One of the advisers to Goldcrest, the developer of the Norbury Trading Estate, has informed the Residents Associations Planning & Transport Group about the latest position with the planning applications for the Estate.
‘Following a meeting with Cllr Ben-Hassel and subsequently with LB Croydon Planning and Place Making officers earlier this month, Goldcrest have looked again at the level of affordable housing and agreed to significantly increase the affordable housing offer on both of their planning applications for the regeneration of the Norbury Trading Estate, providing new workspace, community space and homes, together with high quality public realm:
The increased affordable housing offers are:
- For the 66-home application, an increase from 15% to 20% (13 shared ownership homes, compared to 10 previously)
- For the 73-home application, an increase from 16% to 30% (22 shared ownership homes, compared to 12 previously).
Therefore all of the uplift in the number of homes generated by the larger scheme would be affordable housing for Croydon.
These increases in the proposed affordable housing have been made despite the council’s own viability consultants agreeing that it is not viable to provide any affordable housing for either scheme, even at a reduced developer profit.
As requested by officers, Goldcrest have also provided some additional drawings (material palettes and 1:5 details) for both schemes, with a minor amendment made – adding a window to one of the building cores: these drawings are on the online planning file and the planning department reconsulted on these on 20th June.
I attach for information some updated CGIs illustrating how the proposed buildings will sit within the local context (and indeed, how little of the 73-home building would actually be 7 storeys) – please let me know if you would like copies of the Design & Access Statement addendums for both schemes.
We are hopeful for a decision on both applications at a planning committee meeting in August.
I know Cllr Ben-Hassel had some thoughts about keeping local people updated on the plans and we will liaise with her about possibilities for this. However we would point out that there have been no major changes made to the design of either application since submission, and of course both schemes are smaller than the maximum 9-storey scheme we presented at our public exhibition last year.’