Home > Agenda item

Agenda item

Revocation of Croydon Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2 (SPD2)

The Streets, Environment & Homes Scrutiny Sub-Committee has asked to review the decision taken by the Executive Mayor at Cabinet to recommend the revocation of the SPD2 to Council with a view to understanding the possible risks and next steps.

Minutes:

The Sub-Committee considered the report set out on pages 23 to 216 of the agenda which had been approved by the Executive Mayor at Cabinet and recommended the revocation of the Croydon suburban design guide supplementary planning document (SPD2) to Council. The report was introduced by the Cabinet Memberfor Planning and Regeneration by way of a short presentation prepared by the Head of Spatial Planningand Interim Head of Growth Zone and Regeneration.

 

Members asked for clarification on the implementation status of the London Plan 2021 and heard that this was in place as current policy, including the relevant housing and small site targets. The Chair asked about how identifying areas of gentle intensification related to SPD2 and it was clarified by the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration that these were contained within the Local Plan and not SPD2, even though the desire to move away from density driven development was identified in the report as a reason for the proposed revocation. The Sub-Committee queried why revocation was proposed before replacement supplementary planning documentation on residential extensions and alterations was ready to take its place, as was thought to be plan making best practice and carried reduced risk of poor quality residential extension and alterations. It was further asked whether this alternative approach was considered. The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration stated that once the political decision had been taken to fulfil this election promise, this was the best way to achieve it in the view of the Executive.

 

The Sub-Committee understood that since the SPD2 had been adopted in 2019, there had been a number of planning policy changes and that alterations to the document were needed. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration informed the Sub-Committee that legal advice had been that no authority existed for the partial revocation and this was not possible. Members were advised that new guidance on residential extensions and alterations would be written as soon as possible, taking into account planning policy changes on design codes and design guidance. The Sub-Committee were informed that policy on residential extensions and alterations was in place would the position (including local planning policy and the London Plan) should SPD2 be revoked. The Head of Spatial Planning and Interim Head of Growth Zone and Regeneration restated that there was still a development plan and guidance at a national and London Plan level in place that could be used in the absence of SPD2 to determine applications.

 

The Chair queried whether the newresidential extensions and alterations guidance would incorporate changes expected at the London Plan level and heard that this was not the case and that the guidance would be brought forward as soon as possible and that national government’s focus on design and design quality, the national design code and guidance would be taken into account; these emphasised local authorities producing their own design codes and guidance. The new document would be checked against any new planning developments and the priorities of the Executive.

 

The Sub-Committee requested that the fall-back guidance, on the London Plan and national level, that would be used in the absence of SPD2 be shared noting that reasons for application refusals often referenced SPD2. It was stated that without this it was very difficult to ascertain what risk residents would be faced with if SPD2 was revoked without new residential extensions and alterations guidance to take its place. Members were advised that this risk had not been assessed but were reassured by the Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration that policy to determine applications was in place in the event that SPD2 was revoked. The Committee were informed that there had been a period of time, before the adoption of the Local Plan in 2018 and of the SPD2 in 2019, when determinations on residential extensions or alterations had been made using other planning guidance.

 

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration restated that there were still ways to make decisions in the absence of SPD2. The Chair restated that they wanted to know the full risks of poor development that homeowners were exposed to and requested that the guidance that would be relied upon was sent to Members.

 

Members highlighted inequalities in planning and the difficulty for some residents in understanding the implication of policy to their communities and asked what consideration had been given to ensure all communities were able to interpret and understand planning applications and documentation. The Sub-Committee heard that the Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration was passionate about communicating planning to local communities but agreed that this was a difficult and complex area to understand. Members heard that there had always been efforts by the department to talk to and meet with community groups and residents’ associations which had been made more difficult due to resourcing and the pandemic; six monthly meetings with residents’ associations had now been restarted to try to engage in partnership working and to disseminate information on the planning system. There were plans to restart the ‘Urban Room’ in the town centre, as had previously been done for the Local Plan consultation in 2018, as a way to reach hard to reach groups and young people on planning and regeneration. The Sub-Committee asked if there was data on where resident’s associations and groups were located and the Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration stated that this could be provided.

 

Members highlighted significant upcoming changes in the planning sector with the new London Plan guidance and the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (expected early 2023). The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration clarified that upcoming planning changes in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill looked at building on the existing planning system rather than revolutionary change and would provide for transitional arrangements. The Chair asked the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration whether now was the right time for producing new planning guidance when this could result in abortive costs as the draft Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill could result in SPDs becoming redundant. An additional consequence could be the waste of officer capacity that is already under strain. The Chair also highlighted that the cost of producing the document would be met by reserves earmarked for the Local Development Framework / Local Plan review and asked how risky this approach was, as it could leave the work needed to bring the new Local Plan to adoption under-resourced. The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration stated they felt there was a political mandate for the revocation of SPD2 but and that, in their opinion, there were equal risks to maintaining the SPD2 document and revoking it.

 

The Chair asked if issues with the SPD2 were around intensification in certain areas of the borough or character, and the Cabinet Member responded that any national or London Plan housing targets that the Council were required to meet would still be achieved; they were of the view that the SPD2 was a hated piece of guidance by members of the public and that it emphasised development over character.

 

The Chair acknowledged that both Mayoral candidates had promised to review the Local Plan and asked what plans were being created to ensure residents had a greater say in their area. The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration responded that they were in favour of stronger community involvement and would like to look at how to keep residents better informed and educated on planning matters.

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

 

The Sub-Committee regretted that there had not been an opportunity for Pre-Decision Scrutiny on the report before it was considered at Cabinet.

 

The Sub-Committee were concerned that revocation of SPD2 was being recommended to Council without the replacement supplementary planning documentation on residential extensions and alterations ready to take its place as was thought to be best plan making practice which was the process that had been followed for the South Norwood Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan.

 

Recommendation 1: The Sub-Committee requested that the policy on residential extensions and alterations in national, regional and local planning framework that would be used to determine applications in the absence of SPD2 be provided to the Sub-Committee.

 

The Sub-Committee were advised by the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration that there was a political mandate for the revocation of SPD2 but Members were of the view that the risks to residents of poor quality residential extensions and alterations in the absence of replacement guidance had not been appropriately assessed.

 

Recommendation 2: The Sub-Committee requested more information on the timescales in developing and adopting the new documentation on residential extensions and alterations be provided.

 

The Sub-Committee were concerned about the use of earmarked reserves for the Local Development Framework / Local Plan to develop the new documentation on residential extensions and alterations and the possibility of abortive costs that could leave the work needed to bring the new Local Plan to adoption under-resourced.

 

The Sub-Committee were concerned about inequalities of knowledge and resource on planning matters across different communities in the borough.

 

Request for Information: The Sub-Committee requested a map of residents’ associations and organisations that the Planning Department were already engaged with which could be shared with ward councillors to help to build the knowledge base on planning within local communities and to identify new community groups for engagement.

Supporting documents: