Planning Report – January 2020

Applications

New
Decided
Awaiting Decision

Planning Complaints

Additional Matters


Applications

New

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).

Consultation Closes: 16th Feb 2020
Target Decision: 9th Mar 2020
• Total Consulted: 12
• Objections: 0
• Supporting: 0

Further developments are in the February 2020 Planning Report.

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: 3
• Supporting: 0

Further developments are in the February 2020 Planning Report.

Decided

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

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.

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: 56
• Objections: 51
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referrals: Councillor Sue Bennett (31st Oct 2019) and Councillor Richard Chatterjee (5th Nov 2019)

Further developments are in the February 2020 Planning Report.

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

Further developments are in the February 2020 Planning Report.

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. It also 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.

We object to this proposed development on grounds of direct overlooking into gardens and properties of Barmouth Road.

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)

Further developments are in the February 2020 Planning Report.


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 objected on the grounds that the proposal does not meet London Plan Policy 3.5 minimum space standards for new dwellings and is non-compliant to Policy DM10.4 Private Amenity Space.

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. The projected 45° line is not clear of the proposed structure and thus fails the Policy SPD2 45° Rule.

We also objected to this proposal on the grounds that it does NOT meet the requirements of Policy DM13 or Council Guidance on Refuse & Recycling for New Developments.

The proposal is non-compliant to Policy: Shirley Place Homes para 11.200 & Character, Heritage and Design para 11.202, and 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)

Further developments are in the February 2020 Planning Report.

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)

We objected 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 and excessive Housing Density.

The proposed dwelling does not fully meet the required minimum space standards as required by the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.5, on grounds of inadequate parking provision and non-compliance to the London Plan Policy 6.13 and London Plan Policy 6.11.

We also objected on grounds of non-compliance to Croydon Plan Policy DM10.1 and Para 6.37, and 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. It is also non-compliant to Policy: Shirley Place Homes para 11.200 & Character, Heritage and Design para 11.202.

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)

Further developments are in the February 2020 Planning Report.

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.

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

Further developments are in the February 2020 Planning Report.

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.

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.

Further developments are in the February 2020 Planning Report.


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.

Further developments are in the February 2020 Planning Report.

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)

Further developments are in the February 2020 Planning Report.

DEREK RITSON
MORA Planning

< December 2019 Planning Report February 2020 Planning Report >