Letter to the Editor: Loss of Croydon's green space is unjustified

JUSTIFY ? !!!!!

The revised Mid-Croydon Masterplan adopted 9th June 2012  stated that the replacement buildings would now be on the EXISTING FOOTPRINT  of Taberner House -  a block of up to 6 storeys, and slender tower up to 20 storeys on south-east corner, and a slender tower of 12 to 14  storeys on the south-west corner, adjacent to the new council offices. (P.68)
Still 282 residences, and still comments as per Consultation Log response 415 above.

A year has passed since then, but it now appears that designers, architects, and property consultants and CCURV etc. have spent a great deal of time - and a GREAT DEAL OF MONEY  planning building on the public open grassland - DESPITE THE OPPOSITION  - and with no further 'people' input or consultation - or even information !
According to the Advertiser (May 10th), the tower would now be 30 storeys high, and the other blocks 6 or 8 storeys, and would provide 440 homes.    [The 12 to 14 storey building opposite the Hub seems to have disappeared !!]
Ten trees in the ADJOINING QUEEN'S GARDENS WOULD BE LOST AS THE NEW BUILDINGS ENCROACH FURTHER INTO THE PRESENT OPEN SPACE !

This suggests that the Council/CCUVR and developers etc  have COMPLETELY IGNORED  RESIDENTS' VIEWS AND WISHES expressed in the Public Consultation,  and allowed proposed development to take over valuable public  land  that has given so much pleasure to Croydon people to rest and relax in.

And prompts the following questions:.

1.   How much OPEN GREEN PUBLIC land is NOW planned to be taken over by buildings?   Up to the fountain, as on the Draft - or how far ?
2.   If  the taking over of ANY land in addition to the existing footprint is done, have the criteria listed on P 69 on the Masterplan been met ?   Such comments as 'improvements' to the local area are NOT ACCEPTABLE as justification !
3.   WHAT EXACTLY ARE  the  'improvements' to the Gardens and surrounding area planned,  SAID to 'justify' any loss of open land ?
4.   Have the public, whose land is being removed, been consulted on whether THEY  consider the improvements 'justification' - or whether they are 'improvements' at all ?      They are, after all, listed as Stakeholders. together with the Council and CCURV.
  
5.   What happened to the PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS PROMISED in Consultation Response Logs  432, 433 and 437 [below] ?

432 - 'Detailed proposals for the Gardens will be subject to full public consultation where members of the general public will be asked for their views on what is appropriate in the redevelopment of Queen's Gardens.'
433 -  'Detailed designs for the Gardens are yet to be completed but will be subject to future public consultation and involvement.'
437 -  'As .. designs become more developed there will be the opportunity for members of the public to have their say as part of a public consultation exercise.'

6.    Do the Council really believe that a courtyard in the middle of high rise flats is a substitute for the loss of half of the ONLY GREEN OPEN space in Central Croydon to rest and relax on  -  and that the peace and tranquillity of the sunken gardens should be destroyed by a café, when others are nearby ?
 
7.   'The pre-planning application process enables applicants to present proposals to members at strategic planning committee in advance of formal submission.'   '.. public consultation is a part of the pre-planning application process'
Why then have the public been excluded from this stage ?
   
At the Strategic Planning Committee meeting, the Committee received a presentation from MAKE Architects, GLHearn (Planning Consultants) and Laings (CCURV) representatives, and the Committee raised issues for 'further consideration prior to a submission of a PLANNING APPLICATION' !
'Members were concerned about the loss of trees in Queen's Gardens',  BUT NOT apparently by the loss of   PUBLIC GREEN OPEN LAND !!!
Members should also be  more than merely CONCERNED that only  10% [or less] 3 bedroom homes are planned - not only is this HALF the quantity laid down by the central Croydon Opportunity Area, but  it is small  three bedroom homes that are desperately needed, as two bedroom and less are being, and have been, built or converted everywhere !

8.   How much Croydon's taxpayers' money has now been spent IN THE LAST YEAR,  since the adoption of the Masterplan, on designing NEW plans for the Taberner House site that totally contradict their wishes ?
9.   If there is a massive surge of public opposition to plans to take over the grassland, (when the public DO know the plans),  what happens then - will the public again be ignored, and lose MORE of their heritage -  or will the last year's cost of the above people and their staff and work done be a complete waste of money ?

10.   How much taxpayers' money has been paid to designers to 'improve' [NOT my word !]  Queen's Gardens.  The Council even described them as 'well-loved'  in the Masterplan, so why in these cash-strapped days are they spending our money on plans to alter them ?
Response 421 states '.. this is a historic park and garden so there will therefore be constraints to change.'
11.   What are these 'constraints' - and are the Council ignoring these too ?

12.   How could ANYBODY suggest an amphitheatre in the sunken gardens ?  This is the OPPOSITE of 'respecting its character and historic features' !    It is a conservation area described in the Masterplan as 'The northern Victorian sunken garden is particularly attractive and valuable.'

No wonder the Council is in such a financial mess when designers/consultants are being paid so much money to come up with such fanciful ideas.

And all this does not agree with your comment in the Croham 'In Touch' Winter 2011, in which you say 'Rest assured that, here in Croydon, we take the preservation of the character of our local area very seriously and are especially committed to the PRESERVATION of our Green Belt and OTHER OPEN SPACES.'        Preservation ?
And Cllr. Steve O'Connell in a letter to the Croydon Guardian September 14, 2011, '... give even more encouragement to builders to concrete over our green spaces worries me immensely.'  ' ...our countryside and green spaces are again under threat.  I hope my concerns are unfounded and that true vision and sense of responsibility prevail.'

13.   Regarding expense - how much are Croydon taxpayers paying in rent etc for URV offices, staff etc ?
14.   Will Croydon go bankrupt when they have to pay rent to Laings (CCURV) when the Council move in to the new hub ?

15.    Regarding Homefield House -  who is paying for expensive consultants and brochures - (or will the cost be deducted from the 'profit' these URV schemes are supposed to produce) - and  who decided the land should be used for large houses ?
16.   How many other chunks of Council (Public) land have been given (or are planned to be given)  to Laings as part of the URV system, and decisions made without the public even knowing about the removal of  land and assets, which may be considered 'surplus' now, but could be needed in the future for other purposes - and where are they ?

Government cuts have resulted in a considerable number of lost jobs, cut services to vulnerable and disadvantaged people,  putting jobs out to the private sector at CONSIDERABLE COST to residents not only financially but physically or mentally as well !
But Croydon Councillors continue to spend millions of pounds  on expensive consultants/designers and 'visions' without even any consultation with TAXPAYERS who will suffer the financial consequences.  Transparency ? 

Valerie Hunter

• Send your letters to: letters@croydonguardian.co.uk.