 50 public parking spaces.
“However, to mitigate harm to the vitality of the town centre officers have recommended a condition securing all remaining spaces (initially 74) for public use.” Our italics.
So here we have in writing the planning officials agreeing with the residents’ associations that the loss of car parking spaces will “harm to the vitality of the town centre”.
But there’s more: “The proposal will also cause some harm.”
Yep. Harm.
“The scale and massing are substantial and will impact the setting of locally listed buildings and the Local Heritage Area.” That’s quite a strong criticism from Croydon Council’s usually developer-friendly planning department.
“Some neighbouring properties will experience significant losses of daylight, and some of the new homes will have limited aspect and daylight, partially mitigated by exceeding space standards, private outdoor amenity spaces, and the range of IRC facilities.”
Yes: losses of daylight for neighbouring buildings, and “limited aspect and daylihgt” in the proposed new building.
“The Local Plan generally resists additional care units, although again this is somewhat mitigated by their modern design and inclusion within an IRC.”
So the old folks’ home proposed even goes against the Local Plan.
Yet despite all of that, Wilson goes on to recommend approval. Was Mayor Perry dictating the report to the planning official?
Off target: Polaska wants to build £70m-worth of ‘later living’ flats, without only 10% affordable homes
“The substantial public benefits are considered to outweigh the identified harms,” Wilson writes, without stating who it is that has made that consideration.
“The new leisure centre, public square and improved public realm will deliver significant
regeneration benefits and enhance the town centre’s vitality. The housing provision, including affordable units, will make an important contribution to local needs.
“On balance, the proposal is considered acceptable, and approval is recommended subject to the planning conditions and Section 106 obligations set out in the report.”
The S106 obligation is a payment of £228,000 towards local GP provision – with all those extra old folks moving in, the local NHS’s waiting lists for appointments is liable to be longer than ever.
Residents fear the worst at next week’s planning meeting, and have been scathing of the planners’ report.
“Despite a staggering number of objections, the proposal for the redevelopment of Purley Leisure Centre is going to planning committee on Thursday February 27 with a recommendation to grant permission,” one shocked member of a residents’ association wrote on social media.
“Given the ‘Blue Wave’ of support from our MP, ward councillors and executive Mayor, the result is pretty much a foregone conclusion.”
Property magnate: Croydon South MP Chris Philp
It is actually worse than that. The planning committee appears to be evenly split, with five Conservative councillors and five from Labour, although quasijudicial planning committees are forbidden by law to vote on party lines or to be subject to party whip.
But, just let’s say that next Thursday the vote goes 5-5. The chair of the planning committee is Michael Neal, a long-time colleague of Perry’s. And in the event of a split vote, Councillor Neal usually gives himself a second vote to break any deadlock.
All of this, and plastic guttering salesman Jason Perry and property magnate millionaire Chris Philp still refuse to reveal who are the people behind Polaska, and their parent company registered in the dodgy Caribbean tax haven of the British Virgin Islands, notorious for money laundering…
Might there be at least one member of the planning committee bold enough to perform a public duty next week and weedle out of the applicants a full list of their BVI company’s directors, or others who may hold a financial interest in this scheme?
- To view the Polaska plans on the council website, click here
- To view the planners’ report ahead of the committee meeting, click here
Read more: 75% object to revised scheme for Purley’s 220 retirement flats
Read more: GLA rejects Polaska Purley Pool plan as ‘wholly unacceptable’
Read more: Tories warn residents: don’t dare complain about Purley pool
PAID ADS: To advertise your services or products to our near 10,000 weekday visitors to the site, as featured on Google News Showcase, 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
A dodgy deal that has disaster written all over it.
No more money must be wasted on future council projects.
Oh Mr Perry what can I do to stop you and Philp?
May be perry needs arm bands to stay afloat in the next election money from bail out helps bad decisions from the top.
Disgusting and an affront to local democracy if this goes ahead. Those so-called elected representatives should hang their heads in shame, although they won’t because they clearly don’t give a toss about local residents. I will remember this when the next set of elections come around.
220 flats will be the “death knell” for the area? Lol. Wait till you see what Westfield are gonna do to the Town Centre! We ain’t seen nothing yet!
The circumstances in Croydon town centre and Purley are entirely different. Some businesses are clinging on in Purley
To be fair to Perry he has been achieving things, he’s been doing his ‘blitzes’ around Croydon because his solution to fixing things is polishing turds. That must be why central Croydon looks like it’s recently been through The Blitz.
Or rolling them in glitter. Hence the giraffes.