Croydon is taking on significant risks by granting planning permission for 220 ‘later-living’ homes in Purley, a councillor warned a Town Hall meeting last night. By our housing correspondent, BARRATT HOLMES
Big guns: Croydon Tories called up the London Assembly Member, Neil Garratt, to support the dodgy scheme
The majority of members of Croydon Council’s planning committee last night voted to ignore the London Plan and the borough’s own Local Plan and granted permission for Polaska Assets Ltd’s £60million scheme to build a vast retirement complex in four blocks of flats in Purley town centre.
And in so doing, they also signed a blank cheque from the cash-strapped council to use public money to subsidise the private developer’s scheme in the incidental delivery of a leisure centre and swimming pool.
No one could be certain how much the subsidy might be, as the professional planners’ calculations were based on hopeful guesses and hefty assumptions – including generously ascribing zero value to the disused supermarket property which makes up a significant part of the site.
As one member of the planning committee, Sean Fitzsimons, warned, there could be further multi-million-pound liabilities for the local authority down the track, with the council being expected to pick up the running costs of the “Integrated Retirement Community”, should the company that operates it, for whatever reason, go out of business.
Croydon Mayor Jason Perry was not part of the meeting, but his presence could be felt throughout, as the developers Polaska had handed him a “Get Out Of Jail” card over his reckless, and broken, election promise to re-open the Purley Pool.
A ‘marker’: the planers are excited to have a 12-storey building in the centre of Purley
They dragged out the “big guns” for this application, with the council’s planning chief Nicola Townsend present along with former developer employee Jan Slominski to help guide planning official Thomas Wilson, the author of the council’s report and who led much of the presentation.
Of shady developers Polaska, whose parent company is based in the British Virgin Islands dodgy tax haven, there was no sign. They sent their agent. But speaking on their behalf were the Tory MP and millionaire property financier Chris Philp and the London Assembly Member for the area, Neil “Father Jack” Garratt.
Garratt had to be warned about his language by the committee chair, as he abused his five-minute address to shift the blame for the reduction in parking in the area to London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan. This, just moments after Garratt will have heard the developers’ own agent, Penny Moss, admit that the reduction in parking spaces was entirely due to the limitations of the site.
Better than nothing: the planning committee was given the ‘like it or lump it’ approach to Polaska’s ‘imperfect’ scheme last night
Philp, one of the country’s leading professional bull-shitters, actually ran out of things to say about the Polaska scheme, which is something of a first. He might have used his time more usefully to try to explain why what he was telling constituents just a month ago – that construction of the pool and leisure centre “won’t cost taxpayers anything” – was now shown to be untrue.
Even those speaking on behalf of the project described it, repeatedly, as “imperfect”.
“We’re better with an imperfect development going ahead than no development at all,” said professional Tory Party staffer and sometime councillor for Coulsdon, Ian Parker.
The subsidy from Croydon Council, of at least £830,000, the committee was told, was because despite building 220 later-living homes, private developers Polaska cannot make their sums add up. “They are £2.5million underwater,” was the phrase that developer-friendly planning chief Slominski used more than once.
Despite this projected multi-million-pound loss, Polaska still want to pursue the project. It must be out of the kindness of their corporate hearts. Or perhaps some kind of Virgin Isles-inspired tax dodge? But they certainly could not afford to provide more than 18 “affordable” flats among the 220 homes that they want to build.
The 10% “affordable” (at London Living Rent, the committee was advised) is well below the 50% affordable housing required by the London Plan for all schemes to be built on publicly-owned land, as this is. The council is the freeholder; Polaska has a 100-year lease which initially began from 1979, though it remains clouded in mystery how or when Polaska, a company only established in August 2022, acquired it.
It was on this point of lack of affordable housing that Councillor Clive Fraser opted to abstain on the vote. Fitzsimons was another abstainer, as the other eight members of the committee (including the council’s opposition leader, Stuart King, who made a surprise appearance as a reserve) all voted in favour. Chair Michael “Two Votes” Neal didn’t even have to vote twice.
Professional bull-shitter: MP Chris Philp ran out of things to say about the scheme
Lots remain unclear and uncertain about the scheme. Philp and Garratt made much about how the pool was essential for schools in the south of the borough to be able to teach their pupils to swim. Yet the plans have nowhere for school mini-buses to park while children are having their lessons.
Likewise, there’s been no thought given, by developers, architects or council planners, for the parking of accessibility vehicles to allow the disabled to visit the pool or leisure centre.
Garratt waxed lyrical about the “fabulous” public square the scheme would provide as a by-product of the 220 retirement homes. But even he was forced to concede: “No plan is perfect. This isn’t.”
According to Garratt, if the Purley scheme was not granted planning permission in its current form, then a later version might have to be brought forward with even fewer parking spaces.
The loss of the parking spaces in the multi-storey car park that will be demolished to make way for the residential blocks has been a major issue for local residents, businesses and the in-development Purley Mosque. Last night’s planning meeting saw the Tories engage a new strategy, as they pivoted to blame City Hall for the reduction in spaces, rather than greedy developers who do not want the expense of providing more car parking.
No apologies: local resident associations say they are tired of ‘misleading statements by our politicians’, like Simon Brew’s 2021 video nasty
Simon Brew, the gullible Tory ward councillor who once made an election video to show that the old Purley Pool could all be re-opened for tuppence ha’penny, joined the fray to put the case of how nice it used to be to take his children to Purley for them to learn to swim. Apparently, a journey all the way up the Purley Way to visit the Waddon Leisure Centre was just too much to ask.
The pool and leisure centre which Brew, Mayor Perry and Philp had all promised would be provided free-of-charge to the people of Croydon was now to be built “all at very low cost”, according to Brew.
As a councillor at a Tory-run local authority that has just nabbed a government bail-out of £136million, £830,000 must be chicken feed to Brew.
The scheme was not imperfect in Brew’s eyes, just “the best possible compromise”.
Fitzsimons smelt a rat. Another one. “Would the developers need planning permission to switch their retirement homes to family accommodation?” he asked.
After a bit of frantic paper shuffling among the council planners, Townsend intervened. “They would need a change of use,” she said.
Above all else, Fitzsimons expressed well-placed concerns that such a large amount of later-living homes would leave Croydon shouldering the burden for health and welfare responsibilities for decades to come for older residents drawn into the area. “Croydon already has one of the largest care sectors in London,” the councillor said, having survived the previous night’s Budget-setting meeting where much had been made of the increased costs of growing demand for adult social care.
A Community Infrastructure Levy of little more than £200,000 would go towards extra GP provision. There was nothing for any new NHS dentistry provision, the committee wheedled out of the planners.
There had been a detailed report into the health care implications of such a large increase in later-living accommodation, according to one of the council officials. Fitzsimons asked if it might be possible to see it. He never seemed to get an answer.
But, echoing one of the scams from the bad old days of Brick by Brick, an official assured him that the homes would be marketed exclusively to existing Croydon residents for six months. That, clearly, would make all the difference…
New opportunity: the supermarket on the town centre site closed in 2001. The pool and leisure centre closed in 2020 because of covid. The multi-storey car park remains in daily use. According to ward councillor Simon Brew, the entire site has been derelict for 25 years
While multiple Tory politicians queued up to be given five minutes each to talk on behalf of the mysterious private developers and their imperfect scheme, seven large residents associations from across Purley and the surrounding area were granted just one five-minute slot to address the committee. Diane Hearne, a member of the Hartley and District RA, strode out to the wicket on behalf of them all…
She highlighted the clear and obvious flaws in the proposals, such as only four disabled parking bays for 220 retirement flats, how blocks of three to 12 storeys do not comply with the draft Croydon Local Plan, how a scheme that was supposed not to cost Croydon a penny now included a £830,000 lease, and the further risk to the council of the loss of parking revenue.
Herne and her fellow RA members were fed up with “misleading statements by our politicians”. Who could she have in mind?
“We want a pool, but not at any cost,” Herne said.
Splash: Mayor Perry promised to re-open the pool. Then he said Polaska would build a new pool at no cost to Croydon. How will he misled residents again?
The residents’ associations have long argued that the loss of hundreds of parking spaces will throttle the life out of business in Purley town centre. Now, having granted the scheme planning permission, Philp, Perry and Croydon’s Tories are getting their excuses in early.
The proposal still has to go to the Greater London Authority for consideration, as a referable application, before a decision on the application is issued formally.
Today, Mayor Perry claimed that, “We have been working with Polaska on their proposals and listening to the views of our residents to make sure that the proposals are right for the Purley community.” There were more than 2,000 comments submitted during the planning consultation, of which 75% opposed the scheme.
“I look forward to continuing to work with Polaska as it brings the scheme forward,” Perry said, while continuing to refuse to reveal who the beneficial directors of the shady BVI company might be.
Read more: Council now to pay subsidy for Perry’s ‘free’ Purley Pool
Read more: Residents scathing of report on Purley retirement flats
Read more: Who can afford £4,000 per month for Purley later living flats?
Read more: GLA rejects Polaska Purley Pool plan as ‘wholly unacceptable’
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
- Inside Croydon has moved to Bluesky. Click here to join us there for latest updates and insights
Check out our archive of podcasts on Spotify, including our monthly news discussion panel show thingy, the Croydon Insider, and The Andrew Fisher Interview
- 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
“There’s no such thing as a free lunch” is an old saying. A new one is “there’s no such thing as a free swimming pool”.
It wasn’t surprising that all the Tories turned out to back this dog’s dinner / pig’s breakfast. What wasn’t so much surprising as disgusting is that Labour joined them instead of pushing for much more affordable housing and zero contribution from us taxpayers to a dodgy opaque outfit based in the Virgin Islands
The planning department is a farce. Slominski went to work for HTA design who work with Macar whose director is planner Ross Gentry’s wife. All very cosy. Slominski returned to Croydon Council – presumably he wasn’t as good as he thought he was. Not unlike Heather Cheesbrough who resigned but retracted her resignation after she discovered she would have a new boss – perhaps because she knew he would find out she wasn’t as good as she said she was.
The ‘we can’t afford to do it properly’ excuse is used by developers continually in Croydon and the planners roll over for them.
The planners seem unable to think through issues like parking, transport, GPs, residents – you know actual ‘planning’. Or perhaps don’t care as long as their partners/mates/family get their applications approved. This risks becoming the next ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ – another mess by the bungling planning department that we’ll be paying for, for decades to come.
I’m not a Purley resident so I have less concern about the size of this development. But I am very concerned about LBC providing subsidies and writing a blank cheque. We all know the dire state of the council finances. Shouldn’t we be making plans to get out of this hole, rather than allowing ourselves to fall into future traps – by which time current decision makers will most likely be gone and the consequences will yet again be borne by council tax payers.
And if you’re going to build a swimming pool for use by local schools, surely you provide parking for school buses?
Agreeing to pick up the costs of running the community should the company running it cease trading is rather foolish. I can see another Water Palace here. The scheme will be built, the flats sold with contractural obligations to run the place and then the developer will walk away with whatever profit they have made. Croydon will then be left with the liability of operating it. Who knows what they may cost? Surely this kind of risk must require approval by others in the Council (and the so called Improvement Panel) and not just Planning.