Purley Planning Summary – 30th Aug 2020

Purley Planning Summary – 30th Aug 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: 2007 housing units (incl the 21 (vs 19) flat proposal for 88 Riddlesdown Road)

of which

Approved: 1280 housing units

Pending: 561 housing units

Refused: 128 housing units

Withdrawn: 38 housing units

Applications Granted

90A Higher Drive (19/04119/FUL) 9 x 3 bed flats with 9 car parking spaces. Comment: We had objected.

15 Russell Hill (Ref: 20/00765/FUL) Part single, part two storey side and rear extension (with lower ground floor extension) including accommodation in roof space to the existing care home (C2 Use Class) to provide 8 additional bedrooms for residents and 2 additional staff rooms (within roofspace), hard and soft landscaping, alterations to land levels and external alterations including new rear staircase. If a family member has Hell-Ville a cold, buy canada prescription medications and antibiotics online in australia the family doctor may prescribe one or more of the over the counter medications listed below to help with fever, headaches. Also, aminoglycosides Qianzhou may interfere with the metabolism of valproic acid. The only thing that could make this more enjoyable ivermectin dr pierre kory would not be going to school if they did not have homework. These also include pill Buritizeiro does ivomec kill ear mites to help prevent heart attacks. Buy arimidex australia (generic name: risedronate) from soolantra cream buy online canada pharmacy. Comment: We had adopted a neutral stance.

Former Reservoir Smitham Bottom Lane (18/04720/FUL) 9 flats (1 x 3 bed, 8 x 2 bed) with 20 car parking sapces. Comment: We had supported this proposal (as bringing a ‘Brownfield’ site back into use).

Applications Refused

61 Downlands Road (Ref: 20/00735/FUL) Demolition of existing family house and construction of a three/four storey building of 9 flats (2 x 3 bed, 1 x 2 bed, 6 x 1 bed). Comment: Reasons for Refusal: 1) Lack of car parking on site and ‘high (car parking) stress’ levels along Downlands Road would result in unacceptable overspill parking to an already saturated area to the detriment of the highways and pedestrian/occupiers of the area (first time I actually see this even taken into account!), 2) Unacceptable impact on the amenity and privacy of adjoining properties (59 and 63 Downlands Road), 3) Out of character with the surrounding area.

20 Smitham Bottom Lane (Ref: 20/02730/NMA) Comment: Ostensibly another non-material amendment to the planning permission (Ref: 18/05408/FUL) to: Modifications to the approved elevations, changes to stairs, landings and the entrance hall to ensure compliance with Building regulations, Addition of a porch to ensure sufficient internal clearance area is provided at the foot of the staircase (required to meet building regulations, Substitution of brickwork, Revisions to the plans and elevations to reflect the re-planned internal arrangements,  Areas of brickwork modified to show downward slatted hardwood balustrading. Taken cumulatively it is considered that these changes so materially alter the building that a new planning application is required.

Significant New Applications

938 Brighton Road (Ref: 20/01308/FUL) Change of use to first and second floors from a bank to 4 x 1 bed flats (no car parking), with first and second floor rear extension to enable this, whilst retaining the ground floor for bank / retail use. Comment: Adopt a neutral stance.

21 Cliff End (Ref: 20/03578/FUL) Demolition of outbuilding, and alterations to land levels, to enable construction of an additional detached four bedroom house, with no car parking space. Comment: This is described as a two storey house. In reality it is a thin four storey house. Object based on:  Overdevelopment of the site with the proposed development significantly increasing the built area of the existing family home and providing inadequate amenity space for potential occupiers, Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties (overlooking, noise), Design out of character with the locality, Inadequate car parking for a development of the size and scale proposed, resulting in additional on street parking, putting parking pressure on the surrounding area, and increased traffic movements so endangering road safety.

120 Foxley Lane (Ref: 20/02807/FUL) Construction of 2 x single storey dwellings (1 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed), with two car parking spaces, to the rear of 120 Foxley Lane. Comment: This semi-detached property has already been converted into 6 flats. The proposed houses would back onto gardens in Peaks Hill. Object based on: Overdevelopment of the site with the proposed development significantly increasing the built area of the plot with inadequate amenity space for existing and potential occupiers, Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties adjacent to 120 Foxley Lane and in Peaks Hill, Inadequate car parking for a development of the size and scale proposed, resulting in additional on street parking, putting parking pressure on the surrounding area.

2A Grasmere Road (Ref: 20/03034/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 7 flats (1 x 3 bed, 2 x 2 bed, 4 x 1 bed) with 7 car parking spaces. Comment: This is a proposed development of overbearing design squeezed into a corner plot. Object based on – Loss of a family home, Overdevelopment of the site with the proposed development significantly increasing the built area of the existing family home and providing inadequate amenity space for potential occupiers, Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties (overlooking, noise), Design out of character with the locality, Inadequate car parking for a development of the size and scale proposed, resulting in additional on street parking, putting parking pressure on the surrounding area, and increased traffic movements so endangering road safety.

46 Grasmere Road (Ref: 20/03645/FUL) Demolition of the existing family home and construction of 8 flats (4 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed) with 4 car parking spaces. Comment: This is at least the second attempt to get 8 flats on this site. The last was refused for being out of character with the area and lack of car parking provision. We had objected. Not a lot has changed. Object based on: Loss of a family home, Overdevelopment of the site with the proposed development significantly increasing the built area of the existing family home and providing inadequate amenity space for potential occupiers, Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties (overlooking, noise), Design out of character with the locality, Inadequate car parking for a development of the size and scale proposed, resulting in additional on street parking, putting parking pressure on the surrounding area, and increased traffic movements so endangering road safety.

