Home > Agenda item

Agenda item

Planning for the future: White Paper

To discuss the key elements of the governments ‘Planning for the Future’ White Paper and the planning implications for Croydon.

Minutes:

The Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and Regeneration ( job share), Councillor Paul Scott introduced and outlined the report in a Presentation

 

Following the presentation, Members had the opportunity to ask questions.

 

A Member commented that the proposal presented opportunities, with some possibly controversy as the paper was designed to be England wide with ideas that may not work as well in London as they may in other parts of the country. This may present an opportunity for challenge and rethink and it was asked how prepared Croydon was to challenge and be radical and bold in its response. The Cabinet Member responded that they were keen to hear people views and there would always be differences in planning arrangements. It was right that radical change was needed and the difference on cases of London for consideration was welcomed. Whilst there was currently a huge housing crisis, systems needed to be in place to address that crisis. Balance was needed on listening and involving communities against understanding of the task at hand. It was also vital that consideration be given to the production of a national strategy on housing distribution. The pandemic had made people rethink how and where they live. Officers added that the absence of detail of how the proposals would work in London was at the fore front of many Boroughs who would undoubtedly make representation about the absence of London specific detail in the proposals.

 

A Member asked what was being done by way of an assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the white paper in terms of design of schemes. The Cabinet Member responded that there was serious challenges to deliver on quality of design. Permitted developments have not delivered on design quality to date It was difficult to enforce on high quality design due to the limited control the Local Authority (LA) had and implementing a design code to cover the whole borough or specific areas would be challenging. There was significant risk of eroding character with the current proposals. Officers added that there was in place national set development policies which was similar in many local plans across the country, with fall-back position on permitted developments. There was opportunity to breach the gap presented by the White Paper but the complexities of doing so could not be underestimated, in particular, how a borough was defined in order to produce the codes.

 

 

An invited guest commented that whilst there were difficulties in streamlining the finer details of design codes, it would prove to be beneficial in the end as it would mean that there were detailed guideline in place to be adhered to with more examples of good practice. The Cabinet Member said that one of the challenges is that it may be restrictive on innovative design as the nature of innovative design is that it was undefinable due to fluidity in that what was innovative now may not be in a year or two. General keeping in character of an area whilst allowing for evolution was important and how to introduce that with a design code system would be difficult.

Officers added that the White Paper did not give detail on how communities could engage with production of the codes and would urge Resident Associations to make those comments to the consultation.

 

A Member questioned what areas would be classed as low density areas as per the Secretary of Stage changes to the New London Plan which encourages ‘gentle densification’ of low density areas. Additionally the proposals allow for Expansion of existing high density areas and apart from the Town centre, were there any areas in the borough under the classification. The Cabinet Member said that in terms of low and mid density areas, there would be changes across all developed areas. Lower density areas, due to lower access to public transport would have lower density of development. The Council was working with partners on increased sustainability in transport accessibility and access in general to services. The Town centre of Purley for example was classed as high density and could be expanded further to provide homes. It was however important to be reminded that the development of homes must be distributed across the whole Borough in order to fulfil the aspiration on numbers and types of homes needed.

 

In response to a Member question on the impact of the proposals on protection for parks, The Cabinet Member said that every park was protected. The Council recognised the importance of parks to the infrastructure and community of the Borough. It was acknowledged that some open land would need to be released for development in order to establish a balance of places to build additional homes.

 

It was further asked whether there was an opportunity for more protection of Parks or the ability for bio diversity. The Cabinet Member responded that the protection aspect of the plans were very clear. The Prime Minister had launched an initiative to protect land and that was supported. There was a strategic view on what land was protected such as National Parks. There were some protected land in Croydon that was not very good for bio diversity and Councillors should be lobbying for greater renewal in order to further protect nature and natural spaces across the country.

 

The Chair thanked officers and invited guests for their engagement with the Sub-Committee.

 

 

Supporting documents: