Home > Agenda item

Agenda item

The Croydon Debate

a)    Borough Petition Debate

For Members to debate a Borough Petition.

Minutes:

The Mayor informed Council that a Borough Petition had been received for Debate. As required by the Constitution in order to be valid, this had been reviewed in accordance with the provisions in Part 4A of the Constitution. As a result it was determined that some wording of the original petition was invalid due to a lack of material accuracy and it having been debated by Council in the previous six months.

 

The Mayor asked the Chief Executive to read out the permitted wording of the petition: “We the undersigned call on Croydon Council to pursue a brownfield First policy”.

 

The Mayor invited the Lead Petitioner, Mr Sony Nair, to address Council. Mr Nair explained that whilst the need for more housing was understood across the borough it was asked that this be developed in a tasteful and appropriate way in order to preserve Croydon for the future. It was stressed that by law Croydon was required to have a brownfield land register and that this should be given the priority for development. It was asked that those making planning decisions listen to local people who felt planning permission was being given disproportionality for intensification of Croydon’s suburbs. Croydon was described as wonderful and the Council was called on to act to ensure this remained the case for future generations.

 

The Mayor called on Councillor Scott, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and Regeneration (Job Share) to respond. The Cabinet Member highlighted the housing crisis that was affecting Croydon meaning that there simply was not enough housing to meet needs with extra homes urgently needed. It was noted that all those attending the meeting were Croydon residents and were at the Council meeting because they cared about their local area. However, providing for the accommodation needs of all of Croydon’s residents meant the provision of new homes and consequently that every Croydon neighbourhood needed to change and grow. Councillor Scott described how thousands of new homes were being built in the town centre. Conversely, Croydon’s Brownfield register was full of open retail and employment sites. Croydon did not have lots of derelict sites that could be used for building the new homes needed. Technically, Croydon did have a Brownfield first policy as the definition of Brownfield includes sites which have been subject to any previous development including residential homes.  A Brownfield only policy would actually mean all development would be in the suburbs. However, the Administration felt that a gradual change would be much more preferable enabling planning policy to respect and enhance the local character of Croydon’s communities. It was highlighted that work was happening to look at schemes to avoid intensification.

 

Councillor Perry, who was called by the Mayor to speak on the motion, expressed his disappointment that the motion had been amended using constitutional rules. The Administration was described as not listening or caring and that Croydon residents were suffering as a result of planning policy that was determined locally rather than nationally. Councillor Perry noted that planning policy was in contrast to that in neighbouring boroughs which did concentrate on Brownfield first. He called for local planning policies to be amended accordingly to stop the attack on daily life and to listen to the concerns and voices of residents. Councillor Perry noted his support for residents and the Borough Petition.

 

The Mayor called on Councillor Muhammad Ali to provide a further response on behalf of the Administration. Councillor Ali highlighted that the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government had also acknowledged the housing crisis and agreed that the only way for this to be addressed was by building more homes. It was described how these would be spread fairly across the borough with a third to be located in the town centre, a third on brownfield sites and a third in the suburbs. It was noted that the focus of growth was in the town centre whilst brownfield sites were mainly used for retail and employment. Councillor Ali stressed that there was not enough previously used sites available to accommodate all the new homes that needed to be built and that intensification was not a new phenomenon. Councillor Ali noted that growth in southern wards in the Borough had been lower than in other areas but that every neighbourhood would need to grow and change in a sustainable manner.

 

Councillor Roche, who was called by the Mayor to speak on the motion, noted that residents felt ignored and had not been listened to for too long. This was reflected in the submission of petition after petition reflecting that their concerns were continually being pushed aside by the Planning Committee and that there was a preference in favour of intensification rather than brownfield development. Councillor Roche reported that this had led to huge anger and frustration with residents feeling the granting of planning permission was leading to inappropriate effects on their neighbourhoods. It was described how residents felt the granting of planning permission was now a rubber stamping exercise in Croydon with residents having lost faith in the process. Councillor Roche stated that strategic aims and objectives should not be prioritised over local concerns; a Brownfield First policy should be adopted as this was needed to retain the wonderful character of the local area. It was stated that it was necessary to bring the community along with planning development as opposed to fighting with residents. Councillor Roche expressed his support for the Borough Petition.

 

The Mayor invited the Lead Petitioner, Mr Sony Nair, to further address the Members of Council. Mr Nair summarised that whilst it was understood that there were huge housing targets, building flats costing £300K each would not solve the problem; the new schemes that were coming forward in Croydon were not even providing sufficient parking and would not help provide affordable housing. Mr Nair stressed that home ownership was not the result of luck and that he and others had worked hard to own their own homes. He called on the Council to work with Transport for London to develop its brownfield land which was often derelict and an eye sore. Mr Nail also called for the Council to explain how funding realised from the Community Infrastructure Levy had been used to benefit infrastructure in Shirley. Lastly, Mr Nail called on the Council to act to protect existing communities.

 

The Mayor called on Councillor Scott, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and Regeneration (Job Share) to provide a final response to the Borough Petition and then to summarise the Administration’s next steps. Councillor Scott emphasised that the Administration was still listening and that the review of the local plan was in its early stages and was focused on delivering family homes in a sustainable way within the confines of planning laws. The Cabinet Member stressed that a range of solutions were being explored. For example, a housing development on the Purley Way. Capping the level of growth in each neighbourhood to where it is acceptable was being explored. Councillor Scott called on everyone to work together to meet this challenge within the system and used his final comments to stress that the Administration will deliver the homes needed.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: