Croydon Local Plan
17/12/2015 11:02:00......Posted by Margaret Bird
Having consulted widely within the ward both with individuals and local resident groups, Coulsdon East Councillors are concerned both for the borough and our ward and have responded to the consultation.
There is concern that sites that have been identified as locations for gypsies and travellers are considered inappropriate in green belt and constitute a dangerous precedent.
There is also concern that many green belt sites have been de-designated. This is considered a very worrying proposal, and one that could threaten the future of our green spaces which provide such a wonderful feature for our borough. The proposal to de-designate green spaces is considered a retrograde step when many areas throughout the borough and especially in the northern wards are desperately in need of more, not less green areas. Why when the borough population is growing very fast is there no policy to create new green spaces throughout the borough?
We also query why there is no policy to protect school playing fields from non educational development.
We wonder why when parking is severely restricted in new developments, is there no clear policy for discussions with The Mayor on increasing transport facilities within the borough, creating better accessibility to rail and tram stations and providing closer access to bus routes for new developments.
There is continuing concern about the lack of planning for the increase and not decrease in car ownership especially in areas such as a Coulsdon East where public transport is limited and not likely to improve and request is made for a better understanding of the different needs of different parts of the borough in this respect.
Coulsdon East residents were very vocal in condemning the building of new homes in garden areas and that the policy of preserving the character of areas is so often flouted and wondered why there was no policy to prevent ‘garden grabbing’. Policy DM2 was considered too weak and puts areas in Coulsdon East at severe risk of character change.
It is also considered that definition of the ‘Place’ of Kenley and Old Coulsdon was not strong enough in its description and needed to be expanded.
Local concern was repeatedly expressed at the lack of thought and the lack of clear policies that allowed development when there was clear evidence of flooding problems, and why there were no strict policies so that developers must use permeable materials and plant broad-leafed trees that help to prevent floods. SP6 was considered too weak and inadequate in this respect.
Reference is made in CLP1.1 of the recent floods in Kenley and Purley and local request was made for the Hooley/Coulsdon Bourne to be also included as this winter stream also overflowed at that time with much damage to properties.
Concern was also expressed at policy DM28 as this did not address the need for more parking provision in developments that were away from easy access to public transport and not enough thought was given to gradients from new developments to bus and train services. This is particularly relevant in Coulsdon east which has some of the steepest hills in the borough and some of the farthest distances from public transport.
It was noted that on Page 163 of the Local Plan, A341 . The T.A. Centre in Marlpit Lane was in Old Coulsdon and not Norbury.
Page 242 Coulsdon describes the de-designation of Green Belt for a possible Secondary School. Although not in Coulsdon East Ward, concern was expressed about the policy of de-designation and the logistics of a school in that location with regard to transport and suitability.
Residents were very disappointed that part of the area of special character in the Dutch Village was to be lost and re-defined. They couldn’t understand the logic behind that decision as both Wilhelmina Avenue and The Netherlands were part of the same development and formed a distinct entity and character.
Cllr. Margaret Bird, Cllr. James Thompson, Cllr. Chris Wright.