Appendix 5: Issues and Options Consultation Summary Report Consultation Report Core Strategy Issues and Options – Initial Report

February 2010 Contents

Page Introduction

Representations count

Summary of representations

Workshop and meeting summaries

Imagine Core Strategy questionnaire

Kingston University consultation exercise

Croydon 2040 school game

Social networking feedback

Introduction

Published in July 2009, consultation on ’Imagine Croydon: Core Strategy Issues and Options Initial Report’ took place alongside the Sustainable Community Strategy Vision consultation. This enabled the Core Strategy team amd Local Strategic Partnership to combine efforts on a joint consultation.

Consultation period: 17/07/09 – 30/09/09

Breakdown of formal representations received: • 12 representations received online via the consultation portal • 73 representations received by post and email • A further 390 Imagine Croydon questionnaires were returned which incoporated Core Strategy questions.

A total of 262 attended the following events: • 3 workshops on specialist fields (flooding, urban agriculture and hosuing) 46 attended people. • 3 workshops for council staff, 34 attended. • 3 Central library lunch time drop in events, attended by 50. • 5 area based drop in surgeries, attended by 30. • 8 meetings with key stakeholder groups ranging from residents and business. associations to the Chairs and Vice Chairs Neighbourhood Partnerships, attended by 87.

Alternative methods of consultation: • Social networking sites, such as Facebook and Myspace, garnering 28 responses. • The Imagine Croydon “Croydon 2040” game involved 15 secondary school teams and a team from Croydon College. This exercise engaged approximately 150 young people providing their views on issues associated with the Core Strategy. • Collaboration with Kingston University planning students helped deliver bespoke engagement exercises at the “Croydon 2040” awards ceremony engaging the 13 secondary schools teams in attendance. This engaged approximately 100 pupils discussing Core Strategy topics. • A video recording of the Imagine Croydon workshops and vox pox events was carried out and an edited video of comments were uploaded onto the Imagine Croydon YouTube.

Representations count

1. Options for Growth 262 2. Croydon Metropolitan Centre 107 3. Climate Change, Energy, Green Buildings, Flooding & Water 104 4. Crystal Palace & 92 4. Green Grid (inc. MGB/MOL, Urban Agriculture, Biodiversity) 92 5. Homes 78 6. Quality Public Realm, Heritage & Conservation 69 7. Spatial Aims & Objectives 66 8. Transport & Movement 64 9. 56 9. Purley 56 10. Business, Industry & Employment 46 10. & Woodside 46 11. Community Facilities (inc. Health & Wellbeing) 40 12. Culture & Leisure 39 13. 25 14. 24 15. Education 22 16. Delivering the Spatial Strategy (inc. SA and Monitoring) 21 17. Setting the Scene (Context, Demographics, Drivers) 20 18. The Sub-regional Context 16 19. 15 20. Waste 14 21. 12 21. Addington 12 21. Broad Green 12 22. 11 23. Shirley 9 24. Introduction (inc. 'What is this document for?' & Timetable) 7 25. 6 26. The Places of Croydon - Introduction 5 27. 4 28. 3

Summary of representations

Setting the Scene • Delivery of affordable new housing in the borough particularly for young people is supported • Developments on large rear gardens should be encouraged. • Adults with learning disabilities should be provided with far more opportunities to develop their skills. • Housing in the form of one to two bedroom flats should be made for the people with learning and disabilities in area near their immediate families • Support for the wider incorporation implications of Croydon Tramlink. • Support for the importance of overall health and well being; ‘A Place to Belong’ could include objectives to improve the health and well being of the borough, and reduce health inequalities. • The council needs to recognize the needs of all the people of Croydon and not just the wealthy influential and powerful residents • The disabled seem to have been ignored/forgotten as regards the provisional aims and objectives • CMC has been identified as an opportunity area in the London Plan, but there are issues over transport capacity, climate change and flood alleviation/amelioration • Supportive of the proposals to develop Croydon as a destination for business, visitors, conferences, exhibitions and hotels, and as a place for developing opportunities for skills and life chances; • Supportive of the aim of providing new orbital and east-west connections and the proposals for educational development • The Green Belt and open space should be protected; including public access at Kenley Airfield is supported. • Support the Objective to ‘make Croydon a sub-regional cultural centre and deliver a stronger range of facilities’ • Support the aim of attracting university facilities to the Metropolitan Centre: without this, no serious claim can be made to Third City status • Agree that the community will have to live in a more sustainable manner and deal with issues associated with climate change • If there is to be growth for housing it must supported by an improvement to the infrastructure i.e. schools, health, policing, libraries, roads, transport etc • Supportive of Croydon’s objective to extend the range of business activities. • The proposal to demolish the Swimming pool in Purley is unacceptable • Requiring SBD design and physical protection standards in every new build should further reduce the long- term e crime figures on this borough • Some new green space was of poor quality and little use; More public space required and emphasis should be on improving the pedestrian experience around Croydon through pavement materials, furniture, lighting, signage etc • In order to encourage investment in jobs, overall there should be increased training and learning opportunities for young people in the Borough. • Support the aim of attracting a university campus to the Borough • The process of identifying sixteen places across the borough and in turn presenting distinct objectives for each is supported. • The CS may benefit from some further clarity between the varying roles of district centres and local centres. In addition, it should also recognise the important role that local and district centers play in providing local employment and business opportunities across the borough • Where development sites are allocated outside town centers, it is essential that sustainable transport improvements are identified to mitigate any adverse impact on the road network. . Funding and delivery mechanisms of such improvements should be detailed in the CS • Support proposals that seek to develop a more diverse economic / business base within the Borough • Support for the co-location of facilities

Options for Growth • Concentrating residential housing in the centres of our major towns is likely to become largely dormitory housing for young, single commuters and there is plenty of this type of housing already • Should be more affordable housing for younger people in the community, which should include houses as well some flats to be dispersed evenly throughout the borough • Provision should be made for the housing needs of disabled people so that they can live independently near their families • The choice between Concentrated Growth and Dispersed Growth is unhelpful for solving the Borough’s additional housing needs. The southern corridor does not afford sufficient space to accommodate all of these housing needs and is generally inappropriate for family accommodation. • The east - west connections and the A23 road are inadequate for current demands. A compromise between the two Options is therefore required whereby the Borough’s southern districts take on the main responsibility for family housing. • The centre of Croydon needs to be maintained as a commercial and business town as well as for retail shopping. Development of this central area can be addressed by providing new additional housing and community facilities. • In the present climate of unemployment there should be specialist training via a local college for youths and skills training for older people. Skills such as bricklaying, carpentry, electrical, plumbing should be available locally • Sound spatial strategy should also incorporate a limited release of land from the green belt, with good public transport accessibility • Backland development should be actively encouraged for new housing • Option 1 t will not deliver the growth agenda in a sustainable manner. • The dispersed model of growth will lead to a loss of economic competitiveness and will not be sufficient to meet future housing needs. • Disagree with Option 1 as there would be a dilution of funding which would benefit no-one- there needs to be a balance between both Options • Dispersed growth would probably have the least effect on our open spaces but could mean more lost back gardens. • Dispersed growth is the best way forward for Croydon as it would fuse the area together with the village idea as each area becomes more successful it will grow and blend into the whole while retaining its uniqueness. • Option 1 is the better choice to ensure less pressure put on one specific area in the borough, which could in turn lead to increased congestion and stress on amenities. • Support Option 1 – Dispersed Growth as Option 2 would limit the development potential of future sites not within the proposed growth corridor. • Do no support Option 1as it would contravene national planning guidance which prioritizes development in town centres • Concerns that Option 1 could weaken investor interest in Croydon’s Metropolitan Centre and reduce the impetus to invest in rail and other transport infrastructure, and limit investment in high quality public realm. • Dispersed Growth strategy should be sufficient to meet housing needs • The ‘Dispersed Growth’ option would be detrimental to the objective of focussing growth within the Metropolitan Centre as set out in national, regional and local planning policy. • In favour of Option 1 because of the need for development in the Norbury area at presents there must be an opportunity to improve the physical appearance of our town centre, improve infrastructure, assist local businesses and encourage high quality retailers and employers to move in. • Options. 1:- It is suggested that larger developments may be the only way to achieve growth .This will require a full review of needs, supply and sites. • Option 2 would have the most significant impact on Norbury which is essentially a residential suburb with almost all the non residential buildings, except schools, being sited along the A23. • Option 2 provides the basic framework for a sound spatial strategy but the DPD must acknowledge the contribution that limited green belt releases can and will make to the delivery of new housing and related facilities. • Concentrated growth corridor will lead to an oversupply of flats and apartments and force people to live in small spaces. The young families of Croydon need houses with garden. • Option 2 will not deliver the level of growth required in the period to 2031; there is congestion issues affecting the A23 corridor and it is highly questionable whether the centre of Croydon is able to accommodate approximately 11,000 new homes. • Option 2 – development on this corridor will have a negative impact on the road network and cause impacts for those travelling through to/and from Reigate & Banstead • Option 2 also has the potential to provide increased protection for Green Belt/Metropolitan Open Land, or at the least, lessen pressure on it. However, it may be necessary for the Council to consider a hybrid approach using elements of both Options. • Should be an Option 3 whereby, all areas are looked at : opportunities should be taken to optimise town centres and regeneration areas for appropriate development, but equally, the ability of dispersed growth to contribute to neighbourhood enhancement should not be denied • The potential to increase/create public realm including the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage, Wild Life Corridors and Cycle Highways are welcomed and to be encouraged. • Welcome the potential for the increase in and capacity of the public transport options, both locally and at targeted growth points/interchange areas • Option 2 – The Core Strategy recognises that there is a need to provide new homes for both small and large households. . It must also be acknowledged that much of the residential development within CMC will be high density contained within high rise buildings which are not generally suited to families. • Supports Option 2. This plan-led approach is an opportunity to boost retail, employment, public realm, cultural, leisure and sports facilities and sustainable transport infrastructure in the key centres. • Concentrated growth corridor option is one that offers the potential to effect a step change in bringing about Croydon Council’s long held aspirations for growth in and improvements to the quality of the town centre • By focussing development within the CMC and along a ‘growth corridor’, gives the potential to meet the demand for new homes at appropriate high densities of living, and also increased retail and job opportunities .

Business, Industry • A significant increase in employment development would be in direct competition with the Regional Hub Redhill – Reigate, which is identified in the South East Plan as an area for economic growth. • Other proposals to make Biggin Hill Airport a Strategic Outer London Development Centre could add around 500 jobs which would be accessible by residents of Croydon, particularly from nearby . With cross borough working and improved transport links these jobs could be of great value to Croydon and should therefore be considered as options for business, industry and employment. • Past failures to attract good quality retailing and offices in the Town Centre and to develop key sites such as Park Place and the Gateway Site in the latter case due to the Council’s misplaced ambitions for an arena need to be addressed • Cane Hill mixed-use development” as an option for change: - The potential for a full science park at Cane Hill has already been explored, and Croydon Council concluded that this was not a feasible proposal. It would be more appropriate for market testing to assist in defining the mix and quantum of any employment uses on the site, which may include some business start-up/incubation units • The suggestion that widening the scope of uses of the borough's 'scattered' industrial sites is supported but as the London Plan h highlights the potential for surplus industrial land to help meet the strategic and local requirements for a mix of other uses such as housing and social infrastructure where appropriate the emerging Core Strategy should be amended to allow for their reuse/redevelopment by faith organisations and other community organizations including the police in order to fully reflect the Strategic Development Plan. • support for an approach that focuses office and retail activity in the town centres, encourages more intensive and mixed use development in selected areas and particularly in the Metropolitan Centre where new replacement modern retail and office development are best located. • support the Council’s objective of progressing these economic development objectives by bringing forward a co-ordinated framework for the Metropolitan Centre through an Area Action Plan/Opportunity Area Planning Framework • The document advises that Croydon lacks sufficient space for new business growth and some existing space within the Metropolitan Centre does not meet current commercial demands. • Support the option that the Council will encourage the development of new, replacement Grade A modern offices on existing office sites in the CMC • Within the centre, to assist in the delivery of Grade A office space, the redevelopment of empty or under- used office space should be encouraged by the Council. ; The delivery of high density office / residential development is encouraged around which has excellent transport links. • further options could include encouraging developers to recruit local people and use local business, particularly in or near deprived areas, and encouraging developers to produce an employment and training plan to encourage job opportunities for local people and reduce barriers to work • There is one aspect of the options’ for employment land that is considered to hinder growth and achieving many of the other aims and objectives in the plan. An option identified of industrial land is to widen the application of an existing policy which protects ‘scattered’ industrial sites to cover all industrial sites in town centers’. All industrial sites should be considered on their merits. The location of such sites should be a contributing factor as to whether they should remain in use as industrial land, as industrial activities should be located on appropriate sites. • Site at Lansdowne Road is in an area where there is an existing residential use and it is considered that a site such as this should not be precluded from coming forward for development by applying a ‘blanket’ policy on all industrial land, as this would hinder future development opportunities • Proposals to regenerate and renovate existing office space within the CMC are supported. As set out in London Plan policy 3B.3 development in the Croydon Town Centre (and other town centres that have concentrations of office based development) should seek a mix of uses, which should be recognised. • The varying types and roles of industrial land across the borough should be further explored within the Core Strategy. Boroughs are encouraged to adopt a more restrictive approach to the transfer of industrial sites to other uses. • Purley Way: the strategy to protect land for industrial / warehousing/ environmentally sensitive uses will help to prevent freight vehicle congestion from negatively affecting other routes with less capacity, is supported • New employment development should be mainly focussed in Croydon Metropolitan Centre. This area currently has a high level of public transport accessibility sufficient to support additional employment trip movements. • Intensification of development in areas with a low level of public transport accessibility (PTAL) could result in an increase in car trips which could in turn precipitate an increase in congestion on the rail network if mitigation measures are not in place to reduce the need to travel by car. • Development of travel-intensive uses should be focussed within existing town centre and district centres which are better served by public transport links. • Where development sites are allocated outside town centres, it is essential that sustainable transport improvements are identified to mitigate any adverse impact on the road network. In addition, the proposed improvements should be phased in line with the delivery of new development. Funding and delivery mechanisms of such improvements should be detailed in the CS. • It is important that the Core Strategy seeks to enhance the Purley Way corridor, and the role of its retail function should be fully recognised in the Core Strategy. A positive statement needs to made in regard to vacant retail warehouses • Support measures to diversify the local economy, to create new business generation opportunities; but importantly, this require a quality environment for business investment. • It is not appropriate to rely upon ‘static’ historical employment designations that promote poor quality setting for new investment, low grade employment and low employment densities. • There is a need to avoid sterilising large areas of land, much of which is outworn and not suited to modern purposes, in particular where such locations adjoin residential areas and have an adverse impact upon the quality of the residential environment. • Established SIL’s should not simply be considered as a single entity, but their overall character reviewed, particularly fringe locations where a more appropriate transition of land uses will be required • Need to consider that such transition locations offer the opportunity for higher quality employment opportunities within mixed-use schemes, that will not detract from overall employment land and economic growth targets • Sensitive activities, should be protected, but with the recognition that not all existing industrial sites are needed nor ideally located for noisy or bad neighbour uses. The Council should not impose a blanket policy to protect industrial sites, but treat the potential redevelopment of in particular 'scattered' employment sites, which are disused or underutilised, on a flexible, realistic and viable case by case basis. • An up to date Industrial Land Supply Survey should form part of the evidence base for the CS to inform the overall growth strategy for the Borough and give justification of the Council's approach towards industrial land. • The CS provides some general commentary on retailing and the need to encourage growth in this sector but does not make any specific reference to this identified need. The Core Strategy should contain a realistic assessment of need for retail development in Croydon for both comparison and convenience retailing.

Education & Skills • support the proposals for educational development , noting that the Airport is a source of apprenticeships and skills training, which it is looking to enhance • More education and training at low skill level would make students feel a productive source in such areas as building, leisure activities, including sport and utilities support. • Do not agree with the statement –shout for a University in Croydon; the Council has also done well in providing schools for special needs, • Croydon should think more about the schooling of young people ‘in Care and assists children in need by offering education at boarding schools. • What will happen to Edenham and Shirley High Schools? Will children still be “bussed in” in even greater numbers from the Inner London boroughs? The answer is that their local schools should be improved

Culture & Leisure • Specifically there should be a link between the approval of planning application and the provision of new leisure facilities. • More emphasis should be given towards the provision of facilities for youths • For major events such as the Olympics, the demand for aviation facilities is significant and Biggin Hill Airport will play a major role in serving specific sectors. This gives a major opportunity to Croydon as a gateway for the Olympics. • Pleased that the document will acknowledge existing cultural facilities and that policies should include their protection and promotion while allowing for future development of cultural and leisure venues. • There should be sufficient protection to ensure continued theatre use in other venues particularly where buildings providing performance arts may not be covered by listing or conservation area designations, or may be affected by proposals which come forward for other development sites. This should include performing arts facilities that stand-alone, are part of other facilities, or are contained within educational or community buildings • The decline in leisure facilities, notably the failure to invest in the and the overdevelopment of pubs/clubs has not been properly addressed. The proposal to have another study of the Fairfield Halls is woeful • Instead of destroying Taberner House to make way for housing development, the building should be modified for use as a swimming pool, Gymnasium and Museum. • Purley Pool should not be closed but upgraded and refurbished as more such facilities are needed for population growth and public health. It is a well-sited pool at a major transport confluence and would easily attract greater numbers of residents. • Fairfields halls study should be expanded to include consideration of other forms of auditoria where cultural and leisure activities take place e.g.: Cinemas, sports arenas • The “key locations” should be defined within the Core Strategy, in order to provide clarity with regard to the proposed future locations of new swimming pools and indoor leisure facilities • Croydon must never give up on Fairfield Halls. It is a good venue, in the right place, with car park and public transport all about it. • There is no mention of residents having access to open spaces and nature reserves for health and recreation. • It is important that the public realm is designed well to welcome and integrate all groups to the Metropolitan Town Centre. This should encourage diversity, cohesion and usage within the community. • Support the Council’s objective to build the image of t CMC as a vibrant location with cafés, restaurants and culture and entertainment facilities. • Support the reference in the document that ‘The ’ to the west of East Croydon Station provides a significantly improved opportunity for education and community outreach programmes. • In delivering the options for change, CMC should provide the framework to include a number of general locations, zones or quarters where the provision and development of cultural and leisure facilities could be promoted. • Support the reference to promoting healthy lifestyles but suggest this could be expanded to cover the overall health and social implications of appropriately planning for culture and leisure • Need to ensure that recreational facilities are culturally appropriate and respond to needs of minority communities. and like to see the core strategy ensuring leisure facilities etc are safe and accessible for all and provide for equitable access to health facilities.

Croydon Metropolitan Centre • With regard to providing a sustainable heating and energy scheme for CMC Centre and to require all developments to be part of this scheme, there is a need to provide more details on the sustainable heating and energy scheme.; the Council should not require all new developments to be part of this scheme if the Croydon Plan already requires all new development to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level • Need to consider providing a covered market area, perhaps as part of the Park Place development to replace or enhance the current Street market • Reference should have been made to poor planning approvals which failed to ensure adequate “off-street parking”. • No residential growth should be planned in what can only be considered Cultural Zones, eg: around Queens Gardens which is generally recognised as the centre of the Town, The assumption that the Metropolitan Centre should contain more than half the new homes to be provided in Croydon should be challenged as unworkable in view of their associated infrastructure. • The significantly increased residential population will bring with it an infrastructure which the Centre will be unable to accommodate without considerable public involvement at every level and in great detail. • Health and social infrastructure could be supported in town centre locations as a priority in order to meet accessibility and sustainability objectives. • Although health and well being could be a cross cutting issue, this could be reiterated in the consideration of the future of the metropolitan centre by referring to social cohesion, a healthy centre, reducing health and social inequalities and access to social infrastructure. • Support the introduction of new pedestrian, cycling and public transport and connections between spaces, which encourage more activity, accessibility to services and contribute to the overall well being of the community. • Support the reference to community infrastructure, and welcome continued partnership working between the Council, PCT and other partners to plan and deliver this. • Core Strategy proposals for CMC currently makes reference to the provision of a circular bus route. This specific proposal should be replaced by a more general reference to improving bus routes that serve the metropolitan centre to provide greater flexibility in devising appropriate solutions. A reference should also be made here to enhanced bus priority and infrastructure including stands that will be needed to support future bus improvements • Improved and more accessible open spaces and the de-culverting of rivers, where possible and appropriate, is also welcomed and supported. This could also be linked in with Quality Public Realm, which can and should consider use of ‘soft landscaping’, and where appropriate, water features – which can help with climate change adaptation and ‘heat island Affects’. • The consideration and provision of “living roofs” and more street planting within the Centre is also welcomed and supported • Support the proposals to improve transport interchanges/connections with the sub-region, in particular East Croydon Station. • Supports mixed use development, including residential use, in the Centre and the proposal to establish a partnership framework for its development. • Owing to the lack of essential community facilities for children (recreational and open space etc) within CMC and the nature of future residential development i.e. high density in high rise buildings, it is considered that generally the CMC is not an appropriate location to accommodate a significant proportion of family dwellings that the Council has identified a need for. Suburban, district centres and locations on the edge of and perhaps within the lower density parts of the CMC are better suited to accommodate a majority of this housing need. • Agreed that CMC should have a greater residential function and that this contributes to a vibrant centre, a majority of new, larger homes, more suited to families should be developed in suburban locations or those within district centres and adjoining the metropolitan centre. Potentially lower density parts of the CMC may also be suitable • No mention of the implications of a large youth population – given that most crime is committed by young people aged 16 to 24 and that Croydon has one of the largest youth populations of all the London boroughs. • Functional quarters need careful planning, designation and design and this can be difficult in a developer led environment. Multiple uses in the same space such as residential above cafes, bars or restaurants need careful planning to avoid negative impacts on a particular group. • Support the Council’s desire to encourage growth in and a greater mix with commercial, retail and other uses and to encourage the highest quality built environment with associated improvements to the public realm of CMC. • A 'Greenlink' is shown crossing the railway to the north of East Croydon Station in the 'Potential spatial options' plan. It is not clear whether this is proposed to be a new vehicular and/or pedestrian access. • The options are stated to be delivered by defining "functional quarters establishing the quantum of development and broadly allocate a balance of use to each quarter, so encouraging mixed use development". This is simplistic approach unlikely to deliver the spatial aspirations and take no account of development viability or feasibility. • CMC has a reputation for poor architecture but there are several large development and regeneration schemes that have the potential to offer positive change, but are yet to start. . • Support the notion of developing a partnership framework for the CMC, especially for East Croydon Station, to address the issues of significant development sites within the CMC. • Support the delivery of residential growth as part of mixed use schemes with increased intensification around East Croydon Station. However, it should be recognised that whilst residential should be encouraged in the town centre, there is a difficulty of providing family accommodation with good access to schools within the CMC. • Support for improvements to East Croydon Station and any additional linkages over the railway tracks to increase permeability east to west within the CMC. • Support the Council’s aims for Centre to provide a good range of facilities and an increased residential population, bringing vitality to the Centre. • Support the delivery of change around and residential growth as part of mixed use schemes around West Croydon Station. • Support the objectives, including in particular the preservation and enhancement of the historic character of the Metropolitan Centre, the provision of better and more accessible open spaces and the creation of an improved pedestrian environment • Dismayed at the developments of more flats in the centre of Croydon • Development of travel-intensive uses should be focussed within existing town centre and district centres which are better served by public transport links.

Homes • Provision of bungalows and flats should be made for the disabled in Purley, Shirley and Coulsdon .The existing provision is in the wrong locations. • Backland development should be viewed as an excellent way to provide well built detached family houses • Specialised accommodation for older people should be included in the list of options. • Support for identifying key housing locations in the Site Allocations DPD. • Should include reference to off-street parking adequate to accommodate residents and visitors cars. • Space for building homes is one thing, but is there the space to build the number of homes proposed without resorting to tall blocks of apartments and the local infrastructure to support them • Should ensure that sufficient off-street parking for all car-owning residents and their visitors is provided in every future planning application. • Consideration should be given to dividing the two tables which illustrate ‘Croydon’s Housing Need’ to be area specific – e.g. ‘CMC and district centres’ and ‘Rest of the Borough’, in order to address the concern that the CMC is not generally a suitable location for family housing. • Support an approach whereby housing densities are dependent on the existing public transport accessibility level. • Supportive of proposals to extend the existing Croydon Tram Link to areas of new growth in the borough and beyond. • The CS and Site Allocations DPD will need to demonstrate that supply can be achieved having regard to the bias in need towards family houses • Many large gardens are in the outer suburbs of Croydon are underused and are a wasted resource which could be used to provide detached houses. • Welcome the commitment to deliver sites via key housing locations to be identified in a Site Allocations DPD. • The Council should work with RSLs and the Gypsy and Traveller community to obtain the best outcome for the community. . • Pleased to see inclusion of access to outside amenity space under the section on homes, • Support in principle the aspiration to improve the design quality standards for new homes • In terms of delivery mechanisms for housing and community facilities (and all other development) it is essential that development should be subject to assessment against the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment • Agree it is important to provide affordable housing in the CMC. Key workers and other households requiring an affordable home are better suited to the type of accommodation that is likely to be available in locations like CMC. • Affordable Housing: sufficient flexibility needs to be written into policy to allow an assessment of the particular circumstances and form of development being brought forward i.e. viability (the ability of a scheme to deliver affordable housing) suitability. • Supportive of all the Council’s objectives , which sets out aims such as providing sufficient housing; ensuring people have access to good quality housing choices that suit lifetime needs; and providing a greater mix . • The Cane Hill site in Coulsdon is an opportunity to deliver new housing. • CS should set out the criteria for the location of gypsy and traveller sites which will be used to guide the allocation of sites in the relevant DPD • Any future policy should apply to borough-wide targets and not necessarily individual sites where the characteristics and potential of the site should inform the mix of units • Previously developed sites with good accessibility to public transport should also be suitable for residential development to assist in the delivery of housing (including affordable housing). • Council needs to be mindful of being overly prescriptive regarding design and space standards and types of dwellings as sites in the town centre that are highly accessible are better suited to delivering high density schemes • Support the attempt to think into the future and consider future needs shared with local people. • The CS also sets borough wide targets for house sizes, levels of affordable housing and tenure split. This approach is supported; however, proposals should be strongly justified with a local housing capacity study. • Do not support a strategy that relies upon large concentrations of housing in growth areas can necessarily generate an immediate and constant supply of housing, nor maintain an appropriate range of housing types and variety of locations that provides a robust portfolio of sites. • The CS must seek to encourage a proportion of supply from small and medium sized ‘dispersed’ schemes that are capable of being integrated into the existing urban fabric without requiring major infrastructure enhancements. • The need for good housing is acknowledged but there are so many houses that are long term vacant or empty which could be revamped and updated. Croydon is getting more crowded and more open space is needed. • Mayors house space standards – Croydon (particularly the south of the borough) is not comparable to central London. Blanket standards across London would not work.

Community Facilities • Provision should be made for the needs of the disabled do that they can have a place to belong. • Emergency services and other public service front offices: This complies with the London Plan, which outlines 'policing facilities' as a community facility. • Support the inclusion of emergency services as a community facility. • Adequate policing facilities will ensure continued effective policing continues within the Borough and resident and visitor safety is improved. This can be achieved by seeking S106 obligations from developers where appropriate. • Provision for a more flexible approach to changing the use of employment sites for multi-faith and community groups other than in core employment growth zones should be adopted. • Policing facilities should be considered as an appropriate alternative use on employment sites. This includes within Core Employment Growth Zones. • Welcome the use of planning obligations under Section 106 to secure site specific benefits where required or appropriate • Need to include something about the people who insist on dropping litter in the street, throwing it into gardens and stuffing it in hedges and in the gutter. • The intention to produce a public realm strategy and area specific design codes is supported in principle but need to consider if the Council is sufficiently flexible in its approach to ensure development is achievable. • Croydon PCT supports proposals on the co-location of the various health facilities, Doctors, Dentists and Opticians. However, as the local population ages, most residents will not wish to travel far from their health care facilities so siting these co-located facilities will be difficult without inconveniencing the part of the population they purport to serve • These facilities must be “stand-alone”, which is, not shared with community centres; for example, specialised floors for Gymnastics cannot be used for general purposes. • The co-location of health facilities is contentious and needs more considerations • The loss of local Public Houses have not been addressed

Quality Public Realm • Open spaces should be carefully monitored to ensure that they remain fit for purpose and inviting to all members of the community. • The provision of open space in the Borough as it should not be a pre-requisite for all development to provide a small public space. Open spaces should also be carefully monitored to ensure that they remain fit for purpose and inviting to all • Welcome the creation of area specific design codes, masterplans and Local Development Orders to raise design standards. • Support the ‘Greening’ and soft landscaping of the public realm • Support for an ‘urban forest’, linking the Green Belt’ in the South of the Borough with the Wandle Regional Park and other ‘Green Links’ • It would be useful to combine ‘green buildings within the ‘homes’ and ‘public realm’ sections of this document because of the relationship between the design of homes and public spaces. • In producing a public realm strategy for CMC the Council will need to ensure that there is significant input from relevant landowners and private stakeholders in order that the document provides a viable framework from which an attractive and harmonious public realm can be delivered • The Council’s aspiration to ensure a consistent best practice approach to streetscape design and public realm improvements is welcomed. This aspiration should be expanded to ensure that all new development also achieve a high quality design.

Heritage & Conservation • The erosion of the suburban character should be encouraged on the grounds that it no longer meets multi - cultural, multi-- ethnic and multiwealth character. • The housing needs of Croydon means that backland development and infilling with quality homes must be encouraged. • Support in principle for the preservation of the Borough’s heritage assets. However, it considers that the Council’s approach should be sufficiently flexible to ensure development is deliverable. Retention of historic buildings should be assessed on merit • The destruction of the last remaining hanger at the former was bad example of destroying a heritage asset and could have been avoided. It should have been listed by the Council • The incorporation of the two locally listed buildings into the redevelopment scheme for the Cane Hill site would be best done through masterplanning. • Welcomes the strong acknowledgement of heritage issues and resources, and the character based approach taken in the places section

Health & Wellbeing • The health and well being of the disabled should also be separately identified as an option • Like to see all developments being required to assess health impacts and more detail as to how this would be achieved. . • Supports the need to improve general health and well-being. However, doubt if the Council’s approach is sufficiently flexible to ensure development is viable and deliverable • Pleased to see that the document includes a Health and Well Being section, and considers the wider determinants of health and health care inequalities as well as health care provision. Also welcome references to continued joint working with NHS Croydon to further refine the core strategy • Welcome the assessments, which include the current spatial issues as well as future options and would support the Council continuing to work with PCT • Welcome health targets and outcomes in the core strategy, that reflect the targets set out in the Local Development Agreement, and can be monitored through the AMR. • Welcome the section on health and well being, and support the consideration of the wider determinants of health, including air quality and noise pollution but suggest this could be expanded to reference the built form. It would be good to add some text around importance of built environment for mental health and well- being and the role of the built environment in ensuring access to safe, healthy, affordable food supply • Welcome the idea of pooling of developer contributions towards infrastructure requirements. This could also help to ensure the PCT is able to respond to the collective impact of smaller developments

Transport & Movement • While the inadequacy of orbital routes and links to neighbouring boroughs is recognised, there is no option for change to this. There should be such an option, to improve the east west road routes for buses, cyclists and cars • Insufficient public land between Croydon and Lewisham to consider linking the DLR into West Croydon or extending the Tramlink north to Lewisham • Account needs to be made in the options for change to the possible cross boundary transportation implications on places such as Tandridge • CS should acknowledge Kent Gate Way, Addington as a strategic transport hub around which a new neighbourhood can be provided in the land between Kent Gate Way and Huntingfield. • Parking provision in town centres: a strategic overview of the provision of car parking within CMC should be undertaken. A balance needs to be struck between not encouraging car use, but retaining sufficient car parking provision for important employers in the Borough and especially in CMC. • The provision of any additional major car parking facilities for public use should be avoided and sustainable forms of transport promoted. • CS could include greater reference to improved walking and cycling and confirmation of how this can be delivered, perhaps linking to the Green Grid policy. Delivery mechanisms may include development standards, developer contributions and funding bids • CS has identified potential options to improve the capacity and flow on the A23. If additional capacity is provided, it should be utilised to enhance public transport links along this corridor, especially bus services to / from CMC. Improvement measures should be focussed towards enhancing public transport accessibility at development sites poorly served by public transport. • Emerging policy should specify that a full T A should be produced to support any development likely to have a material impact on the rail network. • Travel plans should specifically require the consideration of targets, monitoring, incentives for compliance and a funding stream to maximise their potential for success, in accordance with PPG13. • Maximum parking standards should be reduced in areas with good access to public transport. ;car free and permit free development should be encouraged in areas with the best access to public transport, such as CMC

Climate Change, Energy, Green Buildings, Flooding & Water • The Council should introduce some flexibility in future energy policies especially taking into consideration site constraints and scheme viability. • All developments must take into account contamination and water issues in order to minimise adverse impacts on the environment • All development should seek to reduce consumption of, and minimize the use of, non-renewable resources. More efficient use of existing resources and renewable resources should be promoted and encouraged • Support the aim that buildings meet the highest possible standards of sustainable design and construction, taking into account flood risk, water use, energy, materials, air quality, health and land use and ecology. • In relation to flood risk it is not only in areas at risk of flooding where surface water needs to be controlled by best management practices. • It should be noted that pumping, as a solution to reducing flood risk should be avoided wherever possible due to CO2 impact. • Support the identification of brownfield sites as a potential risk to groundwater quality. However, no delivery method has been provided • There should be no requirement for major subterranean engineering to be avoided within an Inner Source Protection Zone. Source as these relate only to the protection of the water supply from contamination only. • Unless there is a glossary attached to this document which explains what a “a Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 rating” is (which there is not), these words are meaningless to the majority of residents • The Council’s aim for all major developments and growth areas to incorporate district-wide energy networks is supported in principle providing the viability of major schemes is not adversely affected, to the detriment of their delivery • Council’s option to deploy major renewables and low carbon energy production on, sites in” surplus areas of Green Belt” is one that will have to be considered very carefully in the context of the guidance set out in PPG2 • Welcomes the focus on district wide networks for the provision of renewable energy and the interest expressed in linking existing buildings to such networks. This represents an optimal solution for historic buildings and conservation areas • It would have been useful to identify the general areas at high risk of flooding and any implications this may have for the potential areas of growth. • The figures set out in the London Plan for the use of renewable energy and the relocation of carbon emissions are target figures. As such, major new developments are not “required” to meet the figures set out in the report. The CS should therefore express the delivery of the options as “targets. • Development should not increase the risk of flooding off-site further down the catchment and should only be permitted where infrastructure is available or it can be provided ahead of development. • The CS includes references to the London Plan hierarchy of energy efficient building design, decentralized energy supply and renewable energy, which is supported. The CS should require new development to submit an energy assessment in line with the above energy hierarchy. • The reference to the generation of renewable energy is welcomed, however, it should be made clear that new developments should maximise the opportunities to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through the use of on-site renewable energy systems in the context of the energy hierarchy • Support measures to decrease travel and consider that dispersed growth represents an opportunity to achieve more sustainable patterns of travel • Policies on renewable energy should include text to confirm that the this will be subject to the tests of viability and suitability • The Council has not consulted with all sectors of industry to confirm whether the BREEAM standard ‘Excellent’ is achievable or realistic. It is crucial that the Council allows some flexibility to ensure that it does not represent an unreasonable burden on companies, which could jeopardise investment.

Parks and Open Spaces – A ‘Green Grid’ • Appropriate safeguards will have to be put in place the safeguard urban land but this should not be allowed conflict with the need for “off-road” parking facilities in new developments. • Support emphasis on enhancing the links between sites and other community facilities to enhance health and well being and reduce health inequalities • No more building on car parks. • The linking of Croydon’s Parks and Open Spaces through the provision of a Green/Wildlife Corridor is welcomed, commended and supported. • Safeguarding existing open spaces together with ameliorating areas of deficiencies is welcomed and supported, as is the enhancement of existing open spaces and improvements to the links between them • Development that helps to mitigate/ adapt to Climate Change and promotes responsible consumption of natural resources, together with enhancement of biodiversity and amenity of brown-field sites is welcomed and supported • Cane Hill site, together with the majority of other open spaces within the Borough, are shown to be “Potential Downland Regional Park”: clarification as to the status of this proposed Regional Park, is required. • Generally welcome options but would hope that the review of Green Belt and MOL would not result in a gradual decrease in the extent of this land. • The dearth of parks and open spaces in Purley emphasises the need to safeguard its “back lands and residential gardens from overdevelopment • Welcomes and commends initiatives that promote and encourage the use of sustainable transport options, including walking and cycling. • Support the objective of better orbital routes across the borough, both for public transport and for private car use. • Support the notion that West Croydon Station needs to cope with the growth in passenger number as a result of more residential units and jobs in the Centre and agrees that the most appropriate method to deliver this option is through the West Croydon Masterplan and Site Allocations DPD • Since Croydon does not run the transport systems which traverse the Borough why is the CS accepting responsibility when the Council has very little influence on how they operate • Support reference to the need for the whole community to access health facilities, as well as the need to encourage activity (to reduce obesity and heart disease for example) so suggest accessibility to sports facilities is also key for the borough moving forward. • Reference is made to a possible extension of the Croydon Tramlink to Crystal Palace: it should state a ‘non-destination specific’ intention to explore the feasibility of increasing the capacity of the existing Tramlink network • Maximum car parking standards and minimum requirements for cycle parking at new developments should be included; also DPDs should recognise the needs of disabled people and provide adequate parking • Provision of electric vehicle charging points on and encouraging provision of spaces for car clubs should also be included • Should consider where future taxi rank facilities could be provided • Support measures to decrease travel as a whole and consider that dispersed growth is a key opportunity to achieve more sustainable patterns

Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land • It should be recognised that there may be areas of open space, (MOL, Green Belt or other open space), that perform a limited function in terms of the purposes of MOL, Green Belt and other open space and yet, locationally, are well related to existing development, have good accessibility credentials and can be considered to be suitable for accommodating development • Would suggest that the options should not discount Greenfield sites due to the need for so much family housing • Supports the protection and enhancement of Green Belt/Metropolitan Open Land, and the linking of these to the wider ‘Green Grid’ networks. Also fully supported is the designation and delivery of the Wandle Valley Regional Park • The over-zealous protection of MOL is to be avoided, particularly if leisure or cultural facilities could be planned for such acreage • Green belt and MOL will be protected “as a permanent feature” in the Borough: such an approach, unnecessarily limits potential spatial alternatives. • Tightly drawn green belt boundaries, whilst hypothetically assisting urban concentration, have made it increasingly difficult to meet development needs, particularly for housing, resulting in increased pressure on residential amenity within existing built-up areas. • It is crucial for the CS to initiate a review of the existing green belt boundaries to ensure that a full range of spatial options is considered. We consider that it is essential for the CS to undertake a review of existing green belt boundaries in order to identify sustainable sites which can deliver many of the Council’s principal planning objectives. • Supports the Council’s delivery option of reviewing boundaries and sites within the Green Belt to inform its CS and Site Allocations DPDs • Support linking the Green Belt / MOL with the wider green grid network, including the Green Arc South West; also support the continued designation of the Green Belt / MOD and appropriate uses on this land, including agriculture and sporting activities such as equestrian activities. • Recognises that new public transport hubs could be developed over time but this process is likely to require very substantial investment

Urban Agriculture • People without gardens should be favoured for allotments which are also great places for socializing • Allow conventional underused spaces (such as river and railway banks; schools, hospitals, social housing grounds; publicly owned brownfield sites; Council-owned road verges and other underused areas of green) to be used for urban agriculture uses and to protect these spaces from development • Support of the Council’s aspiration to increase urban agriculture plots • The safeguarding of back gardens from over development is wrong. Most of these properties are owned by elderly wealthy individuals who allow their gardens to be wasted on rarely used large lawn areas and in view of their age and wealth will not take any notice of the promotions of food growing • Concern at the blanket approach to protect “unconventional underused spaces” (including publicly owned brownfield sites) from development in order for them to be used for urban agriculture. • Does not consider the Council’s approach to urban agriculture to be realistic, and has concerns that it does not conform to national guidance. While we support in principle aspirations to improve food security, we do not consider the level of detail to be appropriate to the Core Strategy • Support the principle of urban agriculture and the encouragement given to producing local food. Green roofs provide a good opportunity of utilising underused space for the provision of gardens and agriculture • Would not support the use of riverbanks for urban agriculture • Are the Council serious that road verges could be used to grow crops • Concern about the plans to convert surplus park land, unused Green Belt/MOL in areas of close proximity to urban settlements and use of unconventional underused spaces • Concerns over the change of use of Green Belt or MOL land for urban agriculture. In the past some allotment sites have been lost due to development or lack of use (e.g. Kensington Avenue and South Norwood Lake sites.) Even in recent years there has been concern over what to do about underused sites (e.g. South Croydon Allotments; river banks would also be unsuitable for ecological reasons. • Proposals within the urban agriculture section would result in an increased demand for water for irrigation. Any policies promoting urban agriculture should emphasise the need for sustainable water resources such as rainwater harvesting • Support further allotments being established in the borough, and the associated benefits on health and well being, and reducing health inequalities • Support and encourage local authorities to include urban agriculture in their planning and policy. • Food growing should be encouraged for both local residents and for commercial use on Green Belt land

Biodiversity & Geology • Would like to see inclusion of opportunities to deculvert rivers, and to require the inclusion of features beneficial to biodiversity within new developments the following options in this section: • Would support creating links between natural habitats, including river corridors and habitat networks • CS should incorporate policies to deal with the importance of biodiversity and the protection of designated and undesignated sites and the deculverting of rivers. Culverts are particularly prevalent in this borough. • Planning permission should not be granted on large sites without a proposal to enhance the open spaces, ecological value and access to nature on those sites through river restoration and habitat creation and improvement. • Existing open watercourses should be enhanced through lowering and regarding the banks, where possible to reconnect the river with its floodplain improving the habitat for invertebrates, fish, aquatic and marginal plants and wildlife using the river corridor • The safeguarding and enhancement of the Borough’s biodiversity is to be commended, encouraged and supported • The potential to improve biodiversity and the ecology of the Metropolitan Area together with the enhancement of existing open/green spaces, provision of new green/open spaces and improvements to the links between and to open/green spaces area are both welcomed and supported • Provision of “living roofs” and more street planting within the centre is also welcomed and supported • Sustaining a woodland environment should not mean the widespread planting of fir trees at the expense of the naturally occurring tree varieties • Welcome the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and geology • It would be a positive step if there could be a policy restricting further conversion of front gardens into car parking space, since as well as reducing green space for wildlife it also tends to reduce capacity for water absorption.

Waste • Would suggest that Croydon should include minimising the use of natural resources. • More efficient use of existing resources and renewable resources should be promoted and encouraged. • Would support appropriate provision of facilities for recycling and local waste management and treatment. • LB Croydon should consider the potential for a regional soil management facility that can deal with contaminated soil. • The joint waste DPD only covers the period up to 2021. In view of this how will waste issues be taken forward within the borough from 2021 until the end of the Core Strategy • The Council’s objective to meet London Plan waste apportionment target is supported. However, as set out in London Plan policy 4A.24 the CS should make clear reference to safeguarding all existing waste management sites. • The impact of waste locations on both economic investment and general environmental, but in particular residential amenity needs to be considered carefully.

Addington • Support given for regeneration and the principal of growing areas at multiple levels for residents. • A sustainable development opportunity arising on land between Kent Gate Way, Lodge Lane and Huntingfield would secure not only new housing but also necessary community facilities and is close to a transport interchange. This is not captured in the options for change. • Welcome the opportunities for walking and cycling, along with protection of open space and enhancement, increasing use and access. • Biggin Hill Airport asked for a reference regarding employment opportunities as a good example of, cross borough working and the possibility of improving access from New Addington to the Airport as an option for change. • Groundwater protection issues should be addressed in this location and water discharge to sewers. There may be opportunities for strategic water balancing features in open areas. • A new front counter public policing facility in Addington will be developed. Once this facility has been provided, this will facilitate the potential disposal of Addington Police Station. The potential future release of this site should come forward in the Site Specific Allocations document. • New Addington and Fieldway are not crime hot spots – the town centre is. Croydon is the 12th safest borough of all the London Boroughs – therefore the statement: Rates of crime in Croydon are slightly higher than those in London is incorrect • The plan identifies New Addington as a district centre. New Addington is not identified as a district centre in either the current London Plan or draft consultation London Plan. Objectives to reclassify town centres should be carried out in line with PPS6 thresholds and the London Plan ‘.

Addiscombe • Opportunities for green roofs and rainwater reuse • Residents have asked that the reference to "Improve pedestrian routes along tram corridor and to tram stop at Arena" should also include improvements to the alleyway leading from the tram stop to Longheath Estate to make it feel safer. • It should recognized that Addiscombe is diverse and some parts are of lower quality and poor townscape and in need of regeneration. • The area to the west/south of Cherry Orchard Road is not identified as a 'Spatial issue'. Should the area not be considered through the CMC or Addiscombe policy, it should be in CMC given the location characteristics and relationship to East Croydon and spatial issues of the area, including tall buildings. • The option should be about securing high quality design for any future tall buildings in this location. • Strongly question "Implement planning policy to ensure the protection of residential character with a prescribed area of tall buildings in CMC and area of transition of different zones of building heights stepping down in height" as a way of delivering the options. The term `Croydon Metropolitan Centre has not been defined. • Welcome the opportunities for walking and cycling, along with protection of open space and enhancement, increasing use and access. • Only one reference to Park Hill in this document which says that the area can be difficult to access for visitors. We do not agree with this comment and were surprised that a study of this kind has so little to say about our area. • Opportunities for green roofs & rainwater re-use are welcome • Reference to "Improve pedestrian routes along tram corridor and to tram stop at Arena" should also include improvements to the alleyway leading from the tram stop to Longheath Estate. The alleyway is very narrow, it suffers from graffiti and vandalism • The focus of ‘Where we are now’ is very much on retaining and enhancing the historic quality of the area. Whilst it is clear that many parts of Addiscombe benefit from a historic townscape of quality, it is also true that the ward is diverse and some parts are of much lower quality and some parts suffer from a very poor townscape quality and are in need of regeneration • A 'Spatial issue' is stated as being "Tall buildings of Croydon town centre extend to the edge of Addiscombe with adverse visual impact on the area's character". The "edge of Addiscombe” is within the CMC. Given the CMC’s position in hierarchy, scale, function, accessibility and historic prevalence of tall buildings it is appropriate for tall buildings to be located within the centre and thus be visible from parts of Addiscombe. • Policy emphasis, should be about securing high quality design for any future tall buildings in this location • An 'Option for change' should include seeking to ensure regeneration benefits for Addiscombe from major development on Cherry Orchard Road • Would object strongly to any suggestion that this central and highly accessible location is not appropriate for tall buildings – the principle of tall buildings in this location has been established • The 'Potential spatial options' plan states "modify/prescribe tall buildings and area of transition of different zones". It is not at all clear to which area this applies and what is actually proposed - is the intention is to modify existing tall buildings. • The options say nothing about how major regeneration may be delivered on Cherry Orchard Road, which is surprising as the scale of the opportunity is unequalled in Addiscombe • The Council recognises that this is an area of deficiency which could be ameliorated through planning gain from new development opportunities. • New opportunities for walking and cycling are to be welcomed and encouraged as are improvements to the public realm (soft landscaping to be considered • New opportunities for walking and cycling are to be welcomed and encouraged as are improvements to the public realm (soft landscaping to be considered. • Only one reference to Park Hill which simply says that the area can be difficult to access for visitors. Do not agree with this comment – and were surprised that a study of this kind has so little to say about our area. • This situation cannot wait on the leisurely approach envisaged in Imagine Croydon. The C S will apparently not be e acted upon - until the end of 2011. • The proposed responses on business and employment and culture and leisure - both key areas - have no specific proposals or timescales at all. They rely too much on vague strategies and planning frameworks. The proposal to have yet another study of the Fairfield Halls is woeful.

Broad Green (inc. ) • This area is recognised as an area of deficiency; improved links to public open spaces and community facilities is welcomed and supported. Also supported are the proposed improvements to parks, recreation grounds and green links • Welcome the recognition that there are significant areas that suffer from very poor urban quality, including residential neighbourhoods; much is the effect of pollution, poor air quality, traffic and general disturbance created by concentrations of industrial activity and the leakage of some inappropriate commercial activities into residential areas • The impact of such commercial activities upon residential areas need to be reviewed, including introducing measure to restrict / control the movement of traffic to / from commercial areas. • Welcome proposals to seek to adopt positive measures to enhance the quality and character of local residential areas, for example, to the west of Mitcham Road. • Support measures to enhance pedestrian accessibility to tram stations and feel that this should be extended to enhancing the overall pedestrian environment of the area. • Consider that the location and impact of waste / energy facilities need to be carefully considered. • Selhurst school has closed although the building is still there • Broad Green schools are actually Broadmead unless there are plans to change the names

Coulsdon (inc. ) • This area is a source protection zone 1 (SPZ 1). There are surface water flooding issues around Brighton Road. Whilst we would encourage the use of SUDS to manage surface water, infiltration to ground will be restricted within SPZ1 due to the potential risk to groundwater. Issue is also applicable to any site within an SPZ1. • Where development takes the form of redevelopment of existing sites opportunities for sustainable drainage into open areas might be sought. • The adjacency of Cane Hill to Coulsdon Town Centre, and the opportunity the redevelopment of the Cane Hill site brings to catalyse the regeneration of Coulsdon, particularly if the developable area of the Cane Hill site “slides” down the hill to adjoin Lion Green Road and Coulsdon Town Centre. • Given the scale of the Cane Hill site in the context of Coulsdon that it would be appropriate for the Cane Hill site to be marked on the plan. • In respect of the options for change for Coulsdon it is considered that the “protect the residential character and open spaces” does not represent an option for change. • Allowing for change and future growth for housing, community, offices, retail, hotels and small employment uses to assist regeneration, is a wholly appropriate option. • Cane Hill site is capable of making a significant contribution towards the Borough’s housing targets and therefore provides an excellent opportunity to accommodate growth within the CS Plan period. • Cane Hill “major development area” could be “swapped” for an equal area close to Coulsdon Town Centre to enable the redevelopment to be part of the centre’s regeneration but must be in line with PPS2 and London Plan policy. • “Cane Hill redevelopment site” should be added to the map legend. This area has limited public transport options, but provided with good open space provision and the Council’s aims to protect the open spaces in this area are welcomed and supported • Only Smitham School is identified as a source for expanded provision at primary level. All primary schools should be involved in the provision to address potential expansion of school rolls • There is a need for a clearer statement of the potential for expanded light industrial development in Coulsdon based on its strong communication links • There is almost no mention of the nature of health services in Coulsdon. This is particularly critical given that the residents have seen numerous plans and proposals over a number of years but very limited delivery. • Clarity is needed about the potential levels of new housing provision and how this can be addressed without undermining the current residential character and open spaces. Also reassurance that the all the appropriate infrastructure will be financed as part of these developments. • Parking in the town centre is an issue which needs clear policies & sensitive enforcement which enhances the shopping & leisure experience so as to attract the largest numbers to Coulsdon. • Coulsdon has always been lacking in the provision of sports and leisure facilities compared with other broadly similar communities throughout outer London. Again, proposals about provision have occasionally surfaced but never progressed. This is critical to ensure Coulsdon remains a community where people wish to live • Development proposed within these areas might need to demonstrate how it will mitigate any potential impacts to the SRN. Furthermore, if development proposals are pursued in these locations then public transport accessibility might need to be enhanced with infrastructure improvements. • Where development sites are allocated outside town centres, it is essential that sustainable transport improvements are identified to mitigate any adverse impact on the road network. In addition, the proposed improvements should be phased in line with the delivery of new development. Funding and delivery mechanisms of such improvements should be detailed in the CS. • As far as possible, the CS should include specific details on the development proposals for the Canehill site during the next stage of consultation.

Kenley • Where development sites are allocated outside town centres, it is essential that sustainable transport improvements are identified to mitigate any adverse impact on the road network. • Away from the traffic, Coulsdon, Kenley, Sanderstead, Selsdon and Addington are the sensible locations for any new family homes • Flooding was agreed to be a long-term Purley problem and climate change was liable to make it worse. • No further development should be permitted in flood risk areas before effective anti-flood solutions are put in place

Norbury • Any future large scale development adjacent to this river should ensure that it includes river restoration to restore this important south London river and its green corridor. It is a lost opportunity to create open space and habitat • Flood resilience should be a last resort. New development should focus on lower flood risk areas first in line with the application of the sequential test in PPS25. The ability to move development to area just beyond the floodplain but still close to existing centres could be explored. . • Proposals for deculverting Norbury Book are welcomed. The extent of the floodplain is slightly larger than shown on the Norbury Map • Residents comments on Local Development Framework options for growth • Dubious about the Council’s decision to become one of London’s growth areas because of the problems this may present for current and future residents. • The A23 is narrow and almost always congested with traffic. • Buses are crowded, with only the 109 travelling the whole route via the A23 from Croydon through to Streatham, and slow through Norbury as bus lanes are limited due to the road being narrow. • Train services from Norbury station are regular but not frequent and are very crowded at peak times from Norbury onwards on London bound services. • Traffic problems have been amplified by the red route and the councils lack of control when businesses seem to be able to do just what they want and destroy the local look, and continue to make Norbury look tired and dejected. • The concentrated growth corridor proposal is dependent on investment in infrastructure. but there are concerns that the current economic climate makes it highly likely that spending on infrastructure and public services will be cut back over the next few years. • Street Lighting has been promised by the council for the last 7 years. • Side Roads are a hazard and never seem to be repaired. • Building work of new proprieties leave the roads in a damaged state never to be repaired. • The council never subject the builders to repairing the roads damaged by the building lorries & equipment and residents have to suffer damage to cars and the waste from these sites • Not confident that commitments made about improved infrastructure will ultimately be deliverable to the required standards even if the desire to do so currently exists. • Strongly object to option 2 because the risks of deciding on the concentrated growth corridor are: concentration of development leading to disruption during construction and traffic on the A23 becoming even more congested • Concern re failure of public transport to cope with the increase in demand and strain on schools ,health facilities , water and sewage services and inability to provide adequate leisure services, which even with the existing population, are completely inadequate • Flood risk around Norbury station is relatively high, and in the event of flooding would be high impact without work to reduce the risk. • the need for development in the Norbury area means there must be an opportunity to improve the physical appearance of their town centre, improve infrastructure, assist local businesses and encourage high quality retailers and employers to move in. • Consider the expansion of the tram link to serve the A23 corridor • No more high rise 1 – 2 Bed Apartments along A23 • A review of planning policy to encourage a better mix of retail units • Backland developments to be strictly monitored and only allowed to be developed when consultation with the affected area has taken place • Consideration of how the A23 can best be improved, or supported by other routes, to deal with the increase in road traffic • An assessment of the capacity of water, sewage, electrical and gas services with improvements where required • Strict management of development through the planning and construction phases to minimise disruption to existing residents. • Mixed development to include low cost and family housing with outside space and parking provision • Intend to develop a new front counter public policing facility in Norbury. Once this facility has been provided, this will facilitate the potential disposal of Norbury Police Station. • The business community is concerned at the lack of parking and the low exposure this framework appears to give parking- access to the shops by vehicle is the lifeblood of many businesses and they are finding that the red route is killing business. • Need to look at issues such as loading bays, and parking bays • The high street seems always filthy and uninviting, A5 as below is one of the reasons, another is dog fouling and the lack of enforcement on this, • It is in my view highly unlikely that we will be a BID area as with most small areas apathy prevails. Therefore we need to find ways of enforcing minimum local authority standards to ensure that we are not short changed in this way-better communication channels are needed. • The idea of displays in vacant shops needs to be pursued and rates concessions for this strategy are essential to encourage landlords. • The take aways: most people vehemently oppose any more A5 or similar due to the impact on the local environment and fear of crime • Overall lacking in sports and music facilities l. • Support the attempt to think into the future and consider future needs shared with local people. • Deplore the suggestion to build largely along the A23 corridor. . • Dismayed at the developments of more flats in the centre of Croydon. Developments need more supportive services in the vicinity. • Major developments need local retail, schools, health and transport services within easy reach as well as parks and rooms for hire for community activities, and other social events. • concerns about the ability of drains and other services to cope with domestic drainage as well as the reduction of rainwater run off • Concerned at lack of social housing provision. • Want to see balanced developments with a mixture of larger homes, social housing and flats, for owner occupation, private and public rent. • There is scope for more building south of the centre along existing roads, adjacent to existing build and on brown field sites. • Recognise the need to build on some green field sites. • We have concerns for the overdevelopment of the north with insufficient supporting facilities. • There is already a need for a new secondary school in the north and more primary school classes. • Residents feel that we have too many fast food shops along the London Road and we would like to encourage a wider range of shops. • Would like to see changes to the Norbury Avenue entrance to Norbury Park and lighting along the paths • In line with London Plan policy 3C.23, improved signage for cyclists using the A23 Norbury Road should be further investigated

Purley • No amount of housing will bring a good variety of retail shops back into Purley. Why not help revive the provision of shops in smaller towns and villages instead? • Retain the present character of the Town Centre and do not allow inappropriate residential development. • Allow for future residential growth in the suburbia parts of Croydon by actively encouraging the development of residential gardens and back lands • Disagree with a concentrated option of development within the Brighton road proposal alone. An option for more even distribution of residential development is required in order to accommodate for the increasing number of young Purley residents in the area. • Housing provision for the disabled should not be identified as an inappropriate development, and should in fact be encouraged, in such areas as backland development, back garden development and also in LASCs. • Town centre proposals should include improvement of the Caterham Bourne which flows through the centre of Purley and has been culverted to the north west of the railway station. • The sequential approach required under PPS25 means that more vulnerable development such a residential should be sited in lower flood risk zones unless there are no alternative sites in lower risk sites. • Consideration of opening up the Catheram Bourne is welcomed. • Retention of Purley’s residential character is incompatible with targeting it generally for “new housing and commercial development” • Its places of architectural, merit, historical relevance and environmental quality, should be further recognised by the inclusion of Box Ridge Avenue (together with Hill Road, Purley Rise and Purley Knoll) in the zone designated as a Local Area of Special Character Such areas should be excluded from plans for development • Day Aggregates’ yard at Purley is not a recycling centre. The company “supplies primary and recycled aggregates for the construction and landscaping industry • This traffic problem, together with the fact that there is no available space in Purley for family houses, points to the conclusion that, if these are needed to accommodate Croydon’s growth, they can only reasonably be located at the southern boundary of the Borough. Purley is suitable only for a limited quantity of new apartments in its centre and along the main roads • Improved links to open spaces by public transport are welcomed as is the retention and improvements to open space and recreational facilities, • Purley Town Centre will not regenerate until something is done to separate shoppers and other pedestrians from the traffic • Provided pedestrian access is thus radically improved, Purley Town Centre will recover without massive investment • East - west communications are not good; there is only limited space for flats in the centre and along the main roads; new family houses should realistically be located in districts • Away from the traffic, Coulsdon, Kenley, Sanderstead, Selsdon and Addington are the sensible locations for any new family homes • The increasingly adverse effects of traffic flow through the A23/A22 junction have been exacerbated by past planning mistakes such as the deleterious • Agree with the aim of a high quality public realm in Purley.-the existing Library building should be preserved, but its facilities could be relocated • impact of the Day Aggregates’ plant, the excessive Tesco store and the policy of removing rather than creating adequate parking • Purley should be excluded from any zone that might be assigned for development to accommodate population growth • If people are unable to reach the shops, station, hospital, library, swimming pool etc. in safety and comfort, they will visit the centre only when they must. • If pedestrian access to the Brighton Road and High Street area were radically improved, the existing commercial premises there would begin to recover without massive investment • Improved pedestrian access from the Tesco’s site will also make their car park a more generally useful resource. • Important that there is more high quality public green space and play space • More capacity needed on trains in rush hours, better east-west public transport required, improved bus services between Purley and Sutton. • Town centre and public realm should provide a quality environment and be properly maintained. The ability for the council to designate roads/areas as family areas was a good idea and more green space was required. • Council must be able to provide proper controls to ensure that any back land development is sustainable, of high design quality and does not over-develop the site and is appropriate for the area • The long awaited Coulsdon bypass has transformed traffic flow through the town making it a better living and shopping experience. • The Option 2 map is not detailed enough to be sure what is really planned for Purley and concern there is a large red blob covering the Centre of Purley and the immediate roads around it. The housing around Purley is sound and the leafy roads are exactly what gives Purley its character. Any moves to demolish all these and replace them with blocks of flat would be detrimental. • Population growth/development should be sustainable, limited to no more than 20 per cent of current population and to take place gradually. • No further development should be permitted in flood risk areas before effective anti-flood solutions are put in place. • Council should ensure that S106 money is spent within the area and also that new public facilities are provided either ahead of or at the same time as new housing developments are put in place. • Both private and affordable housing developments should be sustainable and of good design. To retain the character of the area, a limit of say 25% Affordable Housing would be appropriate. • The town would benefit from more specialist retail outlets, to reflect the wealth of the area and its consumers, to complement those offered by Tesco. • Before there is more development, the town wants improved car parking, public play space/green space, as well as improved leisure, health and educational resources. • A proper traffic analysis is needed in order to achieve a sustainable, efficient solution to the Purley Cross road situation. A tunnel for through traffic would be an appealing long term solution. • Improved pedestrian access over the railway was required. An additional link between the High St and Brighton Rd was required. The pedestrian link between the station and the high street should be improved. • More public space required. • Important that there is more high quality public green space and play space and more trees. • More capacity needed on trains in rush hours, better east-west public transport required, improved bus services between Purley and Sutton. • The ability for the Council to designate roads/areas as family areas was a good idea and more green space was required. • The council must be able to provide proper controls to ensure that any back land development is sustainable, of high design quality and does not over-develop the site and is appropriate for the area

Sanderstead • The protection of open spaces is welcomed and supported, Natural England also welcomes and commends schemes that promote and encourage sustainable public transport options, including walking and cycling • The spatial options for Sanderstead include an option to investigate opportunities for more bus services with links for walkers on long distance paths. This is supported • Croydon¹s highest priority should be the defence of open spaces and green belt land. • Supports the aim to improve footpaths and cycle routes to allow people greater access to the countryside. • Concerned at the gradual change to the residential character of the area with the demolition of housing stock for the development of flats.

Selsdon • Protection of open spaces together with improved access, including access to the Countryside is welcomed • Support for schemes that promote and encourage sustainable public transport options, including walking and cycling

Shirley • The area shown as floodplain appears to be too small. • : a number of issues relating to the access and use of Lloyd Park-relating to the very limited parking at the top of Mapledale Avenue and increased litter. • The top entrances should be locked at dusk as is the case in many parks in residential areas • Protection of open spaces is welcomed as is the promotion of sustainable public transport options, including walking and cycling. • Would it be possible to provide two or even one seat for Parkfields off Cheston Avenue? Although there are 3 seats, there used to be 5, one at the top of the park near the woods and one just past the gate near the top entrance.

South Croydon • Croham Park Avenue/Castlemaine Avenue has fallen prey to fly tipping. • Having a strategic approach to the surface water flooding issue would allow consistent requirements to be set for new development and identify any opportunities for flood risk reduction • Consider a future policy of compulsory purchase on vacant car dealership premises along the Brighton Road in order to facilitate the building of housing in accordance with the Mayor of London’s policy. • If the number of household in the area is planned to rise, consider to re-introduce retail and commercial outlets where none now exist as t not everyone are happy to use electronic banking, • Consider re-instating the old railway line into Selsdon as a Tramlink track, • Protection of existing open spaces together with improvements to encourage usage are welcomed and supported • Solutions to flood risk issues along Brighton Rd will be constrained by presence of SPZ1 • Should include the acquisition of that land for social housing and 3-4 Bedroom houses. • Unless the Council obtains more control over the TfL transport policy as it affects the Borough generally, meaningful changes are not going to happen • There is reference on the map to the introduction of a ‘hoppa-bus’. This is not a term generally used and could be misleading.

South Norwood & Woodside • As Croydon Council aims to have 'good quality open spaces that are well used and regarded' it is important for a new programme of works to be designed and implemented to improve the quality of Brickfield Meadows • Further tree/shrub planting should be s undertaken particularly around perimeters and the under-used and dilapidated pond dipping platform should be renovated, and the centrally located childrens' play area should be cleaned and repainted/repaired, • Woodside and South Norwood are distinctly different places historically, geographically and physically. They should not be included together as a single place within the strategy. • The currently defined district centre is drawn too tightly and should include more of Portland Road. A managed change is required that establishes a string of distinct places along Portland Road forming local community hubs with shops and services that serve the immediate and wider community. • ‘Portland Square’ – a new gateway to South Norwood at the junction with Doyle and Coventry Roads, where setting the proposed new business development centre slightly further back than the old Queens Arms pub would allow a small public square to be formed. • ‘Market Parade’ – a distinct parade of shops either side of a wide stretch of road allowing scope for widened pavements, shoppers’ parking and landscaping along a traffic calmed highway. • ‘Portland Parade’ – stretching from the swimming pool to the Gold Coast pub, this area will include other public facilities such as the medical centres as well as a range of shops. The width of the road allows for shoppers’ parking and scope for landscaping. • Improved public transport integration into and out of the area, with better links between different modes of transport, cleaner, safer and more reliable travel and the creation of convenient links to Mayday Hospital and Crystal Palace. • There is no mention of Woodside village in the description of the area. It could be described as an historic village settlement with some buildings dating back to the 17th century, focused around a large village green, which was swallowed by predominantly Victorian and Edwardian development • The infilling has continued to the present day with housing development of • Small industrial sites that were interspersed throughout the local area. • The conservation area should be extended further down Portland Road to fully protect the extent of the largely original Victorian shopping street. The current boundary is illogical and puts at risk much of our heritage. • The limited crossing points across the London to Croydon railway include a poor quality and intimidating pedestrian tunnel under the station. Improved north-south access is required. • Norwood Junction is a two sided station but the southern side is extremely run down and of poor quality despite serving approximately as many travellers as the north side. The current underpass access to the platforms is a very poor quality environment and offers limited accessibility to mobility-impaired people, with wheelchair access limited to platform • ‘Norwood Junction’ gives no indication to where it is and consequently does nothing to enhance the presence of South Norwood. Name should be either to ‘Norwood Junction, South Norwood’ or ‘South Norwood’, • Any redevelopment in the area should be limited. Where allowed it should include adequate parking for residents. Smaller houses need to be protected from sub-division, with any further spread of the bedsits that dominate the area to the south of Norwood Junction prevented and, where possible, reversed. • has a massive impact on the whole of the South Norwood area and yet there is very little compensation in return from Crystal Palace Football Club. They should offer more back to the community and become more integrated with it. • A major problem along Portland Road is empty, poor quality and poorly converted shops. A strategy is required to manage the change from shopping area to other uses and to improve the appearance of those that have been converted into eyesore flats. We would like to see a ‘business village’ generated around the proposed business innovation centre, with the centre acting as an incubator with currently empty shops renovated to provide accommodation for businesses as they become more established. • No mention is made of our open spaces that are a key feature of the area. These include: South Norwood Country Park and South Norwood Lake. Any future development should be very limited and predominantly good quality family houses. Too many flats are being built. • Object to social housing being built in South Norwood. • Investment should not be concentrated solely in the district centre. The areas of local shopping parades, including those proposed along Portland Road, and , need outside investment too. • Accept that some areas of the historic centre of South Norwood need to be redeveloped due to the very poor state of the existing buildings but high quality modern development is required. Regeneration is required to support Woodside Green and the ‘places along Portland Road’ as well as along Whitehorse Lane. • Many of the side streets off Portland Road were originally lined with trees, but many have subsequently been lost to the detriment of the character of the area. The area needs to be re-greened by the replacement of the trees, with new ones where possible. • Additional sports and leisure facilities are needed in the area to replace those lost by the cancellation of the planned sports centre in 2006. Greater use should be made of the library to create a community hub. • Would like to see ‘green links’ developed between the various open spaces and a projection of the greenery of the open spaces out into the surrounding streets. • The railway land to either side of the east of Norwood Junction is not maintained and is usually in an appalling state with large build ups of rubbish and the resultant rats. A proactive management regime needs to be put in place to manage these railway embankments. • Public realm improvements are required across the area. These should take the opportunity to celebrate the rich history of the area and give the community opportunities to interact and develop. • Target empty and poorly converted shops along all major roads for visual enhancement to lift the general feel and sense of pride in the area. • The schools are not currently available as assets for the whole community. • Love Lane Green should be taken back into public ownership and reinstated as a local park. . • The great potential of many of our open spaces is currently unrealised. This is especially the case with Brickfields Meadows and to a certain extent the SNCP. Greater community use ought to also be made of Woodside Green. • With respect to South Norwood and Woodside, the 'where we want to be' section should include the opportunities for new housing/ increased development as result of the existing high public transport accessibility in the area surrounding Norwood Junction rail station and the planned commitments resulting from the East London line in 2010.. • Portland rd is a unique development opportunity in Croydon. being an ecliptic mix of properties styles and uses but at present Portland rd however fails to work.

Thornton Heath • The area shown as floodplain is defiantly too small here. Checking for new floodplain information should take place throughout the strategy development to ensure that the latest information is being used • The protection of open spaces is welcomed and supported as are the proposals to improve access and links between them, • The Graveney/Norbury Brook is a main river which has become degraded and of poor quality due to over development and being heavily modified and constricted. It is a lost opportunity to create valuable open space and habitat. Any future large scale development adjacent to this river should ensure that it includes river restoration

Upper Norwood • It does not recognize the biggest place and legacy based brand name in central South London - and that is "Crystal Palace". • Significantly Crystal Palace town centre has been defined as a district centre within Croydon borough because of the limited transport links within that borough. When seen in the context of the transport access that exists in the other 4 relevant boroughs, Crystal Palace should be a town centre • All 5 Crystal Palace boroughs should work together on a consistent cross borough basis and a cross borough forum; The outcome needs to be a cross borough Area Action Plan (AAP) and Business Plan (BP) for an area that is focussed on Crystal Palace Triangle, Crystal Palace Park and include Crystal Palace Football Club • Substantial day time retail needs to be added to the predominantly night time leisure offer in Crystal Palace, alongside the maximizing of the leisure potential and transport access of the area • Protection of opens spaces are welcomed and supported • There is a large artistic feel to the area with many local artists across many fields from painting, sculpting, music, vintage & antiques and fashion. The potential is there for this to become an artistic hub for the wider area. • There appears to be a lack of enforcement or cohesive strategy from any of the local boroughs to promote or safeguard this local character with some businesses quite happy to rip out old shop fronts and replace them with inappropriate UPVC shopfronts • The new CS must enforce and recognise the uniqueness of the local architecture and conservation area as one of the key factors that makes the area. • There have been a number of inappropriate developments, predominately suburban homes demolished & the site & garden redeveloped into flats. Brownfield redevelopment should be encouraged but not greenfield or replacement of buildings that make the area special. • In relation to Crystal Palace l it would be a huge mistake to align policies with that of the other two centres as they are rather different in outlook and character. Upper Norwood & Thornton Heath. • Welcomes the identification in the Issues and Options report of Upper Norwood as a distinctive ‘place’, and recognition of the need for a number of London borough councils to collaborate on planning policy, control and implementation in the area. • No strategy for Upper Norwood would be achievable without the collaboration of the five borough councils. • Neither of the spatial options for growth would direct significant house building or employment sites to Upper Norwood: • With Croydon the largest metropolitan town centre and one of the capital’s two strategic office centres outside central London, a continued growth in business services and further dwindling of manufacturing, the prospects for employment growth in Croydon is in the borough’s town centres. • The CS should be seeking a more equal balance between workplace jobs and the resident workforce, and Croydon council should work with the Mayor of London to produce harmonized employment and population targets. • There have been a number of inappropriate developments in the residential parts of Upper Norwood, predominately suburban homes demolished with the site and garden redeveloped into flats. • The CS discusses introducing more arts-based uses to boost the centre, and recognises the Church Road side of the Triangle as being in need of regeneration. The cinema could be the catalyst for this regeneration, providing a focus and anchor for a range of smaller enterprises within the centre. • Agree with vision of Upper Norwood as an attractive place to live and work that has retained and must enhance its historic character. • You say the Triangle is congested with traffic at peak times of the day, but that the one-way system has improved traffic flow. It is our contention that the one-way system has contributed to the closure of shops and cafés dependent on passing trade. • The emerging issue of the lack of social and community infrastructure to meet the needs of residents and new residential development. • Trying to shoehorn the three areas in one policy would be detrimental to each; they have differing needs and priorities. • No strategy for the Upper Norwood hilltop would be complete without consideration of these three elements: the broader residential area, town centre and park. No strategy for Upper Norwood would be achievable without the collaboration of the five borough councils. • The CS should be seeking a more equal balance between workplace jobs and the resident workforce. • The character of Crystal Palace centre and the wider Upper Norwood area is mainly its Victorian housing stock and green areas. Further erosion of this will inevitably affect quality of life for local residents. • Would like clarification of the benefits that would conferred by raising Crystal Palace Triangle to town centre level within the Croydon hierarchy. • Look to the restoration of a town centre manager for Crystal Palace. • The five boroughs and the Greater London Authority acting together should take a comprehensive view of the planning needs of the entire town centre. • Restoration of the cinema could be the catalyst for regeneration, providing a focus and anchor for a range of smaller enterprises within the centre. • The remaining original shop fronts should be more rigorously defended. • Traders and residents are willing to work with you and neighbouring boroughs on a design statement setting out our expectations for new development and refurbishment of buildings and spaces in the area. • Crime should be tackled by coordination between the licensing and planning arms of the Council, and cooperation between Croydon and Lambeth. • CCTV cameras should be used to target crime on the streets. • Regeneration of the Triangle should be encouraged with a mix of businesses and services, addressing the empty premises but not building more premises of the type already provided in abundance. • The one-way system has contributed to the closure of shops and cafés dependent on passing trade that were already under economic pressure, and further traffic calming measures are needed.

Waddon • The opportunity to reduce flood risk should be pursued by creating flood storage as part of the proposed opening up of the Wandle. • The safety in flood risk terms of development in the A23 Purley Way corridor will need to be addressed • Protection of open spaces is welcomed as is the proposal for target planting along major roads to ameliorate traffic, noise and pollution • Any future development along Purley Way should be sensitively designed to allow for tree planting, and other environmental improvements • Land should be identified these locations that could enable potential future highway improvements to be taken forward, • Existing developments along Purley Way tend to be car based, out of town retail parks. There are very limited pedestrian linkages between the various sites but there is potential to ensure that future developments are well linked through new public realm, walking and cycling links • The vision for Waddon should also include the objective of encouraging improvements to the retail function of the retail uses in Purley Way, thereby improving the lifestyles of residents of Croydon and beyond • Welcome the recognition that there are significant areas that suffer from very poor urban quality, including residential neighbourhoods; much is the effect of pollution, poor air quality, traffic and general disturbance created by concentrations of industrial activity and the leakage of some inappropriate commercial activities into residential areas. • The impact of such commercial activities upon residential areas need to be reviewed, including introducing measure to restrict / control the movement of traffic to / from commercial areas. • Welcome proposals to seek to adopt positive measures to enhance the quality and character of local residential areas, for example, to the west of Mitcham Road. • Support the measures to enhance pedestrian accessibility to tram stations and feel that this should be extended to enhancing the overall pedestrian environment of the area. • The location and impact of waste / energy facilities need to be carefully considered.

Delivering the Preferred Strategy • Any infrastructure contributions system that is being considered needs to robustly assessed to identify what would be viable for the development industry to provide that will still allow development and regeneration of Croydon to take place. In doing that the Council also needs to consider the impact of seeking infrastructure payments on other planning objectives such as the delivery of affordable housing. • In respect of any contributions sought, these must meet all the tests within Circular 05/2005. • welcome the case-by-case approach the Council proposes to adopt in respect of large developments, in the context of ensuring the viability of such schemes, and therefore their deliverability • Support the proposed delivery plan. • policing facilities are important community facilities which should be included as a key infrastructure requirement for the future, • 'Policing facilities should be included as a S106 contribution priority. • emphasise the need for cross-borough working in particular in relation to the opportunities created by having Biggin Hill Airport close to the boundary of Croydon, to ensure that its benefits in terms of employment, flying and leisure activities are fully realized by the borough’s residents and businesses. • It is important that any S106 contributions are reasonable, based on up-to-date assessments of need, supply, and demand and relate in scale and kind to development proposals. • Supports in principle the Council’s partnership approach to securing delivery. • 50% affordable housing and S106 payments (want more family units, but then developers have to pay more S106 to education/transport). Needs to provide developers more certainty and help development happen rather than price them out.

Workshop and meeting summaries

Core Strategy Housing Workshop Tuesday 11th August 2009

Location of event: Room G6, Town Hall Time of event: 10am – 1pm

Attendees: Claire Adams (Family Mosaic) Nathan Gravesande (Wandle) Tom Dewey (Homes and Communities Agency) Julia King (Affinity Sutton) James Caldwell (S.E. Living) Pete Beggan (MHT) Anjli Gupta (CCURV) Duncan Brisbane (John Laing) Paul Forrester (CCURV) Tony O’Connor (MOAT) Kelly Lopez (L&Q) Malcolm Bell, Beverley Nomafo, Ian Stone, Sharon Williams, Peter Fletcher, Hilda Lee, Catherine Radziwonik, Colin Bradley, Nicola Townsend, Ross Gentry (LBC)

Format and response

Attendees debated the best ways forward for housing within Croydon. Positive response from all in attendance with commitments made to make formal representations on the consultation report.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

How do you square 9.5k homes with a lack of capacity in the CMC in terms of amenity space. MK: It may be that we have to be more flexible in our approach and look at amenity space as amenity infrastructure e.g. if a park is close by a large development may not have to provide lots of green space on site. There are clear GLA policies that suggest increasingly high standards for families. The key problem is will it be possible to create satisfactory environment in the CMC. Is there even demand for family housing in the CMC and can it be made family friendly? Is there going to be profit for the developer if there are so many pressures on them in terms of what they have to deliver? Croydon’s strategy to concentrate development in the CMC may be high risk as it bucks markets trends. It may work but what is the plan b? The under occupied/over occupied issue may be skewing the housing market. In terms of affordable homes and the back land development the housing needs issue hasn’t been addressed properly – are we guilty of ‘planning by numbers’. Need to move away from planning by numbers and reassess what the role of London’s suburbs can be in the future as a world city. The key to regenerating Croydon is the location of housing. Being in a centre that is vibrant, well connected, close to countryside would be beneficial. People do want to live centrally, but obviously not next to a nightclub. Where are the most suitable places? Proximity to shops is ok as long as you don’t feel like you’re on top of it all. Balance needs to be reached about what can realistically be achieved in and outside the CMC. What are we doing outside the CMC? Costs are an issue, HCA are helping with funding. There is a dilemma between the vision for the CMC and family requirements. What makes good family housing? Being able to play in doors would mean spacious units. How is management going to run on a day to day basis. The current model of high-density housing may make it hard to generate sufficient value in Croydon for the developer. How can the Core Strategy be brought forward unless Croydon works out how infrastructure can be delivered? The infrastructure delivery plan is designed to address this issue. What contribution can infrastructure providers provide? How much can developers afford? Do we use future tax receipts on future income streams to borrow the money required to provide the infrastructure. Tariffs is an alternative way to use s106. Currently there exists site by site negotiation which incurs transaction costs e.g. use of lawyers etc. CIL would be front loaded. A tariff approach gives certainty and transparency. Lots of work is done at the appeal stage, if CIL is higher than s106 this trend would continue. The Treasury is driving CIL not the DCLG. There will need to be in place a framework or organisation that can contain the money, deliver the infrastructure and claw it back. The management process of CIL could be very time consuming from an administration point of view – it will be very complicated and difficult to organise. With the Mayor’s new draft consultation on housing standards it may not be worthwhile for Croydon to have higher standards. Deliverability and cost is an issue. The GLA standards appear generous – may be issues in trying to get schemes to stack up financially in light of these space standards and Code for Sustainable Homes. Should the space standards be across the board in Croydon i.e. including private development. The idea of cloning Kensington and Chelsea around London can sometimes work but something has got to give in terms of parking and garden space. There is a danger that if planners are wedded to the higher density model in town centres that it may not be affordable/viable in the current market, are these high density houses liveable, desired and manageable? Do we need more parking spaces in the suburbs? The issue of empty flats in Croydon is believed to be due to lack of car parking spaces according to a marketing team working for one of the attendees. Car usage and car ownership are two distinct issues. Cars need to be parked somewhere regardless of how much they are used. Housing Associations are managers of long-term affordable housing, are service charges affordable for maintenance required? What are the schemes actually like to live in once the developer has moved on to the next project? Would be useful to have a brief for every major development in order to aid the housing association know what it has to achieve in design and public realm terms. How can you make a development ‘fit in’ with the existing area?

Core Strategy Flooding & Potable Water Workshop Monday 27th July 2009

Location of event: 18.02, Taberner House Time of event: 10am – 1pm

Attendees: Helen Matheson (Environment Agency) Peter Adeosun (Environment Agency) Robert Williams (Environment Agency) Judith Cooke (Environment Agency) Jeremy Downer (Sutton and East Surrey Water) Lourdes Cooper (Hyder Consulting) David Mardon (Hyder Consulting) Bob Hucks, Wendy Bell, David Carlisle (all LB Croydon)

Format and response

Attendees debated the best ways forward for flood mitigation and potable water resource protection within Croydon. Positive response from all in attendance with commitments made to make formal representations on the consultation report.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

A strategic approach to drainage is needed and must consider Source Protection Zone 1 areas. SPZ 1 is a high risk area with sensitive groundwater, development in these areas should only allow clean roof water systems or other SUDs that are capable of cleaning the water on site – SUDs must deal with the problem as close to source as possible. For example, cemeteries, industrial uses and underground storage and open source ground source heat pumps may not be suitable in SPZ1. The whole of the south of the borough is on top of an aquifer – resistance and resilience actions would be needed for new developments in these high risk areas. No surface water sewers in Purley – therefore how can the risk of surface water be tackled? It appears to be a soakaway issue. High density development would require green roofs, splitters – hard surfaced areas will need solutions more technical that splitters, maintenance is also a key issue. Brownfield sites present contamination issues and the data available must be looked at and assessed. If contaminated sites are mapped this could help inform which SUDs may be most appropriate in certain areas. There is a resource issue in areas under Sutton and East Surrey Waters remit (Cousldon and Purley) – the area will require infrastructure upgrades for any growth in the area to ameliorate the “peak resource deficit” deficit issues at peak times (summer period, evenings and mornings). There are bottle necks in Thames Waters storage i.e. hydraulic bottle necks – something may be possible in terms of creating storage at Purley (theoretically). A culture change is required i.e. developers at present try to bolt on drainage after the key design stage – this situation will be changed by the incoming provisions of the Flood and Water Bill. Croydon needs to look at its growth projections and start to look at what SUDs options are most appropriate in terms of what technologies are available to us and how much storage would we have to provide? Caterham Bourne/South Croydon/Wandle corridor will have windfall sites within flood zones where we don’t currently have very sophisticated surface water flooding information for the valley areas of the south. Planning conditions and the sequential test/exception test should be used to steer development away from sources of flooding. With new development up to 2031 buildings should reduce the amount of water going to the sewer network. There are space requirement issues with all SUDs systems as such this fact will need to be picked up in the core strategy i.e. different solutions may be more suitable depending on what type/form/density of developments come forward in certain areas. Car parks can present problems in terms of large hard surfaced areas that can cause pollution and it can be hard to clean any water from these areas before they enter the sewer network. May need to identify areas to store flood water e.g. Wandle park project once complete may be a model to roll out in similar parks with culverts like Norbury.

Core Strategy Urban Agriculture Workshop Monday 20th July 2009

Location of event: Council Chamber Time of event: 10am – 1pm

Attendees: T Gundry-White (Spa Hill Allotment) Jack Dudley Swale (Croydon Federation of Allotments Societies) Evelyn Findlater (Good Food Matters) Mikey Tomkins (Phd student studying urban agriculture) Seb Mayfield (Sustain/Capital Growth) Peter Newbury (Croydon Federation of Allotments Societies) Nigel Browning, Mary Ann Winterman, Simon Kaye, Diana Battaglia, Andrew Beedham, Wendy Bell, Helen Lomasney, David Carlisle (LB Croydon)

Format and response

A well attended event with many passionate individuals debating the best ways forward for food growing in Croydon.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

Group1 Three key issues seem to be present when discussing allotments in Croydon and their success: 1. Space 2. Time/Convenience 3. Wastage of Plots

Historically allotment plots were 250sqm, whereas nowadays they are closer to 125sqm (allotments also have heritage value). There is a knowledge gap that exists for beginners and centres for learning may be required at key locations e.g. New Addington, Spa Hill et al. Having little leisure time to spare was flagged as an issue for not growing our own food. We’re working more and more and may not be able to spare enough time to maintain an allotment. However, some in the group believe this to be a myth and that in actual fact the time required to grow our own food is not as onerous. Theft can be a big issue (particularly middle aged women!). Therefore, governance and how allotments are set up is key.

Provision around the borough is variable. The situation in Upper Norwood is very different to the situation in Coulsdon due to factors such as population density. Different strategies for urban agriculture may be needed for both the north and the south. In terms of aims and objectives Croydon does not have to aim for self sufficiency, we must start small so as not to overwhelm people. Fostering community growing space and increasing accessibility will encourage more people to grow their own.

Back gardens present untapped potential in terms of growing space. Large back gardens can be a big issue for the elderly if they are high maintenance. Schemes that provide access to large gardens to people on allotment waiting lists could be something to investigate further.

If the LDF allocates land for allotments we have to be mindful of the costs involved e.g. clearing the land, making it secure to prevent vandalism/theft, installing a water system etc…s106/CIL may need to consider allotments as infrastructure. It’s not just allotments that are important – we must also consider bee hives (Wandsworth have a real problem due to a lack of bees – is planning considering this in the habitats assessment and sustainability appraisal?), orchards, community gardens and agricultural enterprise e.g. farmers markets, industrial (hydroponic vegetable growing), perhaps letting allotments have retail facilities on site etc.

Enterprise element is essential ‘Growing Communities’ project in Hackney seen as best practice of small scale farming, re-skilling through knowledge transfer via a hub site. Permanent trained, paid people at each hub centre. Neglect issues cannot be forgotten – facilities need to be tightly managed. Volunteer based schemes can hot trouble rather easily. The more communal and less private a growing area/garden is the more susceptible it can be to vandalism.

Rooftops should be utilised. Florence held up as exemplar city for rooftop growing areas. However, important to be mindful of water and wind increasing the load on a building. Wind shielding is important, if you can get water retention right you can grow anything…though there is the practical issue of rooftop space competition from renewables/building services.

Croydon may have to look into setting design guidance for including food growing areas in private development. Vancouver has design guidance that ensures food growing is integrated into all developments over 4 storeys in height. Weight consideration should especially be considered for balcony design. Xroydon should look at appropriate thresholds that would trigger the inclusion of agricultural elements i.e. decide on what level of critical mass makes it viable.

At present only a handful of boroughs are looking into how to formally recognise food growing in planning/corporate policy. Islington is at the forefront and should be contacted to disseminate their best practice. Brookwood is another good example (Southwark) – an estate food growing project that engaged the community in setting it up and as such the kids in the area are respectful and do not cause any harm to the project. Blenheim garden in Brixton also engaged their community from the outset – residents need to be involved from the outset. Local authority support mechanism is also critical to success. Projects must be self sustaining cannot just be Council advocating urban agriculture alone. Land owners may be reluctant to release land for allotments due to the liability, length of tenure and confidence in getting land back at a later date. Social enterpise element should be introduced when trying to set up funding for tools, projects, training etc.

‘Metabolicity’ – How to create food growing spaces in unconventional spaces, Croydon should investigate this project further. Growing communities, accessing Council land not being used, no planning required. ‘Food Zone’ identification may be needed, Croydon may be able to replicate this model. Croydon should investigate this project further. ‘Food Upfront’ back and front gardens/balconies etc used for growing with street reps providing community support for people who want to join the initiative e.g. telephone and email support for food growing. ‘Garen Organic’ – Master Composting Scheme and Master Gardener Scheme aim to place experts into the community to act as mentors for people in the area.

Support is a recurring theme, possibly the most crucial aspect, seed funding cannot be relied upon. Metropolitan Housing Association has piloted four estate food growing programmes. They are looking at setting up markets in the housing estates. Selling food at affordable prices to locals fosters food steps. The US is a strong proponent of this social enterprise model.

There are four potential statutory sites for allotments in Croydon that would only require relatively small funding to bring them into use: South Norwood Lake, Love Lane, Pollards Hill and Micholham Way. The New Addington regeneration scheme could offer an opportunity for urban agriculture. Cost issues i.e. they are all overgrown with brambles and have rubbish problems. £30k - £45k for either the Council or a federation could get them moving in the right direction. Should s106/CIL be used to establish sites such as this?

Land taken out of use via land banking, privately owned green belt, road widening schemes, grass verges (e.g. Pollards Hill) and back gardens could potentially be utilised. Temporary agreements with landowners could be a short term solution.

Developers should provide landscaped schemes that include urban agriculture elements, plans should be submitted from the outset. Compaction and contamination are issues for brownfield sites that developers would have to remedy in order for the site to take agriculture. Portions of parks should be considered for reverting to urban agriculture whenever a need/demand arises in an area.

Group 2 A balance needs to be struck in terms of green spaces i.e. gardens vs wildlife vs allotment use vs open space use. Colpepper Garden (Islington) is seen as a good example of urban agriculture with free access for the community. New allotment sites require major time and commitment – what funding from central Government would be available on top of any s106? Needs to be tied in with healthy eating plans and the anti obesity agenda.

Some schools have food growing projects but they require more sustained support. The idea of the outdoor classroom should be embedded in children. Roof gardens could be alternatives for schools without land resources.

Orchards and fruit trees should be considered alongside vegetable growing and allotments. Edible landscapes could be encouraged through private developments – built into ground rent and maintenance contracts.

Sites and locations of new allotments should avoid areas where wildlife is thriving. Community gardens could be a compromise to out and out traditional allotments. Existing Council owned sites could be better utilised e.g. Heathfield could include food growing element in its grounds. Education is a fundamental element of all allotments and this should be adequately considered for new sites.

Core Strategy Central Library Stand 22nd July – 31st August 2009

Location of event: Central Library concourse, Clocktower Time of event: 12pm – 2pm on concurrent Wednesday lunchtimes (July-September)

Attendees: Members of the public who came to talk to officers about Imagine Croydon and the Core Strategy.

Format and response

People visiting the library or who made the trip especially were able to discuss their views with planning officers and to debate some of the content of the initial report or what their vision for Croydon was.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

On each Wednesday the majority of people attending the stand used it as an opportunity to gain more insight into the process – there was firm support for the idea of 16 places. Below are more detailed records of conversations:

Library stand 22nd July Croydon doesn’t need extra development it should consolidate and improve what it already has e.g. old offices to be converted to homes. It just needs a figurative ‘lick of paint and tidying up’ not a massive increase in actual development. The libraries are already excellent and should be kept the way they are. A lot of local businesses e.g. bakers, butchers, hardware stores, builders merchants have closed in district centres, they should be encouraged back to local areas for people who do not drive and to give these areas a sense of identity.

Library stand 5th August The 16 places are a good idea. Retrofitting is as important as new build sustainable buildings. Heritage concerns can sometimes be obstructive e.g. narrow views of the Edwardian/Georgian/Victorian Societies – yes these eras are important but they should not dictate what a heritage asset is. The Core Strategy should also outline the quantum of space needed for community facilities as well as how much housing will be encouraged. Where do you put faith groups and when do you say enough is enough? Is new space really needed? If so where does it go? People need to take ownership of the boroughs green spaces.

Library stand 19th August Old places in Croydon should be heavily protected including areas that are rough around the edges e.g. George Street/London Road et al. People living in close proximity to the CMC are not anti development on Cherry Orchard Road they just don’t want 20+ storeys of office development – it would be more suitable to have smaller residential towers – more residents could help revitalise the retail areas in the CMC. We need to protect our heritage and buildings of architectural merit in order to project a more positive image of Croydon to overcome the negative perceptions. More green softer places are needed. The A23 is too narrow to be able to install flood mitigation measures or to take much more development in its current form. The idea of concentrated development however is a positive one and it can be capable of safeguarding green and pleasant areas. Why don’t we encourage development in poorer areas like Addington and Norwood also? More public toilets are needed; we have misused toilets that require maintenance – in order to be more like Richmond. Communities near industrial warehousing/employment areas need shops and sometimes it is not possible due to planning policy. District centres need leisure hubs akin to Crawley, Chichester and Guildford. Local bus services are inadequate. The 468 should go to Colonnades to connect people to those services.

Ashburton Core Strategy Drop in Surgery 18th August 2009

Location of event: Ashburton CALAT centre, Ashburton Learning Village Time of event: 3pm – 5pm

Attendees: Members of the public were invited to drop in and discuss Imagine Croydon and the Core Strategy with a planning officer.

Format and response

A roundtable discussion format with those in attendance supplying views to the planning officer in attendance centred on their local area and their vision for Croydon.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

There is a poor of a global vision in Croydon. Undeveloped sites within the CMC all lack coherent vision. Car parks cannot be expanded anymore than they are in the CMC, therefore why are we attempting to be the primary retail centre of the south east. Transport is a large positive for Croydon. The appetite to grow and all Croydon’s broad visions can harm independent retailers such as Turtles. With so many vacant units all over the CMC it is ridiculous to contemplate expanding our retail offer. The High Street is full of youngsters with nowhere to go which creates a safety and security issue. There is not enough for the young people in the borough to do. Not many children speak English in Croydon this may be an access problem for them. Does the open spaces study look at he usage of spaces in any detail? Why isn’t Croydon arena used more or developed to utilise it as a key sporting venue? The Spectrum centre in Guildford has a park and ride so it is accessible as possible. It has an ice rink, competition swimming pool, diving pool and other leisure uses e.g. bowling alley. Croydon also has lots of these things but they are dispersed and hard to get to. The east Croydon site would be an idea location for leisure uses. Against towers for residential use, they are ok for offices but they are awful for young people to live in and out of sympathy with local areas. Four or five storeys should be the tallest residential buildings go in Croydon. Trying to get kids out of tower blocks is an issue. Part of the Park Hill estate is a good model for quality housing, small houses can be better than medium/large flats for families. The ideas in the initial report for Central/Old Town quarters are welcomed. Northern Fringe requires greater work as there are underlying social issues. There are possibilities along Lower Addiscombe Road for sympathetic conversions by creating extra rooms in basements. High school dispersal times are variable in the consistency in approach. Lunch breaks and end of the school day create problems in the local area. Even with good librarians, sports teachers and music teachers there are still those pupils who will not use these after school activities and commit ASB. Staggered exits of pupils is a solution to this or improved sporting facilities on site. BSF schools should definitely be open to the public for evening hire in order to generate an income for the schools. Not many schools have adequate assembly rooms therefore during exam periods space for sports can be limited – this should be addressed somehow. Some schools are tampered with that do not require special attention e.g. Hailing Manor. Access to some schools is poor, especially via east/west transport links which are hopeless. We don’t need a university; we need good primary schools that teach people basic literacy and numeracy. Sport and music should be utilised bettered to aid development. Most primary schools don’t do school or music particularly well. Good facilities with yobs outside put people off using them. Social anxiety brought about by lots of hoodies can detract from good facilities/buildings. Best practice examples of how to get children active should be replicated in Croydon and supported through planning. Routes to work should be more attractive to stop parents driving their kids to school.

Coulsdon Core Strategy Drop in Surgery 21st July 2009 and 17th September 2009 (due to lack of notice for 1st drop in surgery)

Location of event: Smitham CALAT centre, Coulsdon Time of event: 3pm – 5pm

Attendees: Members of the public were invited to drop in and discuss Imagine Croydon and the Core Strategy with a planning officer.

Format and response

A roundtable discussion format with those in attendance supplying views to the planning officer in attendance centred on their local area and their vision for Croydon.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

Separate masterplans are needed for all major sites in Coulsdon. The ancient scheduled monument in Lion Green Road car park needs to be celebrated more and deserves greater exposure – why don’t we use it as an opportunity to place some relevant public art by the old rail tracks? Its current condition is not acceptable no one would know it is there. People in Coulsdon don’t really have a local supermarket as Waitrose is fairly small, if the conditions were right Sainsbury’s could provide a decent option. People in Wallington, Selsdon and Banstead don’t have a large supermarket. Already too many Tesco stores in close proximity. Hotels should be encouraged for Coulsdon, Lion Green Road could be a good location. Coulsdon could benefit from a town square with local amenities (e.g. health centre). A sensible plan for Lion Green Road, Red Lion site and pinewood all linking to the town centre and Cane Hill would really benefit Coulsdon. A leisure centre would act as a magnet for families and would be a useful facility to drop the kids at if parents need to do a weekly shop in any proposed new supermarket. Schools are undersubscribed in the south – strategic approach is required for community facilities. GPs surgeries in the area have not been updated recently; a polyclinic could be a good idea. Historically large houses have been built in Kenley and Coulsdon – these areas require a greater mix of smaller homes, just like areas like Thornton Heath and Norbury would benefit from larger family homes. Purley and Coulsdon would be areas suitable for smaller units. Young families need to be attracted with affordable housing. The Purley Tesco store was a mistake by the Council it cuts Purley into two because of the gyratory. In terms of the 16 places Kenley and Waddon aren’t really places in themselves. Family/small houses/flats should be on Cane Hill. Conference centre facilities in the existing buildings could be successful with restaurants in the tower perhaps. A science park will only work if a sponsor is found e.g. Pfeizer, airbus et al. Without an anchor tenant it wouldn’t get off the ground, although its location to Gatwick/M25 is beneficial. Cane Hill should have a through road to avoid a gated community feel, it should be linked to the town perhaps via linking new buildings with the high street – there should be a natural green barrier/break between the new development and the school to avoid overlooking. Local buses through to Cane Hill would increase connections for new and existing residents. Two bus routes (6 buses an hour) to Old Coulsdon (local buses as opposed to big buses) are needed. Before 2012 a hotel/leisure facility is needed imminently. If the tram were ever to go to Purley it shouldn’t stop there, it should go to Coulsdon and act like the New Addington service connecting people with the centre of Croydon – ideally it should serve Cane Hill. Having said that there are already 8 trains is it good value to extend the tram? Should it be spent on improved east/west linkages instead? The tram should go to Crystal Palace, Bromley and Sutton. Links to Norbury or Streatham would be extremely problematic to establish due to the existing roads. However, Nottingham and Manchester use a mix of street trams and old tracks. More people should be encouraged to live in town centres e.g. houses above shops. Could Coulsdon be an appropriate tertiary office location e.g. office estates with common reception point. Places like Reading and Crawley use this form of offices in good balance. Coulsdon South station requires improvements to its car parking. On street parking is not too bad, though Coulsdon could do with more. Side streets should be stricter than the town centre. Although there is a car park footfall has gone down – perhaps due to the bypass? Purley not an option for park and ride; the Purley masterplan does not currently consider bus passengers well enough. Train service to Purley/Coulsdon is poor on weekends.

Most Coulsdon residents don’t consider themselves ‘Croydonians’, the Core Strategy must reflect the places links with Sutton and Bromley. Its unclear how the role of London Plan and the LDA’s ‘Seven’ study relate to the Core Strategy. Consultation must cut across all sectors – has the Council consulted the Sure Start Centres? Are the population projections up for debate? The Core Strategy should explain how these population projections have been formulated. What is the age profile of the projected growth and will it be a steady increase or ‘lumpy’? Agree with the need for improved orbital (east/west) transport links (especially bus routes). Smitham rail line is woefully underused. Need to come up with a plan for the future of Tesco in Purley as it has an impact on Coulsdon as well as Purley.

Crystal Palace Core Strategy Meeting 5th October 2009

Location of event: Phoenix Community Centre, Crystal Palace Time of event: 5-7pm

Attendees: Simon Bashford, David Carlisle, Dominick Mennie, Ross Gentry (from LBC). 14 visitors (Made up from Chamber of Commerce representatives, local business owners, and residents)

Format and response

A presentation followed by a discussion with those in attendance voicing their views with planning officers about their local area and their vision for Croydon.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

Upper Norwood/Crystal Palace Life not governed by borough boundary. Was the document discussed with officers in Bromley, Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham – if not, why not? Boroughs must work together – it’s happened in the past and should do so again.

The base map needs to extend beyond Croydon’s boundary and consider the Triangle in relation to businesses/premises in Lambeth and Bromley and also in relation to CP Park.

Please change name of this section to Crystal Palace and Upper Norwood. It’s a globally recognised brand that the businesses want to capitalise on.

People have a vision for this area and this must be reflected in the Core Strategy.

In relation to the City Growth Strategy project, South London Business said Crystal Palace was vital for the regeneration of Croydon.

The Chamber, who have spent a lot of time gathering and analysing the views of the business community, want to be involved with helping to prepare the next iteration of the Core Strategy.

A cross-borough Area Action Plan with the involvement of both Lambeth and Bromley and hopefully also Southwark and Lewisham is needed. You can’t plan for the Triangle and ignore CP Park and the ‘Top Site’.

East London Line and Olympic connections will increase footfall and act as a catalyst for regeneration activity. However, recognise that within the Triangle and for much of the surrounding area redevelopment options are fairly limited.

Transport One-way system continues to cause concerns. However, one long standing business owner in attendance had no doubt that it worked far better than the previous 2 way system.

However, the consensus of opinion seemed to be that the one-way system needed refinement/improvement.

Business Crystal Palace should be upgraded to a Town Centre in recognition of its role and potential.

Community Facilities Area doesn’t need another church (in ex-Gala Bingo) but would be really boosted by an independent cinema..

Culture Most of the Triangle is a Conservation Area which is a real bonus, but need to capitalise on this particularly by development of creative industries.

Quality Built Environment The former Assembly Rooms have been saved from demolition, but the Church is doing nothing to protect it. They should be forced to board it up and stop it deteriorating further than they have already allowed it to.

At the same time Croydon comes down with a heavy hand on shop owners who have installed the wrong type of security shutter. This sends out the wrong message.

New Addington Core Strategy Drop in Surgery 4th August 2009

Location of event: New Addington CALAT centre Time of event: 3pm – 5pm

Attendees: Members of the public were invited to drop in and discuss Imagine Croydon and the Core Strategy with a planning officer.

Format and response

A roundtable discussion format with those in attendance supplying views to the planning officer in attendance centred on their local area and their vision for Croydon.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

South of the borough is a middle class ‘nice area’ nimby-ism may be a factor that may thwart positive development. In the south elderly people do not have suitable small properties to move to once their larger homes/garden become unmanageable. Elderly people don’t want to move out from their neighbourhoods just because their house becomes a handful. Retirement as well as smaller affordable units may need to be considered for south of the borough. Harewood Roads new development of 21 flats has led to difficulties with ASB/safety. Elderly people do not want to be in part-private/part-affordable homes developments and yet there is no tenure type in between. There are either yuppy flats or low end and nothing in the middle. If you can buy outright you have more control over who your neighbours are. Smaller homes could be a solution for both new families and those over 60-70 who want to downsize. Green belt developments like Nethern on the Hill and Caterham Barracks should be used as a model for Cane Hill to ensure there is a housing balance. Developer money talks though and residents expect a palatial layout. What businesses do Croydon want to attract – big offices don’t want to move to Croydon they desire a London location. The current state of Wellesley Road and East Croydon station is poorly thought out – though an extra northern entrance to East Croydon without a ramp would be welcomed. CMC needs to be made more attractive e.g. Suffolk House looks down trodden. There are no spaces for office workers to sit in the centre of town. Our current cycle paths/network is an absolute nonsense – we have met the minimum miles limit but we need bespoke cycle highways akin to Munich. A new fit for purpose cycle network and highways would encourage greater cycling. More bus services are required to go to schools from residential areas. A serious lack of east/west bus routes. Object to the number of flats without car parking spaces as it merely displaces the problem. Historically there was an ambition to move to Croydon as it was viewed as an exciting place to live – somewhere along the line we have lost this. Middle class families need attractors in the centre. It may also be an issue with failure to promote our existing facilities; also parking costs put people off and cause safety fears. Supermarkets and areas of high footfall should be utilised more to promote cultural events.

Norbury District Centre Business Partnership Core Strategy Meeting 2nd September 2009

Location of event: The Norbury Public House Time of event: 6-8pm

Attendees: Simon Bashford, Cllr Maggie Mansell, Ken Hume (LSP Member and local estate agent), Jason Grant (TC Manager), Hemant Patel (Flamingo Dry Cleaners) and Donal (Manager of Norbury Pub)

Format and response

A presentation followed by a discussion with those in attendance voicing their views with planning officers about their local area and their vision for Croydon.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

Norbury and Thornton Heath All agree north part of town centre in need of regeneration. Although the new Lidl development should go some way in achieving this. More should be made of the park which is ‘hidden; from London Rd.

Given the inevitable squeeze on public sector finances, areas wanting investment/regeneration will have to rely on private developers (and their financial contributions) more than ever. Climate Change

Homes Growth in homes was perceived as a good thing for the area and its business community. However, this should mean decent family homes, not just more flats.

Transport Parking (or the lack of short-term on street parking) is the major transport concern. The current arrangement unfairly favours take-aways (as most of these operate after the parking restrictions). This has lead to an over- representation of A5 uses.

Tram extension would be great but seems unlikely to be realised.

Business High rents of shop units is favouring higher value uses such as A5 to the detriment of A1 retail vitality.

The loss of large numbers of office workers has not had a negative effect on most businesses as they’ve been replaced by residents who shop locally.

Lack of on-street parking and very harsh enforcement means businesses lose out on passing trade – i.e. to the nearest Tesco Express with forecourt parking.

Community Facilities The library is a great asset but perhaps the facility would be better located nearer to the station. Definitely don’t want to lose the fine existing building though – could become a much needed community space.

Culture Norbury has numerous ballroom dancing schools and is a popular training area with many high profile, top-level dancers.

Green Grid When Hemant Patel moved to Norbury in 1967 he recalls Norbury Park was packed with people at weekends and summer evenings. This is no longer the case. Fear of crime is likely factor – recent spate of muggings in park shows this fear is justified.

Cricket is a popular activity in the area with a number of established clubs. Improvements to facilities in the park could build on this and hopefully improve park safety for other users and encourage others to take up the sport.

A well-lit jogging track around the perimeter of the park would also help achieve these goals.

Quality Built Environment Fit for purpose family homes are needed rather than ‘luxury’ flats designed for professional couples but end up accommodating families with few of the amenities they need.

Waste Collection of trade waste in Norbury is an issue. The servicing areas behind the business premises along London Rd are often shared with residents of the flats above. Neither use takes full responsibility and you end up with scruffy, dirty yards where it is difficult for the waste vehicles to access. Alos makes it difficult for businesses to recycle waste - particular issues around restaurants, cafes etc.

Purley Core Strategy Meeting Thursday 10th September 2009

Location of event: Christ Church Hall, Purley Time of event: 7pm – 9pm Attendees: Approximately 10+ persons

Format and response

A presentation followed by a discussion with those in attendance making their views with planning officers about their local area and their vision for Croydon.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

One individual questioned how accurate/sophisticated the GLA population projections actually were as the 339,000 – 402,000 population projections would have huge impacts on the borough.

The decision to bid for Department of Transport funding for gyratory remodelling at Purley Cross was viewed as rushed and irresponsible.

The general consensus did not support an influx of flats into Purley town centre. The figure of 2,700 flats conjures up images of new development that is either high rise or an unsuitable density predominated by 1 and 2 bedroom flats. Stockwell was cited as an example of a place where flatted developments have not worked and as such have been pulled down. One individual said that it was a trust issue – they were concerned that Purley could become ‘ghettoised’ like some parts of the north of the borough.

Others were concerned about car parking in larger developments, not convinced that this issue has been sensibly addressed as there are many examples of new developments without adequate car parking facilities which then pushes the problem on to near by streets. The form and layout of large developments will need to be articulated in planning documents to ensure point block structures can be avoided.

‘Purley isn’t really a place as it has no heart or centre to it in its current form’. Purley should be more like places like Banstead but not overdone or you risk it becoming like Mitcham. The waste management facility notation should be dropped from any future diagram when referring to Days Aggregates to avoid confusion. Days Aggregates is viewed as a facility of sub regional importance and has been improved over the years. Churches should be included on all the Places maps as the serve a community function, as should car parks. Likewise current recycling facilities should also be identified. John Thompson’s masterplan did not include car parking provision or a new swimming pool.

The starting point should be to ask who or what is Purley serving? Purley is a central point that provides basic facilities for all the surrounding areas. Parking will need to be considered in the next iteration.

The business association want people to consider Tesco as an out of town store. Traders in Purley are not keen on ideas to bring Tesco closer to the centre of Purley. Others noted that the gyratory was an efficient way to get around the town. Any future cross road scheme should be used to increase the width of Banstead Road. The crossing from Tesco to the town centre (next to the Jewelers) needs to be improved for pedestrians. People often hesitate to cross there at present; the pedestrian scheme may need altering.

