Planning Report – August 2019

Applications

New
Awaiting Decision
Amended Drawings

Planning Complaints

Additional Matters

Land R/O The Shirley Inn Public House 158 Wickham Road Croydon: 19/03279/FUL
Erection of a residential development of two detached three storey buildings comprising a total of 6 flats (2×1 bed, 2×2 bed, 2×3 bed), provision of refuse and cycle storage, hard and soft landscaping and provision of two parking spaces.

The proposed development is outside the MORA area but in the Shirley North Ward. The application is in the Spring Park Residents’ Association (SPRA) Area, but we are in support in objecting to this development.

The proposed development fails to meet the objectives of London Plan Policy 3.4 – Optimising Housing Potential Table 3.2 in relation to an Excessive Residential Density of 459.77 hr/ha requiring a local PTAL of 5.031 when the local PTAL is actually only 3 and forecast to remain at PTAL 3 until 2031.

There is no allocated play space for children of the future occupants of this proposed development.

The development has inadequate parking provision in an Urban Shopping Locality of PTAL 3 of only two Parking Bays when the current London Plan Policy 6.13 requires up to 1.5 space at PTAL 3 and Residential Density of 459.77hr/ha & Housing Density of 114.94 units/ha which equates to 9 Parking Bays for 6 dwellings.

This proposed development also does not meet the Croydon Local Plan Policy DM10.1 in that development in the grounds of an existing building which is retained shall be subservient to that building. It also fails to meet the objectives of Policy DM10.9 a) & b) in that the proposed development does NOT respect or enhance the local character specifically the architecture of the host Shirley Inn and Public House.

We objected to this proposed development on grounds of direct overlooking into gardens and properties of Barmouth Road.

MORA Objection Sent: 2nd Aug 2019
Consultation Close: 11th Aug 2019
Target Decision: 6th Sep 2019
• Total Consulted: 45
• Objections: 26
• Supporting: 0

Further developments are in the September 2019 Planning Report.

37 Woodmere Avenue – Ref: 19/03064/FUL
Demolition of existing dwelling. Erection of two storey building (with roofspace accommodation) comprising 8 flats (1 x 3 bed, 5 x 2 bed and 2 x 1 bed) with associated car parking, amenity space and cycle and waste stores.

Flyer for download and distribution.

Suggested Reasons for refusal:

• Over Development Housing Density @ 91.43u/ha; should be between 40 to 65u/ha
• Over Development Residential Density @ 342.86hr/ha; should be between 150 to 200hr/ha
• Densities would require a PTAL of 5.91 for Residential Density and 4.71 for Housing Density when the locality has PTAL of 1a (numerically = 0.66)
• Inadequate Car Parking spaces 8 for the 26 occupants should be 12 spaces.
Over Development with regard massing and bulk as compared to existing surrounding properties.

MORA Objection Sent: 24th Jul 2019
Consultation Close: 4th Aug 2019
Target Decision: 5th Sep 2019
• Total Consulted: 13
• Objections: 18
• Supporting: 0

Further developments are in the September 2019 Planning Report.

36 Lorne Avenue – Ref: 19/02839/FUL
Alterations/part demolition of host dwelling. Erection of two bedroom bungalow at rear with associated refuse/cycle storage and provision of associated off-street parking (AMENDED DESCRIPTION).

On 6th August amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

We objected to this proposed development on grounds of causing undue “harm” to the local area’s character as defined by the NPPF The London Plan and The Croydon Local Plan.

The proposed amended plans DO NOT provide the required information to assess whether the proposal meets the accommodation standards as defined in Policy 3.5 Table 3.3. Minimum Space Standards for New Dwellings.

We also objected to this proposed development on grounds of non-compliance with London Plan Policy 3.5.

The proposed development is non-compliant to Policy DM10.1 a)Policy DM10.1 b), Policy DM10.1 c), and Policy DM10.6 b) and c).

We objected to this proposed development on grounds that there are no architectural or other screening to prevent overlooking into neighbouring dwellings as defined in SPD2 Section 2.9. We also objected to this proposed development on grounds of allocated Refuse and Recycling facilities  which is non-compliant to Waste and Recycling in Planning Policy Document at Para 2.4 External Storage – Design Features and Policy DM13.

We objected to this proposed development on the grounds that the built form does NOT meet the SPD2 Design Guide 2.17 with regard to the observation of the building boundaries with adjacent properties.

The access required by SPD2 is 3.6m and this access is only 3.1m

We objected to this development proposal on grounds that the parking provision is unsuitable and could be a significant problem during any emergency requiring medical or fire service personnel gaining access to occupants on the site. The access drive is too narrow at 3.1m and does not meet the requirement of SPD2 of 3.6m minimum width and therefore this proposed development should be refused.

MORA Objection Sent: 11th Aug 2019
Consultation Close: 19th Jul 2019 extended to 20th Aug 2019
Target Decision: 21st Aug 2019
• Total Consulted: 53
• Objections: 40
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (25th Jul 2019)

Further developments are in the September 2019 Planning Report.

14-16 Woodmere Close – Ref: 19/01484/FUL
Erection of 1 two storey dwelling located to rear of No’s 14 and 16 Woodmere Close New application in the rear gardens of 14 & 16 Woodmere Close adding to the new estate at the back gardens of Woodmere Close. This would be the last one in this series. It is likely to meet all planning policies as all previous applications for this site has met planning policies.

On 12th June amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

Consultation closes: 31st May 2019 extended to 2nd Aug 2019
Target Decision: 2nd Jul 2019
• Total Consulted: 28
• Objections: 7
• Supporting: 0

Further developments are in the September 2019 Planning Report.

17 Orchard Avenue – Ref: 19/00131/FUL
Demolition of existing detached house, erection of 2- storey building with further floor of accommodation in roof-space comprising 1 x 1 bedroom flat, 3 x 2-bedroom flats and 1 x 3 bedroom flat, formation of vehicular access and provision of 4 associated parking spaces and refuse storage.

We objected on the grounds that the proposal does not meet London Plan Policy 3.5 minimum space standards for new dwellings and is non-compliant to Policy DM10.4 Private Amenity Space.

SPD2 Para 2.29 requires Height of projection of neighbouring properties should be no greater than 45° as measured from the Centre of the closest habitable room on the rear of the neighbouring property. The projected 45° line is not clear of the proposed structure and thus fails the Policy SPD2 45° Rule.

We also objected to this proposal on the grounds that it does NOT meet the requirements of Policy DM13 or Council Guidance on Refuse & Recycling for New Developments.

The proposal is non-compliant to Policy: Shirley Place Homes para 11.200 & Character, Heritage and Design para 11.202, and the policy Shirley Place Transport para 11.205 has NOT been fulfilled.

On 31st July amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

Revised planning application involving demolition of existing detached house, erection of 3-storey building with further floor of accommodation in roofspace comprising 3 x 1 bedroom flat, 4 x 2-bedroom flats and 1 x 3 bedroom flat, formation of vehicular access and provision of 4 associated parking spaces and refuse storage.

The new plans have increased the height of the development by an additional storey.

MORA Objection sent: 3rd Apr 2019
MORA Objection (Amended Drawings) sent: 5th Aug 2019
Consultation closed: 10th Apr 2019 extended to 23rd Aug 2019
Target Decision: 5th May 2019
• Total Consulted: 42
• Objections: 8
• Supporting: 1
Councillor referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (16th Apr 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: TBC

Further developments are in the September 2019 Planning Report.

56 Woodmere Avenue – Ref: 19/01352/FUL
Demolition of a single-family dwelling and erection of a 3- storey block containing 2 x 3-bedroom, 6 x 2-bedroom and 1 x 1-bedroom apartments with associated access, 7 parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse store.


We objected on grounds of over-development and non-compliance to the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential due to excessive Residential Density and excessive Housing Density.

The proposed dwelling does not fully meet the required minimum space standards as required by the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.5, on grounds of inadequate parking provision and non-compliance to the London Plan Policy 6.13 and London Plan Policy 6.11.

We also objected on grounds of non-compliance to Croydon Plan Policy DM10.1 and Para 6.37, and that it does not meet the requirements of Policy DM13 or Council Guidance on Refuse & Recycling for New Developments as published by Croydon Council with regard to Refuse Storage Area Capacity. It is also non-compliant to Policy: Shirley Place Homes para 11.200 & Character, Heritage and Design para 11.202.

On 28th May amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

  • All Proposed Plans
  • Landscape Maintenance Plan Report
  • Planting Schedule Report
  • Tree Specifications Report
  • Soft Landscaping Plans
  • Hard Landscaping Plans

The main changes are the internal layouts to meet the London Plan Table 3.3 minimum space standards and the addition of two car parking spaces fronting Woodmere Ave.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.1 – Thursday 1st August.
Local Resident Richard Chambers spoke on behalf of affected residents.
Decision Deferred on the grounds of architectural design.

Paul Scott didn’t like the roof form – thought it was ugly so deferred to allow applicant to change to design of the roof and perhaps other aspects. Footprint likely to stay the same.

MORA Objection sent: 8th Apr 2019
MORA Objection (Amended Drawings) sent: 2nd Jun 2019
Consultation Closes: 18th Apr 2019 – Extended to 20th Jun 2019
Target Decision: 15th May 2019
• Total Consulted: 33
• Objections: 29
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (23rd Apr 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 1st Aug 2019
Decision Deferred: 1st Aug 2019

Further developments are in the September 2019 Planning Report.

Pegasus (18a) Fairhaven Avenue – Ref: 19/01761/FUL
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a 3-storey block, containing 2 x 3 bedroom, 6 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 1-bedroom apartments with associated access, 9 parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse store.

Although the proposed development presented is architecturally acceptable, the proposal fails on a number of design requirement Planning Policies which are unacceptable for future occupants for the life of the development.

We objected on grounds of over-development and non-compliance to the London Plan Policy 3.4. The proposed development does not fully meet the minimum space standards as required by the London Plan Policy 3.5. The width of the access drive is unacceptable and fails to meet the requirements of SPD2 guidance.

We also objected to this proposed development on grounds of inadequate parking provision and non-compliance to the London Plan Policy 6.13 and London Plan Policy 6.11. We objected to the proposed development on grounds that it does not meet the 45° Rule on height as measured from the adjacent dwelling ground floor window as required by the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Document SPD2. We objected to this proposed development on significant issues relating to Refuse Storage facilities on grounds that it does NOT fully meet the requirements of Policy DM13.1, DM13.2 on Refuse and Recycling or requirement of BS 5906:2005.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.8 – Thursday 20th June.
MORA Chairman Sony Nair spoke on behalf of MORA and Local Residents.
Councillor Sue Bennett spoke on behalf of Local Residents.
Voted 6 : 4 to Grant Permission

The Decision Note at Condition 13 States:
13 The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the Surface Water and SuDS Assessment.
Reason: To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into the development and to reduce the impact of flooding.

However, there is no mention of the Chaffinch Brook issues or advice from the Chaffinch Brook Flood Alleviation Study (FAS) or the suggested need to raised the development by a few bricks to overcome any surface water issues as the locality suffers 300mm to 900mm probability of surface water flooding. This proposed development will increase the volume of surface water and soil waste and sewage into local drains and thence into the Chaffinch Brook and in times of high precipitation could significantly increase the probability of higher surface water flooding due to the increased number of households.

MORA Objection sent: 8th May 2019
Consultation closes: 17th May 2019
Target Decision: 7th Jun 2019
• Total Consulted: 29
• Objections: 21
• Supporting: 0
Councillor Referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (23rd May 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 20th Jun 2019
Permission Granted: 20th Jun 2019

MORA Stage 1 Complaint (21st Jul 2019) Our complaint is threefold:
1. The failure of interpretation of the current adopted planning policies to ensure cumulative development proposals fully meet the requirements for the localities’ existing and planned public transport infrastructure.
2. The failure to fully consider the implications of ‘Access’ limitations which are noncompliant to SPD2 section 29 and the resulting local parking stress.
3. The lack of consideration of contribution to Flood Risk into the Chaffinch Brook or to obtain advice from the Chaffinch Brook “Flood Alleviation Study” (FAS) to verify whether the proposal would contribute to increased risk of local flooding and contribute to the Chaffinch Brook culvert and flood risk toward Bywood Avenue (Case Number: CAS-73997-G6H8D7).
Stage 1 Response (12th Aug 2019) from Pete Smith, Head of Development Management.
MORA Stage 2 Complaint (19th Aug 2019)

Further developments are in the September 2019 Planning Report.

32 Woodmere Avenue – Ref: 19/00783/FUL
Demolition of the existing property and the erection of a replacement detached two storey building with accommodation in the roof-space, comprising 7 self-contained flats (2 x 1 bedroom, 3 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom) with 5 off street car parking spaces, bike store, integrated refuse store and site access.

Although the proposed development presented is architecturally acceptable the proposal fails on a number of design requirement Planning Policies which results in an overdevelopment of the proposal for the locality and would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants. We therefore objected to this proposed development on grounds of over-development and non-compliant to the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential due to excessive Residential Density of 350hr/ha and excessive Housing Density 116.67 u/ha at a locality of PTAL 1a. without justification.

On 9th May amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

  • Amended Street Scene Elevations
  • Proposed Floor Plans
  • OS plans & Existing and proposed Block Plan
  • Existing and Proposed Elevations

The changes provide new internal arrangements to meet the London Plan Policy 3.5 Table 3.3 minimum space standards.

In addition, the Refuse Store has been moved nearer the front (previously where Unit 2 En-suite bathroom and Bedroom was located) and now has sliding doors so overcoming the non-compliance to Policy DM13 Refuse & Recycling, but Access passageway is still only 1.1m width (should be 2m).

Residential & Housing Densities remain excessive and the 45° Rule for adjacent property still remains.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.7 – Thursday 20th June.
MORA Chairman Sony Nair spoke on behalf of MORA and Local Residents.
Councillor Sue Bennet spoke on behalf of Local Residents.
Voted 6 : 4 to Grant Permission.
Conditions: TBC

MORA Objection sent: 14th Mar 2019
MORA Objection (Amended Drawings) sent: 28th May 2019
Consultation Close: 24th Mar 2019 – Extended to 30th May 2019
Target Decision: 16th Apr 2019
• Total Consulted: 42
• Objections: 25
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (29th Mar 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 20th Jun 2019
Permission Granted: 20th Jun 2019

MORA Stage 1 Complaint (4th Jul 2019) relevant Planning Policies were NOT adequately considered in the determination of this planning application (Case Number: 5039127).
Stage 1 Response (26th Jul 2019) from Pete Smith, Head of Development Management.
MORA Stage 2 Complaint (4th Aug 2019) Case Reference: CAS-79367-X3T0W3.

Further developments are in the September 2019 Planning Report.

Questions to The Mayor of London Sadiq Khan (16th May 2019)
I requested Steve O’Connell (GLA Member Croydon & Sutton) to raise the following questions to the London Mayor at the London Mayor’s Question Time (16th May).

Questions 2 to 7 have been answered (reproduced below) and I have raised supplementary questions on all answered questions and posed one additional question which have been tabled for the next Mayor’s Question Time on 20th June. These were lodged on 4th June.

Removal of density matrix in the new London Plan (1)
Question No: 2019/8973
As Policy D6 of your new draft London Plan does not give clear guidance what densities are acceptable and what densities are not acceptable, Policy D6 does not give any guidance on the actual appropriate densities of proposed developments in relation to the setting or the local PTAL (public transport accessibility level). The policy requires planning officers to assess local development proposals on subjective evaluation of local characteristics and devise their own evaluation criteria. Applicants would not have any guidance on the appropriate densities for a proposed development and therefore the Policy D6 does not reflect para 122 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Therefore, what will planning policy be on managing residential densities of future development proposals, to reflect public transport capacity, if the density matrix is removed from the London Plan?

Answered by The Mayor (17th May 2019)

The current London Plan states that the matrix should not be applied mechanistically, and it is a misconception that the current Plan provides clear guidance on suitable densities. It is a rudimentary tool and the density ranges are very wide. Fifteen years of evidence indicates that the density matrix has provided a poor benchmark or indicator of appropriate densities. Over that period, only 35 per cent of development has been within the density matrix range, whereas 50 per cent of development has exceeded the matrix range for its location and 25 per cent has been double the top end of the range.

Considering London’s housing need, optimising the density of all new development is a strategic matter for London. My draft London Plan explicitly recognises that the appropriate density of a site is an output of a process of assessment, rather than an input. The appropriate density of a site should be arrived at through a design-led approach, taking account of the site context and infrastructure capacity. Paragraph 122 of the NPPF (2019) requires planning policies and planning decisions to support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account a range of contextual factors. My draft London Plan is consistent with this requirement.

Supplementary to Question 2019/8973 for MQT 12th September 2019

Q1 – London Plan Density (1)
Further to your response to question 2019/8973, the first paragraph of your answer related to the current Policy 3.4 which includes a density matrix but did not answer the question on Policy D6 which requested why Policy D6 does not give guidance to applicants for the appropriate densities for development proposals at given localities and therefore does not meet the requirements of NPPF para 16 and 122.

16. Plans should:
d) contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals;

122. Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account:
c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use;
d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and

The second part of the first paragraph provided a history of planning officers’ failure to implement the provisions of the density matrix. This suggests that planning officers were ignoring the policy to meet housing targets, not that the Policy 3.4 was flawed. The result of officers ignoring the policy is the visible increase in local congestion due to over-development, overcrowding and inadequate public transport to support the approved high densities of which supporting evidence is available.

With the replacement Policy D6, if there is no defined relationship, or methodology, what way is there of preventing public transport under or over capacity or traffic congestion as residents in high density developments (localities) revert to cars due to unavailable public transport capacities?

Q2 – London Plan Density (2)
Further to your response to question 2019/8973, the second paragraph of your response states: “My draft London Plan explicitly recognises that the appropriate density of a site is an output of a process of assessment, rather than an input.”

Policy D6 at D States:
The following measurements of density should be provided for all planning applications that include new residential units:

1) number of units per hectare
2) number of habitable rooms per hectare
3) number or bedrooms per hectare
4) number of bedspaces per hectare.

Policy D6 does not define the process by which to analyse these parameters to define an acceptable Housing or Residential Density.

If the assessment of a proposal to define the appropriate density of a development site is an output of a process, how exactly should those input parameters, listed above at 1 through 4 of that process, be analysed and by what methodology to provide an output figure to define the appropriate density and what are the individual weighting factors?

Further developments are in the September 2019 Planning Report.

Letter to Sarah Jones MP – Shadow Housing Minister (4th Jun 2019)

To: Sarah Jones MP – Shadow Housing Minister

Dear Sarah
We have had a significant number of residential planning applications recently, none of which fully meet either the London Plan, the Croydon Local Plan Policies or the Supplementary Planning Guidance SPD2 Suburban Residential Developments guidance as detailed in our MORA Comment letters for each of these applications.

  • 20-22 The Glade (Shirley North) – approved – 11 Residents Objected
  • 9a Orchard Rise (Shirley North) – approved – 42 Residents Objected
  • The Sandrock Pub (Shirley South) – Awaiting Decision – 151 Residents Objected – (consultation closed)
  • 17 Orchard Avenue (Shirley North) – Awaiting Decision – 8 Residents Objected – (consultation closed)
  • 32 Woodmere Avenue (Shirley North) – Approved – 25 Residents Objected
  • 56 Woodmere Avenue (Shirley North) – Awaiting Decision – 28 Residents Objected – (consultation extended to 13 June ; amended plans)
  • Pegasus (18a Fairhaven Avenue) – Approved – 21 Residents Objected

This totals 286 local residential objections and counting, of your constituents who have expressed objections to recent development proposals and you have not given any indication whether you support your constituents, question the compliance of these proposals with the planning policies or approve any of these proposals.

We only object to proposals that are non-compliant to adopted planning policies but although we have copied all our very detailed comments letters, listing many non-compliant policies to you, you have not given any support to MORA or to your affected local constituents to request these non-compliant applications be either refused or to request that the developers reapply with proposals that fully meet the agreed planning policies. Monthly planning reports are available on our website.

We understand the need for more housing units but to have support of the affected communities and local residents, these new homes need to respect the planning policies to ensure acceptable accommodation standards for future occupants and that the dwellings meet the policies to respect local character in which they are destined. In addition, the proposals should reflect the available and forecast public transport infrastructure, local massing and densities.

We are adopting a policy of registering formal complaints against any approved proposal which are clearly non-compliant to the adopted planning policies or the process of approval is considered incongruous and we are listing these now on our website.

As shadow Housing Minister, we assumed you would have a view about these proposals not meeting the adopted planning Policies.

What is your view of the recent residential development proposals in the Shirley Wards and can you explain why you are not supporting the local residents and your constituents when the proposals do NOT fully meet the adopted Planning Policies?
Kind Regards
Derek

Derek Ritson I.Eng. M.I.E.T.
MORA Planning
Representing, supporting and working with the local residents for a better community

Response from Sarah Jones MP – Shadow Housing Minister (16th July 2019)

Dear Derek and the Monks Orchard Residents Association,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me, please accept my apologies in the delay in getting back to you.

I have been copied into a number of emails from yourself regarding planning issues and have noted all of them, and appreciate being copied in.

As you know, I want to make sure planning issues are non-political and I always adopt a bipartisan approach. Housing is an issue I feel passionately about, not only as your local MP, but as the shadow Housing Minister and someone who worked in housing for several years. Planning should not become a political football either at a local level or nationally.

I recently met with Dame Moira Gibb, who is reviewing the governance surround the planning processes for Croydon. I know a number of residents associations have taken the time to write to her. In our meeting I had the opportunity to share some of the views you have set out below. In addition, next week I will be welcoming the Labour Planning Commission to Croydon who will spend a day looking at planning issues as part of a policy review. I care passionately about making sure everyone has a home, and we face a major housing crisis, however policy and procedure should not be compromised.

There are significant limits to the power I have over small-scale developments as the local MP. I fully appreciate the concern you express about the need to preserve the quality of our neighbourhoods as highlighted in many of your objections. I am always ready to hear such points of view and act on them on a case by case basis where appropriate as I have done in other areas.

The whole of London, and indeed the whole of the country has been set challenging targets for housebuilding under the London Plan and the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As you know, the current Secretary of State, James Brokenshire, has said that he does not believe the Mayor’s of London’s targets go far enough. It is right that we have ambitious targets. The new NPPF will mean councils like Bromley will no longer be allowed to fail in achieving their housing targets set by the Government to house the next generation.

Whether you live in Croydon, Bromley or elsewhere, we need to build more homes. Of course, that must be done in a way which takes communities with us and gives them a say in how and where we build. But when the housing crisis in London is this acute we all have a responsibility. When 1,400 of Croydon’s children wake up in emergency bed & breakfast accommodation every day; when these children go to school not knowing if they will have a roof over their head that evening; when this is happening on our doorstep, we cannot simply ignore it and expect other areas to pick up the slack.

I am clear though that we do need proper and rigorous scrutiny. I can promise you that I will take every case brought to me on its merits. If necessary I will raise concerns with senior members of the council. I was very clear in the 2017 election that I would not support developments which alter the character of a local area.

I firmly believe that delivering on our housing targets and maintaining the character of our great local areas are not mutually exclusive. Both are vitally important. But for other politicians to politicise this and act like one must come at the expense of the other is both wrong and seriously disappointing.

320,000 people are now homeless in Britain. Homeownership among our young people is at record lows. Insecurity and unacceptable standards for private renters are rife. As Labour’s Shadow Housing Minister I am working hard on proposals to solve this crisis, to build 1 million affordable new homes and pressing for stronger action from the current government. But only with cooperation and understanding at a local level, with buy-in from across our community, will be really deliver change.

I hope we can work together to build a consensus on this absolutely crucial issue. As a fellow life-long Shirley resident, I want to see our area thrive, and its character protected.

With best wishes,

Sarah Jones MP

MORA Response to Sarah Jones MP – Shadow Housing Minister (17th July 2019)

Response from Sarah Jones MP – Shadow Housing Minister (6th August 2019)

Dear Derek,

Thank you for your further letter of the 17th July 2019. I am glad you agree with me that keeping planning a-political is very important.

Firstly I wanted to let you know that I write to the Council on behalf of constituents who have raised concerns, objections or support for applications. However as with many applications, my powers are limited I have made a decision not to go throught the route of lodging a comment, but writing directly to Director of Planning. With regards to my bounce back email, I wanted to let you know that due to the high volume of emails I receive, when I get cc’d into correspondence I treat this as for information and not something my team and I need to act on directly.

I agree that the Greater London Authority targets should reflect the available land more as you have said and not just transport.

Furthermore, the developments of any significant sizes should be follwed by an improvement in infrastructure. As a local resident myself I know too well the challenges that Shirley is facing with amenities. With that in mind, I have written to the Council to ask what Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has been spent in both Shirley North and South in the last 3 years.

In your letter you also mention stress on the 367 bus route, please be sure to note that I have written directly to TfL asking them to review this immediately.

Finally, I wanted to let you know I was unable to attend the meeting of the Labour Planning Commission as I had to be in Parliament, however I will be writing to them. Please let me know if there are any specific concerns you have that you feel would be useful to raise.

With best wishes

Sarah Jones MP

Further developments are in the September 2019 Planning Report.

DEREK RITSON
MORA Planning

< July 2019 Planning Report September 2019 Planning Report >