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
Running Total of Additional Housing Units in the PWRA Area (from 2018):
Total: 2944 housing units
Approved: 1504 housing units
Pending: 716 housing units
Refused: 600 housing units
Withdrawn: 124 housing units
725 Brighton Road (Capella Court) (Ref: 21/02964/NMA) Application to change the front floor traffic circulation route. My partner tells me not to amazon ivermectin for humans Fernley take anything for mites but i do not want to risk getting them again and again. The dosage of https://butlerstewart.co.uk/87206-stromectol-vente-libre-canada-82090/ neurontin in this medicine is 400 mg once a day. Because of its high efficacy, favorable safety profile, ivomec for feral cats Souran and ease of treatment, ivemectin is an. Buy generic levitra online toploftily gabapentin 300 mg para que es uk is an easy to use website. It takes a little more work to find ivermectin name in india Cutler Ridge the right doctor in your area. Comment: We had raised concerns about this from a highway perspective, given the large volume of traffic in this area (eg vehicles heading for the adjacent recycling centre).
19A Box Ridge Avenue (Ref: 20/05869/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of a 5 1/2 storey (including lower ground) building comprising 31 bedroom care home. Comment: A pretty comprehensive refusal – Reasons for refusal: The proposal would not provide care for an identified need within Croydon; Visually intrusive and detrimental to the street scene; Overbearing impact on neighbouring properties; Not adequately considered accessibility arrangements within the site nor factored in the steep topography; Failure to demonstrate how it would ensure the safety of all buildings users in relation to fire; Lack of justification for the number of on-site car parking spaces for staff and visitors and the inadequate assessment of cumulative parking impacts on the street and the servicing requirements of the site, as well as lack of information regarding vehicle manoeuvring and sightlines; Insufficient information has been provided regarding proposed tree removals, tree pruning and mitigation measures; Insufficient information to demonstrate that the development would not result in unacceptable harm to protected species and habitats; Insufficient information to demonstrate that the development would not result in an increase in flood risk in the vicinity
19A Box Ridge Avenue (Ref: 20/05870/FUL) Demolition of the existing family home and construction of a 4 1/2 storey building (including a lower ground floor) with 9 flats (6 x 1 bed, 2 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed). Comment: Another pretty comprehensive refusal – Reasons for refusal: Insufficient 3 bedroomed flats; Visually intrusive and detrimental to the street scene; Generic, poor quality design out of character with the general character and appearance of the area; Overlooking; Sub-standard quality of accommodation with undersized units; Failure to demonstrate fire safety; Not adequately considered accessibility around the site nor factored in the steep topography, which would not provide a suitably accessible or inclusive environment; Poor quality landscaping and communal amenity space, and absence of play space; No assessment of cumulative car parking stress nor provided information regarding vehicle manoeuvring and sightlines; Cycle storage would not comply with the London Plan (2021) or policy DM30 of the Local Plan (2018); Refuse storage would not comply with policy DM13 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018); Insufficient information regarding proposed tree removals, tree pruning and mitigation measures; Insufficient information to demonstrate that the development would not result in unacceptable harm to protected species and habitats; Insufficient information to demonstrate that the development would not result in an increase in flood risk in the vicinity and no sustainable drainage details have been provided, 50 Brighton Road (Ref: 21/02904/FUL)
50 Brighton Road (Ref: 21/02904/FUL) Change of use from guest house to HMO. Comment: Reasons for refusal: Not providing 30% 3 bed units; substandard size of the units, and lack of private amenity space, would result in a poor quality of accommodation for the future occupiers; highway concerns, esp failure to show that cars could exit the property in forward gear (as this is the Brighton Road).
725 Brighton Road (Capella Court) (Ref: 21/02946/CONR) Application to remove the use class restriction (for medical use) on the fifth floor. Comment: Reasons for refusal; The changes would result in a development that is fundamentally different to that consented; Failure to demonstrate that the proposal would not unacceptably impact upon neighbouring amenity, in particular from noise and disturbance; Failure to demonstrate that the proposal would not unacceptably impact the local highway network
4 Higher Drive (Ref: 21/03057/FUL) Proposal for 8 flats (4 x 1 bed, 1 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) with 4 car parking spaces. Comment: Reasons for refusal: visually dominating and harmful to the character of the locality and detrimental to the visual amenity of the surrounding townscape; substandard accommodation for the occupiers; the proposed car parking would create a hazard to vehicular traffic, pedestrians, cyclists using the highway by reason of unsafe access and inadequate visibility splays; it has not been demonstrated that adequate provision is made for car parking within the site and that the proposal would not exacerbate parking issues in the surrounding area; the development would not provide adequate refuse or cycle provision; Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the development would not result in unacceptable harm to protected species or habitats; the development fails to demonstrate how it would ensure the safety of all building users in relation to fire. PWRA had objected.
Significant New Applications
17 Briar Hill (Ref: 21/04129/FUL) Demolition of existing property and construction of a new house on the same site. Comment: PWRA will be guided by the Webb Estate on this proposal.
2 Hillcroft Avenue (Ref: 21/03638/FUL) Division of the existing site in two and construction of a 4 bed house in the created site. Comment: Adopt a neutral stance.
48 Brighton Road (Ref: 21/03354/FUL) Conversion of existing house into 4 flats (3 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed), with 4 car parking spaces. Comment: Adopt a neutral stance.
172 Foxley Lane (Ref: 21/03573/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 9 flats (5 x 1 bed, 1 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) with 9 car parking spaces. Comment: This is the second application for this site. The previous was refused. Object based on: Loss of a family home; Overdevelopment; Out of keeping; Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties; Inadequate car parking.
32 Plough Lane (Ref: 21/03680/FUL) Construction of 3 x 4 bed houses in the garden of existing property. Comment: This is the second application to develop houses in the garden area. The first application for 3 houses had them spaced out around the garden area, and was withdrawn. This application concentrates the houses in a terrace to the rear of the current garden. Given that 32 Plough Lane is already divided into three dwellings this is overdevelopment of the site. Object based on Overdevelopment; Out of keeping; Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties; Highway concerns – Inadequate car parking (5 spaces) and increased traffic movements on a very busy road.
15a Russell Hill (Ref: 20/03755/FUL) Appeal for the demolition of existing bungalow and construction of 9 flats is rejected. Comment: The overall summary from the Inspector is: ‘ I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the locality, living conditions for future occupiers, and tree retention and replacement. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.’ The applicant has now submitted an application for a slightly smaller scheme of 8 flats (1 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) with 4 car parking spaces. This should be objected to, based on: Loss of a family home; Overdevelopment; Out of keeping; Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties; Inadequate car parking.