Croydon Conservatives - A Croydon to be proud of
News & Local Issues
Videos Videos
In Touch Newsletters
Parliaments & GLA 
Ward Teams 
Boundary Review 2018 
Croydon Central
Croydon South
Croydon North
Conservative Future
National Site
Get Involved
Privacy Policy & Cookies 
 The Selsdon & Addington Village Blog
Cllr  Helen  Pollard
Cllr  Robert  Ward

Addington Village Conservation Area
16/05/2019 17:44:00......Posted by Helen Pollard

The Council is reviewing Addington Village Conservation area.  Here is my response to the public consultation.  NB: Three is still time to submit comments as the deadline is 30th May 2019.

Addington Village Conservation Area Review - Comments 15th May 2019

I welcome the fact that the Council is carrying out this review as it's important the Conservation Area is kept up to date and relevant.  The Draft Planning Document is well researched and considers, in depth, the nature and character of the area.

I also welcome the inclusion of Addington Palace, Addington Park and ancillary buildings.  Both these areas are part of the historic estate in the Addington Village area and it is right that they form part of the same conservation area as Addington Village.  The inclusion of Roxton Gardens is a good proposal as it protects the area around the church.

I do, however, believe that some of the proposals in the Draft Supplementary Planning Document should be changed. 

1.       Firstly, the name.  I have been the elected representative for Addington Village for a number of years, and one of the noteworthy characteristics of the area is the strong sense of identity as a village.  The village area is clearly defined and surrounded by green space.  By adding in the new areas, the Council will simply be including parts of the village that should always have been part of the conservation area.  They were all part of the same estate.

Dropping the word 'village' from the name of the conservation area shows a lack of awareness of the strong identity of the area and the strength of village community spirit.  The area looks like a village, residents feel that they live in a village, and it has always been known as a village.  The addition of more buildings to the Conservation Area doesn't make it any less of a village.  Furthermore, the removal of the word 'village' and calling it Addington Conservation Area will lead to confusion with New Addington which is a completely separate area. 

The old title of 'Addington Village Conservation Area' should remain unchanged.

2.       Secondly, three areas that are intrinsic parts of the village are to be removed.  Whilst the buildings in these areas are not as historic as some other buildings in the village, they are still part of the village and part of the community. 

a.       In terms of Boundary Way and the Wicket, surely it would be better to include both these roads rather than chop off one more bit?  They are part of the ancient estate and it would harm the conservation area if they were subject to major redevelopment.  Better to protect them than leave them vulnerable to a greedy developer especially as they surround the country's oldest Cricket pitch and other historic buildings.

b.       The removal of the houses at the end of Addington Village Road by the cricket pitch, seems a bit petty.  The houses are stated to have a 'neutral' impact on the conservation area so it makes no sense to remove them.  The people who live in these houses, who are very much part of the village, feel they have been unfairly targeted and are being kicked out of the village. 

c.       Removing the triangle of land at the other end of Addington Village Road also seems unnecessary.  It opens up for development an area that is next to historic buildings and an area of beautiful parkland.  It makes no sense to remove it. 

The three areas proposed for removal should be kept within the Conservation Area.

3.       In the ‘Development Guidelines’ part of the document it is particularly disturbing that point 8.1 of the document says it is acceptable to demolish the homes of people who live in 'neutral' buildings as well as those detracting from the area.  It is also worrying that point 8.2.2 seems to open the door to infill development on back gardens. 

4.       The report points out that the buildings within the Conservation Area are still vulnerable to uncharacteristic minor developments because some of the changes do not need planning permission.  Is there not a case to have more of the buildings listed or locally listed?  This would give the Council more control of the iterative changes that might undermine the character of the area. 

5.       I am concerned that the Council Planning Department's approach to Conservation Areas is not aligned to the intent of the Supplementary Planning Document for the Addington Village Conservation Area.  The document clearly states that the marquee at Addington Palace is out of keeping with the host building and yet the Council has allowed it to remain in place for a number of years.  This is already inconsistent with protecting the character of a listed building.

Addington Village has a very strong sense of community.  It has a strong and active residents' association that has invested significant time and money in the protection of the character of the area.   And this means the whole of Addington Village including the areas that the Council is proposing to remove from the village.  By taking some areas out, it sends a message that they are not considered important enough to protect.  This will make it even harder for residents to protect the character of their village.   The Council relies on the help and support of Residents' Associations, and the dependence on these local organisations is likely to increase, rather than diminish, in future.  By cutting off some of the village, the Council undermines the work the Residents' Association has done in Addington Village in the last 40 years.

The lack of consistency in the decisions about which of the more modern houses should be removed from the Conservation Area leads to the obvious conclusion that they are being removed for another reason, namely to open up the areas for intensive development.  If this happens, the character of Addington Village will be irreparably changed for the worse. 

I ask that the Council listens to the concerns raised by residents in relation to the proposed changes to the Conservation Area.

Return to Selsdon & Addington Village's main page
 Other Blog Posts

Selsdon Community Plan - Your contributions are needed
23/01/2020 18:31:00.......Posted by Robert Ward


We are creating a Community Plan for Selsdon which will be the blueprint for improving our local community  for the next five years. The plan will cover the two wards of Selsdon and Addington Village and Selsdon Vale and Forestdale, no matter what your age if you live in, work in or visit Selsdon and the surrounding areas your thoughts and comments would be most welcome.

You can find out more on the Council web site and there is an online survey which will be live until 12th March. Please also encourage anyone you know to contribute.



23/01/2020 18:24:00.......Posted by Robert Ward



23/01/2020 18:24:00.......Posted by Robert Ward



23/01/2020 18:24:00.......Posted by Robert Ward



23/01/2020 18:24:00.......Posted by Robert Ward



23/01/2020 18:24:00.......Posted by Robert Ward



23/01/2020 18:24:00.......Posted by Robert Ward



23/01/2020 18:24:00.......Posted by Robert Ward



23/01/2020 18:24:00.......Posted by Robert Ward



Local Plan
19/01/2020 17:26:00.......Posted by Helen Pollard

Here is a copy of my submission to the Council in relation to the latest consultation on the Local Plan:


The decision to launch the consultation was taken on 21 October 2019. On the very same day, Inspectors delivered their report into the inspection of the London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s proposed London Plan. 

It seems a curious decision to launch a set of issues and options for Croydon on the very day that the plan immediately above Croydon’s in the hierarchy of plans was to be approved, or amended. As we now know, the changes the Inspectors required to be made the London Plan are substantial and have a huge impact on the residential housing targets which Croydon now needs to put forward its ideas on achieving.

As a result of the Inspectors’ report London Mayor Sadiq Khan has conceded a significant reduction in his new homes target from 65,000 to 52,000 per year across London as a whole. 

The inspectors’ report, published in October after some 12 weeks of public hearings, specifically rejected Khan’s proposals for almost 250,000 new homes on small sites, predominantly in Outer London, over the next 10 years. The London figure is then re-apportioned across the boroughs to produce new borough targets.

The London Plan overall housing target for Croydon for the next ten years was 29,490 homes. This has now been reduced as a result of the Examination in Public to 20,790 homes. Within that Croydon figure it is small sites that have been reduced from 15,110 to 6410, a reduction of 8700 homes.

However, all the options considered in the Croydon Local Plan partial review are predicated on the Mayor’s original, and now abandoned, targets. In his announcement at Cabinet on 21 October, the responsible cabinet member made it clear that the reduction in London-wide and Croydon targets based on the London Plan inspection were not going to reduce the administration’s desire to deliver the much higher targets contained in the Partial Review document it published on the same day. It is therefore clear that this is a political decision, rather than an evidence-driven planning policy decision.

If this decision is confirmed residents will see all the unnecessary approved applications for suburban intensification which will doubtless follow such a policy decision as the actions of an administration which is imposing such a level of change because it wants to, not because it has to.

Such wilful disregard for the now-accepted revisions to the London targets must surely discredit all the options for Croydon now under consideration.

Strategic Options 1 and 2 in the proposal document place significant reliance on ‘windfall site’ – that is to say, suburban intensification and back-garden sites. These are no longer necessary to anything like the proposed extent. Strategic Option 3 involves the de-designation and use of substantial tracts of Green Belt. The target changes render this option completely unnecessary and unjustifiable. The council’s own documentation confirms that the release of Green Belt will be harmful, and it is now in conflict with another part of the Mayor’s Plan: Mayor Khan is clear that Green Belt should not be used for this purpose in London and the Inspectors confirmed that part of his plan. Thus the loss of green belt will not be compliant with the London Plan or NPPF.

The three strategic options are at the heart of the review document. But all three have now been rendered obsolete by the accepted changes to the London Plan. 

The council should therefore go back to the drawing board and produce a new options paper which reflects the new reality and is consistent with the London Plan.


In relation to the various Strategic Options put forward:

Strategic Option 1
Should be amended as there is no need for ’windfall’ intensification as 8700 less homes needed.

Strategic Option 2
Should be amended to support the Purley Way transformation area as a focus for 12,000 new homes.  There is no longer the need for ‘windfall’ sites with the 8700 reduction in the London Plan.

Strategic Option 3
Should be rejected for the reasons outlined above.  Furthermore, 
-    It is incompatible with the Council’s stated aims in relation to climate change, biodiversity and the green grid.  
-    The Council’s own documents confirm that it will cause more than substantial harm to the setting of the green belt.  
-    The Mayor of London has re-stated his own commitment to protect the green belt. 
-    The loss of green belt will not be compliant with the London Plan or NPPF.
-    According to the letter from the Minister of State for Housing dated 2nd October 2019 and copied to all local authorities expressly states, “the Green Belt should only be altered in exceptional circumstances” and “to limit the pressure on undeveloped Green Belt” and ensure Councils bring “forward brownfield sites for development”.
-    In Addington the sites chosen run alongside tram lines which will restrict access/egress as well as a present safety concerns due to ease of unauthorised access/trespass.
-    The area off Lodge Lane represents a ‘green’ boundary between two housing conurbations in New Addington and Falconwood Rd and Forestdale.
-    The area in Gravel Hill has no obvious road access given the existing housing, the school premises and the tram lines.
-    The area off Lodge Lane will be limited by an access route off the existing main roundabout which is already very busy because of its exit routes to key parts of New Addington and Lidl supermarket.
-    The existing tram service doesn’t cope now at peak times with most peak services being overcrowded.


Individual developments tend to envelop the whole site, often encouraged by SPD2, meaning that too much biodiversity is lost.

Instead, I support the Purley Way transformation area which has high potential for mixed use development, improved public realm, greater potential for infrastructure and improved accessibility to the green grid.

Loss of green spaces and gardens will increase water run-off and therefore flooding in vulnerable areas.


Local Green Space designation is still lacking with many of the borough’s parks and green spaces failing to achieve local protection through LGS designation, despite the tireless work of Friends’ Groups across the borough.

Small green spaces, such as the space at Covington Way, are just as important as large tracts of green space or local parks.  However, these spaces, together with some of Croydon’s parks do not have the protection they need to prevent development.  Recent experience indicates that this might actually be a deliberate policy by the Council to allow the sale of green spaces in order to enable development.  This policy should not be facilitated by the Local Plan, and the spaces should be protected.  The Council should be setting the example of preserving and enhancing green spaces, particularly those in its control, by not building on such spaces through its wholly owned development company Brick by Brick.

Green spaces on council estates, like Monks Hill, should be protected from development.  These areas are already intensively developed and they need these green areas.

Precious green areas such as Foxearth Spinney should be protected from land grabs by Brick By Brick, especially in the light of the Mayor’s reduction in the housing target.


In planning terms, Croydon has very different characteristics from inner London boroughs, and yet, it is subject to the same parking policies.  Many areas of the borough, including many parts of my own ward of Selsdon and Addington Village, have poor access to public transport.  Removing parking spaces from development won’t mean there are fewer cars; it will mean that there are more cars parks on the street and inappropriate places.  This will change the character of the area, be dangerous and will not meet the needs of the residents living in these developments.  


The amount of development envisaged for Croydon will mean there is far greater demand for public transport.  A condition of moving ahead with the number of homes planned, should be the delivery of specific transport upgrades and enhancements e.g. upgrade the number of services at East Croydon and other local stations, improve bus services, more GP surgeries.


The impact on the character of an area will be significant where there are many HMOs e.g. in the Chatsworth Road Conservation Area.  This plan misses the opportunity to introduce policies around the cumulative impact of HMO’s in many areas across the borough. Whilst the introduction of an Article 4 Direction is helpful there are still minimal policies to deal with the many issues that HMO’s can create.

It is difficult to see how this document can ‘reinforce local distinctiveness, by responding to, and enhancing their context, character and heritage’ when such unjustified intensification is being encouraged and documents such as SPD2 deliberately undermine local character.


The Plan does not address the need to increase the amount of green space in the borough and to bring biodiversity even to build up areas.

There should be a coordinated approach to;
-    Include more trees and green spaces in all developments
-    Invest s106 money in green spaces and parks
-    Protect and enhance all green spaces.  After all, with more people living in the borough, there will be increasing pressure on all green spaces
-    Clear standards for the maintenance and preservation of these spaces


This plan does not mention the long-desired Whitgift Centre upgrade as fronted by The Croydon Partnership. Most residents and businesses believe that this scheme is vital if Croydon is to regain its former position as a thriving retail and commercial centre, rather than becoming a dormitory town for London. The scheme is now clearly in significant difficulty and its delivery should be an absolute priority for the Council.

I support the work done on the Purley Way transformation and would like to see this area becoming a location for a wider diversity of uses, both residential and commercial. It will, however, need much more than shops and flats if it is to become a desirable place to live.

In District Centres, the Plan should give priority to Community Plans when making decisions about developments.  Any developments should be consistent with the plan for the area e.g. Selsdon Community Plan



See older blog posts


 Read our newsletter
Download our latest newsletter:
Local Election Special April 2018
 Contact Us
Please do contact us with any issues or concerns you may have. We answer all our constituents' correspondence and value your comments. If you want your concern addressed by your local team, please follow the link above.
020 8660 0491
 Older Blog Posts
Council fails to respond to Brick By Brick FOI request
Selsdon Christmas Market 30th November 2019
Carriageway Surfacing - Tedder Road
Monks Hill - Green Space Building Plans
Rapid HIV testing at community venues in Croydon
Selsdon Community Plan Day
Friends of Littleheath woods - cherishing one of our greatest assets
Seldson Christmas Market - Sat 30th Nov 12-4pm
Selsdon Community Plan Day - Sat 9th Nov 12-5pm
Protecting our green spaces
Road works in Farley Road on 4th October 2019
Automated External Defibrillator (AED) installed in Selsdon High Street
Brick by Brick timetable
Foxearth Spinney saved from development
Planned road resurfacing in Tedder Road postponed
Council won't commit to comply with covenants
Croham Valley Road - saved from development!
Selsdon Library re-opens on 10th August with a special event
Selsdon library update
Croham Valley Road Covenant
Covenant on Foxearth Spinney
How you can request protection for green spaces - by 22/7/19
Speech to protect green spaces
Save Selsdon's green spaces petition
Selsdon Litter Pick
Stop Croydon Council building on green spaces in Selsdon
Save our Green Spaces!
Commemorative bench in Addington Village
Addington Village Conservation Area
Labour's secret plans to close libraries
© Copyright Croydon Conservatives 2000 - 2020