Planning Report – December 2019

Applications

Decided
Awaiting Decision

Planning Complaints

Additional Matters


Applications

Decided

17 Orchard Avenue – Ref: 19/00131/FUL
Demolition of existing detached house, erection of 2- storey building with further floor of accommodation in roof-space comprising 1 x 1 bedroom flat, 3 x 2-bedroom flats and 1 x 3 bedroom flat, formation of vehicular access and provision of 4 associated parking spaces and refuse storage.

We object to this proposed development on grounds of:

The proposal does not fully meet London Plan Policy 3.5 minimum space standards for new dwellings and should therefore be refused as these deficiencies would be detrimental to the living conditions for occupants for the life of the development.

From the foregoing D6, D2 & D1 Draft Policies we have assessed the increased Housing Density for this Post Code Area of ≈1.50ha (Google Earth) from existing 15.33u/ha to 20.67u/ha after this proposed development which is an unacceptable increase of 34.83% in Housing Density which at a location of high parking stress at PTAL 2 and forecast to remain at PTAL 2 until 2031 we consider is NOT an optimum use of land for this location.

The proposal is non-compliant to Policy DM10.4 Private Amenity Space

• Unit 3 should also have 7m2 Private Amenity Space but has only 5.5m2 Private Amenity Space.

• Unit 4 should also have 7m2 Private Amenity Space but has only 5.5m2 Private Amenity Space.

• Unit 5 should have 7m2 Private Amenity Space but has only 2.5m2 Private Amenity Space.

Thus, the proposal does not fully meet Policy DM10.4 c) in respect of Private Amenity Space and therefore should be refused as these deficiencies would be detrimental to the living conditions for occupants for the life of the development.

As the location of this proposal is on a RED ROUTE parking restricted area, we believe that off-street parking availability is paramount and that the guidance in the London Plan Residential Parking Policy should be adopted to prevent any requirement for on-street parking. The proposed parking availability of 4 spaces and zero disabled bays is unacceptable at this location.

The London Plan Policy 6.13 Table 6.2 Residential Parking Standards at Residential Density in the range 159 hr/ha to 250 hr/ha and Housing Density in the range 50 u/ha to 95 u/ha requires up to 1.5 car parking spaces per dwelling which equates to 7.5 spaces. However, there are only 4 car parking spaces provided and none are for disabled which is unacceptable in an area of high parking stress.

SPD2 Para 2.29 requires Height of projection of neighbouring properties should be no greater than 45° as measured from the Centre of the closest habitable room on the rear of the neighbouring property. We have used the adjacent rear elevations to estimate the 45° Rule to the proposal and established that the projected 45° line is not clear of the proposed structure and thus fails the Policy SPD2 45° Rule.

The Council Refuse & Recycling guidance gives requirements for new developments at Section 4 – Flats with 5 or more units.

• We therefore 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 Storage Area Capacity, Access and location within the building envelope.

• There is no specified allocation of recycling storage for any kitchen of the 5 Units shown on the supplied plans.

The additional cumulative local development requires reassessment of local bus service provision as residents are converting to other modes of transport to avoid this passenger congestion which is a preference for car usage which should be avoided.

The Croydon Local Plan for Residential Parking is more stringent than the London Plan Policies in that the Policy is as per London Plan Table 6.2 however, with no provision for higher levels of car parking in areas with low Public Transport Accessibility Levels, which ignores the reasoning for additional parking provision to alleviate overspill on-street parking. Perhaps this is why Croydon is suffering increased traffic congestion in residential areas as previously stated there is no legislation preventing car ownership or the ownership of light vans for business or commercial activities.

The proposed development is an overdevelopment for the locality and does NOT respect the existing residential and housing densities. and 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 proposed increases residential occupancy of 409 persons resulting from in-fill and redevelopment and therefore the policy Shirley Place Transport para 11.205 has NOT been fulfilled.

On 31st July amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

Revised planning application involving demolition of existing detached house, erection of 3-storey building with further floor of accommodation in roofspace comprising 3 x 1 bedroom flat, 4 x 2-bedroom flats and 1 x 3 bedroom flat, formation of vehicular access and provision of 4 associated parking spaces and refuse storage.

The new plans have increased the height of the development by an additional storey.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.1 – Wednesday 6th November.
Susannah Angold, Estate Manager for Peregrine Gardens and Councillor Sue Bennett spoke on behalf of affected residents.

Voted 6:4 to Grant Permission.

MORA Objection sent: 3rd Apr 2019
MORA Objection (Amended Drawings) sent: 5th Aug 2019
Consultation closed: 10th Apr 2019 extended to 23rd Aug 2019
Target Decision: 5th May 2019
• Total Consulted: 42
• Objections: 16
• Supporting: 1
Councillor referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (16th Apr 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Sub-Committee Slot: 6th Nov 2019
Permission Granted: 6th Nov 2019

151 Wickham Road – Ref: 19/04149/FUL
Erection of a two storey stepped, side and rear extension with alterations to the roof and additional rear dormer, retention of the existing commercial unit and construction of four additional self-contained apartments.


Amended Drawings provided 21st November – Date of Committee Meeting.

Challenged Development Management why these were provided and whether objectors should have had opportunity to study theses amended drawings and possibly make further representations.

Response from Development Management stated: Immediately prior to the Planning Committee when preparing for the meeting itself, the presenting officer noted that there was a slight discrepancy with one of the drawings, which failed to properly recognise and take into account the location of an existing telecoms cabinet and lamp standard in the pavement outside the site.

This had in fact been highlighted by one of the residents commenting on the planning application and we decided to get the applicant to very slightly amend the drawings to make sure that the entrances into the building took into account the location of these items of street furniture.

The amended plans were uploaded on the day of Planning Committee – but were very minor changes – which responded to comments received and were highlighted in the addendum to the Planning Committee.

The Planning Sub-committee was not Webcast but informal notification was for Grant Approval.

Decision Note yet to be published.

MORA Objection sent: 18th Sep 2019
Consultation Closes: 27th Sep 2019
Target Decision: 28th Oct 2019
• Total Consulted: 44
• Objections: 5
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referrals: Councillor Sue Bennett (24th Sep 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 21st Nov 2019
Permission: Decision Pending

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

Awaiting Decision

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.

MORA Objection Sent: 20th Oct 2019
Consultation Closes: 30th Oct 2019
Target Decision: 27th Nov 2019
• Total Consulted: 8
• Objections: 50
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referrals: Councillor Sue Bennett (31st Oct 2019) and Councillor Richard Chatterjee (5th Nov 2019)

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: 44
• Objections: 0
• 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: 65
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Sue Bennett (15th Aug 2019)


Planning Complaints

37 Woodmere Avenue – Ref: 19/03064/FUL
Demolition of existing dwelling. Erection of two storey building (with roofspace accommodation) comprising 8 flats (1 x 3 bed, 5 x 2 bed and 2 x 1 bed) with associated car parking, amenity space and cycle and waste stores.

Flyer for download and distribution.

Suggested Reasons for refusal:

• Over Development Housing Density @ 91.43u/ha; should be between 40 to 65u/ha
• Over Development Residential Density @ 342.86hr/ha; should be between 150 to 200hr/ha
• Densities would require a PTAL of 5.91 for Residential Density and 4.71 for Housing Density when the locality has PTAL of 1a (numerically = 0.66)
• Inadequate Car Parking spaces 8 for the 26 occupants should be 12 spaces.
Over Development with regard massing and bulk as compared to existing surrounding properties.


Case Officer’s Report:

8.5 In relation to density, Policy 3.4 of the London Plan indicates that in suburban areas with Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs) of 0-1, an appropriate density equates to 150-200 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha).

8.6 The application proposes 22 habitable rooms on a site with an area of 0.0875ha, which equates to a density of 251hr/ha, which falls slightly above threshold (NOTE:A number of the representations submitted have incorrectly used number of future occupants (26) rather than number of habitable rooms (22) in their density calculations).

Notwithstanding, the density of the development is still slightly higher than that recommended by Policy 3.4 of the London Plan.

MORA Comment:

8.6 This is based upon an assumption that the Kitchen/Dining/Living accommodation for each flat is classed as a single habitable room rather than a living and Dining Room as two functional rooms. If this configuration is considered as two Habitable rooms, the total for the proposal is 30 habitable rooms which convert to a residential Density of 30/0.0875 = 342.86hr/ha rather than the 251.42hr/ha that the case officer assumes.

8.8 The Applicant did not provide a rear elevation which showed the relationship with the adjacent property a 2b Tower View. (and the Case Officer conveniently didn’t request this information)

SPD2 Section 2.11 HEIGHTS & DEPTHS PROJECTING BEYOND REAR BUILDING LINES

This proposal could fail the 45° Rule both horizontally building line and Vertically from the centre of the adjacent nearest habitable ground floor window which may well intersect the elevation of the proposed development.

The applicant has not provided drawings which shows the relationship with the rear elevation of number 2b Tower View and the 45° Rule projection from the centre of the rear adjacent ground floor window of 2b Tower View to indicate whether it would intersect the proposed development as detailed at SPD2 illustration 2.11 b) and 2.11 c).

If this cannot be answered at committee by the planning officer we requested a deferment to allow the application to provide the evidence. Committee did NOT consider this.

SPD2

6.56 The London Housing Design Guide in 5.1.1 Standards – identified that ‘in the past, planning guidance for privacy has been concerned with achieving visual separation between dwellings by setting a minimum distance of 18-21m between facing homes’. It says that ‘these are still useful yardsticks for visual privacy, but adhering rigidly to these measures can limit the variety of urban spaces and housing types in the city, and can sometimes unnecessarily restrict density’.

6.80 Evidence will be required to demonstrate that privacy is protected, and the character of the area is respected in the layout of private and communal amenity space as part of development proposals. A minimum separation of 18-21m between directly facing habitable room windows on main rear elevations is a best practice ‘yardstick’ in common usage and should be applied flexibly, dependent on the context of the development to ensure that development is provided at an acceptable density in the local context. For new major developments, as long as the perimeter buildings take account of this local context, the density may vary within the development.

6.81 Designers should consider the position and aspect of habitable rooms, gardens and balconies, and avoid windows facing each other where privacy distances are tight. Planning guidance has, in the past, been concerned with achieving visual separation between dwellings by setting a minimum distance of 18-21m between facing homes (between habitable room and habitable room) as opposed to between balconies or terraces or between habitable rooms and balconies/terrace. These can still be useful yardsticks for visual privacy, but adhering rigidly to these measures can limit the variety of urban spaces and housing types and can sometimes unnecessarily restrict density.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.1 – Thursday 26th Sep 2019.
Local Resident Richard Chambers spoke on behalf of local residents.
Our local councillors failed to register and therefore could not speak on behalf of local residents.
Voted 5 : 4 to Grant Permission

MORA Objection sent: 24th Jul 2019
Consultation Closed: 4th Aug 2019
Target Decision: 5th Sep 2019
• Total Consulted: 29
• Objections: 18
• Supporting: 0
Councillor Referral: None
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 26th Sep 2019
Permission Granted: 26th Sep 2019

MORA Stage 1 Complaint (17th Oct 2019) Our Complaint comprises the following issues:
1. Failure to apply the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 to Optimise the Housing Potential in accordance with the Policy on Residential and Housing Density appropriate for the locality at a suburban setting and at PTAL of 1a. Based upon a false determination of Residential Density by incorrect analysis of number of Habitable Rooms.
2. Failure to consider the overbearing nature of the proposed development to 2b Tower View with regard to Policy SPD2 Figure 2.11 c: Height of projection beyond the rear of neighbouring properties to be no greater than 45 degrees as measured from the middle of the window of the closest habitable room on the rear elevation of the neighbouring property.
3. Failure to consider the unreasonable closeness of facing windows at Unit 1 overlooking and invasion of privacy toward (bedroom) window at the adjacent bungalow at 2b Tower View at separating distance of 5.25m.
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-105503-W1M7W2).
Stage 1 Response (14th Nov 2019) from Pete Smith, Head of Development Management.
MORA Stage 2 Complaint (1st Dec 2019) Case Reference: CAS-105503-W1M7W2

Pegasus (18a) Fairhaven Avenue – Ref: 19/01761/FUL
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a 3-storey block, containing 2 x 3 bedroom, 6 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 1-bedroom apartments with associated access, 9 parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse store.
Although the proposed development presented is architecturally acceptable, the proposal fails on a number of design requirement Planning Policies which are unacceptable for future occupants for the life of the development.

  • We object to this proposed development on grounds of over-development and non-compliance to the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential due to excessive Residential Density of 280.11hr/ha and excessive Housing Density 84.03u/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.
  • A Residential Density of 280.11hr/ha is totally inappropriate for the locality which has a PTAL of 1a (≈0.66) but would actually require a PTAL of 5.07 in the broad ranges 4 to 6 shown at Table 3.2. The appropriate value for Residential Density at this Suburban setting and at PTAL 1a with an average of 3.33 hr/u should be ≈ 183hr/ha. Similarly, a Housing Density of 84.03u/ha is totally inappropriate for a locality of PTAL 1a but would actually require a PTAL of 4.97 in the highest range 4 to 6, but the locality has a PTAL in the lowest range at a suburban setting. The appropriate value for Housing Density at this setting and PTAL of 1a with an average of 3.33 hr/u should be ≈ 56.5u/ha.
  • 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 minimum Storage Space for Apartment Units 1 to 6. Also, the proposal has inadequate provision of Private Amenity Space for Apartment Units 5 &6 as required of London Plan Policy 3.5. minimum space standards and should therefore be refused.
  • We object on the grounds that the width of the access drive is totally unacceptable for access to a development accommodating 33 occupants and 9 cars and would not allow access for various delivery vehicles to the 9 dwellings, lorries for building construction and materials or removal Pantechnicons for furniture and white goods delivery when new occupants move in to the new proposed dwellings. The access fails to meet the requirements of SPD2 guidance.
  • Taking into consideration London Plan Policy 6.13 C and E e) at PTAL 1a in a suburban setting at the appropriate Residential Density of ≈183hr/ha and appropriate Housing Density of ≈56.5u/ha at an average of 3.33 hr/u, the parking requirement as given in Table 6.2 indicate up to 2 spaces per unit, which would require 18 parking spaces for this proposal. Policy 6.13 E e) states that “Outer London Boroughs SHOULD DEMONSTRATE they are actively considering MORE GENEROUS Standards in areas of low Public Transport Accessibility (PTAL’s 0-1) taking due account of the pressures of overspill onto on-street parking which applies to this proposal.
  • 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 that it does NOT meet the 45° Rule on height as measured from the adjacent dwelling ground floor window as required by the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Document SPD2, Chapter 2 Suburban Residential Developments at Para 2.11 Heights & Depths Projecting beyond Building Lines at pages 36 & 37 and as such is a high mass development which is overbearing to the adjacent property at 18 Fairhaven Avenue. The proposed development is to be sunk into a ≈0.5m hole in the ground in order to meet the surrounding property’s height restriction. If the built form is NOT sunk into the ground, the built form would be ≈0.5m higher and the projected 45° Rule would show much more of the proposed development and would be further 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 significant issues relating to Refuse Storage facilities on grounds that it does NOT fully meet the requirements of Policy DM13.1, DM13.2 on Refuse and Recycling or requirement of BS 5906:2005 and that the PULL route passageway is too narrow for manoeuvring the 1280L Refuse Bins over an uneven pathway to the refuse vehicle.
    • The proposed development is in a low risk flood area which has a possible 300mm to 900mm flood depth as indicated in the above Environment Agency Flood Map exacerbated by the proposed development being sunk into a ≈0.5 metre hole in the ground. This proposed development will increase the volume of surface water, waste water and sewage into the Chaffinch Brook Culvert and in times of high precipitation could significantly increase the probability of high surface water flooding due to the increased number of households.
    • This proposed development is approximately 1km from the nearest Tram stop and 530m from the nearest 367 Bus Stop. As previously stated, recent piecemeal development in the Shirley North Ward is a typical reason why it is appropriate to meet the London Plan higher provision due to this locality’s amount of local on-street parking and the fact that the local road is a cul-de-sac of only 5metres wide and cannot cope with additional on-street parking which reduces the available road width to other road users.
    • The Disabled person accommodation does not have adequate wheelchair accessibility to enter the dwelling, or to negotiate the internal residential areas and rooms with adequate turning facilities and is therefore unacceptable for disabled person occupation.

We conclude that the proposed development is an overdevelopment for the locality and does NOT respect the existing local surrounding 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 442 persons resulting from in-fill and redevelopment and therefore the policy Shirley Place Transport para 11.205 has NOT been fulfilled.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.8 – Thursday 20th June.
MORA Chairman Sony Nair spoke on behalf of MORA and Local Residents.
Councillor Sue Bennett spoke on behalf of Local Residents.
Voted 6 : 4 to Grant Permission

The Decision Note at Condition 13 States:
13 The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the Surface Water and SuDS Assessment.
Reason: To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into the development and to reduce the impact of flooding.

However, there is no mention of the Chaffinch Brook issues or advice from the Chaffinch Brook Flood Alleviation Study (FAS) or the suggested need to raised the development by a few bricks to overcome any surface water issues as the locality suffers 300mm to 900mm probability of surface water flooding. This proposed development will increase the volume of surface water and soil waste and sewage into local drains and thence into the Chaffinch Brook and in times of high precipitation could significantly increase the probability of higher surface water flooding due to the increased number of households.

MORA Objection sent: 8th May 2019
Consultation closes: 17th May 2019
Target Decision: 7th Jun 2019
• Total Consulted: 29
• Objections: 22
• Supporting: 0
Councillor Referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (23rd May 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 20th Jun 2019
Permission Granted: 20th Jun 2019

MORA Stage 1 Complaint (21st Jul 2019) Our complaint is threefold:
1. The failure of interpretation of the current adopted planning policies to ensure cumulative development proposals fully meet the requirements for the localities’ existing and planned public transport infrastructure.
2. The failure to fully consider the implications of ‘Access’ limitations which are noncompliant to SPD2 section 29 and the resulting local parking stress.
3. The lack of consideration of contribution to Flood Risk into the Chaffinch Brook or to obtain advice from the Chaffinch Brook “Flood Alleviation Study” (FAS) to verify whether the proposal would contribute to increased risk of local flooding and contribute to the Chaffinch Brook culvert and flood risk toward Bywood Avenue (Case Number: CAS-73997-G6H8D7).
Stage 1 Response (12th Aug 2019) from Pete Smith, Head of Development Management.
MORA Stage 2 Complaint (19th Aug 2019) Case Reference: CAS-73997-G6H8D7
Stage 2 Response (15th Oct 2019) from Shifa Mustafa, Executive Director of Place
Escalation to the Local Government Ombudsman (11th Nov 2019) Case ID Number 19 013 770.
Local Government Ombudsman Response (21st Nov 2019) Requires local affected residents to provide personal details supporting complaint.

32 Woodmere Avenue – Ref: 19/00783/FUL
Demolition of the existing property and the erection of a replacement detached two storey building with accommodation in the roof-space, comprising 7 self-contained flats (2 x 1 bedroom, 3 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom) with 5 off street car parking spaces, bike store, integrated refuse store and site access.

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 objected 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 justification. The current adopted London Plan Policy indicates that developments which compromise this policy should be refused. Requires a PTAL of 6 that is the max of highest range when in fact the PTAL for this locality is just 1.

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 3 and that Units 6 and Unit 7 are deficient by 1m2 each of Private Amenity space. Also, the proposal has NO provision of storage space for any of the Units 1 to 7 which is a requirement of London Plan Policy 3.5. minimum space standards.

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.

The parking provision is all on the forecourt of the proposed development which is contrary to Policy DM10.2; that the configuration does not allow adequate sunlight for Balconies of units 3 to 7 and the deficiencies in the allocation of private amenity space as required of Policy DM10.4 c) and as of the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.5 minimum space standards are equally non-compliant to Policy DM10.4 c).

Does NOT meet the 45° Rule on height as measured from the adjacent dwelling ground floor window as required by the Supplementary Planning Document SPD2, Chapter 2 Suburban Residential Developments at Para 2.11 Heights & Depths Projecting beyond Building Lines at pages 36 & 37.
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 Storage Area Capacity, Access to Storage and pull distance from storage to vehicle and thus the location within the building envelope.

On 9th May amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

  • Amended Street Scene Elevations
  • Proposed Floor Plans
  • OS plans & Existing and proposed Block Plan
  • Existing and Proposed Elevations

The changes provide new internal arrangements to meet the London Plan Policy 3.5 Table 3.3 minimum space standards.

In addition, the Refuse Store has been moved nearer the front (previously where Unit 2 En-suite bathroom and Bedroom was located) and now has sliding doors so overcoming the non-compliance to Policy DM13 Refuse & Recycling, but Access passageway is still only 1.1m width (should be 2m).

Residential & Housing Densities remain excessive and the 45° Rule for adjacent property still remains.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.7 – Thursday 20th June.
MORA Chairman Sony Nair spoke on behalf of MORA and Local Residents.
Councillor Sue Bennet spoke on behalf of Local Residents.
Voted 6 : 4 to Grant Permission.
Conditions: TBC

MORA Objection sent: 14th Mar 2019
MORA Objection (Amended Drawings) sent: 28th May 2019
Consultation Close: 24th Mar 2019 – Extended to 30th May 2019
Target Decision: 16th Apr 2019
• Total Consulted: 46
• Objections: 25
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (29th Mar 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 20th Jun 2019
Permission Granted: 20th Jun 2019

MORA Stage 1 Complaint (4th Jul 2019) relevant Planning Policies were NOT adequately considered in the determination of this planning application (Case Number: 5039127).
Stage 1 Response (26th Jul 2019) from Pete Smith, Head of Development Management.
MORA Stage 2 Complaint (4th Aug 2019) Case Reference: CAS-79367-X3T0W3.
Stage 2 Response (10th Sep 2019) from Heather Cheesbrough, Director of Planning & Strategic Transport.
Escalation to the Local Government Ombudsman (1st Oct 2019) Case ID Number 19 011 300.


Additional Matters

Croydon Local Plan Review

Croydon is reviewing its 2018 Local Plan to tackle the climate emergency and address the housing crisis.

The suggestions given in the consultation documents have the capacity to greatly affect the Shirley area with the potential of a new tramline extension along Wickham Road and up to 50 additional 9-unit flats being developed, and we highly recommend taking a look at the documents below:

Croydon Local Plan Review – Issues and Options 2019 (Ch1 Introduction and Strategic Options).pdf

Croydon Local Plan Review – Issues and Options 2019 (Ch2 Themes).pdf

Croydon Local Plan Review – Issues and Options 2019 (Ch3 Shirley).pdf

Due to be adopted in 2022, the review will update the vision and strategy for Croydon’s growth up to 2039 and set out how the council will continue to deliver much-needed new homes, jobs and community facilities.

You can comment on the proposals online. The consultation is split into three sections:

  • Strategic options
  • Themes
  • Places

The Issues and Options consultation, which is based around three spatial strategies, sites and planning policies necessary to meet these needs will run from 8 November 2019 until 13 January 2020.

DEREK RITSON
MORA Planning

< November 2019 Planning Report January 2020 Planning Report >