Towards a Preferred Core Strategy Consultation Summary Report

Appendix 6: Towards a Preferred Core Strategy Consultation Summary Report 207 Consultation Report Towards a Preferred Core Strategy for Croydon April 2010 208 Contents Page Introduction Representations count Summary of representations Workshop and meeting summaries 209 Introduction Published in February 2010 the second Core Strategy report, Towards a Preferred Core Strategy, incorporated feedback from ’Imagine Croydon: Core Strategy Issues and Options - Initial Report’ and provided more detail on preferred options. Consultation period: 08/02/10 – 21/03/10 A total of approximately 200 people attended workshops: • Approximately 50 in attendance at each workshop. They were held on four consecutive Saturdays at the following venues: Phoenix Community Centre, Christ Church Hall, Purley, Fairfield Halls, and Selsdon Hall. • 11 people made video comments at the weekend workshops, these were uploaded to the Spatial Planning Services’ Youtube channel. A total of 91 formal representations were received: • 11 representations received online via the consultation portal • 80 representations received by post and email 210 Representations count 1. CS1 Modified Spatial Strategy - Total* 292 2. Transport and Movement 223 3. Homes 196 4. Enterprise Locations+ 188 5. CS1 Modified Spatial Strategy Introduction/Questions/Misc* 121 6. Community Facilities 110 7. Climate Change, CO2 and Water Management 108 8. Spatial Objectives 78 9. CS1 Qualifications to Spatial Strategy (inc. town centres/retail)* 73 10. Green Grid and Rivers 72 11. Delivering the Preferred Strategy 67 12. Education and Skills 66 13. Spatial Vision 62 14. CS1 Croydon Metropolitan Centre* 60 15. Heritage and the Built Environment 47 16. Industrial Locations 43 17. The Places of Croydon/Spatial Management Areas^ =41 18. The Public Realm =41 19. CS1 Possible Strategic Site Allocations* 38 20. Culture 36 21. Waste Reduction and Management =35 21. Community Safety =35 21. Regional Context =35 22. Sustainability Appraisal/Monitoring =11 22. Document format =11 22. Consultation =11 23. Demographic Factors 6 24. Glossary =5 24. Historical Context =5 25. Past Visions/Imagine Croydon 4 26. Borough Character Appraisal 3 27. A Place with a Sustainable Future Introduction/misc =2 27. A Place to Belong Introduction =2 27. A Place of Opportunity Introduction/misc =2 27. Foreword =2 28. Why we need a Spatial Plan =1 28. Croydon's Core Planning Values =1 *CS1 Total – The top commented policy was CS1 ‘Modified Spatial Strategy’. However, there are many discrete issues within this chapter and so these have been included as separate issues in the list e.g. CMC, town centre hierarchy/retail. ^The Places of Croydon/Spatial Management Areas include all the comments received about individual places +Enterprise Locations is high up the list due to the volume of responses received on Selhurst Park/CPFC 211 Summary of representations Introduction • Welcome references to London Plan and draft replacement London Plan, but clarify that London Plan forms part of the development plan for the borough and is developed in tandem with it. • Welcome the fact that flood risk has been identified as a constraint to be addressed ahead of improvements to transport facilities/homes growth in Purley. • Fully support the long-term redevelopment and regeneration of Croydon Metropolitan Centre and its environs • It would be useful if the four areas (north, south, east and centre) matched those of the areas being used by police, the council through the street based services review and Children's Services. • Meeting the housing, employment and leisure needs of the Borough's residents should be referenced in Fig 1 - Croydon's Core Planning Values. • Not enough weight on the need to provide family homes – a major contributory factor to social sustainability. • A presumption in favour of allowing change and development in which individuals and organisations are prepared to risk investment of their own resources (except where there is a very convincing case to the) should be referenced in Fig 1 - Croydon's Core Planning Values. • Croydon should relinquish City status aspirations and focus on being an Outer London borough. Also a lack of reference to neighbouring Surrey, yet mention of Gatwick and Brighton that are miles away. • Overall the document seeks to give rather more weight to the protection of the interests of 'the haves' (the majority) than to meeting the needs of 'the have nots'. Resulting discontentment from this has implications for crime and increased public spending. • Need clarification on what ‘heritage led renewal’ means for Crystal Palace. Especially given the Council’s poor record on protecting the Conservation Area – now ‘at risk’. Why We Need a Spatial Plan • Particularly support cross borough working especially in relation to Biggin Hill Airport lies. • Why no mention of key issues being faced by your borough, for example in relation to flooding, employment and housing. Furthermore, whilst the regional context is welcomed, including a reference to cross borough working, there is no information on cross boundary issues, including migration and the “Gatwick Diamond and other growth areas”. • Upgrading of transport links (Thameslink, Tramlink extensions and Crossrail) will improve accessibility of Croydon and make it more attractive to central London businesses looking to reduce overheads. It should be competing directly with central London for employment. • In general the document is well set out and addresses many of the issues and problems. However the previous iteration was better in that it identified key areas and locations based on actual communities. • Council should add London Sub-Regional Transport Plans to ‘regional context’ list on p.20. • Decision to make Heathrow the London airport (freeing up Croydon Airport for development and saving us from relentless airport expansion plans) should be mentioned in the historic context. Also why no mention of the ill-fated Water Palace on Purley Way. • Fail to see what impact short-term sporting events in London (in 2012, 2015 and possibly 2018) have on Croydon’s long-term planning strategy. • Rise in the range of leisure activities undertaken suggests we should sometimes consider releasing Green Belt sites for these purposes. • Figure 10 appears to suggest CMC has been excluded from the residential character appraisal – is this correct? • Figure 3 – Spatial Management Area (opportunities and constraints), the boundaries of the maps overlap (see Croydon and Addiscombe0. Even if the maps are to be printed on a small scale they need to be more accurate. • Need to make sure demographic change is seen as a potential asset which could help the future regeneration of Croydon’s districts. • Suggest the inclusion of a health deprivation map to identify where investment, regeneration and other mechanisms could be focussed. We would stress that the baseline health conditions of the borough should be understood and outlined in the LDF and monitored through the AMR. • Core Strategy should reflect the polysystem approach being taken forward by the NHS (A collection of services, working together to help local people with their healthcare needs). This would also be linked to enhanced GP surgeries, known as GP-led health centres. • The Core Strategy should be flexible and acknowledge the changing pattern of care provision. A flexible policy should allow the PCT to manage its estate is suggested. 212 Croydon in 2031 • Vision should include reference to an adequately housed population • There should a Spatial Objective in respect of property and technology resources to promote full employment • Reference to Biggin Hill welcomed –can supplement the services provided by the major airports via nice business transport • Reference to both physical health, mental health and well-being of our population should be made in objectives 5 and 9 i.e. ‘Conserve and create spaces and buildings that foster healthy, cohesive communities’ / ‘Increase access to green space and nature for all Croydon residents...’ • Spatial objective 6 should be reworded for clarity: ‘Ensure that new development and built heritage integrates, protects and enhances biodiversity and keeps ecosystems in good condition.’ • Spatial objective 8 should include reference to improving, restoring enhancing and protecting land and natural resources as well as responsible use. Explicit reference should be made to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, living within environmental limits and reducing consumption of natural resources • Spatial objective 9 should include reference to improving and restoring biodiversity as well as enhancing and protecting it in all ecosystems. Active participation in improving the environment and increasing access to greenspaces in areas of deprivation should also be included • Spatial objective 10 should include reference to minimising flood risk as well as tackling it. Reference needed to prevent inappropriate development in the floodplain alongside inclusion of improvement in flood resilience for new and existing developments including retrofitting existing buildings with SUDs. Objective welcomed but document fails to display how this will be addressed via infrastructure improvements • The use of drawings is a very positive means of expressing the vision, rather than the normal paragraphs of text in Core Strategies. Overall presentation of the vision and maintenance of a short and straightforward list of objectives is very well done. Some not as positive. • A more concise locally distinctive

Load more