Agenda and draft minutes

Disclosure of Interests Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act 2011, they are required to consider in advance of each meeting whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI), some other registrable interest (ORI) or a non-registrable interest (NRI) in relation to any matter on the agenda. If advice is needed, Members should contact the Monitoring Officer in good time before the meeting. If any Member or co-opted Member of the Council identifies a DPI or ORI which they have not already registered on the Council’s register of interests or which requires updating, they must urgently complete the disclosure form which can be obtained from Democratic Services at any time, copies of which will be available at the meeting for return to the Monitoring Officer.

Members and co-opted Members are required in general to disclose any relevant DPIs, ORIs or NRIs at the meeting –

• Where the matter relates to a DPI they may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not stay in the room unless granted a dispensation.
• Where the matter directly relates to the financial interest or wellbeing of an ORI they may not vote on the matter unless granted a dispensation.
• Where a Member or co-opted Member has an NRI which directly relates to or affects their or a relevant person’s financial interest or wellbeing, whether they can participate in any discussion or vote on the matter or stay in the room depends on the detailed rules in paragraphs 7 of Appendix B of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

The Chair will invite Members to make their disclosure of interests orally at the meeting and they will also be recorded in the minutes.

Councillor Clark disclosed that the development presentation at the land to the South East of Croydon College, College Road, Croydon, CR9 1DX fell within his ward.

Councillor Fitzsimons declared that the site for the proposed development at the land to the South East of Croydon College, College Road, Croydon, CR9 1DX partially fell within his ward.

Councillor Fraser declared that the site for the proposed development at the land to the South East of Croydon College, College Road, Croydon, CR9 1DX partially fell within his ward.

To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.

There was none.

To receive the following presentations on a proposed development:

Demolition and redevelopment of Regina Road Estate, to provide 380 residential units, a pre-school facility, a community use facility and a multiuse

games area along with associated public realm, landscaping, play space, refuse/recycling and car and cycle parking facilities.

Ward: South Norwood

Demolition and redevelopment of Regina Road Estate, to provide 380 residential units, a pre-school facility, a community use facility and a multiuse games area along with associated public realm, landscaping, play space, refuse/recycling and car and cycle parking facilities.

Ward: South Norwood

Sarah Chisholm, Neill Campbell and Hanna Williamson attended to give a presentation. They then responded to Members’ questions and the issues raised for further consideration.

The Members raised the following points and questions:

Height and Massing

Members asked the developer to explain how stair core provision worked within the proposed development in more detail, specifically around one and two stair core provision.

Members expressed sympathy for the development’s massing approach that focused on six storey blocks, but that these blocks would need to be supported by good quality courtyards. Members saw merit in the uniform approach.

Members queried whether the 6-storey approach could lead to a greater number of accessible family units with their own front door.

Members asked the developer about the number of services and associated service charges required for a 6-storey development compared to a taller development.

Members expressed the belief that having a separate tower block for the shared and private ownership tenants could be a problem.

Members thought the introduction of a second tower would not be appropriate. However, some Members believed that a flexible approach was needed.

Members highlighted that heights adjacent to Sunny Bank need to be considered.

Members welcomed the comprehensive approach to redevelopment of the site.

Design

Members asked whether they could vary the colour of the buildings.

Members expressed concern regarding the design and stated that it was characterless and bland.

Members queried whether the flat roofs could be reconsidered. If they were provided could they serve another use.

Members wanted contrast between each of the housing blocks.

Members were not convinced by the stairwells and their appearance.

Members explained that they wanted the developer to ensure that the design of the development was in keeping with the area, however as this was a statement development, the developer should not be afraid to show more imagination.

Members expressed mixed opinions on the proposed red brick. Many of the members felt that the red brick proposed was not in keeping with the area, and therefore preferred a lighter colour. Some Members liked the design and brick colour.

Members expressed concern around balconies design shown, and wished for the developer to explore different options to improve residents’ privacy. A suggestion was to use laser cut balustrades.

Members liked that the design created a street pattern which assisted with overlooking.

Members acknowledged the attempt to contextualise the development with villa style blocks, however there was a belief that the developer could take this further to improve the character of the development to ensure that it was more in keeping with the surrounding area.

Members queried whether public art could be introduced so that the character of the development would reflect the history of the site.

Green Space/Amenity Space

Members stated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12/24

Residential-led, mixed-use development with commercial and community uses at ground floor level and associated public realm and landscaping improvements.

Ward: Fairfield

Residential-led, mixed-use development with commercial and community uses at ground floor level and associated public realm and landscaping improvements.

Ward: Fairfield

Ian Slover and Cristoph Egret attended to give a presentation. They then responded to Members’ questions and the issues raised for further consideration.

Councillor Patel addressed the Committee and highlighted the following points:

• The Green party wanted to see the site used as a green space.
• Croydon College Green should be extended to include this area, however, real consideration needed to be given on how the application and the existing green space would coexist.
• The play area and the trees were welcome but individual private balconies did not compensate for communal external amenity space. She encouraged the developers to include accessible equipment for disabled children and make it more open to the public broadly, not just for residents.
• More consideration for biodiversity was needed, such as the inclusion of bee, bird and bat boxes and green walls or roofs alongside planting.
• Affordable housing was low in the town centre, this lead to expensive luxury flats that local people cannot afford to live in.
• The development proposed that all the flats were built to rent, however the development should have a higher number of discounted living, rent and real affordable housing to make the housing truly affordable to lower income households.
• The development would dominate the skyline overlooking Croydon College, Croydon Magistrates Court and Fairfield and would likely be visible from many listed buildings.
• As well as Chatsworth Conservation Area where many residents raised concerns about the height of the existing buildings impacting their skyline view and this development would appear more prominently from this area.
• The local impact area could be massive and in the five surrounding wards, the development could change the existing character of the local area.
• The area is notorious for its wind tunnel microclimate which the height of this building would likely increase, as well as blocking daylight and sunlight and causing overlooking.
• There was a lack of consideration regarding the trams at East Croydon.
• The embodied carbon and the whole life carbon should be assessed and taken into consideration.
• The site currently is used as a storage site for neighbouring developments, and so the developers may want to consider where these materials should go and would be accounted for.
• There was a massive lack of GPs surgeries and dentists in the area, and the developments provision for these was welcomed.
• The cycle storage and the provision for disabled drivers were welcomed, although there were questions regarding the provision of parking bays for delivery drivers.
• Questioned  consultation, what people's comments were regarding the development and consultee comments, raising concerns about transparency for Members and the public.
• It was concerning that there were no public comments given the size of the application and this likely spoke to the lack of engagement from both the developer and the Council.
• The red brick would stand out against quite a lot of the other surrounding buildings.

The Members raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13/24

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 17 October 2024 as an accurate record.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 17 October2024 be signed as a correct record.

To consider the accompanying reports by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport:

There are none.

To consider any item(s) referred by a previous meeting of the Planning Sub-Committee to this Committee for consideration and determination:

There are none.

There were none.

To consider the accompanying report by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport:

There were none.

Attached is the list of Delegated and Planning Committee/Sub Committee decisions taken between 7 October 2024 and 27 October 2024.

RESOLVED to note the weekly Planning decisions as contained within the report.