Agenda item

To consider the recommendations made by Cabinet and the Cabinet Member for Homes, Regeneration and Housing since the last ordinary Council Meeting relating to the following matters:

            7.1  Cabinet – Treasury Management Policy Statement

7.2   Cabinet Member for Homes, Regeneration and Housing – Adoption of Croydon Local Plan

Item 7.1 was the recommendations from Cabinet related to the Treasury Management Policy Statement. Councillor Hall moved the nine recommendations contained within the report and Councillor Collins seconded the motion.

The motion to approve the nine recommendations contained in the report was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

Item 7.2 was the recommendations from the Cabinet Member for Homes, Regeneration and Planning related to the Croydon Local Plan.

Councillor Butler, moving the recommendations, stated that the proposed Local Plan set an ambitious vision for all parts of the borough. It would meet the needs of Croydon by providing new homes and strengthening district centres. It was stated that the Local Plan protected the borough’s parks for future generations and provided additional protections for open spaces and new areas designated with heritage status. The officers involved in the delivery of the Local Plan were thanked for their passion and commitment to the project.

Councillor Scott seconded the motion.

The Mayor announced that written notice had been received from Councillor Perry to defer the item for debate. Councillor Stranack seconded the motion for deferral. The motion read:

“We, the Conservative Group request that the recommendation to adopt the Croydon Local Plan be referred back to the Cabinet for further consideration, as the plan in its current form is not fit for purpose. In particular reconsideration must be given to the 31 parks and green spaces losing local protected status, unnecessary intensification zones and the loss of precious green belt”

Councillor Perry, speaking in favour of the deferral motion, paid tribute to the effort of officers in the delivery of the plan. It was stated that the plan did not provide adequate protection for green spaces and it proposed development on green belt land. It was claimed that the administration had failed to properly consult with friends groups of local parks to gather robust evidence for the submission to the inspector. The plan in its current form did not guarantee protection of open spaces in Croydon. It was further stated that the intensification zones in the south of the borough required numerous modifications from the inspector, and many were located in residential areas. The inspector found that the zone boundaries were arbitrary and Councillor Perry stated they were too large and required further revision. It was stated that the plan had not been imposed on the Council, it was the administration’s submission, and would result in the loss of green belt land and intrusive intensification in many residential areas.

Councillor Butler stated that the Local Plan was based on well-researched evidence which the inspector considered satisfactory. It was stated that the plan was one of the most scrutinised pieces of work the Council had produced. The administration had disagreed with some of the inspector’s modifications and some of these objections had been accepted, but others had not – particularly on green spaces. However there were additional protections afforded by the London Plan, and the opposition were accused of scaremongering on this issue. The intensification zones were necessary to alleviate the housing crisis – particularly for Croydon’s young people and the homeless. The administration believed that the green belt was precious, however it was also important to provide enough school places for the borough’s young people, and placing schools in green environments was preferable than traffic-polluted areas.

Councillor Stranack stated that, as a disabled resident in Forestdale, there were considerable concerns with the planned intensification of the area. The area had a low public transport level rating and parking was already a serious issue. This had had severe effects on disabled residents trying to access their homes, and this had been echoed by a local charity supporting elderly people. The proposals for the area in the Local Plan would double the local population which would create severe pressure on street parking. It was claimed that some of the intensification zones were placed in areas with poor public transport infrastructure and a high level of elderly residents. It was claimed that this would create ghettos of loneliness and isolation in parts of the borough.

Councillor Prince stated that the motion was to defer back to Cabinet a decision that was four years in the making, and this was clearly impracticable. It was stated that in Waddon there were many residents desperate to enter the housing ladder, or concerned for their children’s ability to do so. The number of homes needed in the borough required some controlled intensification and this included not just housing but the infrastructure around this such as transport plans and community facilities. It was critical, therefore, that local authorities had up-to-date plans.

Councillor Bains stated that the administration had been ignoring residents on planning issues – particularly around objections raised at the Planning Committee. It was stated that the Local Plan also did not heed the views of residents and had not been conducted in a fair process; instead it was an ideological imposition. It was claimed that the plan did not take into consideration schools and transport, and failed to protect the character of local areas. It was further claimed that 31 parks and green spaces would lose protected status. It was stated that intensification in areas such as east Addiscombe had created problems for residents, from parking issues to one-way streets.

Councillor Scott read a quote from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that authorities had to prioritise the provision the delivery of housing to deal with the housing crisis. The inspector had found the Local Plan fit for purpose and it was stated that tackling the housing crisis should not be used by the opposition as a political football. It was claimed an opposition Councillor had stated in a Planning Committee meeting that there was no housing crisis, and it was stated that the opposition opposed garden building yet received planning permission to build on a garden in a property owned by the opposition. There were thousands of families in the borough without secure homes and many children on school waiting lists. The proposed Local Plan integrated the delivery of 30,000 new homes with protections to open spaces and characteristics of neighbourhoods. In four suburban areas, modest intensification was proposed which would enable the retention of existing structures in many of those areas. The Local Plan was commended to the Council as fit for purpose and paving the way for the delivery of the homes Croydon needed.

The deferral motion was put to the vote and fell.

The recommendations from the Cabinet Member for Homes, Regeneration and Planning were put to the vote and were carried. Thus Council RESOLVED to adopt the Croydon Local Plan 2018 in accordance with section 23(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.