Purley Planning Summary – 3rd August 2020

Purley Planning Summary – 3rd 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).

Applications Granted

126 Foxley Lane (Former White Lodge Nursing Home) (Ref: 20/01950/FUL) Change of use of
property from a care home to a single family dwelling.

Comment: This is the property with planning
permission for a change of use to a 10 person HMO (19/05884/FUL), and where a subsequent
application (20/01174/FUL) was submitted to demolish this and the next door property at 1
Woodcote Drive to construct 41 flats. Perhaps this revised proposal is an indication of a ‘softening’ in
the market for flats(?)

1 Higher Drive (Ref: 19/04216/FUL) Demolition of existing detached house and erection of 9 flats (3 x
1 bed, 5 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed) with 5 car parking spaces. For more options, including some generic http://thetosclinic.anniepea.co.uk/24651-stromectol-online-kopen-11150/ and brand-name drugs that may not have a recommended or patented brand-name version. But you may be intelligibly ivomec plus injection for cattle able to reduce that amount if you order by one of the other methods below. La compañía, https://finishingtouchcarcare.com/7434-ivermectin-tractor-supply-company-42854/ fabricante de medicamentos como las vacunas, los médicos y los análisis genéticos, fue declarada "persistencia" en septiembre de 2014 por. Sciatica http://leadingourlivesyouthproject.org.uk/5583-ivermectin-for-humans-86945/ is an inflammation in the sciatic nerve, which. Buy norvasc has been shown to reduce blood pressure and the incidence of heart problems by up to a third; if taken regularly, it can reduce the likelihood of heart hitek injection 2ml price disease and stroke. Comment: We had objected.
3 Whytecliffe Road South (Ref: 20/00954/FUL) Change of use from Shop to user classes A3
(Restaurants and cafes), and A5 (Hot food takeaways). Comment: We had taken a neutral stance.
Although the minutes for the planning ctte of 9 th July are not yet published I understand that the
applications for 1 and 4 More Close were approved at that meeting.

Applications Refused

93 Downlands Road (Ref: 20/01651/FUL) Division of the existing plot and construction of an
extension to the existing property to create a 4 bed self-contained house.

Comment: The reasons for refusal are worth quoting in detail as we have used them without success in many, more
controversial applications than this one: Out of character – The proposed development, by reason of
its siting, height, depth and width would result in a cramped and contrived form of development
that would appear dominant, incongruous, visually intrusive and overbearing which would fail to
relate to the prevailing character and pattern of development of the area. As such, the proposal
would be contrary to Policies 7.4, and 7.6 of the London Plan (2016), Policies D1 and D2 of the Draft
London Plan, Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and the Croydon Suburban
Design Guide (2019); and Highway concerns (incl that: the removal of an existing off-street space is
likely to result in a detrimental impact to the highway and pedestrian conditions of the area).

168 Foxley Lane (Ref: 20/02731/NMA)

Comment: Ostensibly a non-material amendment to the planning permission to: add a front porch, alter external materials, alter windows, remove a door and make a number of internal alterations. Taken cumulatively it is considered that these changes so materially alter the building that a new planning application is required.

172 Foxley Lane (Ref: 20/01830/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and erection of 9 flats (3 x 1
bed, 4 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed) in a 3 storey building, with 9 car parking spaces.

Comment: We had objected.

Reasons for refusal: 1). Detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining
properties (170 and 174 Foxley Lane) by reason of visual intrusion, overbearing impact and loss of
privacy whilst creating a sense of enclosure, 2) Sub-standard accommodation for future occupiers by
reason of poor access to daylight/sunlight, ventilation, privacy, layout and living conditions, 3)
Insufficient cycle store parking provision, failure to demonstrate that the development would
propose suitable sustainable transport mitigation and failure to demonstrate that the development
would not harm highway safety, 4) Indequate and accessible refuse storage, harmful increase in
hardstanding to the front of the property and a harmful reduction in soft landscaping.

Land to the Rear of 31 Oakwood Avenue (20/01763/FUL) Construction of two storey dwelling on
land at rear of existing property with part basement/garage under and formation of new
vehicular/pedestrian access to Selcroft Road.

Comment: We had taken a neutral stance.

Reasons for refusal: 1) The proposal by reason of its scale, design and siting would result in a cramped form of
development that would be out of keeping with the character of the locality and detrimental to the
visual amenity of the street scene, 2) The development would be detrimental to the amenities of the
occupiers of adjoining properties by reason of its size and siting resulting in a loss of privacy,
dominance and visual, 3) The proposed development fails to demonstrate sufficiently that the
creation of the off street parking space would not lead to highway safety issues in terms of access
and egress form the site, and 4) The submission does not have regard to the potential impact of
development upon endangered species, namely nesting birds, badgers and bats within the wider site
area. Reason 4 is ‘interesting’ given recent reports about B X B and their actions vis a vis endangered
species around sites they are looking to develop.

