Purley Planning Summary – 25th October 2020
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).
Running Total of Additional Housing Units in the PWRA Area (from 2018):
Total: 2081 housing units (incl the 21 (vs 19) flat proposal for 88 Riddlesdown Road)
of which
Approved: 1320 housing units
Pending: 502 housing units
Refused: 205 housing units
Withdrawn: 54 housing units
Applications Granted
120 Foxley Lane (Ref: 20/02807/FUL) Construction of 2 x single storey dwellings (1 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed) to the rear of 120 Foxley Lane.
Comment: 120 Foxley Lane has already been converted into flats. It looks like the developer had two applications running for this development and withdrew the larger proposal just before the decision on this one. PWRA had objected (one of only two comments (both objections)).
Applications Refused
87-89 Foxley Lane (Ref: 20/02239/FUL) Demolition of two existing family homes and construction of a block of flats comprising of 23 units and a terrace of 5 houses to the rear.
Comment: The reasons for refusal are comprehensive, and also for the first time I have seen the planning officers are appearing to look at potential issues with infrastructure like drainage. Reasons for refusal – i) The development would fail to adequately contribute to addressing London’s and the borough’s need for affordable homes; ii) The proposal would cause harm to the setting of the Webb Estate Conservation Area as the design would fail to respond to the scale, massing, pattern of the conservation area and the heritage statement failed to demonstrate how the integrity and significance of the conservation area would be preserved; iii) The layout, massing, and architecture expression is considered poor design, overdevelopment and out of character with the immediate and neighbouring area; iv) The proposal would fail to achieve high quality accommodation for future occupiers (eg failing to provide accessible accommodation due to lack of appropriate levelled access); v) Insufficient information has been submitted to justify the proposed parking provision and to demonstrate acceptable delivery and servicing plans; vi) The development would not demonstrate benefits to outweigh the loss of mature trees; vii) The proposal would not have adequate refuse provision for future occupiers; viii) The submitted Energy Statement is not agreeable; ix) Insufficient information provided to determine if the site drainage meets requirements. PWRA had objected.
2a Grasmere Road (Ref: 20/03034/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 7 flats. Comment: Reasons for refusal: i) The development would be out of keeping with the character of the locality and detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene by reason of its size, bulk, mass and design: ii) The development would result in sub-standard accommodation by reason of inadequate provision of accessible and adaptable and wheelchair user dwellings; iii) Lack of privacy afforded to the future occupants of flat 1 and limited level of outlook afforded to the future occupiers of flat 2, along with a lack of quality communal space would not provide a suitable standard of accommodation for its future occupants; iv) Failure to demonstrate that highway safety would not be detrimentally affected and where insufficient parking has been proposed; v) The submission does not have regard to the potential impact of development upon endangered species. PWRA had objected.
15A Russell Hill (Ref: 20/03755/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 9 flats. Comment: Reasons for refusal; i) The proposed development, by reason of its combined layout, depth, scale, width and overall design including lack of character analysis and extent of hardstanding and bin store location would result in a cramped and contrived form of overdevelopment that would appear dominant, disproportionate, visually intrusive and incongruous to the host site, visual amenities of the streetscene and general character and appearance of the area; ii) The proposed development, by reason of its convoluted and poor layout, lack of accessibility and poor communal and private amenity spaces would result in poor quality living accommodation for future occupiers; iii) The proposed development would result in substantial loss of trees and the lack of tree replacement would not constitute appropriate mitigation. Furthermore, the extent of the development and proposed hardsurfacing is likely to harm the health and roots of the surrounding adjacent high quality trees.
Comment: More evidence that planners are now (belatedly) appearing to tighten up’ on the approval of planning conditions, (esp those relating to logistic / delivery plans), and on the variation of approved designs (although the majority are still being approved). This week two more applications for the approval of such matters were refused – 66 Brighton Road (Ref: 20/03765/CONR) and the large development at 41 – 43 Russell Hill Road (20/03433/NMA) where the planning officer states; ‘…when compared to the consented development, the proposed changes are significant. The proposed changes cannot be considered as non-material amendments, therefore, the proposal is not supported.’
Significant New Applications
66 Foxley Lane (Ref: 20/04273/FUL) Conversion from single dwelling to 5 self-contained flats (3 x 1 bed, 2 x 2 bed) with 2 car parking spaces.
Comment: This proposal will also involve the erection of a two storey side and rear extension, together with external alterations including balconies and roof-lights. Object based on: Loss of a family home, Over development of the site, Out of character, Detrimental to the amenity of adjoining occupiers, Traffic and highways
14A Smitham Bottom Lane (Ref: 20/04997/FUL) Demolition of an existing family home and construction of 6 flats (2 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed) and 3 x 3 bed houses to the rear of the site, with 9 car parking spaces.
Comment: This is a revised application for this property. PWRA had objected to the original application. The changes look minimal. Object based on: Loss of a family home, Over development of the site, Out of character, Detrimental to the amenity of adjoining occupiers, Traffic and highways.
5 Smitham Downs Road (Ref: 20/05370/FUL) Demolition of an existing family home (albeit that it has been vacant for some years) and construction of 20 flats
Comment: The developer writes that LB Croydon’s requirements for affordable housing would render the proposal unviable, and that too date they can find no interest from Housing Associations to take any on. Nevertheless they are offering 3 flats as social housing, and continuing to seek interest from Housing Associations. Whilst I believe that we would agree that this site could benefit from redevelopment in the character and style of the neighbourhood this proposal is out of character, over development of the site, detrimental to adjoining occupiers, and will present highway issues. Object based on: Loss of a family home, Over development of the site, Out of character, Detrimental to the amenity of adjoining occupiers, Traffic and highways.