Purley Planning Summary – 7th April 2021

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: 

Purley Planning Summary – 7th April 2021

Running Total of Additional Housing Units in the PWRA Area (from 2018):

Total: 2564 housing units

of which:

Approved: 1458 housing units

Pending: 553 housing units

Refused: 431 housing units

Withdrawn: 122 housing units

Applications Granted

126-132 Pampisford Road (Ref: 20/01550/FUL) Demolition of 4 family homes and construction of 66 Flats (13 x 1 bed, 38 x 2 bed, 15 x 3 bed) with 52 car parking spaces in 4 blocks. Comment: PWRA (and 92 others) had objected.

25 Smitham Downs Road (Ref: 21/00374/HSE) Building adjacent to ‘host’ dwelling replacing garage with home office and home gym.

63 Whytecliffe Road South (Ref: 19/02109/FUL) New Mosque with 3 studio flats. Comment: We believe that consent was granted almost a year ago, therefore presume this appears on the planning update this week as a s106 or similar document has just been signed.

32 Woodcrest Road (Ref: 21/00119/CONR) Comment: Notwithstanding the recommendation to grant planning consent for this development of 8 flats stating that it should be no higher, the council has now agreed that it can be ~half a meter higher as a result of a retrospective planning application submitted by the developer (Macar) after planning enforcement had been alerted that they were building higher anyway. Furthermore, and despite there being 92 objections, it appears that this consent was handled under delegated powers and not at full committee, so preventing objectors speaking out about this blatant disregard for the planning process.

Applications Refused

Site adjacent 57 Foxley Lane (Ref: 20/06290/FUL) Construction of 5 flats (2 x 1 bed, 2 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed). Comment: Reasons for refusal: Out of character; Does not divide the site appropriately; Overlooking; Lack of amenity space; Poor quality accommodation; Loss of trees; Not demonstrated that there would not be a threat to ecology on site. PWRA had objected.

Land to rear of 38 Russell Hill (Ref: 20/06711/FUL) Construction of 4 semi-detached houses. Comment: Reasons for refusal: Loss of trees; Harm to protected species

137 Woodcote Valley Road (Ref: 21/00215/FUL) 9 flats (6 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) with 9 car parking spaces. Comment: Reasons for refusal: Out of character; Overlooking / lack of privacy for neighbours; Poor quality accommodation for occupiers; Loss of trees; Not proven that street can handle ‘overspill’ car parking

Significant New Applications

725 Brighton Road (Capella Court) (Ref: 21/01156/GPDO) Hot on the heels of the refusal of the GPDO proposal to convert the property into 132 flats (Ref: 20/06601/GPDO), this new application proposes 97 housing units (of which 30 will be bed-sits) with 24 car parking spaces. Comment: PWRA objected to the previous application based on the lack of detail on the proposed housing units, and concern about the inadequate car parking and increase in traffic movements in this highly trafficked area (incl the adjacent recycling centre). We should do the same for this revised proposal.

75a Riddlesdown Road (Ref: 21/0142/FUL and 20/03733/PRE) 8 flats (2 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed) with 4 car parking spaces. Comment: Object based on: Loss of a family home, Not in keeping with the area, Overdevelopment, Obtrusive by design, Overlooking, Detrimental impact on trees, Traffic and highways, Noise.

51 Smitham Downs Road (Ref: 21/00995/GPDO) Proposal to add 2 storeys to this two storey house. Comment: Object based on: Overdevelopment; Overlooking.

3 Woodland Way (Ref: 21/00924/FUL) Demolition of the existing bungalow and out-buildings and construction of a ‘2.5 storey’ building (ie 2 storeys with accommodation in the roof) of 19 flats (4 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed, 11 x 3 bed) with 19 car parking spaces. The developer is offering 3 flats as social housing. Comment: Object based on: Loss of a family home, Not in keeping with the area, Overdevelopment, Obtrusive by design, Overlooking, Detrimental impact on trees, Traffic and highways, Noise.


32 Plough Lane (Ref: 20/05754/LE) Appeal against refusal to retrospectively grant permission for use of an ancillary building as a self-contained dwelling. Comment: The refusal was based on the applicant’s inability to show that the use was begun more than 4 years ago.

15a Russell Hill (Ref: 20/03755/FUL) Appeal against refusal to grant permission for 9 flats (1 x 1 bed, 5 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) with 5 car parking spaces. Comment: The reasons for refusal were; Out of keeping, Overdevelopment, Poor accommodation and amenity space, Loss of trees.

41 Woodcrest Road (Ref: 19/06036/FUL) Appeal against refusal to grant permission for 8 flats (5 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) with 5 car parking spaces. Comment: Reasons for refusal were; Over development, Out of keeping, Impact on neighbours, Poor accommodation, loss of trees, Insufficient car parking / not demonstrated that the road could handle overspill car parking.

One Comment

  1. Re 57 Foxley Lane
    I back onto this house at 36 Furze Lane and objected to the proposal and wanted to thank PWRA for also lodging objections. Are you able to send me alerts regarding resubmissions/amendments they submit? I am trying to unite Furze Lane Residents in objecting to the perpetual “flatting” developments in Foxley Lane and appreciat any advice you can give. Regards, Zsuzsanna Kiss Wheaton

Leave a Reply

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