Objections to the 'local plan' in Sanderstead
16/10/2016 12:31:00......Posted by Tim Pollard
I have today written a letter of objection to a number of the proposals contained in the final draft of the local plan, which our Labour council intends to submit to the Inspection in Public. This inspection will decide whether it is accepted or not as the blueprint for development decisions in the borough for the next 20 years or so, so it is reallly important that we get this right.
Elsewhere I have posted about my objections to the plan as a whole and you can read my letter in full by following the link here.
My Sanderstead-specific objections, taken from the letter, are:
1. The intensification zone around All Saints’ Church
The proposed area is too large, covering many residential streets behind the major through route. The proposal will add demand to an already struggling infrastructure that does not have sufficient transport links, schools and community facilities. The proposed level of intensification is above the capacity that the character of the area can handle and there is no mechanism in the plan to deliver the improved infrastructure that would be needed. It is also contrary to the desire expressed in Strategic Policies p187/8 to retain and protect the view of All Saints Church from Limpsfield Road. Any intensification of the roads surrounding All Saints would inevitably block the view.
This area of intensification needs to be shrunk, within the plan, so as not to affect the surrounding suburban streets, thereby reducing the impact on the local infrastructure.
2. Loss of Green Belt Status – Sanderstead Plantation and Purley Downs Golf Club
In the context of the ‘Review of Metropolitan Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land’ produced in July 2016, it is clear that this land does meet Metropolitan Green Belt as it does check the unrestricted sprawl of London, does safeguard Croydon’s countryside form encroachment, preserves the setting and special character of the heritage of Croydon and assists in regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and urban land.
3. Proposals in adjoining wards which directly impact my ward
In the same way I object to the de-designation of Croham Hurst from Metropolitan Green Belt. This tract of land is instrumental in checking the unrestricted sprawl of the large built up areas around it. Indeed, it was bought by the Council to prevent the landowner developing the site at the turn of the 20th century. The history of attempted development of Croham Hurst Golf Club in recent decades poses a real risk for the character and the setting of the area and the potential impact on this heritage asset. The historical context of Croham Hurst is incredibly important and it should be given the upmost protection, as it is a biological Site of Special Scientific Interest and a site of metropolitan importance for Nature Conservation. The site also contains a Bronze Age round barrow, which is a scheduled Ancient Monument.
I cannot see any justifiable reason why Croham Hurst is being treated differently to the rest of the green belt within Croydon. It is imperative that it retains its Metropolitan Green Belt status.
I object to West Hill (Croham ward) not being created as a Local Heritage Area, and losing its protection as a Local Area of Special Character, as detailed in Local Heritage Area Review, section 3, Assessments of the Areas Proposed as Part of the Consultation on Croydon Local Plan.
This road needs additional protection to maintain its historical context and character.
4. Gypsy and Traveller site at Purley Oaks Depot
I object to the use of site 324, Purley Oaks Depot, 505-600 Brighton Road as a Gypsy and Traveller site.
This site is particularly important for this waste designation as only a small number of sites have been designated across the four boroughs for waste expansion.
Purley Oaks Depot sits behind a major borough recycling centre that needs expansion. This proposal would preclude that expansion. The site has been used as a depot for many decades dealing with concrete and road surfacing etc. and is no doubt the subject of contamination. The site also contains the balancing pond that is vital in local flood defence. Other sites have been excluded on the issue of noise, yet this is next to the main railway line. The local road network also lacks capacity.
The Council’s original report on the site scored it as low for reasons such as flood zone, ground water source protection zone, surface water management, existing infrastructure, heritage designations and impact on local character.
The Council’s own assessment is subjective with scoring values being disproportionately weighted. Where multiple options apply, the lowest score has been given.
Prior to this consultation there has been no public consultation on this site, putting local residents and businesses at a disadvantage. As an alternative the plan should look to use underused industrial sites similar to the existing site at Lathams Way. There are many vacant plots in the environs of the Purley Way and in places such as Commerce Way.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE OBJECTIONS OF YOUR OWN, YOU HAVE UNTIL MIDNIGHT ON MONDAY 17 OCTOBER TO DO SO.
Objections should be emailed to email@example.com