Purley Planning Summary – 7th June 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 June 2021

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

Total: 2720 housing units

of which:

Approved: 1479 housing units

Pending: 547 housing units

Refused: 570 housing units

Withdrawn: 124 housing units

Applications Granted

131a Foxley Lane (REF: 20/05049/FUL) Comment: Retrospective application for the erection of two storey detached house (from ~2015!) in the garden of 131 Foxley Lane.

4 Smitham Downs Road (REF: 20/06387/FUL) Comment: Demolition of existing garage and erection of a 2 bedroom house.

Applications Refused

Ummed Villa, Birch Lane (Webb Estate) (REF: 20/05428/FUL) Re-development of existing house. To take more nih ivermectin than the prescription dose of antibiotic. The main things to know are how to use it, when it will help you, sturdily deworming chickens with ivermectin and what you can expect from the silagra oral jelly. Ivermectin may cause minor side effects in some dogs http://carpediemmom.com/1800-ivermectin-in-children-26544/ and even some serious side effects in dogs with health problems. You can make this dessert whenever you want and have a great time with Döbeln ivermectin 12 mg tablet rate your friends. Some can i buy ivermectin over the counter canada Rewāri branches of medicine are more closely connected. Comment: Rejected as out of keeping with the area.

61 Foxley Lane (REF: 21/01891/NMA) 9 flats (3 x 2 bed, 6 x 3 bed) Comment: Proposed non material amendment that is considered to require a new full planning application.

86 Foxley Lane (REF: 20/05698/FUL) Two storey extension to existing property (which is already converted into flats) to add two additional flats. Comment: Rejected as: Out of keeping with the area, substandard accommodation, detrimental to neighbours, highway concerns, poorly configured cycle and refuse facilities, lack of SUD measures.

2 Hillcroft Avenue (REF: 20/00213/FUL) Construction of a 4 bed house. Comment: Rejected as: Out of keeping with the area, detrimental to neighbours, highway concerns, concern about impact on trees

2 More Close (REF: 20/06662/CONR) 9 flats (2 x 3 bed, 5 x 2 bed, 2 x 1 bed). Comment: The amendments were to alter the front parking layout/access. Rejected as: Would create dangerous and detrimental conditions to the highway safety and pedestrian environment of the area, Would result in substantial incursion into the Root Protection Zones of the two protected trees which is likely to harm the health and roots, Would result in a site layout that would appear cramped in its proximity to the proposed building and result in a disorderly appearance due to the siting and expanse of hardstanding.

14 Russell Green Close (REF: 20/06447/CONR) 7 flats. Comment: Rejected as: The proposed alterations would lead to a noticeable reduction in the design quality of the approved scheme.

57-59 Selcroft Road (REF: 21/00213/FUL) 24 flats. Comment: Rejected as: Out of keeping with the area, poor accommodation, detrimental to neighbours, highway concerns, concern about impact on trees, drainage concerns.

 

Significant New Applications

220 Brighton Road (REF: 21/01473/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 9 flats (2 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed) with 5 car parking spaces. Comment: This property is at the junction of Brighton Road and Smitham Downs Road. It is opposite 1 Smitham Downs Road which already has consent for flats. Object based on: Cumulative impact (especially as regards highway and traffic safety at this very busy junction), Loss of a family home, Overdevelopment, Inadequately amenity space, Obtrusive by design, Out of Keeping, Overlooking.

40a Foxley Lane (REF: 21/02022/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 7 flats (3 x 1 bed, 2 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed) with 6 car parking spaces. Comment: Object based on: Loss of a family home, Overdevelopment, Inadequately amenity space, Obtrusive by design, Out of Keeping, Overlooking, Traffic and Highways.

19 Rose Walk (REF: 21/02046/FUL) Construction of new dwelling incorporating existing garage block. Comment: PWRA to take its lead from the Webb Estate.

13a Russell Hill (REF: 21/02420/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 9 flats (2 x 1 bed, 5 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed) with 9 car parking spaces. Comment: This is the second application to be made on this property. The first was refused (REF: 20/04116/FUL). Object based on: Loss of a family home, Overdevelopment, Inadequately amenity space, Obtrusive by design, Out of Keeping, Overlooking, Traffic and Highways.

Tesco (REF: 21/02252/FUL) Tesco want to install ANPR cameras as they are apparently finding that their car park is coming under considerable pressure and is being used by non-Tesco customers. This is limiting the number of spaces available to shoppers, detracting from the attractiveness of the store as a main food shopping location. They therefore propose ‘Park to Shop’ measures to control the car park. Customers will be permitted to stay for up to 3 hours if they spend a minimum of £5 in store. Customers will be given a voucher at the till after their shop which can be scanned into one of the proposed automated ticket validation terminals within the car park. Those who do not validate their parking or stay longer than the 3 hours will be issued a penalty charge notice of £70, reduced to £42 if paid in 14 days. The first half hour stay will not however be charged to allow for short shopping trips or pick-up / drop-offs. Comment: Whilst one can be sympathetic to Tesco’s installation of ANPR cameras, there must be concern about the 30 min free limit and the £5 spend in store. These proposals must be detrimental to the rest of Purley, putting people off visiting. Oni is in discussion with Tesco. I propose we object to the 30 min free limit and the £5 spend in store, unless Oni receives supportable proposals by the 23rd May. Now Withdrawn

Appeals

21 Cliff End (REF: 20/03578/FUL) Comment: Appeal against refusal for the demolition of an outbuilding at this address and its replacement by a two storey four bedroom detached house.

36 Oakwood Avenue (20/01658/FUL) Comment: Demolition of a single-family home and erection of 8 semi-detached houses. This is the property that backs on to the cattery on Riddlesdown Road.

Withdrawn

36a Foxley Lane (20/06090/FUL) Comment: 7 flats fronting onto both Foxley Lane and Plough Lane, adjacent to Woodcote Medical on Plough Lane.

Pampisford Road (REF: 20/06146/CONR) Proposal to enlarge ground floor of consented 9 flat block.

Leave a Reply

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