If you like your landing clearences early, you should stay away from Gatwick
Been there done that years ago. It was almost the standard at rush hour. One land, one line up - roll- takeoff, one land ad infinitum. 150-200' landing clearance was normal, but advised. I thought ATC had made the calculation that 160/4 or 170/5, whatever is flavour of the month, was to allow max rate from single runways so that landing & takeoffs dovetailed perfectly. The odd slow one to get going caused a hiccup and a very late clearance was better than a GA.
What happened to the "one on, land after" clearance/experiment/procedure?
I too was taken by surprise on my first visit to JFK to be told "speed 180, No.5, cleared to land." I surmised that ATC were treating us like adult captains and were allowed to make the decision over the lights that we considered the runway suitable to land on. Given that ATC was like a rapper on acid there is no way you could make a call and no way did they have time to keep up with all the chess pieces converging on the 'king' and make last minute last minute (to them) spurious calls. Get them out of the way ASAP.
I wondered some times at UK ATC. They would call you to GA at 300' just because someone was slow to clear and by 100' they were cleared. Why can't the captains make that decision? What is the opinion about ATC calling GA's in VMC if the crew consider it unnecessary? They can't close an airfield for weather, unless the runway is out of use; they can't ban you from making an approach.