Planning Report – July 2024

Applications

New
Decided
Awaiting Decision
Appeals Pending

Additional Matters


Applications

New

159 – 161 The Glade – Ref: 24/01924/FUL
Demolish two existing bungalows and associated garages to create a combined site of 950 sqm to deliver four family homes with associated parking, gardens and cycle storage, and visitor parking. 

We objected to the proposed development on the grounds that:

  • The Post Code CR0 7QR has an Area of 0.41hectares and embraces 12 Units (Housing Density 29/27Units/ha) which equates to an Outer Suburban Area Type setting as defined by the National Model Design Code & Guidance.
  • The proposed Application would provide 4 units on a site area of 0.095ha equating to a Housing Density of 42.11Units/ha and with 28 occupants, would provide a Residential Density of 294.74Persons/ha.
  • These application parameters would place the application in a Suburban Area Type Housing Density with a high Residential Density more appropriate to a Central Area Type Residential Density.
  • A proposed development of 4 dwellings on a Site Area of 0.095ha in an Outer Suburban Area Type Setting exceeds the available Site Capacity and is Non-Compliant to the London Plan Policy D3 – Optimising Site Capacity through the Design-Led Approach.
  • We understand the need for additional homes; however, we have conclusively illustrated that the proposal offered is much too dense for the local Area Type and that the applicant is attempting to squeeze much too much accommodation into a very small and restricted site capacity which is extremely inappropriate for the locality.
  • We have clearly shown that the location CR0 7QR is inappropriate for “Incremental Intensification” and unsuitable for “Growth” beyond the existing Suburban Area Type setting without the offer of significant infrastructure improvement.
  • The Site Capacity of 0.095ha is inadequate for 4 Units at a Suburban Area Type setting.
  • We therefore suggest that this proposal is refused and that a new proposal is presented which is less dense and more appropriate for the Local Area Type Setting as defined by the local character parameters of the Post Code CR0 7QR.

MORA Submission: 1st Jul 2024
Consultation Closes: 11th Jul 2024
Target Decision: 29th Jul 2024
• Total Consulted: 24
• Objections: 4
• Supporting: 0

116 Orchard Way – Ref: 24/01879/FUL
Conversion of public house on ground floor of building to facilitate 1 x 2-bedroom flat and 1 x 3-bedroom flat with integral cycle and waste storage.

We objected to the proposed development on the grounds that:

  • All the Application proposals subsequent to the original, significantly exceed the Site Capacity available of 0.0285ha by varying degrees and would require Area Types “Central” or “Urban” when the actual Local Area Type as defined by the local Post Code CR0 7NN is clearly a “Suburban” Area Type.
  • The conversion from an existing Pub premises to residential accommodation, has significant limitations which creates difficulties for use as residential dwellings. There is no additional Site Capacity for easily meeting the London Plan Policy D6 – Housing quality and standards amenity requirements or play space for children.
  • The proposal would probably have accommodation for four adults and four children for whom 40sq.m. of Play Space would be required.
  • We understand the need for additional homes and that the applicant has attempted to market the Pub for sale but without success. The option for conversion to Residential is an obvious option worth considering to make better use of the land.
  • We understand that a previous Application for this Site: Application Ref: 20/05960/FUL – Permission Granted; is conditional of the Ground Floor premises being retained as a Public House and are therefore concerned that this application will have repercussions on the validity of this previous approval.
  • However, we have conclusively illustrated that the proposal offered is much too dense for the local Area Type and that the applicant is attempting to squeeze much too much accommodation into a very small and restricted site capacity which is extremely inappropriate for the locality.
  • The proposal would not provide adequate Play Space for the probable 4 children accommodated by this proposal.
  • We therefore suggest that this proposal is refused and that a new proposal is presented which is less dense and more appropriate for the Local Area Type Setting as defined by the local character parameters of the Post Code CR0 7NN.

MORA Submission: 28thJun 2024
Consultation Closes: 4th Jul 2024
Target Decision: 25th Jul 2024
• Total Consulted: 61
• Objections: 0
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (8th Jul 2024)

Decided

211 Wickham Road – Ref: 23/03978/FUL
Demolishing of ancillary storage outbuilding area attached to the shop situated at the rear garden of 211 Wickham Road CR0 8TG and the erection of a detached building consisting of 1 No, three bedroom 4 Person self-contained unit and 3 Nos, 1 bedroom, 1 Person self-contained unit.

MORA has concerns as to whether this application will proceed as it is fundamentally the same application as that which was dismissed at the appeal stage in October 2023.

We recommend that this proposal either be rejected on grounds of similarity with previous refused and Dismissed on Appeal proposals, and not adequately addressing the reasons for Refusal or Dismissal of the Appeal or for failure to meet the additional London Plan – Supplementary Planning Guidance (2023).

We are of the view that the new proposal is not materially different from the previous refused and dismissed Appeal and therefore does not adequately address the Inspectors reasons for dismissal of the previous application and Appeal. It is therefore inappropriate for validation.

MORA Submission: 18th Dec 2023
Consultation Closes: 16th Feb 2024
Target Decision: 25th Jan 2024
• Total Consulted: 28
• Objections: 4
• Supporting: 0
Permission Granted: 18th Jul 2024

219 Wickham Road – Ref: 24/01018/FUL
Conversion of existing dwellinghouse to 1x 1-bedroom flat and 1x studio flat. Erection of rear dormer. Associated alterations include provision of cycle and refuse storage.

Permission Refused

Reason(s) for refusal :-

  1. The proposed development would result in the net loss of 3-bedroom homes without suitable replacement, contrary to policies SP2.7 and DM1.2 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018).
  2. The proposed development, by virtue of inadequate internal floorspace, private amenity space and communal space, would result in sub-standard accommodation for the future occupants of the proposed flats. The proposed development therefore fails to comply with the Croydon Local Plan (2018), in particular Policies DM10 and SP2, the London Plan (2021), in particular Policies D3 and D6, and the Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standard (2015).
  3. The proposed development would not provide well designed, adequate, and accessible cycle storage facilities to serve the needs of future residents. The proposed development therefore fails to comply with the Croydon Local Plan (2018), in particular Polices DM29, DM30, and SP8, the London Plan (2021), in particular Policies SI 7, SI 8 and T5, and the London Cycling Design Standards (2016).

Consultation Closes: 10th May 2024
Target Decision: 3rd Jun 2024
• Total Consulted: 14
• Objections: 0
• Supporting: 0
Permission Refused: 3rd Jun 2024

Awaiting Decision

30 Ash Tree Way – Ref: 24/00713/HSE
Erection of detached annexe.

Consultation Closes: 27th Apr 2024
Target Decision: 28th May 2024
• Total Consulted:6
• Objections: 0
• Supporting: 0

8A Oak Way – Ref: 23/04017/FUL
Demolition of the existing bungalow and the proposed erection of of 2 x semi detached houses and a bungalow with associated car parking, refuse storage, cycles storage and landscaping

MORA has a neutral stance on this proposed development for the following reasons:

  • This proposal would seem to be in keeping with the local character of semi-detached dwellings and bungalows, and could be a welcome change to the high-density proposals of late.
  • The local area Design Code requires to be identified and the proposal assessed against its compliance to this proposals local Design Code within reasonable tolerance.
  • The percentage uplift to the Post Code Design Codes of 18.21% Housing and 27.58% Residential Densities do not significantly change the Area Types.
  • The Post Code Area Type prior to and after the proposal would remain Outer Suburban and the existing Application Site Area Type would increase from <Outer Suburban to Outer Suburban as defined by the MNMDC&G considered to be within the objectives of NPPF (Dec 2023) para 135 sub paras a) to c).
  • The Dwelling Types of Bungalow and Semi-Detached dwellings respect the character of the locality, and the layout reflects the surrounding character of the immediate area. The increase in Residential Density of 200% is the only critical Design Code issue which may be considered inappropriate as the proposal location has very low Public Transport Accessibility at PTAL 1a (assumed numerically ≡ 0.66).
  • The interactive spreadsheet calculates the Site Capacity is just 3.02% short of the actual required minimum Site Area for an Outer Suburban Area Type setting. This works out at 30.39sq.m. short which we believe is not sufficient to be the only reason found for a refusal. This is only 30.39sq.m. deficient from the calculated required 1036.39sq.m. for an outer Suburban Area Type Setting.
  • The proposal, at of three (3) Units in an area of 0.1006ha would equal a Housing Density of 3/0.1006 = 29.821Units/ha which places the proposal in an ‘Outer Suburban’ Area Type in the range 20 to 40Units/ha. i.e. equal to the locality as define by the Post Code Design Code.
  • We have assessed the various Design Code parameters, and the overall assessment is that the proposal generally meets the objectives of the main policy requirements or are within acceptable tolerance limits and would provide welcomed family dwellings.

MORA Submission: 10th Jan 2024
Consultation Closes: 25th Jan 2024
Target Decision: 27th Feb 2024
• Total Consulted: 15
• Objections: 13
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (27th Feb 2024)

395 Addiscombe Road – Ref: 21/06387/FUL
Erection of four-storey building to provide 145.7sqm GP Surgery (Use Class E(e)) and nine (9) self-contained flats (following demolition of existing two-storey mixed-use building (Use Classes C3 and E(e)), Associated amenity, cycle storage, vehicle parking and waste storage spaces, and Associated alterations including landscaping and formation of boundary treatments

We objected to the proposed development on the grounds that:

  • This location at the corner of Addiscombe Road and Shirley Road is an important local site en-route as a gateway into the Croydon Centre from Bromley via the busy A232 and as such requires a pleasant architecturally impressive and appealing vista. It is disappointing that the offered proposal does not meet this objective. The proposal is of a dominating character which has a cluttered façade which is unattractive and overbearing, having no relationship to the period of local surrounding building architecture.
  • The proposal exceeds the available Site Capacity of 0.0875ha for the local Area Type at an Outer Suburban or Suburban Setting as defined by the National Model Design Code guidance. There is no equivalent guidance in the Croydon Local Adopted or Revised (Dec 2021) Local Plan or the London Plan for Design Code Guidance and therefore NPPF para 129 is the authority for Design Code Assessment. NPPF at Para 129 gives clear direction that in the absence of Local Design Codes and guidance, the National Model Design Code and Guidance should be used for assessing proposals.
  • The locality of the proposal is NOT in a designated area for Moderate or Focussed intensification as illustrated on the Policies Map. However, our analysis above, using the National Model Design Code & Guidance and an assessment for “Gentle” Intensification and the supporting analysis provides comprehensive evidence of overdevelopment of this proposal at this location indicating the Site Capacity is inadequate to support the development.
  • The proposal fails to meet the MINIMUM space Standards required as there is insufficient Site Capacity for Built-In Storage for any Residential Unit.
  • There is insufficient Play Space for the probable 12 Children of the families occupying the 9 Units or any separate communal open space for the residents.
  • The Vehicular Access for the Addiscombe Road for Disabled Parking is hazardous if approaching from the Roundabout as the access is immediately after exiting the roundabout and requires crossing the line of traffic (Addiscombe Road (A232) and the Pelican Crossing “zig-zag” markings and Red Line Parking restrictions. While waiting for a safe gap in the oncoming line of traffic, the stationery vehicle would cause further congestion and tailbacks from the roundabout and the traffic waiting to access the roundabout. Similarly, the Crossover for Access to the Residential Parking is across a Red Route and “zig-zag” markings for the Zebra Crossing.
  • We question the acceptability of “Dropped Kerbs” at locations close to junctions and at positions of “zig-zag” road markings at Pelican and Pedestrian crossings.
  • The illustration of probable ingress and egress swept Paths Parking trajectory, both for the Surgery Parking Bay and the Residential Parking from Shirley Road, are inaccurate, as the illustration only depicts the path of ONE axle which totally ignores the vehicles wheelbase, dimensions or bodywork overhang, front and rear. These illustrations are completely ineffectual and give a completely false sense of acceptability.

MORA Submission: 23rd May 2021
Consultation Closes: 27th May 2022
Target Decision: 14th Jun 2022
• Total Consulted: 31
• Objections: 186
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Jeet Bains (16th May 2022)

Flyer for download and social media sharing.

Appeals Pending

116 Orchard Way – Ref: APP/L5240/W/24/3344352
Removal of external staircase and Conversion of public house on ground floor of building to facilitate 1 x 2-bedroom flat and 1 x 3-bedroom flat with integral cycle and waste storage.

MORA has a neutral stance on this proposed development for the following reasons:

  • The existing building was not designed for residential accommodation, and it is therefore difficult to convert the building to Residential accommodation and comply with all the Policies for Residential requirements especially so in a Suburban Area Type setting.
  • The previous approved application Ref: 20/05960/FUL for providing an additional floor and 4 Flats was ‘conditional’ upon an assumption that the Ground Floor would be retained as a Pub.
  • This can be confirmed by reference to para 5.3 of the Case Officer’s Report which stated: “5.3 The development would retain the existing Pub in accordance with Croydon Local Plan Policy DM21 and provide 3x one bedroom and 1x two-bedroom flats spit between the first and second floors. The existing first floor flat to be replaced has 4 bedrooms which is not protected by Local Plan Policy DM1. Whilst the existing dwelling has a floor area of 116 square metres, its loss and provision of additional smaller homes is acceptable in this instance considering the above pub position which is less suitable for families.”
  • The new application changes the grounds on which Application Ref: 20/05960/FUL was approved if now the Ground Floor is to be converted to Residential.
  • Additionally, the Decision Note for Application Ref: 20/05960/FUL was dated 12th May 2021 and Condition 1 stipulated that the ‘Grant of Permission’ was conditional that the Development should be begun within three years of the Date of the Decision Note. If the delay to decision for the Application Ref: 23/04285/FUL exceeds 12th May 2024 then it is unlikely that work on Ref: 20/05960/FUL would have started on or before 12th May 2024.
  • In such a scenario, we would appreciate clarification on whether the Application Ref: 20/05960/FUL would be considered expired and whether a re-application would be required to include all the three floors including the revised Ground Floor as Residential Accommodation?
  • The Parking allocation is extremely limited in a very low PTAL area of PTAL 1a and the single retained parking space is the same integral parking space on the ground floor plans for Application Ref: 20/05960/FUL so cannot be included in both proposals.
  • This has been a complicated proposal to assess as the existing Building does not lend itself for simple transfer from Retail and Pub to Residential accommodation, but some change of use may be considered necessary. The proposal, however, does not meet the local Area Type as defined by the National Model Design Code & Guidance and our assessment based upon the most recent National Guidance indicates an over development for the locality which is a Suburban Area Type setting.
  • The proposal would result in the loss of a Public House in a residential environment where there are few local amenities. However, the applicant has made appropriate efforts to retain the Pub, but it has shown it to be unviable in the current economic climate. It is therefore presumed that a change of use could resolve the viability and create accommodation to help meet housing needs.
  • Nevertheless, any conversion to residential use requires the proposed changes to meet all necessary National and Local Planning Policies for acceptable accommodation for future residents which we have shown to be questionable.
  • There is inadequate off-street parking provision and inadequate Amenity or Play Space for Children of the proposed accommodation.

Permission Refused

Reason(s) for refusal :-

  1. The removal of the existing staircase would remove an access to the flats above and to the side of the application site harming the amenities of the neighbouring occupants contrary to Policy DM10 of Croydon Local Plan 2021.
  2. The proposed design of the development would fail to offer suitable outlook from or natural light to the new homes, resulting in poor quality living conditions. The application therefore conflicts with Croydon Local Plan (2018) Policy DM10 and London Plan (2021) Policy D6.

MORA Submission: 4th Jan 2024
Consultation Closes: 20th Jan 2024
Target Decision: 6th Feb 2024
• Total Consulted: 46
• Objections: 6
• Supporting: 5
Councillor referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (22nd Jan 2024)
Permission Refused: 7th Feb 2024

Land B/W 2 & 5 Round Grove – Ref: APP/L5240/W/23/3330711
Demolition of detached building. Erection of 1 x two-storey two-bedroom detached dwellinghouse including new vehicular access and crossover, landscaping, boundary treatments, car parking, cycle parking and bin storage and all associated site works.

We objected to the proposed development on the grounds that:

  • The Site area could benefit from improvement and attention, but the proposed development exceeds the Site Capacity for the Area Type Setting as defined by the National Model Design Code & Guidance; also, the proposal does not respect the character of the Area Type Setting and would not integrate well with the existing Street Scene.
  • The proposal does NOT follow the established Building Line along Round Grove and significantly breaches the building line of the two adjacent dwellings. The proposal offers inadequate storage space for future occupants. The amount of storage space beneath the staircase is undefined in area or volume.
  • The Area of the proposal is inappropriate for Growth other than “Gentle” Densification but significantly exceeds the Growth appropriate for existing infrastructure provision. The proposal would be a 211.83% increase in Housing Density and a 340.30% increase Residential Density. The Site Capacity for <Outer Suburban for a single Dwelling is limited to a maximum Housing Density of 20Units/ha which equates to a minimum Site Area of =>0.05ha. The available Site Area is given as 203.5sq.m. ≡ 0.02035ha. Therefore, the available Site capacity is deficient by 0.2965ha or 296.5sq.m., for one dwelling in an Area Type Setting of <Outer Suburban.
  • Thus, the proposal fails to meet the London Plan Policy D3 Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach.

Permission Refused

Reason(s) for refusal :-

  1. The proposal is considered to have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity by reason of loss of privacy, loss of outlook and visual intrusion. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies SP4.1,4.2, DM10.6 of the Croydon Local Plan and Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan.
  2. The proposal would result in substandard living conditions for future occupants due to the insufficient width for the first floor east facing bedroom and a low ceiling height contrary to Policy SP2.8 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan, Policy D6 of the London Plan and the Nationally Described Space Standard.
  3. The proposed parking space by virtue of its location and orientation would be detrimental to the road safety, contrary to the Council’s Vehicle Crossovers Guideline, Policies DM29 and DM30 of the Croydon Local Plan and Policy T4 of the London Plan.

MORA Submission: 23rd May 2023
Consultation Closes: 2nd Jun 2023
Target Decision: 5th Jul 2023
• Total Consulted: 4
• Objections: 13
• Supporting: 3
Permission Refused: 6th Jul 2023
Appeal Notice: 4th Oct 2023
MORA Appeal Submission: 29th Feb 2024


Additional Matters

Revised Croydon Local Plan Update

The Revised Croydon Local Plan (2018) was presented to Cabinet on 27th March and approved to be put to the Full Council meeting on 17th April.

The next stage of the review of the Local Plan will follow which is the Publication under Regulation 19 consultation which is now open for comments over a six-week period from 1 July and closing at 12 August, 5pm.

Click here for more information and have your say by completing the online form.

MORA Revised Croydon Local Plan 2024 Representation Forms
We have sent 16 representation forms detailing our comments on the Revised Croydon Local Plan to the Local Development Framework Team (LDF).

You can view them below:

Form #01
(Para 1.4 Intro)
Form #02
(Table 1.1 Intro)
Form #03
(SP1.0 C)
Form #04
(Affordable Homes SP2.6 a-b)
Form #05
(Quality Standards SP2.8 a-f)
Form #06
(Housing Choice DM1.1 a-g)
Form #07
(Housing Choice DM1.2 Table 4.1)
Form #08
(Ref 20 Table 4.1)
Form #09
(Estate Renewal DM1 A)
Form #10
(Housing Choice DM1B para 4.32)
Form #11
(Design Character DM10.7 a-f)
Form #12
(Design Character DM10 para 6.60 Table 6.5)
Form #13
(Housing Choice DM13 Refuse Recycling)
Form #14
(Design Character Key Supporting Docs)
Form #15
(Policy DM28A)
Form #16
(The Places of Croydon DM34 to DM49)

DEREK RITSON

MORA Planning

< June 2024 Planning Report August 2024 Planning Report >