Planning Report – February 2020

Applications

Planning Committee Meeting (27th February 2020)
New
Awaiting Decision

Planning Complaints

Additional Matters


Applications

Planning Committee Meeting (27th February 2020)

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

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: 68
• Objections: 59
• 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

New

195 Shirley Road – Ref: 19/06037/FUL
Demolition of existing property. Erection of 2.5 storey (replacement) building comprising 9 residential flats with associated car/cycle parking, landscaping and waste stores.

Consultation Closes: 26th Feb 2020
Target Decision: 30th Mar 2020
• Total Consulted: 19
• Objections: 1
• Supporting: 0

211 Wickham Road – Ref: 20/00299/FUL
Demolition of existing ancillary buildings associated with the shop and erection of a new two storey building containing four dwellings.

Consultation Closes: 20th Feb 2020
Target Decision: 18th Mar 2020
• Total Consulted: 18
• Objections: 0
• Supporting: 0

67 Orchard Avenue – Ref: 20/00092/FUL
Demolition of existing garage; erection of a two storey side extension, two storey rear extension, loft conversion with roof lights in the front roof slope and dormers in the rear roof slope, the construction of rear basement with terrace area and external staircase and alterations to the front vehicular access and boundary treatment. Conversion of single dwelling into 6 flats – 3 x 1 bedroom flat and 3 x 2 bedroom flat; provision of car parking, refuse and recycling store, soft landscaping and new vehicular access onto Woodland Way, with hardstanding area.

This proposal fails to 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.

The proposed Residential and Housing Densities at 300hr/ha & 85.71 units/ha respectively is excessive for a PTAL of 1b as defined by the Transport for London WebCAT.

At Residential Density of 300hr/ha at a suburban setting would require a PTAL of 5.33 and the Housing Density of 85.71 Units/ha would require a PTAL of 5.02 (an Access Index Range of 20.01 to 25.0) which significantly exceeds the current or planned PTAL of 1b (numerically equivalent to 1.33 or an Access Index Range of 1b at Access Index of 2.51 to 5.0 ).

The area of Communal Amenity Space is not specified as an allocation per occupant.

There is NO Designated Play Space for Children – None provided as required (Para 5.4.5 Draft London Plan 2019).

MORA Objection Sent: 4th Feb 2019
Consultation Closes: 16th Feb 2020
Target Decision: 9th Mar 2020
• Total Consulted: 12
• Objections: 4
• Supporting: 0

67A Orchard Avenue – Ref: 20/00356/FUL
Front extension and part two storey, part single storey side extension and associated alterations for the conversion of the house into two flats.


Consultation Closes: 27th Feb 2020
Target Decision: 21st Mar 2020
• Total Consulted: 6
• Objections: 3
• Supporting: 0

Awaiting Decision

Old Lion Works 141B Wickham Road – Ref: 19/04699/FUL
Demolition of existing building and erection of part 1 and part 2 storey building containing 2 x 2 bedroom apartments.

Consultation Closes: 30th Jan 2020
Target Decision: 12th Feb 2020
• Total Consulted: 9
• Objections: 4
• 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: 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

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

MORA Stage 1 Complaint (20th 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 PTAL of 2, 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 both adjacent properties at 19 & 15 Orchard 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. Infraction of Planning Policies on grounds that it is more imperative to meet housing targets than to countenance and implement adopted Planning Policies
Stage 1 Response (9th Jan 2020) from Pete Smith, Head of Development Management.
MORA Stage 2 Complaint (26th Jan 2020) Case Reference: CAS-126578-P1P6P4
Stage 2 Response (18th Feb 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: 36
• 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.

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

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 8th November 2019 until 31st January 2020.

MORA Croydon Local Plan Review Representation Forms
We have sent 28 representation forms detailing our comments on the Croydon Local Plan Review to the Spatial Planning Team (Local Development Framework).

You can view them below:

Form #001
(SO1 to SO2)
Form #002
(SO3 to SO4)
Form #003
(SO5 to SO7)
Form #004
(SO8 to SO13)
Form #005
(ECC1 to ECC5)
Form #006
(GG1 to GG6)
Form #007
(T1 to T6)
Form #008
(CP1 to CP10)
Form #009
(H1 to H10)
Form #010
(AH1 to AH10)
Form #011
(E1 to E8)
Form #012
(R1 to R4)
Form #013
(HD1 to HD4)
Form #014
(UD1 to UD3)
Form #015
(HE1 to HE4)
Form #016
(SL1 to SL5)
Form #017
(SO1 Ch3 Shirley Place)
Form #018
(SO2 Ch3 Shirley Place)
Form #019
(SO3 Ch3 Shirley Place)
Form #020
(Windfall & Small Sites)
Form #021
(SP2)
Form #022
(SP3)
Form #023
(SP4)
Form #024
(SP5)
Form #025
(SP6)
Form #026
(SP7)
Form #027
(SP8 DM30)
Form #028 (Policy Status)

Question to Rt. Hon Robert Jenrick – Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government via our MP Sara Jones.

We sent an email relating to this issue during the dissolution on run up to the General Election and it was understandably rejected – However, now that the General Election is over and Parliament is now sitting we thought it would now be appropriate to resend to obtain your views on how we should proceed.

Can you advise why the Local Government Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint referred to them by a ”Residents’ Association” unless specific consent has been given via a form which needs to be signed and witnessed by a single affected resident, when a Residents’ Association is making a formal complaint against the Local Planning Authority on grounds of non-compliance to adopted and emerging Planning Policies on behalf of all members and the local community; as to disregard planning policies is detrimental and will affect all local residents in the local community?

The Monks Orchard Residents’ Association (MORA) represents approximately 3,800+ households in the Shirley North Ward of the London Borough of Croydon. We are registered with the Croydon Local Planning Authority (LPA) as an authorised Residents’ Association.

We have recently registered formal complaints to the LPA in relation to non-observance of adopted Planning Policies when making determinations on local planning proposals in our neighbourhood.

We fully understand that there is no available appeal procedure for challenging an approval decision and we cannot afford legal representation costs for a Judicial Review (RA’s have limited funds) and as such our only recourse is to raise formal complaints against the LPA via their Local Government Complaints procedures (Stages 1 & 2).

We have been advised by the Council that “if we are not satisfied with the Stage 2 Response from the Council, the council suggest we escalate the complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman for an independent assessment of our complaint”, which we have done so for a number of Complaints.

We have reached the point to escalate a new complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman but the Investigating Officer allocated to our complaint – on behalf of our community – will not investigate the case unless the complainant is a specific affected local resident – and this is a regular reason given for failing to consider our complaints.

When checking the mission statement of the LGO it states:

“If the council has done something wrong we look at what effect this had and what problems this led to for you. For example, is the fault likely to have made a difference to the outcome of the application? Some faults we might find are that the council:

• did not notify you of an application although the law or its neighbour notification policy says it should
did not take your objections into account (this is not the same as not agreeing with your objections)
• considered the application under the wrong procedure (such as delegating the decision to an officer when it should have been referred to a committee of councillors)
did not take into account, or failed to give proper reasons for not following, the relevant law, policy or guidance
did not give reasons for its decision to approve an application, or
made a decision based on inaccurate, incomplete or irrelevant planning considerations.

Nowhere in this mission statement does it preclude complaints by a Residents’ Association.

The Investigating Officer has quoted:
“Thank you for your email. We can and do consider complaints that originate from residents’ associations and other bodies. Nevertheless, Section 26A of the Local Government Act 1974 says a complaint can only be made:
a) by a member of the public who claims to have sustained injustice….or
b) by a person authorised in writing by such a member of the public to act on his behalf.
We also need to comply with data protection legislation.
For the above reasons, we need to have the information I have asked for and will not consider a complaint without this. I hope this is helpful.”

The Ombudsman’s ‘Investigation Manual’ confirms that:

“… Where there is significant public interest or potentially other people are significantly affected, the Investigator may decide an investigation should continue despite their being little injustice to the PA. This would be exceptional, and must be agreed with your Assistant Ombudsman before proceeding ..”

Our complaint relates to the approval of applications when non-compliant to adopted planning policies which include the NPPF (2019) the London Plan (2016) the emerging draft new London Plan which has recently undergone Examination in Public (EiP) and the Inspector’s Report issued on 8th October (and as such according to NPPF para 48, could be considered as an emerging Policy with sufficient “weight” to be considered in determinations); and also Local Planning Guidance (SPG) for Suburban Residential Developments.

We have had this issue with a previous Complaint when the LGO Investigating Officer would not continue to investigate non-compliance to planning policies when the affected residents were tenants and very reasonably were apprehensive about complaining about their Landlord’s planning application.

This email has been approved by the full MORA Executive Committee at our January 2020 Committee meeting.

Can you advise why the LGO requires consent from a local affected resident when we are making a formal complaint against the LPA on grounds of non-compliance to adopted and emerging Planning Policies on behalf of all our members and the local community?

Response from Graham Knapper – Local Government Stewardship Division at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

DEREK RITSON
MORA Planning

< January 2020 Planning Report March 2020 Planning Report >