Planning Report – March 2020

Applications

Planning Complaints

56 Woodmere Avenue – Escalation to Local Government Ombudsman (11^th Mar 2020)
17 Orchard Avenue – Stage 2 Response (18^th Feb 2020)
37 Woodmere Avenue – Stage 2 Response (23^rd Dec 2019)

Additional Matters

Question to Rt. Hon Robert Jenrick – Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government via our MP Sarah Jones.
Response from Graham Knapper – Local Government Stewardship Division at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Applications

New

Land R/O 211 Wickham Road – Ref: 20/01256/FUL
Demolition of existing structures to the rear of 211 Wickham Road and erection of a two storey building containing four dwellings with associated alterations .

Consultation Closes: 15^th Apr 2020
Target Decision: 11^th May 2020
• Total Consulted: 21
• Objections: 0
• Supporting: 0

Further developments are in the April 2020 Planning Report.

Decided

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

This proposal fails to meet minimum accommodation standards as defined by the current adopted and emerging London Plan Policies which if the proposal were to be approved, would be extremely detrimental for future occupiers for the life of the development.

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

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

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

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

MORA Objection Sent: 4^th Feb 2019
Consultation Closes: 16^th Feb 2020
Target Decision: 9^th Mar 2020
• Total Consulted: 12
• Objections: 6
• Supporting: 0
Permission Refused: 20^th Mar 2020

Further developments are in the April 2020 Planning Report.

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

Consultation Closes: 20^th Feb 2020
Target Decision: 18^th Mar 2020
• Total Consulted: 18
• Objections: 1
• Supporting: 0
Application Withdrawn: 17^th Mar 2020

Further developments are in the April 2020 Planning Report.

151 Wickham Road – Ref: 19/04149/FUL
Erection of a two storey stepped, side and rear extension with alterations to the roof and additional rear dormer, retention of the existing commercial unit and construction of four additional self-contained apartments.

Amended Drawings provided 21st November – Date of Committee Meeting.

Challenged Development Management why these were provided and whether objectors should have had opportunity to study theses amended drawings and possibly make further representations.

Response from Development Management stated: Immediately prior to the Planning Committee when preparing for the meeting itself, the presenting officer noted that there was a slight discrepancy with one of the drawings, which failed to properly recognise and take into account the location of an existing telecoms cabinet and lamp standard in the pavement outside the site.

This had in fact been highlighted by one of the residents commenting on the planning application and we decided to get the applicant to very slightly amend the drawings to make sure that the entrances into the building took into account the location of these items of street furniture.

The amended plans were uploaded on the day of Planning Committee – but were very minor changes – which responded to comments received and were highlighted in the addendum to the Planning Committee.

The Planning Sub-committee was not Webcast but informal notification was for Grant Approval.

Decision Note yet to be published.

MORA Objection sent: 18^th Sep 2019
Consultation Closes: 27^th Sep 2019
Target Decision: 28^th Oct 2019
• Total Consulted: 44
• Objections: 5
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referrals: Councillor Sue Bennett (24^th Sep 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 21^st Nov 2019
Permission Granted: 18^th Mar 2020

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

Flyer for download and distribution.

Suggested Reasons for refusal:

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

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

Tracking Plans (Bays 1 – 8)
Elevations
Roof Plan
Roof Space Plan
First Floor Plan
Ground Floor & Site Plans

Case Officers Report Para 8.7 stated:
“8.7 The proposal results in an increased density on the site by eight additional residential units, all of which would be 3-bed, 5 person units. The scheme exceeds the density matrix (150-200) as set out within the London Plan at approximately 300 habitable rooms per hectare. However, given suburban setting combined with the similar footprint, form and spacing of the proposed dwellings in comparison to the surrounding properties, the acute need for new homes and the fact that the site is very close to the intensification area of Shirley, it is considered an appropriate density for this site.”

Whereas the actual distance to the intensification area of Shirley is approx. 1.5km.

MORA Objection Sent: 20^th Oct 2019
MORA Objection (Amended Drawings) sent: 19^th Dec 2019
Consultation Closes: 30^th Oct 2019 – Extended to 28^th Dec 2019
Target Decision: 27^th Nov 2019
• Total Consulted: 72
• Objections: 62
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referrals: Councillor Sue Bennett (31^st Oct 2019) and Councillor Richard Chatterjee (5^th Nov 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 27^th Feb 2020
Permission Granted: 27^th Feb 2020

Further developments are in the April 2020 Planning Report.

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

Consultation Closes: 30^th Jan 2020
Target Decision: 12^th Feb 2020
• Total Consulted: 9
• Objections: 4
• Supporting: 0
Permission Granted: 12^th Feb 2020

Awaiting Decision

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

We objected to this proposed re-development on the following grounds:

1) Failure to meet the London Plan and Croydon Plan Policy DM10 Minimum Space Standards for the future occupants for the lifetime of the development;

2) Failure to meet the existing adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 – Optimising Housing Potential with respect to Residential and Housing Densities at a Suburban setting at PTAL 2, and forecast to remain at PTAL 2 until 2031;

3) Failure to meet the new Draft London Plan Policy 1DA – Infrastructure Requirements for Sustainable Densities;

4) Failure to evaluate requirements of the proposal as required by the “Design-led approach” as required of the new London Plan Policy 1DA – Infrastructure Requirements for Sustainable Densities at Policy D1A paras 3.1B.23/24;

5) Excessive Overdevelopment for the locality, forecast to remain at PTAL 2 up to 2031 in terms of appropriate Residential and Housing Densities in a “Suburban Setting”;

6) Inadequate Amenity Space or Communal Open Space for the future occupants of the development for the lifetime of the development;

7) No provision of the required “Play Space for Children” of the future occupants of the development’ as required by the London Plan and Croydon Local Plan 2018.

MORA Objection Sent: 24^th Feb 2020
Consultation Closes: 26^th Feb 2020
Target Decision: 30^th Mar 2020
• Total Consulted: 19
• Objections: 5
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Sue Bennett (24^th Feb 2020)

Further developments are in the April 2020 Planning Report.

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

This proposal considerably exceeds the Residential Density and Housing Density for this location at a suburban Setting and PTAL 1b and should therefore be refused.

The existing and future planned Infrastructure has NOT been evaluated in accordance with the London Plan Policy 3.4 – Optimising Housing Potential or the emerging London Plan Policy D1A – Infrastructure requirements for sustainable densities or D1B – Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach. As such this proposed development is unsustainable when evaluated using currently available TfL analysis information as clearly set out above with respect to Public Transport Accessibility Level – PTAL and should therefore be refused in accordance with the Policy.

MORA Objection Sent: 26^th Feb 2020
Consultation Closes: 27^th Feb 2020
Target Decision: 21^st Mar 2020
• Total Consulted: 6
• Objections: 6
• Supporting: 0

Further developments are in the April 2020 Planning Report.

Orchard Park High School – Ref: 19/04183/FUL
Single storey rear extension, conversion to community gym including external alterations and access arrangements

Design & Access Statement
8.0 Conclusion

The opportunity to implement this scheme would utilise an existing building.
We believe the conversion to the existing facility will offer fitness to a wider customer base and prove an asset to the area.
The change of use for Use Class D2.
The proposal will create a range of full-time part time and self-employment opportunities within the local economy.
The proposed scheme will involve a large invest by the applicant and will provide a high-quality facility. The facility will offer fitness to a wider customer base and prove a long-term asset to the area.
Taking all the above into consideration, we believe the proposal brings into use a vacant building, in a suitable location and satisfies planning policy.

Consultation Closes: 16^th Oct 2019
Target Decision: 8^th Nov 2019
• Total Consulted: 72
• Objections: 1
• Supporting: 0

Further developments are in the April 2020 Planning Report.

Land R/O The Shirley Inn Public House 158 Wickham Road Croydon: 19/03279/FUL
Erection of a residential development of two detached three storey buildings comprising a total of 6 flats (2×1 bed, 2×2 bed, 2×3 bed), provision of refuse and cycle storage, hard and soft landscaping and provision of two parking spaces.

The proposed development is outside the MORA area but in the Shirley North Ward. The application is in the Spring Park Residents’ Association (SPRA) Area, but we are in support in objecting to this development.

The proposed development fails to meet the objectives of London Plan Policy 3.4 – Optimising Housing Potential Table 3.2 in relation to an Excessive Residential Density of 459.77 hr/ha requiring a local PTAL of 5.031 when the local PTAL is actually only 3 and forecast to remain at PTAL 3 until 2031.

There is no allocated play space for children of the future occupants of this proposed development.

The development has inadequate parking provision in an Urban Shopping Locality of PTAL 3 of only two Parking Bays when the current London Plan Policy 6.13 requires up to 1.5 space at PTAL 3 and Residential Density of 459.77hr/ha & Housing Density of 114.94 units/ha which equates to 9 Parking Bays for 6 dwellings.

This proposed development also does not meet the Croydon Local Plan Policy DM10.1 in that development in the grounds of an existing building which is retained shall be subservient to that building. It also fails to meet the objectives of Policy DM10.9 a) & b) in that the proposed development does NOT respect or enhance the local character specifically the architecture of the host Shirley Inn and Public House.

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

MORA Objection Sent: 2^nd Aug 2019
Consultation Closed: 11^th Aug 2019
Target Decision: 6^th Sep 2019
• Total Consulted: 45
• Objections: 66
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Sue Bennett (15th Aug 2019)

Further developments are in the April 2020 Planning Report.

Planning Complaints

56 Woodmere Avenue – Ref: 19/01352/FUL
Demolition of a single-family dwelling and erection of a 3- storey block containing 2 x 3-bedroom and 7 x 2-bedroom apartments with associated access, 9 parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse store (amended plans and description)

We objected on grounds of over-development and non-compliance to the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential due to excessive Residential Density and excessive Housing Density.

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

We also objected on grounds of non-compliance to Croydon Plan Policy DM10.1 and Para 6.37, and that it does not meet the requirements of Policy DM13 or Council Guidance on Refuse & Recycling for New Developments as published by Croydon Council with regard to Refuse Storage Area Capacity. It is also non-compliant to Policy: Shirley Place Homes para 11.200 & Character, Heritage and Design para 11.202.

On 28^th May amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

All Proposed Plans
Landscape Maintenance Plan Report
Planting Schedule Report
Tree Specifications Report
Soft Landscaping Plans
Hard Landscaping Plans

The main changes are the internal layouts to meet the London Plan Table 3.3 minimum space standards and the addition of two car parking spaces fronting Woodmere Ave.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.1 – Thursday 1st August.
Local Resident Richard Chambers spoke on behalf of affected residents.
Decision Deferred on the grounds of architectural design.

Councillor Paul Scott didn’t like the roof form – thought it was ugly so deferred to allow applicant to change to design of the roof and perhaps other aspects. Footprint likely to stay the same.

On 3rd Sep amended plans were uploaded to the online register.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.1 – Thursday 24th October 2019.
Local Resident Richard Chambers and Councillor Richard Chatterjee spoke on behalf of affected residents.
Voted 6:3 to Grant Permission.

MORA Objection sent: 8^th Apr 2019
MORA Objection (Amended Drawings) sent: 2^nd Jun 2019
MORA Objection (Second Amended Drawings) sent: 17^th Sep 2019
MORA Objection Addendum (Second Amended Drawings) sent: 20^th Sep 2019
Consultation Closes: 18^th Apr 2019 – Extended to 20^th Jun 2019 – Extended to 25^th Sep (Amended Plans and Description)
Target Decision: 15^th May 2019
• Total Consulted: 38
• Objections: 31
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (23^rd Apr 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 1^st Aug 2019
Decision Deferred: 1^st Aug 2019
Deferred Planning Committee: 24^th Oct 2019
Permission Granted: 24^th Oct 2019

MORA Stage 1 Complaint (8^th Dec 2019) Our Complaint comprises the following issues:
1. Failure to apply the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 to Optimise the Housing Potential or the consolidated emerging London Plan Policy D1A – Infrastructure requirements for sustainable densities, in accordance with the Policy on Residential and Housing Density appropriate for the available or forecast Public Transport Accessibility for the locality at a ‘suburban’ setting and at PTAL of 1a, as required by NPPF (2018/19) para 122 – Achieving Appropriate Densities.
2. Failure to consider the overbearing nature of the proposed development with regard to loss of amenity to the adjacent property at 54 Woodmere Avenue as defined by Policy SPD2 Figure 2.11c: Height of projection beyond the rear of neighbouring properties to be no greater than 45° degrees as measured vertically from the middle of the ground floor window of the closest habitable room on the rear elevation of the neighbouring property should NOT intersect the proposed development.
3. Failure to adequately consider the loss of natural light due to the closeness and overbearing nature of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 54 Woodmere Avenue and failure to acknowledge and correct the errors in the applicant’s daylight study report.
4. Overbearing massing of proposed development in relation to surrounding properties.
5. Infraction of Planning Policies on grounds that it is more imperative to meet housing targets than to countenance and implement adopted Planning Policies. (Case Number: CAS-123091-Y3J7R2)
Stage 1 Response (18^th Dec 2019) from Pete Smith, Head of Development Management.
MORA Stage 2 Complaint (13^th Jan 2020)
Stage 2 Response (10^th Feb 2020) from Shifa Mustafa, Executive Director of Place.
Escalation to the Local Government Ombudsman (11^th Mar 2020) Case ID Number 19 020 965.

Further developments are in the April 2020 Planning Report.

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 31^st July amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

Revised planning application involving demolition of existing detached house, erection of 3-storey building with further floor of accommodation in roofspace comprising 3 x 1 bedroom flat, 4 x 2-bedroom flats and 1 x 3 bedroom flat, formation of vehicular access and provision of 4 associated parking spaces and refuse storage.

The new plans have increased the height of the development by an additional storey.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.1 – Wednesday 6th November.
Susannah Angold, Estate Manager for Peregrine Gardens and Councillor Sue Bennett spoke on behalf of affected residents.

Voted 6:4 to Grant Permission.

MORA Objection sent: 3^rd Apr 2019
MORA Objection (Amended Drawings) sent: 5^th Aug 2019
Consultation closed: 10^th Apr 2019 – Extended to 23^rd Aug 2019
Target Decision: 5^th May 2019
• Total Consulted: 47
• Objections: 16
• Supporting: 1
Councillor referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (16^th Apr 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Sub-Committee Slot: 6^th Nov 2019
Permission Granted: 6^th Nov 2019

MORA Stage 1 Complaint (20^th Dec 2019) Our Complaint comprises the following issues:
1. Failure to apply the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 to Optimise the Housing Potential or the consolidated emerging London Plan Policy D1A – Infrastructure requirements for sustainable densities, in accordance with the Policy on Residential and Housing Density appropriate for the available or forecast Public Transport Accessibility for the locality at a ‘suburban’ setting and PTAL of 2, as required by NPPF (2018/19) para 122 – Achieving Appropriate Densities.
2. Failure to consider the overbearing nature of the proposed development with regard to loss of amenity to both adjacent properties at 19 & 15 Orchard Avenue as defined by Policy SPD2 Figure 2.11c: Height of projection beyond the rear of neighbouring properties to be no greater than 45° degrees as measured vertically from the middle of the ground floor window of the closest habitable room on the rear elevation of the neighbouring property should NOT intersect the proposed development.
3. Infraction of Planning Policies on grounds that it is more imperative to meet housing targets than to countenance and implement adopted Planning Policies
Stage 1 Response (9^th Jan 2020) from Pete Smith, Head of Development Management.
MORA Stage 2 Complaint (26^th Jan 2020) Case Reference: CAS-126578-P1P6P4
Stage 2 Response (18^th Feb 2020) from Shifa Mustafa, Executive Director of Place.

37 Woodmere Avenue – Ref: 19/03064/FUL
Demolition of existing dwelling. Erection of two storey building (with roofspace accommodation) comprising 8 flats (1 x 3 bed, 5 x 2 bed and 2 x 1 bed) with associated car parking, amenity space and cycle and waste stores.

Flyer for download and distribution.

Suggested Reasons for refusal:

• Over Development Housing Density @ 91.43u/ha; should be between 40 to 65u/ha
• Over Development Residential Density @ 342.86hr/ha; should be between 150 to 200hr/ha
• Densities would require a PTAL of 5.91 for Residential Density and 4.71 for Housing Density when the locality has PTAL of 1a (numerically = 0.66)
• Inadequate Car Parking spaces 8 for the 26 occupants should be 12 spaces.
• Over Development with regard massing and bulk as compared to existing surrounding properties.

Case Officer’s Report:

8.5 In relation to density, Policy 3.4 of the London Plan indicates that in suburban areas with Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs) of 0-1, an appropriate density equates to 150-200 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha).

8.6 The application proposes 22 habitable rooms on a site with an area of 0.0875ha, which equates to a density of 251hr/ha, which falls slightly above threshold (NOTE:A number of the representations submitted have incorrectly used number of future occupants (26) rather than number of habitable rooms (22) in their density calculations).

Notwithstanding, the density of the development is still slightly higher than that recommended by Policy 3.4 of the London Plan.

MORA Comment:

8.6 This is based upon an assumption that the Kitchen/Dining/Living accommodation for each flat is classed as a single habitable room rather than a living and Dining Room as two functional rooms. If this configuration is considered as two Habitable rooms, the total for the proposal is 30 habitable rooms which convert to a residential Density of 30/0.0875 = 342.86hr/ha rather than the 251.42hr/ha that the case officer assumes.

8.8 The Applicant did not provide a rear elevation which showed the relationship with the adjacent property a 2b Tower View. (and the Case Officer conveniently didn’t request this information)

SPD2 Section 2.11 HEIGHTS & DEPTHS PROJECTING BEYOND REAR BUILDING LINES

This proposal could fail the 45° Rule both horizontally building line and Vertically from the centre of the adjacent nearest habitable ground floor window which may well intersect the elevation of the proposed development.

The applicant has not provided drawings which shows the relationship with the rear elevation of number 2b Tower View and the 45° Rule projection from the centre of the rear adjacent ground floor window of 2b Tower View to indicate whether it would intersect the proposed development as detailed at SPD2 illustration 2.11 b) and 2.11 c).

If this cannot be answered at committee by the planning officer we requested a deferment to allow the application to provide the evidence. Committee did NOT consider this.

SPD2

6.56 The London Housing Design Guide in 5.1.1 Standards – identified that ‘in the past, planning guidance for privacy has been concerned with achieving visual separation between dwellings by setting a minimum distance of 18-21m between facing homes’. It says that ‘these are still useful yardsticks for visual privacy, but adhering rigidly to these measures can limit the variety of urban spaces and housing types in the city, and can sometimes unnecessarily restrict density’.

6.80 Evidence will be required to demonstrate that privacy is protected, and the character of the area is respected in the layout of private and communal amenity space as part of development proposals. A minimum separation of 18-21m between directly facing habitable room windows on main rear elevations is a best practice ‘yardstick’ in common usage and should be applied flexibly, dependent on the context of the development to ensure that development is provided at an acceptable density in the local context. For new major developments, as long as the perimeter buildings take account of this local context, the density may vary within the development.

6.81 Designers should consider the position and aspect of habitable rooms, gardens and balconies, and avoid windows facing each other where privacy distances are tight. Planning guidance has, in the past, been concerned with achieving visual separation between dwellings by setting a minimum distance of 18-21m between facing homes (between habitable room and habitable room) as opposed to between balconies or terraces or between habitable rooms and balconies/terrace. These can still be useful yardsticks for visual privacy, but adhering rigidly to these measures can limit the variety of urban spaces and housing types and can sometimes unnecessarily restrict density.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.1 – Thursday 26th Sep 2019.
Local Resident Richard Chambers spoke on behalf of local residents.
Our local councillors failed to register and therefore could not speak on behalf of local residents.
Voted 5 : 4 to Grant Permission

MORA Objection sent: 24^th Jul 2019
Consultation Closed: 4^th Aug 2019
Target Decision: 5^th Sep 2019
• Total Consulted: 29
• Objections: 18
• Supporting: 0
Councillor Referral: None
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 26^th Sep 2019
Permission Granted: 26^th Sep 2019

MORA Stage 1 Complaint (17^th Oct 2019) Our Complaint comprises the following issues:
1. Failure to apply the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 to Optimise the Housing Potential in accordance with the Policy on Residential and Housing Density appropriate for the locality at a suburban setting and at PTAL of 1a. Based upon a false determination of Residential Density by incorrect analysis of number of Habitable Rooms.
2. Failure to consider the overbearing nature of the proposed development to 2b Tower View with regard to Policy SPD2 Figure 2.11 c: Height of projection beyond the rear of neighbouring properties to be no greater than 45 degrees as measured from the middle of the window of the closest habitable room on the rear elevation of the neighbouring property.
3. Failure to consider the unreasonable closeness of facing windows at Unit 1 overlooking and invasion of privacy toward (bedroom) window at the adjacent bungalow at 2b Tower View at separating distance of 5.25m.
4. Overbearing massing of proposed development in relation to surrounding properties.
5. Infraction of Planning Policies on grounds that it is more imperative to meet housing targets than to countenance and implement adopted Planning Policies. (Case Number CAS-105503-W1M7W2).
Stage 1 Response (14^th Nov 2019) from Pete Smith, Head of Development Management.
MORA Stage 2 Complaint (1st Dec 2019) Case Reference: CAS-105503-W1M7W2
Stage 2 Response (23^rd Dec 2019) from Shifa Mustafa, Executive Director of Place.

Additional Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When checking the mission statement of the LGO it states:

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

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

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

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

The Ombudsman’s ‘Investigation Manual’ confirms that:

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

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

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

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

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

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