Planning Report – August 2020

Applications

New
Decided
Awaiting Decision
Appeal

Planning Complaints

Additional Matters


Applications

New

110 The Glade – Ref: 20/02926/LP
Erection of outbuilding.

Target Decision: 7th Sep 2020

Decided

67 Orchard Avenue – Ref: 20/01997/FUL
Alterations including demolition of existing garage; erection of a two storey side extension, a two storey rear extension, a loft conversion with roof lights in the front roof slope and dormers in the rear roof slope, the construction of balconies at first floor and second floor level, the construction of rear basement with terrace area and external staircase. The conversion of single dwelling into 6 flats; provision of car parking, refuse and recycling store, soft landscaping and new vehicular access onto Woodland Way.

  • The Residential & Housing Densities are too high for a PTAL of 1b which should be in the Residential Density range 150 to 200hr/ha and Housing Density range 40 to 65 units/ha which is a clear indication of overdevelopment for the locality.
  • The proposal fails to fully meet “Minimum Accommodation Standards” as defined by the current adopted and emerging London Plan Policies which, if the proposal were to be approved, would be extremely detrimental for future occupiers, for the life of the development.
  • Failure to provide any Open Private Amenity Space or to identify “exceptional circumstances” why Private Open Space cannot be provided to meet the Private Open Space requirement which requires an increase in the allocation of Gross Internal Area (GIA) to compensate in (“exceptional circumstances”) for lack of Private Amenity Space as defined by the Croydon Plan Policy DM10 paragraph 6.76.
  • Failure to meet the minimum required “built-In” Storage requirement as defined by the adopted London Plan Policy 3.5 Table 3.3 or the emerging London Plan Policy D4 Housing quality and standards for the life of the development.
  • The Allocation of Play Space for children at 8m2 for the likely 4 children of the occupants of this proposal would require 40m2 and as such the 8m2 is inadequate.

Permission Refused

Reason(s) for refusal :-

  1. By reason of its design the materials on the first floor and second floor balconies would dominate and detract from the appearance of the existing building and be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene thereby conflict with Policies SP4.1 DM10.1, DM10.7 of The Croydon Local Plan 2018, Policies 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2011) and Section 4.21 of the Suburban Design Guide SPD (2019).
  2. The proposed development would result in poor quality and substandard living accommodation for future residents by virtue of poor quality outlook from the amenity space from flat 1, insufficient private amenity space for flat 2 and flat 3. The development would therefore conflict with Policies SP4, DM10.4, DM10.5 and DM10.6 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and policy 3.5 of the London Plan and the London Housing SPG.
  3. The proposed development, by reason of the removal of informal crossing point and the lack of information in regards to pedestrian and vehicle sightlines, and swept paths to demonstrate the impact is likely to result in a detrimental impact to the highway and pedestrian safety of the area. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy 6.13 of the London Plan (2016), Policy T6 of the Draft London Plan, Policies SP8, DM29 and DM30 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and the Croydon Suburban Design Guide (2019).

MORA Submission Sent: 2nd Jun 2020
Consultation Closes: 13th Jun 2020
Target Decision: 9th Jul 2020
• Total Consulted: 12
• Objections: 7
• Supporting: 0
Permission Refused: 31st Jul 2020

116 Orchard Way – Ref: 20/02258/FUL
Retention of the Public House on the ground floor and creation of an additional storey with rear extensions and associated alterations to provide 4 flats on the upper floors.

We object to this proposed re-development on the following grounds:

1) The applicant has not provided any justification for exceeding the Densities appropriate for the locality which has PTAL of 1a. The proposal has a Residential Density in a suburban setting of 456.14hr/ha which would
require a PTAL of 7.42 and a Housing Density of 140.35units/ha in a Suburban setting which would require a PTAL of 6.33 when the available PTAL is 1a.

2) There is no indication on the supplied plans of the dimension of In-Built Storage space and therefore it is not clear whether the proposal meets the requirement of the minimum space standards defined in the London Plan Table 3.1

3) The proposed development has all balconies of 5m2 . However, to meet the Croydon Plan Policy at paragraph 6.76 additional internal floor space can be added to the minimum GIA requirement to compensate, but this is NOT sufficient for Flats 1, 3 & 4 as shown by the Table above. Therefore, the proposal does NOT meet the Policy DM10.4 c) as amended by para 6.76.

4) The proposal provides NO communal outdoor amenity space as required by Policy DM10.5

5) There is no allocation of Play Space for the children of occupants of the proposed development as required of Policy DM10 although there are only likely to be 5 children (max) in occupation.

6) There are no provisions for Refuse & Recycling facilities for the future occupants of the proposed development and no reference to such in the Design and Access Statement. Therefore, the proposal is non-compliant to Policy DM 13 Refuse & Recycling.

7) There are insufficient car parking spaces allocated for this proposal and on-street parking in the locality is very limited due to access to the local shopping parade and the Pub clientele, there is very limited on-street car parking. There is no legislation to prevent car ownership and thus it is likely that future occupants of this proposed development will require parking provision which will exacerbate local parking stress.

8) The entrance to Flats 3 & 4 is via the shared area of the stairs and entrance for all flats in the adjacent block, not by the same private entrance with flats 1 and 2 which may result in confusion for delivery personnel.

Dwellings Approved in the MORA Area (Post Code Area) i.e. NOT all Shirley North Ward during 2019 ≈ 48 which SIGNIFICANTLY exceeds the maximum yearly average target of 18.29 (i.e. an increase of 162.438% over the target) for the whole of Shirley i.e. Shirley North Ward & Shirley South Ward.

For 2020 approx. half year totals already EXCEED the yearly 2020 targets for the “Shirley Place.” The increase in number of dwellings by possibly 30 when the full year target average for the whole of Shirley North Ward and Shirley South Ward is 18.29.

Permission Refused

Reason(s) for refusal :-

  1. The proposed extensions to the rear of the building by way of their excessive scale and unsympathetic design would result in an obtrusive appearance which would harm the character of the building and wider area. The development would therefore conflict with NPPF, Policies 7.1, 7.4, and 7.6 of the London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2011), policies SP4.1, SP4.2, Policy DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and the Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2019).
  2. The proposed rear extensions by way of their excessive scale and close proximity to neighbouring windows which serve habitable rooms would cause harm to neighbouring living conditions through loss of light, outlook and privacy. The development would therefore conflict with policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2011), Policy DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and the Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2019)
  3. The development would result in sub-standard accommodation for future occupiers by reason of poor outlook, light, privacy and amenity space. The development would therefore conflict with the Policy DM10 Croydon Local Plan (2018), the Council’s Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2019) and the Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance to the London Plan (2016 as amended).
  4. Only one car parking space is proposed in an area with a very poor Public Transport Accessibility Level and the proposal fails to demonstrate that the parking provision is adequate and/or that surrounding roads have sufficient car parking capacity for the increased demand. This could cause disruption to the safety and efficiency of the local highways network and the development would conflict with Policies SP8.1, DM29 and DM30 of the Croydon Local Plan and policies 6.12 and 6.13 of the the London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2011).
  5. The proposal fails to demonstrate adequate provision for refuse and recycling facilities. The development would therefore fail to safeguard the character, appearance and surrounding environment of the site nor provide suitable living accommodation for future occupiers, in conflict with policies DM10 and DM13 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and the Council’s Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2019).

MORA Objection Sent: 12th Jun 2020
Consultation Closes: 5th Jul 2020
Target Decision: 23rd Jul 2020
• Total Consulted: 40
• Objections: 21
• Supporting: 6
Permission Refused: 23rd Jul 2020

Old Lion Works 141B Wickham Road – Ref: 20/02022/FUL
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of part 1 storey, part 2 storey building containing 2 x 1-bedroom apartments & 2 x Studio apartments.

We object to this proposed re-development on the following grounds:

1) The applicant has not provided any justification for exceeding the PTAL for a Housing Density at 200 units/ha for an urban setting with available PTAL of 3 when the PTAL required for a Housing Density of 200 units/ha required is 5.7.

2) A Housing Density of 200 units/ha in an Urban Setting requires a PTAL of 5.7 which translates to a TfL Access Index Range of 23.5 to 31 when the actual available PTAL of the locality is only 3 which requires a TfL Access Index of 10 to 15 thus proving the proposed development has inadequate access to sustainable Public Transport Infrastructure.

3) This development proposal is within the grounds of an existing building which is retained and therefore the retained existing garden for the host property, after subdivision should be NO LESS than a minimum of 10m (in length) or 200m2 in area. This proposal fails this Policy DM10.4 e). as the retained garden is only ≈4.4m in length.

4) The proposal provides NO communal outdoor amenity space as required by Policy DM10.5

5) The Refuse & Recycling Bins are NOT enclosed and are not an integral element of the overall design and therefore NOT compliant to Policy DM13.1; they are NOT within the building envelope or in covered facilities located behind the Building Line and thus Non-Compliant to Policy DM13.1 a); they are NOT conveniently located for operatives and their vehicles, being approximately 50m from the nearest road vehicle point in Verdayne Avenue.

Entrance to first floor studio apartment’s by external staircase:

6) The Access to the Studio apartments is via an external staircase which traverses above the Apartments 1 & 2 which is somewhat uncommon and possibly subject to transmitted noise and disturbance for future occupiers below of Apartments I & 2.

7) The Access to the first-floor accommodation traverses the roof of the ground floor accommodation. This is considered a potential danger to occupants of the first floor in the event of fire in the ground floor apartments which would trap the first-floor Studio occupants with no alternative means of escape.

Dwellings Approved in the MORA (Post Code Area) i.e. NOT all Shirley North Ward during 2019 = 48 which SIGNIFICANTLY exceeds the maximum yearly average target of 18.29 (an increase of 162.438% over the target) for the whole of Shirley (i.e. Shirley North Ward & Shirley South Ward).

For 2020 approx. half year totals already EXCEED the yearly 2020 targets for the “Shirley Place.” The increase in number of dwellings by possibly 30 when the full year target average for the whole of Shirley North Ward and Shirley South Ward is 18.29.

Permission Refused

Reason(s) for refusal :-

  1. The proposed development would fail to offer suitable living conditions for future residents due the inadequate floor area for the first floor units and the poor quality of private outdoor space and the lack of communal outdoor space and play space for the scheme as a whole. The layouts would also result in a lack of privacy for the users of the gardens serving the ground floor units. The development would therefore conflict with Policy DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018), the Suburban Design Guide (2019) and the Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard (2015).
  2. The proposed development would by way of close proximity to neighbouring windows, which serve habitable rooms, cause harm to neighbouring living conditions through the loss of privacy. The development would therefore conflict with Policy DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and the Suburban Design Guide (2019).

MORA Objection Sent: 11th Jun 2020
Consultation Closes: 27th Jun 2020
Target Decision: 22nd Jul 2020
• Total Consulted: 19
• Objections: 3
• Supporting: 0
Permission Refused: 23rd Jul 2020

Awaiting Decision

Sandrock Pub – Ref: 20/02136/FUL
Two storey side and rear extension to The Sandrock Public House to provide an enlarged service (including front seating area) to the existing pub (A4 Use Class) and conversion of the upper floors including extension to form 4 flats (2×2 bed, 2×1 bed) and construction of a three storey building to the rear comprising 15 flats (8×3 bed, 3×2 bed, 4×1 bed); hard and soft landscaping; communal/amenity/play space; car parking between the two buildings; new crossover along Sandrock Place; boundary treatment and refuse and cycle provision.

We object to this development on the grounds that:

The proposal is an over-development for the area. The Residential Density is excessively high which would require a PTAL of 5 when the actual PTAL is just 2. The densities for this location at PTAL 2 at such a high percentage increases are NOT justifiable and compromise the London Plan Policy 3.4 – Optimising Housing Potential and should therefore be resisted – that is Refused.

The proposed development’s massing and height do not reflect the local character and forms of the surrounding locality.

The proposed development does not comply fully with minimum spaces standards for new dwellings or fully comply with the required amenity space standards.

There is no usable communal open space for the future occupants of the proposed development and there is no provision of children’s play spaces for children of the future occupants of the development.

The development is within the grounds of an existing building and is most definitely NOT subservient in terms of height and massing and therefore is non-compliant to the Croydon Plan Design and Character policies of DM10. In addition, the host building does not retain any garden after partitioning and is non-compliant to Policy DM10.4 e)

This proposal has insufficient car parking space and will result in overspill on street parking in the surrounding streets which will cause significant problems to adjacent existing residents.

There would be major overlooking and invasion of privacy to the occupants of number 6 Sandpits Road and 1A Sandrock Place private outdoor space and therefore does result in direct overlooking and should be refused.

MORA Objection Sent: 15th Jul 2020
Consultation Closes: 16th Jul 2020
Target Decision: 2nd Sep 2020
• Total Consulted: 48
• Objections: 122
• Supporting: 0

195 Shirley Road – Ref: 20/02405/FUL
Demolition of existing dwelling. Erection of 3 storey building (with roofspace accommodation) comprising 9 residential apartments with associated vehicle/cycle parking, amenity space and waste stores.

We object to this proposed re-development on the following grounds:

1) Failure to meet the London Plan and Croydon Plan Policy DM10 Minimum Space Standards for the future occupants for the lifetime of the development;
2) Failure to meet the existing adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 – Optimising Housing Potential with respect to Residential and Housing Densities at a Suburban setting and PTAL 2, and forecast to remain at PTAL 2 until 2031;
3) Failure to meet the new Draft London Plan Policy 1DA – Infrastructure Requirements for Sustainable Densities;
4) Failure to evaluate requirements of the proposal as required by the “Design-led approach” as required of the new London Plan Policy 1DA – Infrastructure Requirements for Sustainable Densities at Policy D1A paras 3.1B.23/24;
5) Excessive Overdevelopment for the locality, forecast to remain at PTAL 2 up to 2031 in terms of appropriate Residential and Housing Densities in a “Suburban Setting”;
6) Inadequate Amenity Space for the future occupants of the development for the lifetime of the development;
7) No provision of the required “Play Space for Children” of the future occupants of the development’ as required by the London Plan and Croydon Local Plan 2018.
8) Failure to provide adequate car parking provision.
9) It is likely that this development will fail to meet the 45° rule on height and will intercept the 45° projection in relation to the adjacent property.

MORA Objection Sent: 15th Jul 2020
Consultation Closes: 16th Jul 2020
Target Decision: 5th Aug 2020
• Total Consulted: 16
• Objections: 8
• Supporting: 0

11 Orchard Avenue – Ref: 20/01578/FUL
Provision of an additional storey to convert the existing single family house into two flats.

The applicant’s proposals are deficient of the following:

  1. The Plans do NOT show relationship with adjacent Properties at Site or ground floor level;
  2. The Elevations do NOT show relationship with adjacent properties to ascertain any degradation of amenity or Daylight reductions as a result of the increased height of the existing property, including the rear elevation 45 Degree (vertical) Rule;
  3. Two rooms of the ground floor are not identified whether habitable or non-habitable;
  4. There are no Floor Area’s (GIA) measurements provided to establish whether the proposal meets the accommodation Minimum Space Standards;
  5. There are no designated built-in storage identified to show compliance to the requirements of the London Plan Minimum Space Standards;
  6. There is no Kitchen designated in the Presumably Flat 1 ground floor Plan;
  7. It is not possible to calculate number of occupants from the information provided;
  8. It is not possible to calculate the number of bed-spaces from the information provided;
  9. There is no indication of Car Parking Spaces other than the garage for Flat 1;
  10. There is no separate open amenity space for Flat 2.
  11. There is no designated Private Open Space for Flat 2.

Inappropriate Design:

  1. The Access to Flat 2 from the street is via passageway alongside the garage to the rear and an entrance via the rear of the ground floor garage to a staircase at the rear of the garage of Flat 1 – this is a totally inappropriate entrance to the first floor flat and extremely confusing for deliveries and a postal address;
  2. The doors of Flat 2 opening inward and allow exit onto the roof of what is probably a conservatory (but is not designated). Is this roof structurally sound for this access and should there be protection to retain persons from falling off?
  3. Although the proposal is to provide accommodation for a family member’s independence it should still meet planning policies for future occupiers.

MORA Submission Sent: 2nd Jun 2020
Consultation Closes: 13th Jun 2020
Target Decision: 8th Jul 2020
• Total Consulted: 27
• Objections: 6
• Supporting: 0

Orchard Park High School – Ref: 19/04183/FUL
Single storey rear extension, conversion to community gym including external alterations and access arrangements

Design & Access Statement
8.0 Conclusion

  • The opportunity to implement this scheme would utilise an existing building.
  • We believe the conversion to the existing facility will offer fitness to a wider customer base and prove an asset to the area.
  • The change of use for Use Class D2.
  • The proposal will create a range of full-time part time and self-employment opportunities within the local economy.
  • The proposed scheme will involve a large invest by the applicant and will provide a high-quality facility. The facility will offer fitness to a wider customer base and prove a long-term asset to the area.
  • Taking all the above into consideration, we believe the proposal brings into use a vacant building, in a suitable location and satisfies planning policy.

Consultation Closes: 16th Oct 2019
Target Decision: 8th Nov 2019
• Total Consulted: 72
• Objections: 1
• Supporting: 0

Land R/O The Shirley Inn Public House 158 Wickham Road Croydon: 19/03279/FUL
Erection of a residential development of two detached three storey buildings comprising a total of 6 flats (2×1 bed, 2×2 bed, 2×3 bed), provision of refuse and cycle storage, hard and soft landscaping and provision of two parking spaces.