An alternative use for the land in font of Tesco (should it be released via a new road layout) could be to convert it to green open space. Why can’t we promote small businesses in outlying areas?

To formulate a vision for Purley we should first look at comparator town centres in affluent areas (e.g. Wimbledon Village) to see what businesses/facilities should be attracted to increase Purley’s vibrancy. The A23 corridor needs a focal point; each area in Croydon needs a different vision and approach. Purley could be transformed into anchor/magnet in the South Croydon and Surrey but any growth should be accompanied by leisure facilities. A pool is needed in Purley, especially when you consider the high public transport accessibility levels and potential catchment area of such a facility were it to e in the town centre like the current facility.

TfL should be lobbied to put investment in areas where the Council and its residents think is the most appropriate.

Back land development could detrimentally affect the concentrated growth corridor just as much as a dispersed model of growth. The blob depicted as Purley on the concentrated growth option does not contain very many sites – how would you make it family friendly?

Why is there a fixation with the A23? Why hasn’t the A22 been looked at in more detail? Why not intensify the A22? We’ve spent millions on Tramlink surely there are potential areas along this route that could also be developed in the future?

One individual was perturbed that there was no pre consultation on the initial report. However, there was some consensus that there are good sections of the initial report that are not contentious and are supported.

South Norwood Core Strategy Drop in Surgery 25th August 2009

Location of event: South Norwood CALAT centre Time of event: 3pm – 5pm Attendees: Members of the public were invited to drop in and discuss Imagine Croydon and the Core Strategy with a planning officer.

Format and response

A roundtable discussion format with those in attendance supplying views to the planning officer in attendance centred on their local area and their vision for Croydon.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

Social housing with people living on top of each other, little amenity space and close proximity to neighbours can be conducive to clashes and unease between residents in super high density developments. Pressure of houses on local facilities is an issue with windfall sites that cannot be planned for – what does the core strategy say for this? People want to be far enough away from things but close enough to utilise services. Will areas outside the concentrated growth area suffer e.g. Addington and Norwood? Crystal Palace and Upper Norwood need intricate work and could be utilised better e.g. the empty units above ground floor shops are an untapped resource. Parking spaces in district centres in the future needs to be carefully considered and people may have to accept not having a car. Resdients parking should mean you get a bay outside your house not a permit. However, car owners should be pushed to areas of low controlled parking. Overspill could be combated by controlled parking zones but they may make these households less desirable. An inconsistent approach to parking and controlled parking zones is unhelpful. Likewise a blanket approach needs to sensibility as the same solution won’t be applicable everywhere.

Thornton Heath Core Strategy Drop in Surgery 28th July 2009

Location of event: Thornton Heath CALAT centre Time of event: 3pm – 5pm Attendees: Members of the public were invited to drop in and discuss Imagine Croydon and the Core Strategy with a planning officer.

Format and response

A roundtable discussion format with those in attendance voicing their views with planning officers about their local area and their vision for Croydon.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

Community spirit is needed in the CMC, high rise buildings have issues with communities. Victorian house types are needed or something similar to create the fell of community. Up to 3 storeys may work if accompanied with plenty of areas for children. Peckham, Southampton, Manchester, Leeds and Rounshaw Estate are good examples of failed high rise housing schemes. BME groups will require access to affordable homes in all areas not just the north. Sumner Road Council homes are the first built since the 70’s much more are needed. Retail rents in the CMC could be an issue with so many vacant units, there seems to be a proliferation of anchor tenants and too few independents. Need a lot more social housing along the A23 – the question is where will development be concentrated on exactly? Would it lead to a rise in ghettos? Space standards need to account for larger ethnic families. Is there land available for new schools? Primary schools kids and young parents should be targeted in planning consultations as they are the future. Getting more people to live in Coulsdon would be positive as would attracting more manufacturing to the borough. Spa Hill allotments should be protected and contaminated land at South Norwood lakes should be remediated to allow allotments back there. Lack of parking areas in Thornton Heath, no parking for the excellent leisure centre. Less and less parking spaces will encourage on street parking. The garden market next to Thornton Heath Pool could be a good location for a new car park to serve the CALAT centre and the leisure centre. There are public safety concerns for those using the centres at night. A tram extension and park and ride schemes would be good to tackle congestion and air pollution. A tram route to Thornton Heath would be a good route. The north and Thornton Heath generally suffer from squalor, litter and poor quality pavements. People don’t feel safe to come and study at the CALAT centre. Poor links to Addiscombe and South Norwood and to Mayday hospital. Poor east/west links in the north, the bus network would benefit from a tram extension. No disabled access at Thornton Heath station. Car parking is a big issue in Thornton Heath as people cannot use the Tesco car park. Double parks on the high street cause issues; library parking is also an issue. Croydon has an ‘ostrich’ approach to parking. Green spaces must not be lost to car parks. A gap exists between the reality and perceptions of Croydon. The chav town tag is undeserved, although there are many aspects of the community that are not as good as they used to be (or perhaps just different). Ward boundaries are not fit for purpose the 16 places are welcomed. Neighbourhood Partnerships should be based on the places and given funding to exercise democratic decision making at the local level. Participatory democracy could help change places for the better. Broad Green and Waddon are separate. Police neighbourhood teams should be asked about what they think of the places – do they agree with the divisions? Should units per ward be revised? Local cops would have depth of insight about their places. Should Croydon be more Europe-centric i.e. The Third City and its Core Strategy should consider its role within Europe not just the south east of England. Can we become an international centre? Should we use Local Development Orders akin to how Margaret Thatcher made Canary Wharf possible? Our infrastructure is inadequate. We’ve fallen behind other boroughs in London.

Staff Lunchtime Core Strategy Workshop – A Place of Opportunity 23rd July 2009

Location of event: 18th floor breakout area, Taberner House Time of event: 1pm – 2pm Attendees: Included members of staff from various teams within the Council

Format and response

Planning officers conducted a PowerPoint presentation interspersed with discussion and debate on each issue within the A Place of Opportunity section of the Core Strategy.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

A weak skills base in Croydon at present - ‘up skilling’ initiatives (e.g. University of Croydon) should link to existing industries in the borough but will also need to be tailored with an eye on the future. Croydon needs an environment to attract people to move here e.g. an attractive streetscape/public realm. We should do all we can to attract creative industries here e.g. architects firms. There are a lack of trading networks in the borough we need to promote support. Are there opportunities to revitalise old buildings along Wellesley Road e.g. Prospect First. We need to keep skills in the borough and attempt to make Croydon an attractive place for talented people to want to live. Schools in the area have to be improved to tempt families to move here. A university of Croydon would need to ensure graduates locate here after their studies and keep their intellectual capital in the borough. Can an outer London borough compete with inner London for attracting young graduates to relocate here? Any university in Croydon should aim to fill a niche market that is complimentary to our growth ambitions e.g. vocational courses. Would a university in Croydon be an advantage anyway? Shouldn’t we just aim for cheap business rents? Cane Hill is perfectly placed near to Gatwick and the M25 and would be a good location for a science park in order to establish a knowledge economy in Croydon. CMC and its environs would be good locations for business incubators or start up businesses seeking affordable units. We should market ourselves as a good location for renewables and sustainable construction materials to compliment the growth expected up to 2031. We should work more closely with adjoining boroughs to share facilities for business and leisure. The South Bank should be used as a model to reinvigorate the Fairfield Halls and surrounding area – there are many similarities e.g. Fairfield is a carbon (smaller) copy of the RFH and both areas have a skater community, both relics of the 60s etc. The CMC lacks a large presence of individual bijou outlets, predominated by multi national shops and restaurants. Affordable retail is needed and perhaps CEDC should set up functions similar to that of a Housing Association to manage any units that are provided via planning obligations on big mixed use or retail schemes. There is a need to make the CMC more family friendly and provide a culture and leisure offer that appeals to all strata’s of the community – it is hoped Wellesley Road work could help this and change the feel of the place potentially providing event space where there is now road. Berlin has a flexible approach to retail units – they successfully mix artist studio space with retail elements, perhaps our strict use class policies should be relaxed in certain areas? Gabriels Wharf on South Bank is another good example. Croydon should play on its strengths as a metropolitan area on the doorstep of the countryside and as a gateway to the south of England. Potential to make better use of the Green Belt for agriculture use e.g. farmers markets. Croydon is not home to very many art galleries or museums, the College Green/Fairfield area could be a cultural area of the future. The pumping station would also be a good venue. 10,000 more homes may mean more items are given to the museum and an increase in the museums duty to display them. The museum also has to archive school records therefore a large increase in population would mean more space would be needed for storage. There is a need/larger demand for libraries, the local studies library need more space – exacerbated by decision to redevelop Taberner House. It would be a good idea to place more attractions to existing local landmarks e.g. /Croydon Airport.

Staff Lunchtime Core Strategy Workshop – A Place to Belong 30th July 2009

Location of event: 18th floor breakout area, Taberner House Time of event: 1pm – 2pm Attendees: Included members of staff from various teams within the Council

Format and response

Planning officers conducted a PowerPoint presentation interspersed with discussion and debate on each issue within the A Place to Belong section of the Core Strategy.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

An Outer London borough shouldn’t have the same housing space standards as an inner London borough – the Mayor’s standards are too broad brush. Standards should apply to private sector as well as RSLs. Can we improve the streetscape in Croydon? How we spend s106/CIL money will be critical. It’s one thing to invest in new projects but we must not forget proper maintenance. Briefs should be used for larger development sites to get what we want to see and ensure a consistent approach – maybe we’re too slow to react. We need pro-active action on sites that come forward. Design can ensure shared facilities (e.g. school facilities being used out of hours) work properly. New builds should promote collocation. West Croydon is an area of potential that should be properly addressed. Do BSF schools have to submit travel plans? Could they incorporate buses or car sharing? Heritage is not only old buildings we must not forget new buildings of townscape and architectural value e.g. Fairfield Halls and 1960’s era. We need to ensure our policies consider economic conditions e.g. 50% affordable homes may not have been realistic but it gave a good starting point in pre-app, may be harder to ensure affordable housing moving forward. Developer needs to clearly understand what they have to put in and what is required. Are there policies to ensure mixed tenure for the needs of the community? London Road seems like a mess and requires public realm improvements to foster greater community interaction. Other areas that require reorganisation or improvement include West Croydon station, Cherry Orchard Road, Wellesley Road – these places need to be developed on a human scale and made safer. We should make use of existing facilities e.g. schools. Schools offer great potential for publicly available facilities like health care, libraries, active leisure…their design and layout is critical to their accessibility. Dual use schools could help to stitch them closer into the community. Travel plans and the location of new schools or refurbished/extended schools need to be factored in to reduce car usage and to help create footfall for local centres. The buildings we’re building today will also become buildings of heritage of the future – we need to build adaptable iconic buildings that last the test of time, not just building on cost basis as it will result in cheap looking buildings. How will we ensure developers stick to the growth areas? Policy will need to be very carefully worded and thought out. Space standards issue is confusing while there is a two tier system between affordable housing that is publicly funded and private development that is not required to build to certain standards. Outer areas in Croydon may need higher space standards or risk being out of character with the surrounding area. UD8 is a useful policy as it allows development management colleagues to judge houses on how well they fit in with the existing area and ensure developments should be determined by the character of the area. Growth in right locations but regard has to be had for existing developments. Retaining Croydon’s character is essential, back land development is a big risk to preserving the residential character of areas. There is a risk that the core strategy may not be adopted in time to prevent their area from being degraded.

Staff Lunchtime Core Strategy Workshop – A Place for Sustainable Living 6th August 2009

Location of event: 18th floor breakout area, Taberner House Time of event: 1pm – 2pm Attendees: Helen Westwood (Facilities Management) Lee Longhurst, Ruth Coulson, Peter Fletcher, Jo Donnelly, Les Haines, Paul Robertshaw (Urban Design) Stewart Saunders (Transportation) Muhammad Ali (EaST) Sarah Musgrave (BSF) Bob Hucks (Civil Engineering) John Chapman (Finance) Sarah Anandarajah (DASH) Keith Briars (Policy & Strategy)

Format and response

Planning officers conducted a PowerPoint presentation interspersed with discussion and debate on each issue within the A Place for Sustainable Living section of the Core Strategy.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

Retrofitting is a massive subject – will there be planning design guidance for renewables/retrofitting? Would it possible to produce an SPD as guidance? If there is to be a growth strategy centred on the A23 corridor are we sure flood risk can be mitigated and the required transport infrastructure supplied i.e. tramlink, park and ride etc. There is an issue around regeneration/economic growth and sustainability – growth is often in conflict with principles of sustainability, all other issues in the core strategy could be irrelevant if we don’t tackle this dichotomy. Brighton Road needs radical solutions; it’s not just about pollution and CO2 it is also a space issue, safety issue and mobility issue (for the elderly). Would a BSF community hub model drag more congestion to places with new leisure/library facilities? Would new homes talked about foster a transient community and if so could the rail network deal with the extra capacity? Will it possible to maintain access to existing buildings along the A23 if we have to consider radical transport/flood solutions? Code for Sustainable Homes should be required, the Council should lead by example, however, retrofitting existing Council properties is more important e.g. Council flats etc. The core strategy must make clear what we are doing in terms of mitigation and what we are doing in terms of adaptation. In one way the A23 growth option being in a flood zone offers an opportunity. Car parking is a politically charged topic but the Core Strategy won’t be able to deal with charging. Topography is an issue for elderly people in the south and accessibility needs to be examined – they may need greater use of a car if the east/west public transport is not available to them.

East Coulsdon Residents Association Meeting Tuesday 8th September 2009

Location of event: Smitham CALAT Centre Time of event: 7:30pm – 8:30pm

Attendees: Charles King, Ian Payne, Pauline Payne, Maureen Ley Dick Webber (ECRA) Reg Baker (Coulsdon Forum) Terry Lenton (Councillor - Coulsdon East) Graham Lomas (Vice Chair Coulsdon Neighbourhood Partnership & ECRA) Hilary Dunn (Coulsdon Business)

Format and response

A roundtable discussion format with those in attendance supplying views to the planning officer in attendance centred on their local area and their vision for Croydon.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

The LDA report ‘Seven’ carries themes of intensive development around Purley. This report should not have been released before the Imagine Croydon consultation; it has caused great consternation for the residents of Purley the idea of 100’s of new units (some blocks of flats). How does the LDA report fit into the forthcoming Draft Replacement London Plan? Overall there was a concern to get the process of consultation right. Here are currently Mayoral priorities for Purley, with 100’s of new identikit housing to be provided. Ahead of the Croydon consultation, where does all of this fit in with the Mayor’s spatial strategy. The north of Coulsdon is full but the south has spaces, therefore where is the best place to fit growth in the area? The poor footfall of the area can make it problematic and turn it into a ‘bad area’. The centre could be a better location due to its increased public transport capacity. Malprit Lane would not be a great location for extra growth. Car parking is a big issue. Fear that other DPD’s coming after 2012 will be one step forward one step back. Cane Hill should not be worked on in isolation, e.g. any public transport benefits should be for the whole area. Coulsdon needs its own facilities, the existing clusters below the flyover in Purley, means that people assume its ok for Coulsdon when it is not suitable. Therefore, a commuting hub in Purley would not benefit Coulsdon. Vacant eye sores should be prioritized as they are an eye sore. Strong feeling that the Sainsburys development should not be refused. Aldi site should have been used for a town square. Creative industries would be expensive to develop in London. Could CIL be used as a preventative measure? The small parades from 50’s and 60’s are either bounded up or closed. Historical parades need to be re-invented. If places like Old cage Lane do not become specialized then people will not want to travel there. People could be attracted to the district centre to shop regularly. Co-location of facilities – Coulsdon has to be a viable town centre. The problems of the last 15years have scarred the CMC and Coulsdon area have resulted in Coulsdon being marginalized in the borough. All the prior schemes have failed to improve it. Mike Tisher and Jim Rose looked at Audi site to potentially purchase it for a mixed use development and to try and attract another tenant. Town centres need an attractor (like this site could have been) or Sainsburys for example. One way to do this would be to force a development on each site, as an attractor. The Aldi site in Coulsdon, the council could purchase it rather than CPO it. Sites could be better developed if a consortium of people invested in the site. Red Lion site could have been part funded by police, NHS, Croydon, Developer/shop, drawing players together to work in one organization where they could pool resources and money. This would be preferable rather than relying on the council to pump the market. Pro-active bahaviour is needed in Coulsdon not ‘sitting on hands’. The town centre has had a regeneration project in the past 15 years but Coulsdon has been fobbed off. Joined up development and consultations of the past should be re- used as it has all been done before. Moving the library to ? Green Road would harm its footfall as there are not a lot of leisure facilities. Purley has had 2 regenerations (1) Tesco and (2) Sainsburys and the swimming pool. Cane Hill site should not just be for professionals must also encourage people to stay in town centre.

Green Drinks Tuesday 15th September 2009

Location of event: The Green Dragon Public House Time of event: 7pm-9pm

Attendees: Approximately 8 members of the Green Drinks club

Format and response

An informal discussion with members of the Green Drinks club who share an interest environmental issues and solutions, views were recorded throughout the conversation.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows: Cycling and walking is too low down the transport list. Human psychology is then that cycling is lower down the transport hierarchy and which movement is prioritiesed. A number of other boroughs have adopted it already. North already has high density, south with lots of green belt. An orbital railway is needed in Croydon. Places in west Croydon cannot be accessed. New developments should be easily accessible. A23 congestion already alludes to extra cars. In the 70’s there was the ring road, 90’s tramlink. Nothing available in the town centre for active leisure, no sports facilities and all the offer is private gyms. There are no pools, with accessible and affordable facilities in the town centre are hard to find. Low cost leisure is needed to compliment new housing. You need to attract mixed incomes and workers in the CMC. Nothing available for children or toddlers, especially somewhere the size of Croydon. Patches of green land between airport and should be brownfield site. Plough Lane B272 used to go through airport. It should be re-instated. Very little mention of pedestrians and crossings. Councils has already refused to put in crossings e.eg. Pizza Express in South End. This is a classic example of cars needs being put over the pedestrian. Cyclists can’t cycle east to west continuously through the CMC. North to south is difficult also unless you use travel down Wellesley Road. Living streets and homezones 20mph limits and traffic calming measures would be positive. Croydon has no toucan crossing (pedestrian and cycling). Kingston, Sutton have a lot. Could be used to male CMC cyclist friendly. £rd Monday of every month used to get local groups together to promote their websites. The underpass is a walking obstacle. Not just this but also the Old Town roundabout and Wellesley Road. Biodiversity – parks and social housing should look at bird and bee friendly planting boxes. Some planting can create biodiversity desert by choosing landscape purely from an aesthetic point of view. How can a technology site not have been considered? Providing recycling facilities for people without a car and sites such as Factory Lane can’t be used with a bicycle, also the same with the Purley Oaks depot. Community hub recycling facilities their pedestrians and cyclists can and should be prioritized in the core strategy and waste plan. It discriminates against rate payers that don’t have a car. Particulates can travel on the wind. Will procurement contracts ensure that we won’t take other people’s waste? The other boroughs should deal with their own waste. The Council needs to be strong so we don’t end up with other people’s waste.

Association of Croydon Conservation Societies Meeting Wednesday 16th September 2009

Location of event: The home of Dr. Jane McLaughlin Time of event: 8pm – 9pm

Attendees: Approximately 8 persons representing a variety of conservation groups operating within Croydon

Format and response

Roundtable discussion with attendees, who provided views on a variety of subjects including conservation

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

One of the threads is that the population increase will happen. Central Government should appoint a committee to look at what is the optimum population of the UK. Croydon could do the same. Would making Croydon more desirable mean that there would be more people, more cars. This will also increase the demand for infrastructure and more work for the police. The local environment will also become more trampled and degraded. In these urban environments where are the gardens and the street trees? Increasingly harder to provide front gardens and green spaces. How to deliver options for Coulsdon? Cane Hill has suffered from green belt swamp. Is the demolished front part of Cane Hill be improved for biodiversity? It wouldn’t be worth a great deal on conservation terms. You cannot create chalk grass land by taking the buildings away. You lose the biodiversity. Pg.27. Dispersed versus concentrated growth. Will the councils match the allotment activity with the amount of people in the area? Reclaiming allotments goes through fashions. Allotments came under fire when it goes out of fashion. Norbury Park could be another location for agriculture. Flat unused football pitched could be a good location for , Queen Elizabeth Drive. New Addington has large areas of green that could be formalized. Allotments should be located to housing. If a planning application came in for a SNCI site, ACCS got sent application from the department. Is the ‘London Ecology Map’ still used for alerts? Should ancient trees be listed like like listed buildings? For example Black Poplar, Addington Cedar, Kenley Oak.

South Norwood District Centre Business Partnership Meeting Tuesday 22nd September 2009

Location of event: Harris Academy, South Norwood Time of event: 7.15pm – 9.15pm

Attendees: Approximately 10 people in attendance

Format and response

A presentation and roundtable discussion format with those in attendance supplying views to the planning officer in attendance centred on their local area and their vision for Croydon.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

Ad hoc development is an issue. Planners have to realize CA’s are going to be very expensive to renovate. Victorian buildings on Portland Road are crap and cannot be made. People need to grow food locally. Certain parts are worth restarting and others are not. What about developments that fall below thresholds? Internet heavy consultation should be balanced with real world activities. There should be investment in locally listed buildings. Developers leaving projects once sold are sticking up advertising and in some instances leaving it vacant as a blight on the community. Other developers are knowingly knocking down listed buildings. Rental space in mixed use schemes are not always designed in a way that is attractive for businesses. They are also not advertised well. South Norwood has too many hairdressers, it is not homogenous. Overdevelopment in Pumpis?? Road is actually a nicer area to the north of the borough. Although the south is underdeveloped is still benefits from lots of good facilities in close proximity. Portland Road is a low spending area. Council could help with the parking. If the business isn’t sustainable it be left to go. Lots of family homes in South Norwood are lost to flats. One road off Portland Road and you get into suburbia. People in South Norwood Hill don’t like going to South Norwood because ‘unkempt’ people are there in the day. But suits are there in the morning and the evening. Middle aged men decide what the youth want. Young people should decide what facilities they want and the underlying issues e.g. gang culture are. Young people should be asked what they want. There also needs to be community facilities for the elderly.

West Coulsdon Residents Association Meeting Tuesday 29th September 2009

Location of event: Coulsdon Community Centre, Chipstead Valley Road Time of event: 4pm – 6pm

Attendees:

Format and response

A roundtable discussion format with those in attendance supplying views to the planning officer in attendance centred on their local area and their vision for Croydon.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

Things that are missing from the LDF> New medical centre to replace the C.V. Road, this should be a top priority. Will there be development along the bypass? The options map seems too short-termist. The Audi site could be developed. Should the Audi site be linked with a footpath to other sites? Lots of the derelict warehouses are owned by the same person. Found it hard to specific about sites. Generally support the development of Cane Hill. Why are the other schools in the area not being expanded either? Some are having short-term expansion. There needs to be more parking in general and also by the station. Employment sites linked to town centre. No new business is to be to the detriment of the town centre. Lion Green Road is a massive bottle neck for traffic. Existing stock of commercial units is very old in Coulsdon, some have basements that flood. Difficult for businesses to stay competitive.

Neighbourhood Partnerships Chairs and Vice Chairs Meeting Wednesday 4th November 2009

Location of event: Room G6, Town Hall Time of event: 10am – 1pm

Attendees: Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Neighbourhood Partnership

Format and response

A roundtable discussion format with those in attendance supplying views to the planning officer in attendance centred on their local area and their vision for Croydon.

Key themes

The most commonly raised points from the meeting were as follows:

FH – presentation at the NP meeting and a discussion on how to carry it forward. KG – would also like a presentation. DCM should also come to RA’s to reach the grassroots in terms of climate change and the environment. MJ – saving money aspect is perceived as the key issue. Will it save money in the long term if people are struggling financially? PS – positive involvement would require ?? if specific issues are raised we would like to see action as a positive response, e.g. the removal of trees. Could we require planning applications for front gardens and buffer zones? MSD – There needs to be local input into flooding. What can NP bring to the table in this discussion? Big documents need to be communicated down to NP’s. A4 pieces could be a very useful format for informing. Park Hill do not see themselves as living in Addiscombe. Will places inform NP’s boundaries if they’re finding out who associates with what area, and how do they relate to existing NP’s? Sense of belonging is a big issue in terms of the 16 places. Queen 2012 ‘city status’ application, with a strong support for city application. There is good support for the places. Are the boundaries on the front cover fuzzy? City status could end up being a distraction. Hot food and takeaway outlets are dominating high streets. Convenience and comparative retail is in decline.

Imagine Croydon Core Strategy questionnaire

10 - Where to build new homes? On available land in Croydon town centre 250 (including Purley, Coulsdon and along A23). 192 200 Spread development, including on new sites and 141 150 open space, throughout the borough.

100 Neither, both, blanks 57 50

0

11- What amenities are needed in the future?

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

re re s rt th g n o ops n su eal sport ei youth safety sh h l cultu earning ousi l transp h pen space r attractio o ito vis

12-Where should these key anemities be located?

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 Spread throughout the Concentrated in Blanks, both and others borough Croydon's town centres

13- Should the character of local centres and suburbs be retained or should growth of new jobs, shops, businesses, and homes be encouraged?

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Retain character Encourage Grow th Blank, both and others

How do you think the local centres should grow?

They should develop their own character, be different and specialised, represent a niche

They should generally improve in quality

They should grow to match the main centre

They should generally grow and take importance

0 10203040506070

14- What type of businesses do we want to attract to Croydon's town centre?

High street shops 70

More divers ity 47

Small and local businesses 41 Big businesses 28

Leisure and tourism 27

High profile businesses 27

More s ervices 24

Businesses that offer employment opportunities 20

Independent businesses 20

Culture and arts 19

Environmentally aware 16 International businesses 12

Office-based businesses 10

More industries and manufacture 8

More technology 7

0 1020304050607080

What types of businesses do we want to attract to Croydon's local centres?

High street shops 67

Small and local businesses 66

More diversity 40

Independent businesses 37

Leisure and tourism 23

More s ervices 21

Businesses that offer employment opportunities 18

Environmentally aware 15

High profile businesses 9

Big businesses 6

Culture and arts 5

More industries and manufacture 5

More technology 3

International businesses 2

Office-based businesses 1

0 1020304050607080

16- Do you think we should prioritise investment and access to public transport at the expense of cars?

350 290 300

250

200

150

100 46 54 50

0 Yes No Blank

17- The public transport network is current at capacity and sometimes overcrowded and unreliable. Which would you prioritise? (In Order of Priority)

Priority 1 Improve public transport in and betw een the less accessible local centres Develop more cycle lanes and Priority 2 pedestrian w alkw ays

Improve public transport access into the main centres Priority 3

0 50 100 150

18- Should we protect and enhance our open land, gardens, and suburbs or seek new appropriate developments for them such as sports and leisure facilities or housing?

300 280

250

200

150

100 51 59 50

0 Protect and enhance Seek appropriate Both, others or blank our open land, developments gardens and suburbs

Do you think we should consider releasing some of the land (for suitable development) in areas where there is high provision to help pay for the development of open and green spaces in areas where there isn't?

300 250 250

200

150 113 100

50 27

0 yes no blank/don’t know

20- How should we reduce CO2 emissions and help minimize climate change in Croydon? (In Order of Priority)

Pr ior ity 1

Pr ior ity 2 Ensure new developments are built to high energy and sustainability standards Bring existing developments up to high energy and sustainability standards Pr ior ity 3 Provide recycling and composting f acilities Encourage w alking and cycling Pr ior ity 4 Develop local w aste centres

Promote greater energy efficiency Pr ior ity 5

Pr ior ity 6

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Most frequently mentioned Ensure new developments are built to high energy and sustainability standards 250 Bring existing developments up to high energy and sustainability 200 standards Provide recycling and composting facilities

150

Promote greater energy efficiency 100

Encourage walking and cycling 50

Develop local waste centres 0

Kingston University consultation exercise

163

High noise Poor access levels to and through the site Poor pedestrian environment Traffic congestion

Unsafe roads Vacant floor space Derelict and under- developed Lack of sites recycling facilities

164 Vision € Upper Norwood Triangle should emerge as and attractive but low key destination that is also a great place to live, exemplified by a thriving local community. It will have an advantage of being genuinely diverse, unusual and exciting and be well known as a place with a varied historical context and rich artistic tradition.

Aims and Objectives € To capitalise on the areas rich history and artistic tradition. € To ensure the future of the District Centre. € To improve the pedestrian environment € To create an attractive public realm that will make people want to visit the area. € To reinforce the area’s advantage of being genuinely diverse, unusual and exciting to help enhance it as the kind of destination set out in the vision. € To identify projects to receive S106 funds

165 € Attractors € Have a local , rather than a regional or London-wide profile, or tend to be of niche interest though some have historic significance. € A major national leisure attractor very close to the study area, ie, Crystal Palace Park .

€ New gateway at the Upper Norwood Triangle – interlock Park with the existing urban centre.

166 € Currently very little to interpret varied history of the triangle – not currently maximised as an attractor. € Specialist and interesting small independent retailers potentially very attractive to different types of market , but probably only used by local residents at the moment.

€ Westow Street and surrounds has good quality pubs, restaurants and cafes- food offer could be considered to be one of the areas prime attractors € The Triangle is not well known as a place and is not necessarily associated with its strong artistic community – potential for developing identity

167 € There is not a full mix of attractors and there is a potential opportunity to develop this part of the offer, for example, no cinema evident in the area.

168 • The domination by traffic has created strong barriers to pedestrian movement. • Pedestrians and cyclists have not been given sufficient priority. • Public space is not fully utilized with opportunities for points of congregation and interaction.

169 • Reorganisation and simplification of the junctions • Promoting a comfortable pedestrian experience by coordinating materials & pedestrian friendly surfacing

170 € The shopping retail units will be able to support a large range of shops. € These units will be encouraged appropriate redevelopment/ refurbishment € While these units are vacant and waiting for an appropriate retail use, they shall be occupied by the local artists.

€ The Crystal Palace area already has a large amount of artists (25) in the area, ranging from Novelists, musicians, designers and painters.

171 Current development plans

51-59 Westow Street Comprehensive mixed use redevelopment Approved September 2008 Four storey building with two A1 retail units and 1 A3 cafe/restaurant on ground floor/ 14 residential units above B1 business units at back Parking and cycle parking facilities

Vacant sites

€ 37-41 Church Road € Mixed Use development € Community Theatre € Room for 100 Units € Great Views

172 Westow street 74

Historic Building • Can’t demolish • Keep character of building • Independent Cinema • Predominately funded by S106 and EU. • Improve public realm to the side of the side .

Norwood Heights

• Mixed Use Development • Leisure use and residential • Renewable energy • Public realm imptovements • Increased car parking

173 Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation That public realm Medium Medium Prepare funding strategy to improvements will be ensure external funding limited by lack of public funding or lack of private development to produce S106 funds That it will not be possible High High Actively encourage to control the content or suitable submissions timing of private sector coupled with a pragmatic proposals to ensure that approach to alternative they proposals which

That private Medium High Use compulsory landowners on key purchase powers and sites will not be willing seek private to make their land developer partners to available back CPO action. MP expenses Very Very Very Medium Change the rules High indeed!!!!!! !!

Upper Norwood Triangle Regeneration Plan

Sarah Heron, Sam Collins Fiona Abrahamsen, Andrew Russell Rob Ellis &Cristina Udrea

On behalf of Heron Consultancy

174 Study Area

y Located within London Borough of Croydon

◦ - Upper Norwood Triangle Conservation Area ◦ - West of Crystal Palace Park ◦ -Locally Listed Buildings ◦ - Vacant shop units ◦ -Designated District Centre

The Vision

‘A revitalised centre that is proud of its heritage and builds upon its special character by integrating the best contemporary developments to encourage a mix of uses that will create a vibrant and successful place for the 21st century and beyond. It will be a popular centre, with a good range of shops in a pleasant environment with sustainable transport options. New cultural, arts and entertainment facilities will be a key focus for community activity’.

175 The Objectives

• Objective 1: Urban Design Principles • Objective 2: Diversification • Objective 3: Movement • Objective 4: Mix Use • Objective 5: Identity • Objective 6: Economic Growth • Objective 7: Shopping Facilities • Objective 8: Sustainability • Objective 9: Liveability

Masterplan

176 Consultation

y Interactive consultation event – risk analysis -Hazards were identified, their potential effect assessed and priorities and solutions emerged. - Conflicting priorities y Interview with Helen Richardson, local resident. - Issues: cleanliness, safety, traffic, character of the area y Consultation on the Preferred Options Report. -General agreement with Option A – Retain and Enhance

Option A – Retain and Enhance Option B – Rebuild and Rejuvenate • Shared space and wider pavements • Restricted car use • Reduced off street parking •Buses only on Westow Street (9am-6am) • Improved cycling • Additional pedestrian crossing points • Strengthen permeability through the triangle • Public realm improvements and greening

• Enhanced train service (frequency) • Tram service and access to tube • Redesign of bus station • Redesign of bus station

• Sensitive reuse of existing vacant sites • Demolish and rebuild vacant sites • Mixed use developments • Higher density development • Maximise views of London with 3 storey balcony developments on Westow Hill slope

• Emphasis on small independent shops and • Anchor or department store as a landmark encourage a local street market feature • Small arts, culture and entertainment venues • Large cultural centre – gallery, theatre or cinema

Option C –Do Nothing

177 Option A – Retain and Enhance

•Mixed Use Developments

•Improvements to ‘Greenspace’

•Urban Design

•Maximising Opportunity Sites

•Highway and Public Transport Improvements

•‘Shared Space’

•Improvement to Facilities

Policy Context

• Local Plan: UDP – The Croydon Plan (adopted July 2006) , Bromley UDP (2006), Lambeth UDP (2007)

•Supplementary Planning Guidance / Documents

•Regional: The London Plan (2008) •National: PPSs and PPGs

• Designated District Centre, Designated Conservation Area

•National and Regional planning policy strongly supports the retention and enhancement of centres.

178 Socio – Economic Vacant shops units y Social rented households y Deprivation y Unemployment y Crime rate y Main local shopping centre y Varied land uses y Large number of vacant units

Transport

179 Assets and Opportunities

Local Character Assessment

180 Landmarks and focal points Movement Framework

Continuity and enclosure Green spaces framework

Public Realm Assessment

181 Implementation Strategy

y Phasing ◦ 5 year plan ◦ Short/Medium/Long Term x Ownership x Availability x Financial Viability ◦ Partnership Approach

y Funding ◦ Private Sector Investment ◦ Public Sector Investment ◦ S106 Agreements

y Monitoring & Risk Analysis

Risk Analysis

Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigating Measures Public realm Medium Medium Prepare funding strategy Seek improvements S106 monies from developments - lack of public funding beyond the Triangle

Landowners not willing Compulsory purchase powers to make their land Medium High available

Private sector timings High Low Encouragement suitable submissions

Subway at Crystal Medium Low Improve pedestrian crossings over Palace Corner junction at Crystal Palace Junction - too costly or unsafe to reopen

182 Phasing – Development

Time Scale Aspect Site Works DEVELOPMENT

Long 1 15-17 Church Mixed Use Rd Active Frontage 2 37-41 Church Residential/Hotel Use Rd Landmark Building Community Facility Car Free 3 51-59 Westow Retail, commercial and St residential unit 4 69 Westow St

Phasing – Movement/Environment

Time Scale Aspect Site MOVEMENT Medium Walking Church Rd/Westow St Short Cycling Westow St/Gipsy Hill Church Rd/Westow St Crystal Palace Park Corner Long Public Transport Medium Streets/Traffic Church Rd Westow St Norwood Heights Shopping Centre Time Scale Aspect Site

ENVIRONMENT

Medium Crystal Palace Corner Crystal Palace Corner

Short Urban Greening All around triangle

Short Streetscape All around triangle

183 Croydon 2040 schools game

Summary Report and Recommendations of Croydon2040

Place of Belonging, Place of Opportunity, Sustainable Community

184 Contents

1 Executive Summary...... 186

2 Results...... 188

3 Methodology...... 192

4 Was it a success?...... 197

185 1 Executive Summary

“I have enjoyed playing the game online. It’s going to change the future.”

Imagine Croydon is a project to develop a 30 year vision for the future of the Borough. The Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) have undertaken the largest consultation process in Croydon’s history with over 20,000 people having been involved in the development of the long term vision.

It has been essential to capture the views of people who live, work and study in Croydon to ensure that we have a genuinely shared vision for the future. However, the process of engaging people had to create the excitement and optimism that would demonstrate real change is a tangible concept. Therefore, over 20 engagement methods were utilised over the course of the consultation, ranging from interactive public meetings using ‘Who wants to be a Millionaire’ voting handsets to ‘Big Brother Diary Room’ style VideoQubes taking place across Croydon.

Looking forward to 2040, children and young people who are growing up in Croydon today will be those most affected by any changes. To both gather feedback and build excitement, The Campaign Company1 (TCC) created the Croydon2040 process to form the spine of the youth engagement programme for Imagine Croydon. Croydon2040 was sponsored by CapGemini who donated £5,000 in ICT equipment to be awarded to winning teams.

As a whole, the Croydon2040 process has actively contributed to both the development of the long term strategy and in embedding the idea of a shared vision for the future amongst residents. Feedback from participants through the Croydon2040 competition has also fed into the Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

100% of teachers surveyed reported having a positive experience with the program.

No student surveyed gave a negative review of the program, and 3 out of 4 said they liked it "quite a bit" or better.

Following the game, over half the students surveyed expressed a strong interest in getting involved in local government. Conversely, less than 10 percent reported a low likelihood of involvement. (90% reported some sort of future involvement.) 20 schools took part with each team having an average of 10 students participating. As well as these 200 young people, we estimate that a total of 1000 young people were indirectly consulted through word of mouth and other means.

A body of young people have been engaged, many for the first time, in local politics and decision making. The vast majority have showed an active desire to involve themselves in similar programmes in the future2 and it is important that these

1 The Campaign Company and Renaisi were commissioned to work with the LSP on the Imagine Croydon project

2 90% of those who took part said they would get involved with local issues in the future

186 pathways are provided. Schools and colleges have shown enthusiasm to incorporate such processes into their Citizenship Curriculum and there is an opportunity to build a lasting structure for engagement that could complement and add value to other existing, and developing, youth participation initiatives in Croydon.

187 2 Results

“As we are coming to the end of our time as Croydon Council, we have decided to continue to show our commitment to all of the residents of our wonderful borough and we want everyone to feel that Croydon is a place of belonging and opportunity for them”- Addington High School

The first stage of the Imagine Croydon process was to develop an evidence base from available information on the key drivers for change facing Croydon over the next thirty years. This allowed discussions and debates around the vision to be framed in a realistic context.

The thirty ‘scenarios’ that young people explored over the course of the Croydon2040 competition were drawn directly from those key drivers and supplemented by the strategic priorities for each of the relevant partners. For example, the health scenarios were drawn largely from ongoing discussions with the Healthy Croydon Partnership. The thirty scenarios can be found in the Supplementary Information Document (available upon request). An example of one scenario is below:

188

189

190

191 3 Methodology

90% of those who took part said they would get involved with local issues in the future

Croydon2040 was a two part process to reflect the twin objectives of engagement: • Gathering meaningful feedback to inform the vision

• Building excitement and raising aspiration

The 10 week Croydon2040 competition running from September to December 2009 was the pinnacle of a longer consultation process that began with schools and colleges in May. • Thousands of vision postcards were sent to schools and colleges allowing students to articulate their vision for the future (see below).

• Lesson plans were developed to enable Citizenship teachers to involve students throughout schools and colleges in the Imagine Croydon process. These included:

o DIY PowerPoint presentations for teachers,

o Session briefs to contextualise the vision with key statistics on the challenges facing Croydon, such as population growth and an ageing population,

o Vision statements – schools and colleges were encouraged to consult students and develop a collective ‘vision statement’ for the future which outlined what they would like Croydon to be like in 2040.

192 Examples of vision statements:

“In 2040, our Croydon will be a safer, greener, richer community. Culture will be appreciated and safety on transport improved. Thriving eco-friendly business and excellent shopping facilities will increase employment. Crime is rare and we will be proud of our healthier Croydon” Archbishop Tenison’s Croydon2040 Team

“In 2040, our Croydon will be the biggest borough in London, with the biggest multicultural mix of people who all live happily together in a safe, healthy, environmentally friendly area with world class provision for entertainment and sport and leisure and a good education for all” St Mary’s High School Croydon2040 Team

“We want to provide a wide range of Europe’s best sports facilities that encourage all ages and abilities from all areas to take up a sport” Archbishop Lanfranc Croydon2040 Team

The feedback from students in the shape of vision statements, postcards and materials from Citizenship lessons helped to shape the long term vision which was drawn together at two LSP Visioning Workshops held in September 2009.

How it works

Croydon2040 is an interactive on-line strategy game. Teams from different schools across Croydon competed to create the most successful and prestigious Croydon.

Teams were placed in the role of ‘the Croydon Council of the Future’ and given the task of guiding the Borough through the next 30 years to ensure that it is a

193 prosperous, successful and cohesive place. One week (or ‘turn’) counted for 3 years in the game and teams were able to monitor their progress until they reach 2040 after a 10 week journey.

Teams Teams were formed within schools without any direction from Croydon2040. This allowed schools the freedom to put together teams in any way they thought would be the best fit for them. For some this meant that the team was after-school or lunch time club. For others it formed part of their Citizenship classes and for others it involved a school-wide consultation. This also meant that teams made decisions in very different ways.

Week-by-week Each week was assigned a broad theme drawn directly to represent the strategic priorities for each of the relevant partners. This allowed teams the opportunity to explore in-depth a number of key issues within the Borough. The scenarios which teams were presented with were drawn from these themes. Teams were presented with three scenarios each week over the 10 week period, with the decisions they made effecting the development of their own fictional Croydon. These included: 1. Do you wish to introduce a congestion charge in Croydon?

2. Do you wish to fund a new sexual health campaign targeted at 16 to 25 year olds?

3. Do you wish to offer more activities for young people as a crime reduction policy?

4. Do you wish to found the University of Croydon?

The decisions teams had to make each week were accompanied by a short briefing text which was designed to encourage independent research as well as debating internally which decisions to make and what their press release should say. Aside from making their decisions each week, teams were also asked for Press Releases. These were important for their Communications and gave them the opportunity to inform their ‘constituents’ of the reasons behind their decisions. The Press Releases also fed directly in to a weekly newsletter that was published. The newsletter was split in to two parts- the first would give a brief outline of the theme for that week and highlight some stories of interest. The second contained articles about the decisions that had been taken that week and included quotes from the press releases. This created a huge amount of interest as teams competed to see their press releases in print each week. There was also a news bulletin each week

194 which was posted on youtube. This gave a brief outline of the decisions teams had to make that week.

At the beginning of the next ‘turn’, teams were given feedback on the implications of the decisions they had made. Their decisions were measured through a series of 'metrics' which include crime, people's quality of life, the level of equality and many more. At the end of each turn, the teams were able to see their success in the form of rankings against the other schools competing. These rankings demonstrated each teams’ progress against each individual metric. For example, we were able to see the ‘healthiest Croydon’, the ‘safest Croydon’ and the ‘happiest Croydon’.

Bonus Star Challenges Running alongside the competition was a Bonus Star Competition. This was an opportunity for teams to be creative and let others know about what they were doing. This part of the game was designed around the idea of word of mouth campaigning and communications strategies being key to the success and understanding of those in the area. Bonus Stars were awarded under two categories- one off stars and ongoing stars. One off stars were awarded for completing secret missions while ongoing stars were awarded for sending in photos, creating a newsletter, attending the events, etc. There was a huge amount of interest in this part of the game and competition was fierce.

195

Involvement Thousands of young people were involved in making the decisions, the results of which are outlined above and in Appendix 1 of Supplementary Information Document. Many teams consulted widely within their schools before taking their decisions. Young people from across the borough have been involved including specific engagement with schools from more deprived communities and young people with learning disabilities.

196 4 Was it a success?

“Not only has it been fun but feels like the council are actually involving you. I like being able to put across my views in a fun way.”

The excitement and enthusiasm around the Croydon2040 competition was perceptible to anyone involved in the project. In measuring it’s impact, we can look to the two objectives of the Imagine Croydon engagement process: • Gathering meaningful feedback to inform the vision

• Building excitement and raising aspiration

Building a vision

“Students really do care about the area in which they live and would like to help make it a better place. Croydon has a lot to achieve to create the standards that residents of Croydon are looking for.”

Once the initial concept had been developed, a youth reference group was established with students from Shirley High School (see below). A number of changes to the design and delivery of the Croydon2040 competition were made as a result of their recommendations.

Informing the vision As outlined in further detail in Section 3, the 10 week competition was the pinnacle of the Croydon2040 process, with pre-engagement with schools and colleges a key element in its success. Thousands of young people were involved in the building of the long term vision before September, by filling in postcards, speaking to the camera in the VideoQube, visiting the website, writing their schools ‘vision statement’ or being part of a Croydon2040 Citizenship lesson at school. The message from children and young people was one which resonated with the wider population and the vision was developed to reflect these views.

A wider contribution The Local Development Framework Core Strategy has been developed in conjunction with the long term vision and where appropriate, consultation has been

197 coordinated to maximise value. Feedback gathered from the Croydon2040 competition will directly inform the development of the Cores Strategy.

The outputs from the 10 week competition (see Appendix 1 of Supplementary Information Document) equates to a large scale quantitative and qualitative consultation with thousands of young people across Croydon on the 30 biggest challenges facing the Borough. These cut across the objectives of all the partners of the LSP and the responses from young people will be made available to each of the partners to influence their own internal strategies.

Building understanding of the Croydon Youth Context The overwhelming feeling among the students who took part was that they were part of something very influential. They are very aware that in 2040 they will be the people who are directly affected by the types of decision they were making within the game. This is what they had to say: “Children in and around Croydon are willing to make Croydon a better place. Croydon council have a lot of work to do but because people do care about the area hopefully people will want to live in and visit Croydon.”

“People feel Croydon has much to achieve by the year 2040. People feel that Croydon should change for the better. I feel it is important that the younger generation are part of choosing the changes because they are the people that will be living here.”

“Students really do care about the area in which they live and would like to help make it a better place. Croydon has a lot to achieve to create the standards that residents of Croydon are looking for.”

“Kids have views as well and want them heard. Sometimes a simple yes or no is not the right answer.”

“Learn what the younger generation think. They will be adults in 2040.”

“Learn what children want in Croydon instead of just what adults want. Learn what we think of Croydon and how we think it can be improved. Its only small incidence and areas that gives Croydon a bad reputation.”

Better Understanding of Prioritisation Members of the LSP were encouraged to support schools in making their decisions to ensure they had a firm understanding of the key issues. These included: - Members of Children, Young People and Learners working attending lessons to work through decisions with teams

- ‘Resident experts’ on the Croydon2040 website making themselves available to answer questions. For example, 19 questions were sent from teams to Caroline Taylor, Chief Executive of NHS Croydon, in the final week for her views on issues ranging from teenage pregnancy to health inequalities

In November we also held a mid-game competition which brought together the teams and gave them an opportunity to take part in a real-time decision making event. There were 6 teams, each representing a broad area of the LSP:

198 • Health • Council and Environment • Police • Community, Sport and Leisure • Business • Education and Skills

The emphasis of the game was on partnership working. Each of the 6 teams had a set of broad objectives that were based on the Vision. They also have 10 Budget Points to spend. There were 10 policies on offer with each policy having a cost and a benefit.

Teams had to decide which of the policies were most important to them and get enough budget tokens in place to support this policy, either by putting them all in place themselves or, more preferably, by seeking the support of other teams to help them fund their favoured policy.

This event was central to the idea of the schools coming together and working for a common goal. Although, they were competing against each other the emphasis was on the common good of the area.

Building excitement At our final event, the Awards, we asked all the students and teachers who were involved in the game for their views. We were delighted to find that 100% of the students had enjoyed taking part and that none of them gave a negative review. Encouragingly, 77% of the students said they were also more likely to get involved in local issues in the future.

Among the students some of their favourite aspects of the game were: • Getting the opportunity to envision the perfect Croydon. Debates among pupils

• Talking about points and generating new ideas.

• Acting like the Government and making decisions, doing the press release.

• Do different things to earn stars. Making decisions and going to meetings

• Interacting with other schools and being more confident.

• Learning what Croydon council have to do.

• Making decisions about the questions and going to different events.

Teachers had a very different perspective on the game. During the inception period, they highlighted the importance of learning outcomes and how much they wanted teams to come together and meet each other at the events. We also understood the need to make the system as simple yet robust as possible. The feedback from teachers was equally positive- 100% of the teachers reported a positive experience. Overwhelmingly they reported that they were impressed with how enthusiastic the students were to be participating in the game and the feeling of ‘really making a

199 difference in the area. Teachers were also very keen on the events that were held and the concept of students having the opportunity to debate and talk to others who were participating. Team work, confidence, an awareness of local Government and debating skills were skills that they saw all of their students develop.

Building for the future We will work with Children, Young People and Learners and, specifically, the Youth Service to ensure that the interest that was been created is sustained and the young people involved are signposted on to other initiatives. Schools and colleges have shown genuine interest in replicating the exercise and this unique method of engagement is quickly becoming recognised across the country.

What were the outcomes? Tangible outcomes from the project are as follows: - The views of young people from across Croydon directly feeding into the development of the vision,

- A representative group of engaged young people from schools and colleges across the borough,

- A better understanding of how decisions are made locally, including the implications of these decisions and how they are prioritised,

- An understanding of the long term effect of decision making around issues such as education, crime and health,

- An awareness of the key demographic, financial and issue based challenges facing Croydon over the next 30 years,

- Strengthening of relations between local partners such as the Council and NHS Croydon, and schools and colleges.

What is the legacy? Both the Local Strategic Partnership and local schools and colleges feel strongly that this has a sustainable impact on both the young people who participated and the way in which young people contribute to decision making in Croydon. The key legacy of the project will be the way in which thousands of young people have been able to influence the new vision for Croydon; a vision which will shape the development of the borough over the next 30 years. The excitement built through the innovative way in which young people were able to get involved has helped to foster an optimism amongst many that long term positive change is a tangible proposition.

A large proportion of young people who participated in Croydon2040 will previously have not engaged in civic participation across the borough. These newly developed relationships will be taken on to enable young people to continue their involvement with the variety of projects aimed at children and young people across Croydon.

200 Advantages for young people • Fun process • Experience of decision making • Get a better sense of how the borough fits together • Meeting others from across the borough • Bringing practical politics to life • Gateway to other participation structures – easy way in

Advantages for local authority and partners • Better partnership working o Schools, colleges, youth groups, voluntary sector, council, pct, police, other partners, other prominent community organisations (football club etc) • 'Hook' for young people to get involved • Vehicle for consultation – natural framework with each theme (health, crime, culture etc addressed in turn) • Streamlines and regularises consultation – setting down a marker to partners 'all consultation goes through here' approach • Builds up an engaged pool of young people who can be signposted to other structures/initiatives (e.g. could prepare the pool of candidates for young mayor elections, Youth Opportunity Fund groups and Young Advisors – young people will get experience of different issues and will be able to discover their areas of interest) • High profile – we believe this is unprecedented in terms of the scope of the project and will receive significant local and national media coverage • Linkage with partners (respective roles): • LSP – overall control of the project • Council – lead agent and also providing 'experts' for the various themes (environment, culture etc) who will be available at public events and to answer on-line questions from young people • PCT, police etc – help formulate each theme, available at public events and for on-line questions, • Schools – facilitate involvement of students, incorporate issues into citizenship curriculum • Youth service – enter a team to forge bonds between various participation groups such as YOF, MYPs • Voluntary sector – host the discussion forums on talk2croydon (run by the equivalent of Knowsley CVS) website • Others – Crystal Palace FC participating as celebrity team to add buzz and excitement

In Croydon, this is being used for a long-term visioning process. However, it could be equally effective as an annual competition that gave young people experience of more short term decision making by the Council and its partners.

201 Social networking feedback

Facebook Comments

Juli Macarthur I find Croydon fascinating! I’m taking my last year of my BSc Archaeology Degree and in my second year I wrote my dissertation on an Anglo-Saxon site on Park Lane. What they did to that site was a travesty.

The site was of regional importance, as it was one of the earliest Anglo-Saxon sites, and they decided to try a new technique of preservation.....Cover it in cling-film and cement and put a car park over it.... *Anger rises*

I wonder if anyone else appreciates Croydon this way, how it came to be in the first place, not just how it is now and how we can make it better, but I love the places history, what is under our feet, who used to live here, how we have shaped its face over the years.

I went to the London SMR (Sites and Monuments Record) and made a copy of the whole of Croydon, from only the Anglo-Saxon Archaeology, Ill try and add it to the photos section. The whole of Croydon is littered with heritage that no-one seems to know about.

In the 1800's there were two lead coffins found, one in George Street opposite the Tram stop and one in Surrey Street to the left of the cobbled alleyway!

Has anyone else spent time in the Local Studies Library, finding out what they live on? Who ever thinks about this?

Christina Quinn It'll be good to see the East Croydon station area regenerated as that walk up to it is windy, desolate and depressing.

I live in South Croydon and honestly believe if the Swan & Sugarloaf got the 'Treehouse' treatment it would do wonders for the already improving area. It is such a beautiful building but not being used to its full potential. What a brilliant live music venue it would make with Scream Studios just down the road... It is such a well known pub as features on all the bus routes that go past but sadly attracts horrid, rough people and is such a waste!!!

Jemma Humphreys A leisure centre would be a good addition; the private health clubs are far too expensive.

Andrew David Land I think we need some vegetation around, and more white street lamps personally, can’t cost that much for just those small things

Michael Hall If East Croydon station is already running at capacity at peak times, how is it going to cope with more office buildings surrounding it…?

Billy Gunn Maybe they could actually consider building a skate plaza, instead of things like Wandle Skate Park.

Sam Fran A sports centre would be so great, one that offered a whole range of activities and has facilities for everyone from babies to OAP's. I’m pretty sure many people would take advantage as long as it was reasonably priced to use the facilities. I have to go to Bromley or Norbury to go gym, my little brother has to go all the way to Sutton to go gym as he’s only 10 and they have a specialised gym for under 16s, it would be great to have something like that in Croydon, also my son is a couple months away from being 4 and I find there aren’t any clubs I can put him in because he’s too young but I think he and other children his age would benefit from having sum kind of sport classes to go to.

Alison Page How about a gymnastics club? It could cater for all. From tumble tots... up to adult’s classes etc.... Some inner London clubs even run street jumping lessons and stunt lessons.

Solene De Jesus-cooper

202 We don't have a decent public pool or gym in Croydon we have to go to Norwood or Beckenham! You surely have your work cut out. Being a full time mum in Croydon I feel if you really want to make it in the 21st century the borough needs to invest more in children. I don't drive and they aren't any indoor soft play area in Croydon and I think it is a shame. You could also invest in a drop in centre like in IKEA where mums can drop their children with qualified carers while they go shopping, maybe in the Whitgift?

Liam Carlisle Two words: Bumper Cars. I've never seen someone not enjoy bumper cars. Bumper cars make people happy and happy people don't commit crimes. I suggest we erect free bumper car stations throughout the borough for the following reasons:

1) They are a harmless way for the frustrated youth to expel their destructive urges in a controlled, safe environment (perhaps with a belly full of pink candied floss).

2) Bumper cars reduce inner city crime - FACT.

3) Bumper cars are fun.

Chris Reed Croydon doesn't have a nightclub, everywhere shuts at 2 and everywhere plays the same commercial tripe that I could hear if I sat indoors listening to Jez Welham on Kiss.

All the clubs have crap sound systems, narcissistic door staff and are full of 18 year olds who watch too much big brother and read heat magazine.

The best thing Croydon could do is get the tube line finished so we can all get to central London without having to change at Victoria.

Hazel Watts I went to Blue Orchid once - I saw someone get bottled in the face. Then I left.

I could see however the potential of the building - can we learn from Kingston's Oceana?

I have trekked there and back on many a night.

Perhaps a reason for this is because of the kind of people who go there - University students and young professionals.

Do Croydon have these?

Well - Young professionals live in Croydon as they can afford the nice flats - yet commute to London and probably party there too.

As for a University - well there is Croydon college.....need I say more?

Sam Fran A lot of those uni students and young professionals you’re talking about are the same people that used to frequent blue orchid...I personally never went there but I know many people that did and lots of the people that go oceana are from Croydon anyway!!

This is why Croydon has such a bad name, your post makes Croydon and people that live in Croydon seem like waste. As if Kingston is that much better then Croydon, personally oceana is not my idea of a good night out, id much rather stay in Croydon and go to granaries but then that’s my taste in music, of course your quite welcome to your opinion but u really don’t need to put Croydon down like that.

'As for a University - well there is Croydon college.....need I say more?'

Croydon College may not b the greatest college around but it offers local people an education they wouldn’t get if it wasn’t there. Yes Croydon has its bad points but it’s not all bad...like most places.

Hazel Watts

203 I have been born and bred in Croydon and my family go back at least five generations, so please don't get me wrong - I am extremely proud of where I have come from, and if it wasn't for that strong family and State school schooling then I wouldn't be a successful young professional that I am today.

I get as irate as you do about people asking me where my accent comes from - and when I say Croydon - they sigh with a sympathetic smile. I always wonder why this is. Is it there a stigma attached to Croydon? Yes! And is it true? Unfortunately yes.

This is however why I fully support this regeneration as I don't want to see my home town get any worse.

I actually work for a The University of Reading and there was a college in Reading - Reading College. It was a little bit like Croydon College before - but now it is the 'Thames Valley University.'

This is not just a mere name change but an attitude change - most probably from the people associating with it I admit.

What do you reckon - Croydon College - 'Greater London University'?

Nicola Mcadam I love coming back to Croydon when I’m at uni, apart from the lack of night life! I’m tired of going to walkabout and the Goose. It’s a shame everything is closed down. Now I’m not an expert on surrounding nightlife but what’s wrong with getting a club like Liquid & Envy or Oceana to join our fair little town??

Travelling to Kingston and Sutton is a mission and I don’t particularly like the local people there! Building on Croydon’s night life will build Croydon’s reputation so much. For places like tiger tiger - why put a bloody 21 age limit! It’s not fair! Having a decent night life will not only encourage students to come to Croydon (if we establish a university) but will make the current away students like myself to come home more often!

Sam Fran Sorry maybe I took your post the wrong way, its just I know Croydon isn’t the greatest place to live but it’s certainly by far not the worst, like I said before everywhere has its bad points and its good points.

I think developing the college into a uni would b a great step, as long as it offers the same college courses it does now, there’s no point having a local uni without having college facilities for people to get the qualifications they need to go to the uni. although I don’t think a huge uni would be appropriate, maybe have a general range of courses available, I think a lot of planning needs to go into it before any steps are taken and the local people should be consulted, like a huge survey to find out if the majority would be interested in having a uni in the area and what courses they think would be most appropriate, of course its going be the generations growing up behind us that will benefit most from any changes so I guess it’s their opinion that matters most.

Hazel Watts I agree - and don't get me wrong - I don't think everyone is good for the degree courses. And I know load of people who have a degree but have few hands on skills (which is where my job comes in at the University to assist them)

More hands on apprentice roles and industry links need to be made - not that I know loads about what goes on in the College - I just think a little more prestige and pride needs to be taken - like all the aspects that come with the University - competing in sports events, making societies, working with local businesses. All of these are not necessarily to do with the lectures but to do with the pride of the area.

I would like the 'Croydon University' to be an option for my kids in the future basically - whether I live in Croydon or elsewhere.

Simon Penny I lived and loved Croydon until I was 18 when I poodled off to university and have never really come back. I now live in Plymouth and even though it has a reputation of being a rough navy city, I now work as door staff and its safe to say, even with job offers back home I would never come back to do it, for the main reason that there’s so many scumbags in Croydon that think that they are invincible and not bothered by the threat of arrest. Granted it is the same in every city but worse by far in Croydon. To improve Croydon’s nightlife, you would have to have a large nightclub, such as the blue orchid was, for the *ahem* 18-20 year olds and leave tiger tiger for the older generation... in answer to the person that said under 21 clubs are unfair, the reason is that generally people that have just turned 18 are more up for getting wrecked and not used to drinking in bars…working around a university I see kids away from home for the first time, not being able to handle their drink. Its a national trend of course and part of our culture not to allow kids to drink earlier at home etc, but that wont change…also I am a strong believer

204 that the later clubs/bars open, the less trouble there is, this is because people will tend to go out later, and will not be in such a rush to get smashed out their heads and can drink steadily, not rushing to get pissed before the next place closes their front doors. This has been shown well in Plymouth and other cities...any thoughts? Cheers!

Joanne Hutchinson Every thing closes early in Croydon, because Croydon people can't be trusted to behave like normal people. There are very few decent places in Croydon, but my idea of decent doesn't involve dodgy commercial house and r'n'b. Croydon gets a bad press because it deserves it.

Nicola Mcadam I totally agree with you that there are the idiots that think binge drinking and getting smashed before ten is acceptable, but there is a proportion of society where the age issue discriminates against them. As a student and a barmaid I have seen it all, and to be honest it's not just the 18-20year olds that go out and get wrecked.

As a 20year old I absolutely hate going to the chav filled, snakebite drinking drunken clubs (not mentioning names) and hate being labelled as one of them, I much prefer going somewhere like tiger tiger, where I can enjoy a drink but can't because I am not old enough!

I agree that there should be something that filters out that culture, but I don’t think an age limit is the answer because I have seen plenty of late 20, early 30 year olds behaving in a more disgusting way than the teenagers. To your point of the later closes, I totally 100% agree. In Portsmouth the latest closing place is 2am (much like Croydon) and by the time I’m heading out about 11pm, I’m dodging the sick and those crawling home!

Simon Penny yeah its true I agree with that...however its just a general way of segregating which works, 90% of the time, but you are right there is a good majority of people who aren’t wreck heads and are 20..however, it doesn’t mean that the license of the venue is over 21, its the choice of the management, so if you befriend the door staff and don’t act like a snakebite spewing student, you should be allowed to drink in there. That’s the way I run my doors anyway, if they have an age restriction.

I think it would, give people time to sober up and stops all the people being kicked out the same time into one street...it would help having staggered last entry times, and also staggered kicking out times. It’s a shame kudos was such a flop, because if people had to take a taxi out there.

Vince Millett David asked: Why isn't Croydon a place people want to spend their Friday and Saturday nights?

For me it's because Croydon is full of drunk, thick, people. The whole of Croydon nightlife is built around drinking culture. If I even manage to find an event that isn't built around uncontrolled drunkenness, I have to run the gauntlet of lagered-up drinkers to get there and home again. Easier to get on a train to a more civilised part of London, I wish there were more decent music venues (with decent PA systems that can handle bass) and I wish people in Croydon could go out, have a beer or two without turning into violent thugs but I don't think they have the self control. I don't know what can be done about it. It'll carry on until decent people are pissed off enough to make a fuss.

Joe Carter I think to be totally frank, the vast majority of folk that do go out in Croydon, are not actually from the area at all!! Having lived in Croydon for 98% of my life, I can see why locals are put off going to Croydon.....it's a "if you've done one, you've done them all kind of scenario" (club wise)

When I speak to someone from out of the area, more often than not they think Croydon has got the lot, shops, nightlife, restaurants etc and can't understand why I harbour such an intense dislike to the place....

On the whole violence front....it's not that bad really is it? Yeah you get the odd kick off....but considering the size of the population of residents (must be knocking on 400k odd now??!) The crime demographic isn't that bad really!!

205 MySpace Comments

Drawing Boards Seeing as Croydon is known world wide for its street skateboarding.... It is about time that the council put some money towards it..... It keeps young people out of trouble and gives them life long friends...... The skaters need to be involved in the design … Please do not hesitate to contact us......

~x jòÿfΰl x~ Hey I was wondering if you guys have ever heard of a place called Croydon Youth Theatre Organisation? It’s for young people aged 13-25 who are interested in performing arts. I’ve been a member for 5 years and I absolutely love it there!! I don’t know what I could of done if I hadn’t of gone there because I wouldn’t have had the experience, confidence and the brilliant friends I have now. If you have a passion for performing arts then get in touch with me, believe me it s worth while!!

Charles Please keep me updated of any developments I particularly wish to become actively involved in improving the nightlife in Croydon. The current run of homogenous chain bars, their awful playlists which have barely changed since the days of Wig & Pen and meat-head doormen / bar managers who think wearing a shirt and shoes means you'll cause less trouble than wearing a nice tee and trainers is both depressing and unappealing.

I would like to see Croydon realise that if they encouraged promotions which were about enjoying music and the other arts then ‘Gary’, ‘Barry’ and ‘Dave’ would either stop frequenting sweet mother Croydon or better still wake up from their comatose state, break from the repetitive cycle and go through 'enlightenment'...yes that would be good, here's to enlightenment for ‘Barry’.

Of course realisation is not enough, once we realise the predicament and ascertain a means to end it is imperative that we put plans into action. I'm up for action, who's with?

GoldieLocks We need a club that doesn't play 80s house remixes!!! We need a club that allows individual promoters!! We need a club that is willing to play the music that Croydon makes!!! We need a club where you don't have to wear 6 inch heels in order to get in!!!

CRO Manor I agree with GoldieLocks, Croydon lacks venues for independent/unsigned promoters and labels. That’s just a factor of how Croydon is losing its originality.

My site is Cro Manor; it's basically there for that reason (a part of it). Keep Underground Alive!!

206