The planning assault on Purley unfortunately continues apace; I've just submitted an objection to a block of 8 flats with only 4 car spaces which would replace the attractive Edwardian house at the junction of Higher Drive & Beaumont Road. These were some of my reasons for objecting:
Trees: I’m appalled that five tall mature trees are proposed to be felled, and there is no space on-site for any replacements to be planted. This constitutes arboricultural vandalism on a huge scale, even by Croydon’s standards.
Vehicular access: I’m very concerned about the difficulty of access to the parking spaces fronting onto Higher Drive; it’s unrealistic to expect drivers to perform a U-turn if they want to head South along Higher Drive, and it will be extremely dangerous given the downward slope of Higher Drive at that point; to gain access to the parking spaces, it would be necessary to reverse into the site. The vehicle access is totally non-viable and needs to be completely redesigned.
Parking: As is the case with ALL planning applications which proudly say that they have used the Lambeth Methodology, the traffic and parking survey is flawed. Surveys are undertaken in the middle of the night when no commuters are present, yet the proximity of Purley station obviously attracts many commuters who need to park their vehicles somewhere – and why shouldn’t they, when the alternative is to drive for the whole journey which is surely less environmentally desirable? I acknowledge that there are spare spaces in the surrounding roads at night, but there are none during the day, which is when it matters.
It's highly regrettable that PTAL calculations do not take ANY account of topography, which obviously has a material effect both on walking and cycling journey times and on the propensity of local residents to feel that they need a car for essential transport purposes. This invalidates all PTAL-based calculations in hilly areas such as Purley, and particularly Higher Drive which itself is probably an 8% hill. It follows therefore that more car or van spaces are likely to be required by future residents than are provided for in this design.
Cumulative Impact: Policy DM10 states that the Council “will take account of cumulative impact”. Within 300m of this site there are several other approved schemes for about 150 flats, so this constitutes serious overdevelopment of the immediate area.
The phrase “Cumulative Impact” also applies to the whole Place of Purley. Over the last 30 months, planning permission is under active consideration or has already been granted for about 60 individual homes to be replaced by about 400 new flats, and other largescale developments in the Purley district centre are contributing another 750 flats. This totals about 1150 homes which is over 50% of the annual requirement for new homes for the WHOLE OF CROYDON. If this does not constitute cumulative impact, then what does?
Infrastructure: I’m very concerned about the impact that such intensive development of Purley is already causing on the local health & education services, given the total absence of infrastructure investment which all seems to go elsewhere in the borough. The delays for appointments in local surgeries get ever longer; despite a 4000 signature petition, the Purley Leisure Centre will not re-open this year, if ever, and the Purley Oaks Children’s centre is currently threatened with closure.