The proposed development is outside the MORA area but in the Shirley North Ward. The application is in the Spring Park Residents’ Association (SPRA) Area, but we are in support in objecting to this development.

The proposed development fails to meet the objectives of London Plan Policy 3.4 – Optimising Housing Potential Table 3.2 in relation to an Excessive Residential Density of 459.77 hr/ha requiring a local PTAL of 5.031 when the local PTAL is actually only 3 and forecast to remain at PTAL 3 until 2031.

There is no allocated play space for children of the future occupants of this proposed development.

The development has inadequate parking provision in an Urban Shopping Locality of PTAL 3 of only two Parking Bays when the current London Plan Policy 6.13 requires up to 1.5 space at PTAL 3 and Residential Density of 459.77hr/ha & Housing Density of 114.94 units/ha which equates to 9 Parking Bays for 6 dwellings.

This proposed development also does not meet the Croydon Local Plan Policy DM10.1 in that development in the grounds of an existing building which is retained shall be subservient to that building, and this proposed development is clearly NOT subservient to that building which is the Shirley Inn Public House as shown above.

We object to this proposed development on grounds that it fails to meet the objectives of Policy DM10.9 a) & b) in that the proposed development does NOT respect or enhance the local character specifically the architecture of the host Shirley Inn and Public House or the key features of heritage of the host building and character of surrounding dwellings all which have pitched roofs which clearly clashes with the flat roofs of the proposed two blocks of flats.

We object to this proposed development on grounds of direct overlooking into gardens and properties of Barmouth Road as the rear windows of the proposed development are overlooking the gardens and properties of Barmouth Road at a distance of approximately 19m which is less than the minimum 18 to 21m between facing windows of habitable rooms.

MORA Objection Sent: 2nd Aug 2019
Consultation Closed: 11th Aug 2019
Target Decision: 6th Sep 2019
• Total Consulted: 45
• Objections: 66
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Sue Bennett (15th Aug 2019)

Appeal

Land at Potters Close – Ref: 19/04138/FUL
Erection of motor operated gates at the entrance of Potters Close and associated button

DELEGATED BUSINESS MEETING – week of 26th November 2019

Reason(s) for Refusal:
1 The development would result in an unsatisfactory outcome for social cohesion in the area by reason of the entrance gate contributing to segregation of the community which would thereby conflict with the Suburban Design Guide (2019), Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and 3.9 and 7.4 of the London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2011).

2 The development would detract from the character and appearance of the area and would be detrimental to the accessibility of the locality by reason of creating a barrier between residential roads and would thereby conflict with Policy SP4.1 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018, Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document and Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2011 (consolidated with alterations since 2015).

Consultation Closed: 20th Nov 2019
Target Decision: 23rd Dec 2019
• Total Consulted: 26
• Objections: 1
• Supporting: 1
Permission Refused: 26th Nov 2019
Appeal Notice: 18th May 2020


Planning Complaints

16-18 Ash Tree Close – Ref: 19/04705/FUL
Demolition of the existing dwellings. Erection of 8 x 3-bed semi-detached dwellings with associated access, parking, refuse and cycle stores.

Flyer for download and distribution.

Suggested Reasons for refusal:

  • Over Development Residential Density at close on 300hr/ha for Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) at 1a (should be between 150 to 200hr/ha at PTAL 1a);
  • Over Development Housing Density at close on 60 units/ha at PTAL 1a (should be ≈48 units/ha at PTAL 1a);
  • Densities would require a PTAL of >5 for Residential Density and approaching 3 for Housing Density when the locality has PTAL of 1a (numerically = 0.66);
  • Bed Spaces for 40 new occupants and only 8 car parking spaces;
  • Inappropriate Refuse and Recycling Storage for each dwelling;
  • Access limited width and parking difficult to negotiate ingress and egress.
  • The access would limit the available turning head for existing residents at Ash Tree Close Cul-De-Sac.

On 12th Dec amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

  • Tracking Plans (Bays 1 – 8)
  • Elevations
  • Roof Plan
  • Roof Space Plan
  • First Floor Plan
  • Ground Floor & Site Plans

Case Officers Report Para 8.7 stated:
“8.7 The proposal results in an increased density on the site by eight additional residential units, all of which would be 3-bed, 5 person units. The scheme exceeds the density matrix (150-200) as set out within the London Plan at approximately 300 habitable rooms per hectare. However, given suburban setting combined with the similar footprint, form and spacing of the proposed dwellings in comparison to the surrounding properties, the acute need for new homes and the fact that the site is very close to the intensification area of Shirley, it is considered an appropriate density for this site.”

Whereas the actual distance to the intensification area of Shirley is approx. 1.5km.

NOTE: We are currently compiling an escalation to the Local Government Ombudsman supported by the consent of local residents.

MORA Objection Sent: 20th Oct 2019
MORA Objection (Amended Drawings) sent: 19th Dec 2019
Consultation Closes: 30th Oct 2019 – Extended to 28th Dec 2019
Target Decision: 27th Nov 2019
• Total Consulted: 72
• Objections: 62
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referrals: Councillor Sue Bennett (31st Oct 2019) and Councillor Richard Chatterjee (5th Nov 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 27th Feb 2020
Permission Granted: 27th Feb 2020

MORA Stage 1 Complaint (6th Apr 2020) Our Complaint comprises the following issues:

  • What is the justification for ignoring Policy DM10.7 d)., allowing “Gabled” Roof Forms instead of requiring “Hipped” roof forms, sympathetic to the surrounding locality as defined by Policy DM10.7 d)?
  • This development is within 35 metres of the Environment Agency Flood Map of the encroachment of the “Chaffinch Brook” which in the past has resulted in significant flooding downstream (Fairford Avenue & Monks Orchard School) of this locality. Removal of vegetation and covering the area with 8 dwellings will increase the likelihood of local area surface water flooding downstream, including the effects of climate change. What is the justification for this proposed development to be considered “very low risk of surface water flooding”?
  • What is the justification for the case officer ignoring the required guidance of National Planning Policy (NPPF) para 122 – Achieving Appropriate Densities?
  • Each proposal which is shown to be an “overdevelopment” cumulatively contributes to unsustainable Public Transport Accessibility for the locality which is NOT considered by the LPA but which should be according to the Local Plan Policy at paragraph 6.41. The overall effect in Shirley North Ward requires a local PTAL trending to 5.8! Please provide justification why each over-development’s cumulative effect is not considered when contributing to local unsustainable public transport accessibility when evaluating whether a proposal should be approved?
  • Can you provide justification, exactly why it is acceptable for a development of Residential Density at a suburban setting and PTAL of 1a, which should be in the “broad ranges” of 150 to 200hr/ha equating to a TfL Accessibility Level Range of 0 to 2.5, Requires a Residential Density of 299.63hr/ha in the PTAL RANGE OF 4 TO 6 which equates to a TfL Public Transport Accessibility Level requirement of between 21.5 to 30 ? (This requires a 63.73% increase in Residential Density and a 707.58% increase in required PTAL from the appropriate recommended level of 1a (numerically 0.66) to 5.33 which is UNSUSTAINABLE as the PTAL is forecast to remain at 1a until 2031.
  • Can the Case Officer justify why he considers this development is “very close to the intensification area of Shirley” when it has been measured to be approximately 1.5km (≈1 mile) line of sight from the nearest “Focussed Intensification” boundary with the Shirley Centre? What is the Policy definition of “very close”?
  • 6 of the 8 Parking Bays require an “unacceptable manoeuvre” to exit from their bays and then exit in a forward gear into Ash Tree Close when parked in a forward direction, which is 75% of the provided parking bays (i.e. NOT a relatively small number of spaces as quoted by the Transport Team). The Transportation Team consider this arrangement to be “acceptable” but have NOT considered how this complication would be resolved if future owners wanted to erect garden fences to partition their front garden curtilages to define their areas of responsibility for garden maintenance. Also, it is NOT evident whether the drop-kerbs (Condition of approval #5 B & C) run the whole length of the new footpath as the mounting of the footpath required to exit is not necessarily directly opposite an entry point? This action is illegal, under Highways Act Section 27 [3] if there is no drop-kerbs at the point of mounting the footpath. (i.e. Only drop kerbs directly fronting and of limited width for forward gear access into each of the parking bays would be appropriate). Therefore, why was this allowed in breach of the Highways Act and by what justification for 75% of parking spaces (i.e. the majority of parking bays) required to mount the footpath and encroach on the curtilage of another property to exit from 75% of parking Bays?
  • What justification does the Case Officer have for supporting the application proposal with no turning head in the access drive?

(Case Number: CAS-163554-V7D4M9)
Stage 1 Response (30th Apr 2020) from Pete Smith, Head of Development Management.
Stage 2 Complaint (18th May 2020)
Stage 2 Response (15th Jun 2020) from Shifa Mustafa, Executive Director of Place.

56 Woodmere Avenue – Ref: 19/01352/FUL
Demolition of a single-family dwelling and erection of a 3- storey block containing 2 x 3-bedroom and 7 x 2-bedroom apartments with associated access, 9 parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse store (amended plans and description)

Although the proposed development presented is architecturally acceptable, the proposal fails on a number of design requirement Planning Policies which results in an overdevelopment of the proposal for the locality and would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants. We therefore object to this proposed development on grounds of over-development and non-compliant to the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential due to excessive Residential Density of 350hr/ha and excessive Housing Density 116.67 u/ha at a locality of PTAL 1a. without any Justification. The current adopted London Plan Policy indicates that developments which compromise this policy should be refused.

We object to this proposed development on the grounds that the proposed dwelling does NOT fully meet the required minimum space standards as required by the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.5 as defined at Table 3.3 with respect to no Private Amenity Space for Unit 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. Also, the proposal has inadequate provision of storage space for all of the Units which is a requirement of London Plan Policy 3.5. minimum space standards.

We object to this proposed development on grounds of inadequate parking provision and non-compliance to the London Plan Policy 6.13 for Outer London Boroughs which would result in overspill on-street parking reducing traffic Flow and contribute to traffic congestion and is therefore non-compliant to London Plan Policy 6.11.

We object to the proposed development on grounds of non-compliance to Croydon Plan Policy DM10.1 and Para 6.37 which although recognises a need for providing detailed guidance on SCALE, HEIGHT, MASSING, and DENSITY; the Croydon Local Plan Does NOT provide any guidance whatsoever or any greater clarity for applicants on either “SCALE, HEIGHT, MASSING, and DENSITY” as required by the New NPPF para 16 and para 122.

Thus, MORA comments on Croydon Plan Policy DM10.1 and para 6.37 are covered by our response to the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential.

We object to the proposed development on grounds that it does NOT meet the 45° Rule on height as measured from the adjacent dwelling ground floor window as required by the emerging Supplementary Planning Document SPD2, Chapter 2 Suburban Residential Developments at Para 2.11 Heights & Depths Projecting beyond Building Lines at pages 36 & 37. The proposed development is to be sunk into a 0.6m hole in the ground in order to meet the adjacent properties height restriction. If the built form is NOT actually sunk into the ground, the built form would be 0.6m higher and the projected 45° Rule would show much more of the proposed development would be above the 45° projection and significantly greater non-compliance to the policy. The built height is therefore extremely critical.

We object to this proposed development on grounds that it does NOT meet the requirements of Policy DM13 or Council Guidance on Refuse & Recycling for New Developments as published by Croydon Council with regard to Refuse Storage Area Capacity, Access to Storage, width of passageway and pull distance from storage area to refuse vehicle and thus the location within the building envelope.

We conclude that the proposed development is an overdevelopment for the locality and does NOT respect the existing residential and housing densities and therefore is non-compliant to Policy: Shirley Place Homes para 11.200 & Character, Heritage and Design para 11.202. There has been “absolutely no improved access or transport links” in Shirley with increased residential occupancy of 328 persons resulting from in-fill and redevelopment and therefore the policy Shirley Place Transport para 11.205 has NOT been fulfilled.

On 28th May amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

  • All Proposed Plans
  • Landscape Maintenance Plan Report
  • Planting Schedule Report
  • Tree Specifications Report
  • Soft Landscaping Plans
  • Hard Landscaping Plans

The main changes are the internal layouts to meet the London Plan Table 3.3 minimum space standards and the addition of two car parking spaces fronting Woodmere Ave.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.1 – Thursday 1st August.
Local Resident Richard Chambers spoke on behalf of affected residents.
Decision Deferred on the grounds of architectural design.

Councillor Paul Scott didn’t like the roof form – thought it was ugly so deferred to allow applicant to change to design of the roof and perhaps other aspects. Footprint likely to stay the same.

On 3rd Sep amended plans were uploaded to the online register.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.1 – Thursday 24th October 2019.
Local Resident Richard Chambers and Councillor Richard Chatterjee spoke on behalf of affected residents.
Voted 6:3 to Grant Permission.

