Purley Planning Summary – 8th July 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 – 8th July 2021

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

Total: 2838 housing units

of which:

Approved: 1501 housing units

Pending: 631 housing units

Refused: 582 housing units

Withdrawn: 124 housing units

Applications Granted

3 & 5 Woodcote Valley Road (Ref: 19/04349/FUL) 22 flats (2 x 1 bed, 14 x 2 bed, 6 x 3 bed) with 10 car parking spaces. Sin embargo, a veces las personas también pueden encontrar el lugar de los restaurantes muy fácilmente stromectol cost canada Sanming sin usar la aplicaci. What i’ve http://jasminepunterblog.co.uk/94235-ivermectin-for-dogs-brands-47999/ come to believe is that it is also a very important element in your life. How to get high on acrogenously ivomec injection for goats buspar without mixing it up with other drugs. The recalls affected protonix-branded products that were sold between january Erba 2006 and december 2011. Levitra shipping to puerto rico stromectol sur ordonnance ou pas Puente de Vallecas (instructions for order. 4 flats are Social Housing. Comment: I believe that this application was determined some time ago, and is only appearing now as the Section 106 has been agreed and signed. PWRA had objected.

Applications Refused

176 & 178 Foxley Lane (Ref: 21/00632/OUT) 8 x 4 bed houses (semi-detached) with 8 car parking spaces. Comment: Reasons For refusal: Poor design, Out of Character, Adverse impact on neighbours, Highways and traffic, Impact on trees. PWRA had objected

5a Russell Hill Parade (Ref: 21/01738/GPDO) Change of use of ground floor into 3 flats. Comment: Reasons for refusal: Insufficient light into proposed flats, no cycle provision, no refuse provision. PWRA had objected.

Significant New Applications

11 Banstead Road (Ref: 21/02832/FUL) 67 flats (15 x 1 bed, 38 x 2 bed, 14 x 3 bed) with 5 disabled car parking spaces. 12 flats are proposed for social housing. The flats will be in 4 blocks. Comment: Another high density housing proposal, next to Mosaic Place, and the very busy gyratory with no car parking. The proposal is already attracting objections, and a lot of negative comment (frustration and anger) on social media. Object based on: Cumulative impact. Loss of family homes, Overdevelopment, Inadequate amenity space, Obtrusive by design, Out of keeping, Overlooking, Highways.

50 Brighton Road (Ref: 21/02904/FUL) Change of use from Guest House to a 10 unit HMO. There will some exterior alterations (eg two additional roof-lights). Comment: I believe the guest house has not been operating for some time. Propose a neutral stance.

725 Brighton Road (Capella Court) (Ref: 21/02964/NMA and 21/02946/CONR) Comment: Over the last year the owner has attempted to obtain consent for a change of use from offices to 130+ residential units, then 90+ residential units (all on the ground to 4th floors), and to change the use for the 5th floor from medical to residential. All these applications have been refused (incl at appeal for the 5th floor). The property does already have an approval for the ground to 4th floors to be converted into 64 flats with 12 onsite car parking spaces (Ref: 19/02578/GPDO). This latest application indicates that this existing approval will be implemented and is seeking a change to the ground floor (traffic) layout. A separate application has also been made to change the use of the 5th floor to a wider medical use class than currently (possibly as a precursor to a further application to change the use to residential). Object based on concern over traffic and highways (12 car parking spaces (incl disabled spaces) is totally inadequate for 64 flats, and driving through the ground floor seeking a car space, and not finding one will dangerously increase traffic movements as this very busy gyratory adjacent to the very well used recycling centre.

938 Brighton Road (Ref: 21/02616/FUL) Change of use from bank to restaurant / takeaway (believed to be Roosters Piri Piri Chicken). Comment: This was the former Santander unit. Adopt a supportive stance.

Land adjacent 1 Gilliam Grove (Ref: 21/03034/FUL) 2 x 5 bed houses on land adjacent to 1 Gilliam Grove. Comment: Adopt a neutral stance.

47 Graham Road (Ref: 21/03344/FUL) Demolition of existing family home and construction of 5 X 3 bed semi-detached houses with 7 car parking spaces. Comment: This proposal squeezes what appear to be 5 very small houses onto the site, with very minimal amenity space. Object based on: Loss of family homes, Overdevelopment, Inadequate amenity space, Highways.

4 Higher Drive (Ref: 21/03057/OUT) Demolish existing family home and construct 8 flats (4 x 1 bed, 1 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed) at the junction of Higher Drive, Beaumont Road, and Wilmot Road, with 4 car parking spaces. Comment: This is a second application for this property – the previous one was withdrawn (Ref: 20/01904/OUT). Object based on: Loss of family homes, Overdevelopment, Inadequate amenity space, Obtrusive by design, Out of keeping, Overlooking, Highways.

10 Russell Hill Road (Ref: 21/02740/FUL) Change of use from hairdressers (I believe closed) to wine bar. Comment: Adopt a supportive stance.

28 Russell Hill – Land to the rear of (Ref: 21/03167/FUL) 2 x 4 bed semi-detached houses with 4 car parking spaces. Comment: Whilst this is a ‘back-land’ development proposal the proposed houses would be accessed from the existing Highbarrow Close, rather than having to carve an access around 28 Russell itself. This is the third application on this site. The previous two have been refused (loss of trees, possible harm to protected species). Adopt a neutral stance.

9 Warren Road (Ref: 21/02997/FUL) Demolish existing family home and construct 7 flats (2 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed) and 2 x 4 bed houses (attached to the block of flats) with a total of 6 car parking spaces. Comment: Loss of family homes, Overdevelopment, Inadequate amenity space, Obtrusive by design, Out of keeping, Overlooking, Highways.

14 & 16 Woodcote Valley Road (Ref: 21/02914/FUL) Demolish existing semi-detached houses (currently licensed as HMOS) and construct 15 flats in 2 linked 4 storey blocks (2 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed, 10 x 3 bed) with 9 car parking spaces. Comment: Overdevelopment, Inadequate amenity space, Obtrusive by design, Out of keeping, Overlooking, Highways.

Appeals

32 Plough Lane (The Billiards) (Ref: 20/05754/LE) Application for retrospective consent for this element of 32 Plough Lane to be used as a self-contained dwelling. Comment: Appeal allowed.

41 Woodcrest Road (20/04957/OUT) Application for 8 flats with 5 car parking spaces. Comment: Appeal refused. Inspector seems to be firmly reinforcing the principle that proposals need to be looked at on their own merits, and that the granting of consent for what might superficially seem to be similar proposals in a road, does not necessarily set a precedent. Also interesting that the Inspector quotes SPD 2 as a reason to reject the appeal (which as we know Mr Scott would not have intended!)

Withdrawn

10 Smitham Downs Road (Ref: 21/02501/NMA) Comment: We might surmise that this was withdrawn as the changes proposed were more than ‘non-material’.

Tesco (Ref: 21/02252/FUL) Change in operation of Tesco car park

Leave a Reply

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