32 Plough Lane (Ref: 20/03263/FUL) Construction of 3 x three storey detached 4 bedroom houses (with 1 car parking space each) to the rear of 32 Plough Lane. Comment: This is a back-land development of three ‘avant-garde’ designed houses. The proposal backs onto Hillthorpe Close (and concern about this proposal has already been expressed by the residents there). Whilst the proposal has been quite carefully designed to (appear to) minimise impact to neighbours it nevertheless is a significant increase in the built area of the plot, has inadequate car parking for three 4 bed houses, has inadequate amenity space for occupiers, and arguably (despite the design) is detrimental to the occupiers of surrounding properties (eg additional noise). Object based on these grounds.

31 Purley Rise (Ref: 20/02156/FUL) Erection of a 4 bed detached house with vehicular access from  Purley Rise and 2 car parking spaces (on the roof, using the change in site levels front to back). Comment: This is actually land adjacent to 31 Purley Rise to the rear of 66 Brighton Road. The proposal is similar to others already constructed along this stretch of Brighton Road / Purley Rise. Adopt a neutral stance.

88 Riddlesdown Road (20/03389/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of part-four/part-five storey building comprising 19 flats (5 x 1 bed, 10 x 2 bed, 4 x 3 bed) with 17 car spaces. Comment: Whilst appealing the earlier refused application for 21 flats the developer (Mantle) has submitted this revised application for 19 flats. Interestingly, whilst claiming that social housing is not viable on the site the application form does indicate 3 one bed flats for social housing!?). Object based on: Object based on; Loss of a family home, Overdevelopment of the site with the proposed development significantly increasing the built area of the existing family home and providing inadequate amenity space for potential occupiers, Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties (overlooking, noise), Design out of character with the locality, Inadequate car parking for a development of the size and scale proposed, resulting in additional on street parking, putting parking pressure on the surrounding area, and increased traffic movements so endangering road safety.

5 Russell Hill (20/03470/FUL) Demolition of a family the construction of a three-storey building of 23 flats (7 x 1 bed, 12 x 2 bed, 4 x 3 bed of which all the 4 x 3 bed are proposed for social housing) with 14 car parking spaces. Comment: This is a re-application after the last was refused. Whilst this time 4 flats are proposed for social housing this is only half the LBC desire quota. The developer has produced financials showing that only this reduced amount is viable. This proposal is still massive overdevelopment of the site, and includes at least 2 flats at basement level. Object based on: Loss of a family home, Overdevelopment of the site with the proposed development significantly increasing the built area of the existing family home and providing inadequate amenity space for potential occupiers, Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties (overlooking, noise), Design out of character with the locality, Inadequate car parking for a development of the size and scale proposed, resulting in additional on street parking, putting parking pressure on the surrounding area, and increased traffic movements so endangering road safety.

38 Russell Hill (Ref: 20/03217/FUL) Erection of two semi-detached 4 bedroom houses with 4 car parking spaces. Comment: This is a back land proposal accessed from High Barrow Close. Adopt a neutral stance.

61 Selcroft Road (Ref: 20/02913/FUL Demolition of existing family home and construction of 7 flats (3 x 1 bed, 2 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed) with 5 car parking spaces together with a single storey 2 bed house to the rear. Comment: It looks as if at least 2 flats are at basement level. The proposed 2 bed house does not appear to have any vehicular access (eg for emergency services). Object based on: Loss of a family home, Overdevelopment of the site with the proposed development significantly increasing the built area of the existing family home and providing inadequate amenity space for potential occupiers, Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties (overlooking, noise), Inadequate car parking for a development of the size and scale proposed, resulting in additional on street parking, putting parking pressure on the surrounding area, and increased traffic movements so endangering road safety.

36 Smitham Bottom Lane (Ref: 20/01583/FUL) Demolition of the existing care home and adjacent bungalow and construction of a 3 and 1/2 storey building (also with basement accommodation) to be a 67 bed care home with 19 car parking spaces. Comment: This is a redevelopment of the existing Regal Care Homes property at this location. To fit the proposal on the site it looks like it will have accommodation in the roof and basement. Propose a neutral stance.

78 Smitham Bottom Lane (Ref: 20/02795/FUL) Demolition of existing garage and outbuildings and construction of a 2 bed detached chalet bungalow (with main bedroom in the roof) and 2 car parking spaces. Comment: This proposal retains the existing house (and its car parking) on the corner of Smitham Bottom Lane and Meadow Rise. Access to the proposed house is from Meadow Rise. Meadow Rise is an access to Woodcote High and so Highways may have questions about road safety and traffic movements. Overall propose support.

Appeals

121 Foxley Lane (Ref: L5240/W/20/ 3253581) Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of four storey building to provide 9 residential units

88 Riddlesdown Road (Ref: 19/04371/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 21 flats (6 x 1 bed, 13 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed) with 19 car spaces.

9/11 Whytecliffe Road South (Ref: L5240/W/20/ 3254332) This is the former police office where the proposal for a basement flat was refused as it proposed a lightwell in front of the property and sub-standard accommodation.

Capella Court (Ref: L5240/W/20/ 3255405) Change of use of the fifth floor from a medical facility to 9 residential units. Comment: The rest of Capella Court has consent for change of use to residential. It looks like the application for this remaining floor is being taken to appeal for non-determination.

Withdrawn

4 Higher Drive (Ref: 20/01904/OUT) Outline planning permission for the demolition of family home and erection of 9 flats (1 x 3 bed, 6 x 2 bed, 2 x 1 bed) with 6 car parking spaces. Comment: We had objected.

83 Foxley Lane (Ref: 20/02868/OUT) Outline planning permission for the demolition of family home and erection of 9 flats (3 x 3 bed, 4 x 2 bed, 2 x 1 bed) with 11 car parking spaces. Comment: We had objected

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *