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:
- Councillor Chris Clark (Chair) – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Leila Ben-Hassel (Vice-Chair) – email@example.com
- Councillor Clive Fraser – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Lynne Hale – email@example.com
- Councillor Toni Letts – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Ian Parker – email@example.com
- Councillor Joy Prince – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Scott Roche – email@example.com
- Councillor Paul Scott – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Gareth Streeter – email@example.com
- Councillor Jamie Audsley (Reserve) – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Bernadette Khan (Reserve) – email@example.com
- Councillor Caragh Skipper (Reserve) – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Andrew Pelling (Reserve) – email@example.com
- Councillor Pat Clouder (Reserve) – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Humayun Kabir (Reserve) – email@example.com
- Councillor Michael Neal (Reserve) – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Badsha Quadir (Reserve) – email@example.com
- Councillor Helen Pollard (Reserve) – firstname.lastname@example.org
- Councillor Vidhi Mohan (Reserve) – email@example.com
Purley Planning Summary – 7th Nov 2021
Running Total of Additional Housing Units in the PWRA Area (from 2018):
Total: 3083 housing units
Approved: 1541 housing units
Pending: 766 housing units
Refused: 651 housing units
Withdrawn: 125 housing units
54-56 Brighton Road (Rear of) (Ref: 20/05626/FUL) 4 X 4 bed houses with 2 car parking spaces. Access to be from Purley Rise.
725 Brighton Road (Ref: 21/04167/GDPO) Change of use of the 5th floor of Cappella Court from medical use (Class E) to Class C3 to provide 22 self-contained flats. Comment: Notwithstanding this permission the building owner still appears to be proceeding with a further application (Ref: 21/04623/CONR) to vary / limit the uses of the 5th floor allowed under Use Class E.
10 Russell Hill Road (Ref: 21/02740/FUL) Change of use from retail to wine bar.
16 Smitham Downs Road (Ref: 20/05575/FUL) 9 flats with basement car parking.
50 Brighton Road (Ref: 21/04433/FUL) Conversion of Guest House to 9 bed HMO. Comment: Reasons for refusal: i) Would provide an unsatisfactory standard of accommodation; ii) Inadequate car parking, and failure to demonstrate that vehicles would be able to turn on site and exit in forward gear; iii) Inadequate cycle provision.
74 Higher Drive (Ref: 20/02803/FUL) Proposal for 9 flats with 6 car parking spaces. Comment: Reasons for refusal: i) Out of character with area; ii) Unacceptable increase in parking pressure and harm to highway safety; Poor quality accommodation; Inadequate information of fire safety.
36 Oakwood Avenue (Ref: 20/01658/FUL) Proposal for 4 x 4 bed semi-detached houses with accommodation in the roof, and 4 x 3 bed semi-detached houses with accommodation in the roof, with 9 parking spaces. Comment: Refused at Appeal. Main reasons for refusal: i) The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area; ii) The overall effect of the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. The following paragraph from the Inspectors Report is worth quoting in full as it (once again) appears to criticise Croydon’s Planning Dept in giving advice to developers that oversteps the Local Plan they should be the ‘guardians’ and ‘custodians’ of: Local Plan policies, together with the Design Guide, encourage increased densities and building heights for new housing, in order to ensure land is used efficiently and meets growing demand, which is also encouraged by the Framework. It is accepted that there will be consequential changes on established environments as a result. However, such development must still respect, and have regard to, the prevailing pattern and qualities of the area, in order to ensure such changes are not harmful. Whilst the scheme has gone through pre-application discussions and the appellant points to a design-led approach, in this instance, it appears to me that the scheme does not pay sufficient regard to the prevailing character and appearance of the area. As a result, I have found the proposed development would appear cramped and harmful to the character of the area and living conditions of neighbours.
75A Riddlesdown Road (Ref: 21/02046/FUL) Proposal for 7 flats with 4 car parking spaces. Comment: Reasons for refusal: i) overdevelopment of the site due to the excessive scale, mass, bulk and height of the site which would be out of character with the visual amenity of the street scene and the character of the area; ii) In-adequate car parking would be provided within the site to support the number of units proposed, it has also not been demonstrated that there would not be an unreasonable impact on parking stress levels of the surrounding roads, would be to the detriment of highway safety and highway conditions iii) Harm to neighbouring living conditions through the creation of a sense of enclosure, loss of outlook and privacy; iv) The proposed development would provide poor quality accommodation; v) The application has failed to adequately consider fire safety.
