Planning Report – October 2019

Applications

Planning Committee Meeting (24th October)
New
Decided
Planning Conditions
Awaiting Decision

Planning Complaints

Additional Matters

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.

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

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

Flyer for download and distribution.

Suggested Reasons for refusal:

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

MORA Objection Sent: 20th Oct 2019
Consultation Closes: 30th Oct 2019
Target Decision: 27th Nov 2019
• Total Consulted: 8
• Objections: 24
• Supporting: 0

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.

This site has a previous approved application for a bungalow with basement which we objected to but was granted permission at Committee on 23rd Feb 2018.

This application replaces that previous application.

The Policies Map shows that this proposed development is within the (Urban) Shirley Primary Shopping Area DM45.1 but is NOT within an area designated for “Focussed Intensification”.

This is clearly an overdevelopment for this Urban Primary Shopping Centre location for the available public transport infrastructure as the proposal has no car parking provision and as the applicant has NOT supplied any justification for NOT meeting the Policy 3.4 or any replacement policy. This application should be refused as over-development for the location at this PTAL of 3 for a more appropriate Residential and Housing Density proposal. The Residential Density requires a PTAL of 5.26 and Housing Density requires a PTAL of 5.722 at a location with a TfL current and forecast PTAL at 2031 of just 3, without any justification as required of the London Plan Supplementary Housing Guide para 1.3.8.

This proposed development does NOT fully meet the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.5 for quality and design of housing developments for future occupants, for the life of the development and as there are no justifiable reasons quoted for NOT meeting the policy in full, this application should be refused.

For a 4x1bed Unit and 1×2 bed Unit accommodation, the London Plan Policy 3.6 interactive spreadsheet requires a minimum Play Space for Children of 9.3m2 using the GLA Benchmark of standard 10m2 of dedicated play space per child. As there is no allocation whatsoever, this proposed development should be refused on the grounds of non-compliance to the London Plan Policy 3.6 Play Space for the future children of the families of this proposed development.

At an Urban Setting, PTAL 3 Recommended Residential Density of 450 hr/ha and Housing Density of 170 u/ha the parking provision in accordance with London Plan Policy 6.13 Table 6.2 requires up to One space per unit. There are none!

The proposed development NOT incorporate ANY high quality communal outdoor amenity space and is NON- COMPLIANT to Policy DM10.5 and therefore this proposal be refused.

Unit 2 Private Balcony is configured as ≈1.5m wide which means the depth is ≈3.33m which is an awkward configuration considering it is unlikely to ever get direct sunlight and therefore non-compliant to Policy DM10.6 d).

The Flat roof-forms for Unit 2 and Unit 3 do not positively contribute to the local character roof forms as all local roof forms are of pitched tiled roofs. This detracts from the historic architecture of the local Centre and should therefore be avoided and the roof form of local character be implemented. Therefore, this proposal is non-compliant to DM10.7 para d) and should be refused.

The proposed development has virtually no landscaping area which could be considered attractive and therefore is non-compliant to Policy DM10.8 in its entirety.

The proposed development does not reflect the architecture of the existing and surrounding character or features of the existing structures and is therefore NOT compliant to Policy DM10.9 para a), b & d). and should be refused.

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)

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

36 Lorne Avenue – Ref: 19/02839/FUL
Alterations/part demolition of host dwelling. Erection of two bedroom bungalow at rear with associated refuse/cycle storage and provision of associated off-street parking (AMENDED DESCRIPTION).

On 6th August amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

The Applicant’s Design & Access Statement states:

• New Dwellings Policy promotes the provision of new residential accommodation, but only where it respects the character and amenity of adjoining residential areas and provides an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers.

We object to this proposed development on grounds of causing undue “harm” to the local area’s character and architectural historical style of dwellings inappropriate for the locality as defined by the NPPF The London Plan and The Croydon Local Plan and would set a precedent for the destruction of the character of the area and we recommend that this application be refused.

The proposed amended plans DO NOT provide the required information to assess whether the proposal meets the accommodation standards as defined in Policy 3.5 Table 3.3. Minimum Space Standards for New Dwellings and, therefore, it is not possible to prove it respects the Minimum requirements for the lifetime of the development.

We therefore object to this proposed development on grounds of non-compliance with London Plan Policy 3.5 with regard to provision of appropriate minimum space standards and built-in storage space and therefore this application should be refused.

The proposed development does NOT respect the development pattern, layout or siting of surrounding properties and therefore is Non- Compliant to Policy DM10.1 a).

The proposed development does NOT respect the scale, height massing nor density of the surrounding properties and therefore is Non-Compliant with Policy DM10.1 b).

The proposed development does NOT reflect the appearance, existing material and built form of surrounding properties and therefore is Non-Compliant with Policy DM10.1 c).

We object to this proposed development on grounds of overlooking and invasion of privacy into the adjacent garden amenity space of adjacent occupiers as defined in Policy DM10.6 b) and c). and there recommend that this application be refused

We object to this proposed development on grounds that there are no architectural or other screening to prevent overlooking into neighbouring dwellings as defined in SPD2 Section 2.9 and therefore this application should be refused.

We object to this proposed development on grounds of allocated Refuse and Recycling facilities for the new dwelling which is at an unacceptable location below a kitchen window of the host dwelling and is non-compliant to Waste and Recycling in Planning Policy Document at Para 2.4 External Storage – Design Features and Policy DM13.

We object to this proposed development on the grounds that the built form does NOT meet the SPD2 Design Guide 2.17 with regard to the observation of the building boundaries with adjacent properties which would result in eves and rainwater collection plumbing encroaching into adjacent properties curtilage area and recommend a refusal.

The access required by SPD2 is 3.6m and this access is only 3.1m

We object to this development proposal on grounds that the parking provision is totally unsuitable and could be a significant problem during any emergency requiring medical or fire service personnel gaining access to occupants on the site. The access drive is too narrow at 3.1m and does not meet the requirement of SPD2 of 3.6m minimum width and therefore this proposed development should be refused.

Permission refused on the grounds that:

  1. The proposed changes to the host building would unbalance the adjoining semi and would fail to respect or improve the existing pattern of buildings and adversely impact upon the street scene. The proposal would thereby conflict with Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2015 and Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018.
  2. The development would result in less than 200m2 of garden area and less than half of the existing garden to be retained at the host property which would be out of keeping with the adjoining semi and surrounding area and would thereby conflict Policy DM10.4 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018.

MORA Objection Sent: 11th Aug 2019
Consultation Closed: 19th Jul 2019 extended to 20th Aug 2019
Target Decision: 21st Aug 2019
• Total Consulted: 53
• Objections: 57
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referrals: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (6th Aug 2019 and 25th Jul 2019)
Permission Refused: 11th Oct 2019

9a Orchard Rise – Ref: 19/03633/DISC
Details pursuant to conditions 2 ( external materials), 7 ( land levels), 9 ( Construction logistics plan), 16 (Tree planting and protection), 17 (Rockery protection) of planning permission 18/06070/ful Demolition of the existing house and ancillary office and erection of a two-storey block of 4 flats and 5 three bedroom houses, provision of parking spaces, refuse storage and cycle stores.

The Local affected Residents convened a meeting on 10th September to raise these issues.

MORA Response to Conditions of Approval sent: 18th Sep 2019
Case Officer’s Report – Approval of the Conditions for 9a Orchard Rise 30th Sep 2019

Officer’s Report: Condition 9 Construction & Logistics Plan

Officers have examined the Construction Logistics Plan. In response to the local group objections officers agree with that vague terminology has been used. However, assuming that all deliveries take place within the site, specific pedestrian management plans would not generally be required as a construction vehicle using a crossover to access the site would not be any different to a normal vehicle access the private off-street parking facility via a crossover.

With regards to comments on hours of deliveries officers agree that the peak time deliveries need commitment to be avoided completely (except concrete). Displaying a large and clear sign indicating accepted delivery times on the hoarding would be very useful. However, outside of concrete deliveries, which are permitted in the restricted hours, any demand for public notice of exceptional deliveries is unreasonable. Exceptional deliveries would however require notification to LB Croydon as the highway authority. The specified working hours do not conflict with other standards.

Stacking of waiting vehicles is not permitted outside of the site, if the site believes this may happen, they need to approach us to arrange the use or establishment of a holding area before the start of works. Parking adjacent to dropped kerbs is legitimate and there is no right or power to restrict this providing access is not blocked, only parking in front of dropped kerbs is not permitted, which is a general condition of parking in London.

Assuming the access for construction is at least 3m, then access for construction traffic should not be an issue. Since the CLP states loading/unloading will take place on site, the craned deliveries from the road issue is irrelevant as it would not apply except by breach of the CLP commitments. The local groups comments on oversail would not apply unless loads are transported over other properties. Neighbouring sites are also not entitled to any notice of service connections beyond that provided by the utility companies. Dust/Noise is the remit of the Pollution and Environment Team. Environmental officer considers that the CLP I satisfactory for discharge regarding issues of air quality and noise.

Banksmen/Traffic Marshalls are obviously needed as usual practice. Officers consider that expecting residents to be notified of delivery activity is unreasonable and impractical. Likewise, neighbours are not entitled to CCTV images or recordings. Overall officers are satisfied with the details proposed and consider it sufficient to discharge this condition.

MORA Objection sent: 10th Jan 2019
MORA Objection Addendum sent: 25th Jan 2019
Consultation Closed: 30th Jan 2019
• Total Consulted: 59
• Objections: 42
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referrals: Councillor Sue Bennett (25th Jan 2019) & Councillor Richard Chatterjee (25th Jan 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 21st Mar 2019
Permission Granted: 21st Mar 2019

MORA Stage 1 Complaint (28th Mar 2019) relevant Planning Policies contained in the emerging Supplementary Planning Guidance at Suburban Residential Development SPD2 were NOT adequately considered in the determination of this planning application (Case Number: 4939913).
Stage 1 Response (24th Apr 2019) from Pete Smith, Head of Development Management.
MORA Stage 2 Complaint (1st May 2019)
Stage 2 Response (23rd May 2019) from Shifa Mustafa, Executive Director of Place.
Escalation to the Local Government Ombudsman (4th Jun 2019) Case ID Number 19 000 3809
Local Government Ombudsman Response (16th Jul 2019) from Neil Potts, Investigator.
MORA Response to Local Government Ombudsman (22nd Jul 2019)

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 PolicyDM10.9 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)

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.

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 Committee Slot: TBC

14-16 Woodmere Close – Ref: 19/01484/FUL
Erection of 1 two storey dwelling located to rear of No’s 14 and 16 Woodmere Close New application in the rear gardens of 14 & 16 Woodmere Close adding to the new estate at the back gardens of Woodmere Close. This would be the last one in this series. It is likely to meet all planning policies as all previous applications for this site has met planning policies.

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

Consultation closes: 31st May 2019 extended to 2nd Aug 2019
Target Decision: 2nd Jul 2019
• Total Consulted: 31
• Objections: 7
• Supporting: 0

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.

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

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.

Supplementary Questions to The Mayor of London Sadiq Khan

Supplementary to Questions 2019/8973 for Mayor’s Question Time 12th September 2019
Q1 – London Plan Density (1)
Question No: 2019/17533

Further to your response to question 2019/8973, the first paragraph of your answer related to the current Policy 3.4 which includes a density matrix but did not answer the question on Policy D6 which requested why Policy D6 does not give guidance to applicants for the appropriate densities for development proposals at given localities and therefore does not meet the requirements of NPPF para 16 and 122.

16. Plans should:
d) contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals;

122. Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account:
c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use;
d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and

The second part of the first paragraph provided a history of planning officers’ failure to implement the provisions of the density matrix. This suggests that planning officers were ignoring the policy to meet housing targets, not that the Policy 3.4 was flawed. The result of officers ignoring the policy is the visible increase in local congestion due to over-development, overcrowding and inadequate public transport to support the approved high densities of which supporting evidence is available.

With the replacement Policy D6, if there is no defined relationship, or methodology, what way is there of preventing public transport under or over capacity or traffic congestion as residents in high density developments (localities) revert to cars due to unavailable public transport capacities?

Answered by The Mayor (13th September 2019)

The density ranges in the SRQ density matrix in the current London Plan provide no indication of whether there is enough infrastructure to support a development or not.

In contrast, my draft London Plan provides clear policy to ensure boroughs plan for the delivery of infrastructure necessary to support new housing and ensures that the scale of a development does not exceed current or future planned supporting infrastructure. Policy D1A Infrastructure requirements for sustainable densities is clear that ‘where there is currently insufficient capacity of existing infrastructure to support proposed densities (including the impact of cumulative development), boroughs should work with applicants and infrastructure providers to ensure that sufficient capacity will exist at the appropriate time’. It is also clear that where a ‘borough considers the planned infrastructure capacity will be exceeded, additional infrastructure proportionate to the development should be delivered through the development’.

My officers in the London Plan team would be happy to discuss the SRQ density matrix and its application, and the draft Plan’s approach to density with you.

MORA Response:
1) The SQR Density Matrix does indicate the appropriate PTAL range required for a given Density range at a given setting which gives guidance as to infrastructure requirements!
2) Policy D1 does NOT clearly define how to evaluate whether the existing infrastructure meets the required capacity to cope with new developments – is this a subjective evaluation by a case officer?
3) It is NOT clear how inadequate infrastructure to support a development is defined.
4) If it requires the Mayor’s Officers to explain the draft plans approach – how in heavens name are applicants supposed to be able to interpret the policy to know the appropriate residential density of a development to offer for a locality?
5) Similarly how can residents or Residents’ Associations have a clue what the appropriate Density would be for a development proposal to meet the infrastructure available or planned?

Q2 – London Plan Density (2)
Question No: 2019/17474

Further to your response to question 2019/8973, the second paragraph of your response states: “My draft London Plan explicitly recognises that the appropriate density of a site is an output of a process of assessment, rather than an input.”

Policy D6 at D States:
The following measurements of density should be provided for all planning applications that include new residential units:

1) number of units per hectare
2) number of habitable rooms per hectare
3) number or bedrooms per hectare
4) number of bedspaces per hectare.

Policy D6 does not define the process by which to analyse these parameters to define an acceptable Housing or Residential Density.

If the assessment of a proposal to define the appropriate density of a development site is an output of a process, how exactly should those input parameters, listed above at 1 through 4 of that process, be analysed and by what methodology to provide an output figure to define the appropriate density and what are the individual weighting factors?

Answered by The Mayor (13th September 2019)

Density measurements are an output of a proposed development design not an input parameter to dictate the feasible number of units. The value of these density measurements is that together they provide a more meaningful numeric comparison between different developments, and between a proposed development and the surrounding area, than is provided by a single density measurement. Requiring these measurements in the London Plan helps ensure this data is collected across London for all relevant developments and thus can be used to inform future reviews of the London Plan.

My officers in the London Plan team would be happy to meet with you to discuss the draft London Plan’s approach to density with you in more detail.

MORA Comment:
1) I don’t think this answers the question – how do you use these parameters to establish whether a proposal requires additional infrastructure to support the development on not!
2) Again if the Mayor cannot describe the policy – how on earth could an applicant decide whether their proposal is an appropriate density for the locality and an available methodology to forecast infrastructure requirement?
3) Similarly how can residents or Residents’ Associations have a clue what the appropriate Density would be for a development proposal to meet the site setting, local character and infrastructure, available or planned?


Question No: 2019/8976
Answered by The Mayor (17th May 2019)

The policies in my draft London Plan set out a clear and systematic approach to assessing development proposals that reflects site specific circumstances. These policies will help boroughs in assessing the optimum density for sites to be allocated in their Local Plans, as well as assessing individual applications. My draft Plan also requires boroughs to proactively establish appropriate site capacity parameters, following the design-led approach, for strategic development sites in their Local Plans. I am currently preparing detailed supplementary planning guidance to accompany the Plan that will provide additional detail on how to effectively optimise the capacity of sites by following the design-led approach.

New Supplementary Question for Mayor’s Question Time 17th October 2019.

Supplementary Planning Guidance on Density
Your answer to Question 2019/8976 on 17th May 2019 indicated you are currently preparing a detailed Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) to accompany the London Plan Policy that will provide additional detail on how to effectively optimise housing potential using the design led approach.

Can you indicate when you intend to publish this Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) providing guidance on assessing appropriate Housing and Residential Densities for new housing developments?

DEREK RITSON
MORA Planning

< September 2019 Planning Report November 2019 Planning Report >