MORA Objection sent: 8th Apr 2019
MORA Objection (Amended Drawings) sent: 2nd Jun 2019
MORA Objection (Second Amended Drawings) sent: 17th Sep 2019
MORA Objection Addendum (Second Amended Drawings) sent: 20th Sep 2019
Consultation Closes: 18th Apr 2019 – Extended to 20th Jun 2019 – Extended to 25th Sep (Amended Plans and Description)
Target Decision: 15th May 2019
• Total Consulted: 38
• Objections: 31
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (23rd Apr 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 1st Aug 2019
Decision Deferred: 1st Aug 2019
Deferred Planning Committee: 24th Oct 2019
Permission Granted: 24th Oct 2019

MORA Stage 1 Complaint (8th Dec 2019) Our Complaint comprises the following issues:
1. Failure to apply the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 to Optimise the Housing Potential or the consolidated emerging London Plan Policy D1A – Infrastructure requirements for sustainable densities, in accordance with the Policy on Residential and Housing Density appropriate for the available or forecast Public Transport Accessibility for the locality at a ‘suburban’ setting and at PTAL of 1a, as required by NPPF (2018/19) para 122 – Achieving Appropriate Densities.
2. Failure to consider the overbearing nature of the proposed development with regard to loss of amenity to the adjacent property at 54 Woodmere Avenue as defined by Policy SPD2 Figure 2.11c: Height of projection beyond the rear of neighbouring properties to be no greater than 45° degrees as measured vertically from the middle of the ground floor window of the closest habitable room on the rear elevation of the neighbouring property should NOT intersect the proposed development.
3. Failure to adequately consider the loss of natural light due to the closeness and overbearing nature of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 54 Woodmere Avenue and failure to acknowledge and correct the errors in the applicant’s daylight study report.
4. Overbearing massing of proposed development in relation to surrounding properties.
5. Infraction of Planning Policies on grounds that it is more imperative to meet housing targets than to countenance and implement adopted Planning Policies. (Case Number: CAS-123091-Y3J7R2)
Stage 1 Response (18th Dec 2019) from Pete Smith, Head of Development Management.
MORA Stage 2 Complaint (13th Jan 2020)
Stage 2 Response (10th Feb 2020) from Shifa Mustafa, Executive Director of Place.
Escalation to the Local Government Ombudsman (11th Mar 2020) Case ID Number 19 020 965.
Local Government Ombudsman Decision (12th Jun 2020)
MORA Response to Local Government Ombudsman Decision (16th June 2020)
NOTE: Local Government Ombudsman complaint has been re-allocated to another case officer due to a potential conflict of interest.


Additional Matters

Sarah Jones MP – Shirley ‘Focussed Intensification’ de-designation

This letter from Sarah Jones MP has huge implications for Shirley, vindicating all we have been stating since the New Local Plan was adopted in 2018. The Focussed Intensification DM45.1 will need be removed from the Policy and the Policies Map modified.

Planning Complaints Procedures – Complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman (Further Questions to the Minister for Local Government)

The previous response from the department simply stated the current legislation but did not attempt to answer our question.

As it is not possible to appeal against an LPA approval (whereas developers can appeal against a refusal) and we do NOT have funds for Judicial Review, we have no alternative but to escalate our complaints to the LGO for independent investigation.

After numerous complaints to the Croydon LPA, escalated to Stage 2 the response from the LPA states that if we are not satisfied with the response we should escalate our complaint to the LGO.

We then follow that suggestion and then pass on our complaint to the LGO for further investigation, but it is clear that the legislation covered by the Local Government Act 1974 Section 26 or the Localism Act 2011 prevents, or rather does not allow the LGO to investigate complaints simply from a registered Local Residents’ Association on behalf of their members.

We require some clarification as to how Residents’ Associations are meant to proceed when the local authority is found in error?

We ask the Minister for local government:

  1. Why the legislation; Local Government Act 1974 Section 26 or the Localism Act 2011 precludes independent investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman of complaints against a Local Planning Authority by Registered Residents’ Associations?
  2. What is the logic or reasoning for such preclusion? and
  3. Why should LPAs be shielded from scrutiny if valid complaints are lodged against an LPA by a Local Residents’ Association on behalf of ALL their local affected residents (rather than on behalf of an affected resident by signed consent forms)?
  4. If the LGO are NOT required to investigate complaints against a Local Planning Authority from Residents’ Associations – who should?

Response from the Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government.

DEREK RITSON
MORA Planning

< July 2020 Planning Report September 2020 Planning Report >