1A Woodcote Valley Road (Ref: 19/05787/FUL) Change of use and extension of single dwelling to 8
residential units (2 x 2 bed, 5 x 1 bed and a studio in the roofspace) with 8 car parking spaces.

Comment: We had objected.

Main reasons for refusal: 1) The development would fail to provide a sufficient amount of family accommodation, 2) Out of character with surrounding area, 3) Detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties, 4) Sub-standard accommodation, 5) Insufficient car parking.

Significant New Applications

83 Downlands Road (Ref: 20/02042/FUL) Construction of a side/rear roof extension, two-storey
side/rear and single storey rear extension and conversion of the single dwelling house to 5 self-
contained flats (2 x studio, 1 x 1 bed, 1 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed) with 4 car parking spaces.

Comment: 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 inadequate
amenity space for potential occupiers, Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining
properties, 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

83 Foxley Lane (Ref: 20/02868/OUT) Backland development to the rear of 83 Foxley Lane for 9 flats
(3 x 2 bed, 6 x 3 bed) with 12 car parking spaces. Comment: 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), Increased traffic movements in this
location endangering road safety.

87-89 Foxley Lane (Ref: 20/02239/FUL) Demolition of two existing houses and construction of a
block of 23 flats (5 x 1 bed, 15 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed) with a terrace of 5 four bed houses to the rear of
the plot, with a total of 23 car spaces. Comment: 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 inadequate amenity space for potential occupiers, Detrimental to
the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties, 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. I believe that this site will back on to the Webb Estate (Rose Walk?), and so they
will likely have views on this proposal.

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: 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.

20 Manor Way (Ref: 20/02907/OUT) Outline application for the demolition of existing house and the
construction of four four bed houses with 10 car parking spaces (although I only count 8 on the
plans).

Comment: Object based on: Overdevelopment of the site with the proposed development
significantly increasing the built area of the existing family home and inadequate amenity space for
potential occupiers, Detrimental to the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties, 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

9-11 Whytecliffe Road South (Ref: 20/02270/FUL) Notwithstanding the address on the application
form this is actually a proposal to put a 2 bed flat in the roof space of the former Police office.

Comment: Adopt a neutral stance.

Appeals

Withdrawn: 14A Smitham Bottom Lane (Ref: 20/01677/FUL) Demolition of existing bungalow (with roof
accommodation) and construction of a two storey building (also with roof accommodation) to the
front of the site of 6 flats (2 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed) and construction of 3 x 3 bed terraced housing to the
rear of the site. 9 car parking spaces are proposed (ie one per unit). Comment: We had objected.

AOB

Residents Associations United!

We have contributed to an Inside Croydon article responding to Cllr Scott’s self-congratulatory press
release about Croydon planning. The work has been led by Kenley RA, with support from ourselves,
Foxley RA, Hartley and District RA, Riddlesdown RA, Woodland Way RA. The article was
published (and posted on our website and Facebook pages). A follow up Zoom ‘meeting’
between ‘Southern’ RAs, to discuss how we can proceed to resist the current
administrations planning policy in a more coordinated and connected way, was held onTuesday 28 th July. Whilst six RAs combined to produce the Inside Croydon article this call was
attended by 14 RAs (incl from the centre and north of the Borough!). This is therefore a
potentially very significant development which, like DEMOC, would show the current
Council administration the depth and breadth of concern and ‘anger’ at their planning
policy.

A number of actions were agreed in the meeting. The most significant being:

  • Agreement that this group of RAs (and more) should keep connected (and a second
    ‘meeting’ is proposed for end August)
  • We should collate Ward level data on intensification planning consents and applications
    to demonstrate the ‘damage’ being done to the Borough with its current planning
    policies.
  • Recognising the genuine pressure for additional housing nationally, and emerging
    central government policy in this area, we need to propose an alternative and less
    ‘damaging’ vision for housing development in the Borough

2 Comments

  1. Thank you for the updates I receive from time to time. We have sold our property & are moving to Sutton. We prefer that Borough to Croydon.
    My wife & I will not be renewing our subscriptions in future. Perhaps, you might remove my details.
    Mr & Mrs A C Joseph, 14 Russell Green Close, Purley CR8 2NR

  2. Thank you for keeping me informed. Perhaps you are having some effect on this appalling council.

Leave a Reply

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