On 4 May Croydon Citizen published my discussion
article Do Croydon’s children and young people have enough
space at home?
It
was published by I was waiting for a reply to a Freedom of Information request
to the Council on the knowledge of Council officers about the issues.
Here
are the questions I asked and the answers.
(1) Have the planning
and other relevant officers looked at research such as that undertaken by the
Council for Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat in Australia, the Berkeley Homes
study of their South Quay Plaza proposals, or the paper The Consequences of
Living in High-Rise Buildings by Robert Gifford of the Department of Psychology
and School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, British
Columbia in Canada?
We
are not aware that officers have not read the specific studies and research
that you have referred to but it is possible that some officers may have done
so as part of their professional studies or CPD (Continuing Professional
Development) activities
(2) What analysis has
the Council undertaken into the detrimental effects not just on families but
also of the psychological issues among residents and the mechanical failures of
lifts which can trap residents in tall building structures, or in the case of
the elderly and physically disabled prevent them getting up to their homes?
Policies
in the Local Plan were subject to a Health Impact Assessment and
recommendations from that process were integrated in to the Submission Local
Plan. The policies in the plan were also subject to formal consultation and an
Examination in Public process and were found sound by an independent Planning
Inspector. Scheme proposals that include tall buildings are generally subject to
thorough pre-application processes, some including independent review by
Croydon's Place Review Panel, and subsequent planning applications are subject
to public consultation. Schemes including tall buildings are required to accord
with adopted national, regional and local planning policy and all other
relevant adopted policy and guidance related to tall buildings. Issues such as
those described in your email are considered by applicants and officers as part
of the design process to ensure high quality design
(3) Where is the
Council’s evidence that particularly for families with children and young
people and the elderly living in tall buildings meets the criteria for living
in a healthy community?
Please
refer to the answer to question 2) above. In addition, a Housing Typologies
Study for Croydon Metropolitan Centre, which formed evidence base for the
Croydon OAPF and the Local Plan, identified that those areas most appropriate
for schemes including tall buildings would not be required to include the same
proportion of family homes, acknowledging that it is more challenging to
include family homes within tower typologies. The study sets out a range of
typologies that could be used in Croydon to optimise family housing provision
and indicates that lower rise and mid-rise typologies are more suited to higher
proportions of family accommodation
(4) Does the evidence
show any difference in family experience between living in blocks up to 10, 20,
30 & 30+ storeys?
We
do not have specific evidence regarding family experience at different building
heights however appropriateness of different unit types, their design and
location within schemes is thoroughly considered as part of pre-apps and
planning application process. We would also refer you again to the Housing
Typologies Study.
Tall
building typologies are not the only development typology being used to deliver
new homes in Croydon but where appropriately located and well designed, are
expected to form an important part of the overall pattern of growth and
development required to meet Croydon's housing need. The provision of high
quality family housing is a key priority for the Council and schemes that
travel through the planning process are assessed thoroughly by officers in
terms of optimising family housing and ensuring that these types are well
designed and appropriately located as part of overall scheme design.
In
addition to being required to conform with policies set out in the NPPF, London
Plan, Local Plan and associated local and national planning guidance, schemes
including tall buildings routinely undergo thorough pre-application processes,
independent design review and public consultation. Schemes including tall
buildings are also required to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations.
The full letter can be seen at
Evidence to
the Local Plan Public Hearings
If
the officers have not looked at the reports mentioned then it looks like
another example of ignoring the evidence submitted during the Local Plan public
hearings with the Inspector. In my submission to the Inspector at the session
of Tall Buildings I stated:
‘By
the mid 1970s it had become clear that living in Council tower blocks was
detrimental to families. Wandsworth Council brought in for a short while a policy
that no family should be housed above the fourth floor.
There
may be a case for having a policy that requires applicants to place 3 bed plus
flats only the ground to four floors, and smaller units above. While a two bed
may be still be occupied by a family with one child it should be a planning
requirement that no sale or renting of a two bed should be to a family with
more than one child. If housing is now supposed to be flexible for life, then a
family with two children needs to have three bedrooms because at a certain age
boys and girls should stop sharing bedrooms. Obviously where a family who has
been sold to or is rented to has another child the problem of the need for an
extra bedroom becomes difficult.
Of
course it can be argued that those couples and parents who purchase a flat have
taken on the risk of finding they do not have enough space as they have their
first or subsequent child. This is not the case with occupants of affordable
housing in tall buildings whose choice may well be prescribed by allocation
policies.’
‘If
a key aim is ensure a balanced community in the Opportunity Area then the needs
of families with children need to be very carefully planned for and measures
included in the plan to seek to prevent overcrowding and the sharing of
bedrooms by children of the opposite sex after they reach the age where they
should have separate bedrooms. Flats also need to be large enough to ensure
that children at school have a quirt space to do their homework, especially
those at secondary school.
The
Policy Exchange’s 2013 report Create
Streets argues that:
·
demolishing council tower blocks and moving residents to low-rise flats
and streets of terrace houses could dramatically improve the quality of life of
thousands of Londoners.
·
multi-storey housing costs far more to
build and maintain so moving families elsewhere would save money in the
long-term.
In
preparing the Plan did the officers look at research such as that undertaken by
the Council for Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat in Australia:
or
the Berkeley Homes study of their South Quay Plaza proposals:
or
the paper The Consequences of Living in
High-Rise Buildings by Robert Gifford of the Department of Psychology and
School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, British
Columbia in Canada.
The
latter’s abstract states: ‘A full account of architectural science must include
empirical findings about the social and psychological influences that buildings
have on their occupants. Tall residential buildings can have a myriad of such
effects. This review summarizes the results of research on the influences of
high-rise buildings on residents’ experiences of the building, satisfaction,
preferences, social behavior, crime and fear of crime, children, mental health
and suicide. Most conclusions are tempered by moderating factors, including
residential socioeconomic status, neighborhood quality, parenting, gender,
stage of life, indoor density, and the ability to choose a housing form.
However, moderators aside, the literature suggests that high-rises are less
satisfactory than other housing forms for most people, that they are not
optimal for children, that social relations are more impersonal and helping
behavior is less than in other housing forms, that crime and fear of crime are
greater, and that they may independently account for some suicides.’’
My
final point was to ask what analysis the Council had undertaken of the
detrimental effects not just on families but also of the psychological issues among residents and the mechanical
failures of lifts which can trap residents in tall building structures, or in
the case of the elderly and physically disabled prevent them getting up to
their homes? If the Council cannot provide any evidence then it will be unable
to prove how its policy of allowing family size homes in tall buildings will
fit with promoting health and well-being.’