Planning Report – June 2024

Applications

Additional Matters

Revised Croydon Local Plan Update

Applications

Decided

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 :-

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).
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).
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: 10^th May 2024
Target Decision: 3^rd Jun 2024
• Total Consulted: 14
• Objections: 0
• Supporting: 0
Permission Refused: 3^rd Jun 2024

Further developments are in the July 2024 Planning Report.

41 Homer Road – Ref: 24/00699/FUL
Erection of 1no. two bedroom bungalow in rear garden, provision of associated parking and vehicular access from Littlebrook Close, cycle and refuse storage, boundary treatments, soft and hard landscaping.

Permission Refused

Reason(s) for refusal :-

The proposed subdivision of the plot would result in less than half of the existing garden space being retained for the host dwelling. The proposed
development would conflict with policy DM10.4e of the Croydon Local Plan (2018).
The proposed development would result in substandard living accommodation by virtue of the undersized gross internal area (GIA) floorspace. The proposed development would conflict with policy D6 of the London Plan (2021).
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that pedestrian and vehicular sightlines can be achieved within the boundary of the site at the proposed vehicle access, which could result in pedestrian and highway safety issues. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to secure through an appropriate mechanism (such as a Section 106 agreement) appropriate mitigations and obligations to ensure compliance with policy in respect to sustainable transport contributions. The proposed development would conflict with policies T1, T4 and T9 of the London Plan (2021) and policies SP8, DM29 and DM30 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018).
The applicant has failed to provide cycle storage and bin storage, contrary to policy T5 of the London Plan (2021) and policies DM30 and DM13 of the
Croydon Local Plan (2018).
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that surface water runoff would be adequately managed within the site so as not to increase flood risk
elsewhere. The proposed development would conflict with policy SI13 of the London Plan (2021) and policies SP6 and DM25 of the Local Plan (2018).

Consultation Closes: 25^th Apr 2024
Target Decision: 22^nd May 2024
• Total Consulted: 13
• Objections: 12
• Supporting: 0
Permission Refused: 23^rd May 2024

Further developments are in the November 2024 Planning Report.

Awaiting Decision

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

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

Further developments are in the July 2024 Planning Report.

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: 18^th Dec 2023
Consultation Closes: 16^th Feb 2024
Target Decision: 25^th Jan 2024
• Total Consulted: 28
• Objections: 4
• Supporting: 0

Further developments are in the July 2024 Planning Report.

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: 10^th Jan 2024
Consultation Closes: 25^th Jan 2024
Target Decision: 27^th Feb 2024
• Total Consulted: 15
• Objections: 11
• Supporting: 0

Further developments are in the July 2024 Planning Report.

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

Flyer for download and social media sharing.

Further developments are in the July 2024 Planning Report.

Appeals Pending

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 :-

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

Further developments are in the July 2024 Planning Report.

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 should follow in May/June, but now seems to have slipped to June/July and is an opportunity to make representations.

Decided

Awaiting Decision

Appeals Pending

Applications

Additional Matters

Share this: