Croydon can build the homes it needs without sacrificing its Green Belt. That was the clear message I took to the London Assembly Housing Committee this week.
On Wednesday, I gave evidence to Assembly Members as part of their examination of the draft London Plan and what its proposals would mean for housing delivery across the capital.
Croydon has a proud record of building new homes. We are currently delivering at 105% of our existing housing target and remain committed to providing the homes our residents need.
I am not opposed to development. London needs more homes, including genuinely affordable homes and larger properties in which families can put down roots. The argument is about building the right homes in the right places.
That is why I challenged the proposal to allocate around 5,600 homes to Croydon’s Green Belt.
Croydon does not need to sacrifice its Green Belt
The overall increase in Croydon’s housing target is relatively modest, yet the draft plan proposes a fundamental change in where those homes should be built.
Under the previous London Plan, Croydon was expected to deliver around 12,000 homes on large sites. That figure has now been reduced to approximately 6,800, whilst 5,600 homes have appeared in the Green Belt allocation.
I cannot see a sound justification for that shift.
Croydon’s own assessment shows that the borough can meet its housing target using brownfield land, stalled sites and existing development opportunities. We have delivered homes on both large and small sites for many years, without building on the Green Belt, and we can continue to do so.
The Green Belt prevents urban sprawl, protects biodiversity and preserves the character of the places around it. Once that land is lost, it cannot be recovered.
Protecting town centre regeneration
Opening up the Green Belt could also undermine the regeneration of central Croydon and our district centres.
Faced with a choice between a complex brownfield site and apparently easier greenfield land, developers may naturally be drawn towards the latter. That risks diverting investment away from the existing sites where new development can breathe life into our town centres, support local businesses and make better use of established transport links and services.
Building on green space is not a quick answer to the challenges facing the housing market. We need to tackle the reasons why viable brownfield developments are being delayed or stalled.
Infrastructure must come first
I also challenged the assumption that the proposed Green Belt locations are already well connected simply because they are near tram stops.
Outside central Croydon, many tram stops operate more like bus stops than major transport hubs. Some of the areas being considered lack the shops, schools, health services, roads and utilities needed to support thousands of additional residents.
New homes cannot come first with the hope that infrastructure will follow at some point later. That approach risks creating isolated, car-dependent communities and placing further pressure on existing services.
The draft plan itself recognises the considerable cost of providing new infrastructure on Green Belt sites, including by allowing affordable housing expectations to be reduced to help pay for it. That raises an obvious question: why sacrifice green space and affordable homes when brownfield opportunities already exist?
My position is clear: infrastructure first, then development.
Making existing sites viable
There are wider barriers to housing delivery that must also be addressed.
Developers are struggling with the private sales market and are understandably cautious about building homes they do not believe they can sell. New regulatory requirements, including Gateway One, are causing lengthy delays and adding costs before projects can move forward.
We need greater flexibility in the use of affordable housing grants, alongside national action to make it easier for people to get onto the housing ladder. Issues such as stamp duty, taxation and the availability of finance all affect whether developments are commercially viable.
City Hall must also work with boroughs much earlier when setting housing targets. Last-minute figures make it harder for councils to plan properly and create avoidable disagreements over the evidence. A genuine and continuing dialogue would lead to a stronger and more deliverable London Plan.
Building the homes Croydon needs
The quality and mix of housing matter as much as the headline number.
Croydon has particular demand for larger family homes, especially properties with three or more bedrooms. Whilst larger two-bedroom homes can sometimes meet family needs, our priority must be to secure more three, four and five-bedroom properties as part of a balanced housing offer.
I will continue to make Croydon’s case throughout the consultation on the draft London Plan.
We want to build more homes and regenerate our borough. Our record shows that we can deliver. But the answer is to unlock brownfield land, revive stalled developments, invest in infrastructure and provide the family homes our residents need.
Croydon’s Green Belt is not an easy alternative. It is valuable, irreplaceable and must remain protected.
