Purley Planning Summary – 8th February 2021

Purley Planning Summary – 8th February 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).

NOTE: Please do read through this Planning Summary, and we urge you to also take the actions that we at the PWRA will be taking in response to the new applications listed’. 

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

Total: 2505 housing units

of which:

Approved: 1351 housing units

Pending: 751 housing units

Refused: 281 housing units

Withdrawn: 122 housing units

Applications Granted

10 Whytecliffe Road South (Flat 4 Decimal Court) (Ref: 20/05460/FUL) Extension to second floor and creation of a roof terrace. Comment: PWRA had not objected.

129 Foxley Lane (Ref: 20/01671/FUL) Divide the existing house into two, three bed flats, with 4 car spaces. Comment: PWRA had objected. The planning officer’s report for this application actually refers to three flats (1 x 1 bed, 2 x 2 bed). Whilst I believe the application material and Decision Notice make it clear the permission is for two flats, Councillors might wish to clarify with their Planning Ctte colleagues that they were 100% clear what was being requested.

Windsor Lodge, Purley Rise (Ref: 20/01691/FUL) PWRA had objected. Conversion of existing bungalow into a two storey building with 5 flats (2 x 3 bed, 3 x 2 bed) with 1 car parking space. Comment: PWRA had objected. As regards car parking the Officer’s report states: ‘The council’s highways officer has reviewed the car parking stress survey and it is considered that the overspill car as a result of the proposed development will have a minimal impact on the existing street parking stress.’ No mention is made of the cumulative impact of all the various approved and proposed developments in Purley Rise on on-street car parking.

Applications Refused

13A Russell Hill (Ref: 20/04116/FUL) Refusal to proposal to demolish a family home and construct 9 flats (2 x 1 bed, 5 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed), with 9 car parking spaces. Comment: Reasons for refusal: i) Out of character (Quote from Refusal Notice: ‘unacceptable form of development that would appear dominant, excessive, visually intrusive and incongruous to form, proportion and appearance of the site, relationship with the adjacent buildings, visual amenities of the street scene and general character and appearance of the area’), ii) Highway and pedestrian safety, iii) Failure to consider the ecological significance of the site, iv) Poor living accommodation and amenity for occupiers. PWRA had objected.

Significant New Applications

57 Foxley Lane (Ref: 20/06290/FUL) Construction of 5 flats (2 x 1 bed, 2 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed) with 5 car parking spaces on land adjacent to existing building. Comment: Object based on: Over-development on the site, Insufficient amenity space for occupiers.

30 Russell Hill (Former Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation / Residential Care Home (Ref: 21/00173/FUL) Demolition of existing building and construction of 24 flats (7 x 1, 12 x 2, 5 x 3) in two blocks, with 15 car parking spaces. Comment: This is the second application for this property. The previous one was refused in mid-2020. That proposal was for 25 flats, with no affordable housing. PWRA had objected based on: Not in keeping with the area, Overdevelopment, Obtrusive by design, Overlooking, Detrimental impact on tree(s), Traffic and Highways, Noise. This new proposal should be objected to on the same grounds.

4 Smitham Downs Road (Ref: 20/06387/FUL) Construction of a two bed house in the rear garden of existing house. Comment: The proposed new house would have access from Downslands Road (This is similar to 16 Smitham Downs Road, where the new house under construction will have access from Woodcrest Road). Adopt a neutral stance.

137 Woodcote Valley Road (Ref: 21/00215/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 9 flats (6 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) with 9 car parking spaces. Comment: Pre-planning application advise appears to indicate that whilst the principle of the development is accepted the current design is not. Object based on: Loss of a family home, Over development of the site, Out of keeping with the area, Detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties, Inadequate amenity space for occupiers, Inadequate car parking.

32 Woodcrest Road (Ref: 21/00119/CONR) This property has planning consent for 8 flats (with 3 car parking spaces!), and is currently under construction. Suspicion that the developer (Macar) had increased the height and added additional velux windows to the development, in contravention of their planning consent was reported to Planning Enforcement. The contraventions were confirmed and Macar have now submitted this planning application retrospectively. Comment: In practical terms these changes mean that someone looking from the ‘new’ velux windows could see into the bedrooms of houses opposite, and that the development dominates the central section of Woodcrest Road to a greater extent than it was already going to (and the Planning Officer report for the current planning consent explicitly states that whilst the original height was acceptable, any higher would not be). In view of timing I have objected to this application, based on the above. Update: To date, and despite repeated requests to planning officers for clarification, Macar have not amended what appear to be errors in their application, in particular that stating the increase in height requested is 5 meters. Request made to Councillors to advise their Planning Ctte colleagues, and demand that this application is not considered until there is clarity on what exactly is being requested by Macar. Once this has been done the application should still be refused for the reasons stated above.