The current volume of planning applications and decisions in the PWRA area can make it challenging to keep up with what is being proposed for our area. Consequently the PWRA Planning Officer now prepares a summary of planning activity in our area so we can more easily track this, and determine the action we will take for new planning applications.
We believe that this will also be useful for members and publish it here so YOU can quickly see what we believe to be the most significant planning matters in the PWRA area, the actions we will be taking / have taken, and enable members to take their own actions (eg objecting or supporting new planning applications).
Please do read through this Planning Summary, and we strongly urge you to also take the actions that we at the PWRA will be taking (see Objection reasons in RED INK) in response to the new applications listed.
Who should you contact?
In addition to taking action through Croydon Council’s planning portal, or by writing to the Planning Officer responsible for an application, we also strongly urge you to send your responses directly to the members of the planning committee. They are listed below, together with their Council e-mail addresses:
- Councillor Chris Clark (Chair) – email@example.com
- Councillor Leila Ben-Hassel (Vice-Chair) – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Clive Fraser – email@example.com
- Councillor Lynne Hale – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Toni Letts – email@example.com
- Councillor Ian Parker – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Joy Prince – email@example.com
- Councillor Scott Roche – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Paul Scott – email@example.com
- Councillor Gareth Streeter – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Jamie Audsley (Reserve) – email@example.com
- Councillor Bernadette Khan (Reserve) – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Caragh Skipper (Reserve) – email@example.com
- Councillor Andrew Pelling (Reserve) – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Pat Clouder (Reserve) – email@example.com
- Councillor Humayun Kabir (Reserve) – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Michael Neal (Reserve) – email@example.com
- Councillor Badsha Quadir (Reserve) – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Helen Pollard (Reserve) – email@example.com
- Councillor Vidhi Mohan (Reserve) – firstname.lastname@example.org
Purley Planning Summary – 13th December 2021
Running Total of Additional Housing Units in the PWRA Area (from 2018):
Total: 3115 housing units
Approved: 1542 housing units
Pending: 736 housing units
Refused: 712 housing units
Withdrawn: 125 housing units
58 Highfield Road (Ref: 21/04231/FUL) Extension and sub-division of existing detached house to create 2 semi-detached houses.
I Christchurch Road (Ref: 21/02187/NMA) Comment: Proposed amendments to approved plans for 7 flats rejected as: ‘the drawings show a dilution in overall design quality which would materially affect the appearance of the development.’
86 Foxley Lane (Ref: 20/05698/FUL) Reconfiguration of existing 4 flat house conversion to add two additional flats. Comment: Reasons for refusal: i) The proposed reconfiguration results in the loss of a three bed dwelling resulting in a net loss of family housing; ii) The development would detract from the appearance of the building and would be detrimental to the character of the area by reason of the scale, design, unsympathetic roof form and poor quality facing materials; iii) The development would result in sub-standard accommodation by reason of inadequate floor space, internal floor layouts, light and outlook and poor quality private amenity space for future occupiers; iv) The development would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining flats by reason of its siting and design resulting in a loss of light and outlook; v) The proposed development by virtue of the constrained revised parking layout and an absence of any tracking information or sightlines, would result in highway safety issues; vi) The proposed development by virtue of the revised location for the storage of refuse and recycling storage for six flats would render it inaccessible to existing occupiers and contractors; vii) No SUDs data provided. The applicant is appealing this refusal.
2A Grasmere Road (Ref: 20/06481/FUL) Proposal for 7 flats dismissed at appeal. Comment: Planning Inspectors concluding comments: The proposal would have an adverse effect upon protected species (Bats), the highway system, and would not provide appropriate living conditions for the future occupiers of the development. The scheme would therefore conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework, that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the preceding reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed, and planning permission refused.’
3 Monahan Avenue (Ref: 21/06481/FUL) Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a 2 storey dwelling plus lower ground floor. Comment: Reasons for refusal: i) Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed height and design of the replacement dwelling would not have a detrimental impact on the street scene; ii) 2 The proposed garage would have a detrimental impact on the street scene and highway safety; iii) Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties; iv) Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that fire risk has been adequately mitigated; v) Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would adequately mitigate flood risk from the site
14 Oakwood Avenue (Ref: 20/01625/FUL) Demolition of existing family home construction of a 4 storey building comprising 18 flats above basement car parking. Comment: Reasons for refusal: i) The proposed development by reason of its excessive height, scale and mass would represent an overdevelopment of the site which would not respond appropriately to the character of the area and would have a harmful impact on the street-scene; ii) The proposed development by reason of its excessive height, scale and mass would be overbearing to neighbouring to neighbouring properties; iii) The proposed development by reason of its excessive footprint would not provide a suitably high quality of accommodation for future occupiers; the stepped access to the play space is not accessible or inclusive; and a Fire Statement has not been submitted to demonstrate that fire risk has been adequately mitigated
32 Plough Lane (Ref: 21/03680/FUL) Construction of 3 x 4 bed houses to the rear of existing property. Comment: Reasons for refusal: i) Out of character with the visual amenity of the street scene and character of the area; ii) Poor level of accommodation with poor internal layout and poor outlook for future occupiers; iii) The development would result in the loss of a preserved tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order which contributes to the visual amenity of the street scene and the verdant character of the area; iv) In-adequate car parking; v) inadequate facilities for cycle; vi) unsatisfactory facilities for refuse; vii) safety of all buildings users in relation to fire
88 Riddlesdown Road (Ref: 19/04371/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 21 flats. Comment: This has been rejected at appeal. The main reason for the appeal rejection is not design or overdevelopment but the lack of affordable housing proposed for the size of development, and the lack of certainty provided by the developer for the provision of this.
13a Russell Hill (Ref: 21/02420/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 9 flats (2 x 3 bed, 5 x 2 bed, 2 x 1 bed). Comment: Reasons for refusal: i) Unacceptable form of development that would appear incongruous to form, proportion and appearance of the site, relationship with the adjacent buildings, visual amenities of the street scene and general character and appearance of the area; ii) Steep access gradient, poor pedestrian and vehicle visibility splays, lack of level access throughout the site and failure to mitigate increased demand on sustainable travel would result in a detrimental impact to the highway safety and pedestrian/occupier conditions of the area. iii) convoluted and poor layout, single aspect north facing units, poor private amenity spaces resulting in poor quality living accommodation for future occupiers; iv) Unsuitably designed residential cycle storage.
Significant New Applications
22 The Bridle Road (Land Adjacent) (Ref: 21/05571/FUL) Demolition of existing garage and side addition, and erection of a two storey 3 bedroom house. Comment: Whilst this is an application for a house, the design is entirely out of character with the surrounding area. Object based on: Overdevelopment; Out of character.
50 Brighton Road (Ref: 21/05912/FUL) Change of use from Guest House to 9-bedroom HMO. Comment: An application for what amounted to 10 self-contained ‘studio’ flats was rejected earlier in the year (for amongst other things sub-standard accommodation). This is a revised application for a 9 bed HMO. Propose a neutral stance.
33 Foxley Lane (Ref: 21/05690/FUL) Division of existing site and construction of 4 flats (2 x 3 bed, 2 x 2 bed) with 3 car parking spaces adjacent to existing house. Comment: Object based on: Overdevelopment, Out of character, Detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, inadequate car parking.
123 Foxley Lane (Ref: 21/05522/FUL) Demolition of existing family home building and construction of a 3 storey building of 9 flats (3 x 3 bed, 5 x 2 bed, 1 x 1 bed) with 10 car parking spaces. Comment: There have been a number of planning applications on this site, most recently in 2020 a refusal for 9 flats. Object based on: Loss of a family home, Overdevelopment, Out of character, Detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
41 Woodcrest Road (21/05743/OUT) Demolition of existing family home building and construction of a 3-4 storey building of 8 flats (2 x 3 bed, 4 x 2 bed, 2 x 1 bed) and a 3 bed house in the back garden, with 6 (basement level) car parking spaces. Comment: This is the fourth application for this property (2 full applications and 2 outline applications) as, presumably, the applicant tries to ‘game’ the planning system to get around the 3 refusal rule. The last application was refused as that proposal was considered overbearing and detrimental to the street-scene and the overall character of the area. This application appears much the same, with the addition of a house in the back garden, basement level flats and car parking. Object based on: Loss of a family home, Overdevelopment, Out of character, Detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, Inadequate car parking / highway safety.