19 Rose Walk (land adjacent) (Ref: 21/02046/FUL) A 4 bedroom, single family dwelling house in the garden of the host building. Comment: Reasons for refusal: i) The proposed development by virtue of its overall form, massing, design and materials, would detract from the character of the existing buildings and the visual character of the Webb Estate Conservation Area; ii) Due to insufficient information provided and risk of damage to the trees on site, the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the trees and the ‘Garden First’ setting.
Significant New Applications
48 Brighton Road (Ref: 21/04997/FUL) Conversion and extension of existing house into 4 flats (1 x 3 bed, 2 x 2 bed, 1 x 4 bed) with 3 car parking spaces. Comment: This appears to be a similar house conversion to others that already have taken place, or are currently underway, in this section of Brighton Road. Propose a neutral stance.
22 Purley Hill (Ref: 21/04623/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 8 semi-detached houses (3 x 3 bed, 5 x 4 bed) with 8 car parking spaces. Comment: Object based on; Loss of a family home, Over-development, Out of Character with surroundings, Detrimental to occupiers of adjoining properties, In-adequate amenity space for occupiers, Inadequate car parking / highways.
20 Purley Knoll (Ref: 21/04859/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 7 flats (3 x 3 bed, 4 x 2 bed) and 2 x 3 bed semi-detached houses, with 4 car parking spaces. Comment: This is a very similar development to that on the site of the adjacent 22 Purley Knoll. Object based on; Loss of a family home, Over-development, Out of Character with surroundings, Detrimental to occupiers of adjoining properties, In-adequate amenity space for occupiers, In-adequate car parking / highways.
21 Purley Rise (Ref: 21/05311/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 2 pairs of semi-detached houses. (3 x 4 bed, 1 x 3 bed) with 4 car parking spaces. Comment: Adopt a neutral stance.
2 Russell Hill and 37A Russell Hill Road (Ref: 21/04410/FUL) Demolition of existing 2 family homes and construction 2 blocks of flats comprising of 29 units. Comment: Object based on: Loss of a family home, Over-development, Out of Character with surroundings, Detrimental to occupiers of adjoining properties, In-adequate amenity space for occupiers, In-adequate car parking / highways.
10 Smitham Bottom Lane (Ref: 21/05069/FUL) Conversion of existing semi-detached house into 3 flats (2 x 1 bed, 1 x 3 bed), and construction of 2 x 3 bed semi-detached houses , with a total of 7 car parking spaces. Comment: Object based on; Loss of a family home, Over-development, Out of Character with surroundings, Detrimental to occupiers of adjoining properties, In-adequate amenity space for occupiers, In-adequate car parking / highways.
36 – 38 Smitham Bottom Lane (Ref: 21/05039/FUL) Demolition of existing care home and adjoining bungalow and construction of new 30 bed care / assisted living home with 18 car parking spaces. Comment: This is a revised (scaled down) application for the redevelopment of the existing care home at this address. It is an improvement on the previous application, occupies less of the combined plot, and has greater architectural merit. However the proposed development looks like it would be about a storey higher than the existing properties that surround it. Propose a neutral stance.
Birch Lane (Ummed Villa) (Ref: 20/05428/FUL) Demolition of existing house and construction of new. Comment: Appeal against the refusal of planning permission. Reasons for refusal: i) Out of character with surroundings, especially within the context of the Webb Estate; ii) Insufficient information on existing tree protection.
2 Hillcroft Avenue (Ref: 21/03638/FUL) Construction of a 4 bed house on land adjacent to 2 Hillcroft Avenue. Comment: The application was refused by Croydon as: i) The siting, layout, design and size of dwelling would be inappropriate for this location and the proposal would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the area; ii) The proposal would cause unacceptable loss of light and outlook for neighbouring occupants of 4 Hillcroft Avenue; iii) Insufficient information for the Local Planning Authority to be satisfied that the proposed development would have no adverse impact on the highway; iv) The development would result in the loss of or the putting at risk of valued trees.