Applications
Planning Sub-Committee Meeting (20th March 2025)
New
Awaiting Decision
Appeals Pending
Applications
Planning Sub-Committee Meeting (20th March 2025)
27 Orchard Rise – Ref: 24/02781/FUL
Demolition of existing dwellings and the construction of 4no. semi-detached dwellings with associated parking, refuse and cycle storage.
We objected to the proposed development on the grounds that:
- The proposed Development would result in the loss of a single-family home with garden.
- The proposal is for two blocks of Two-Storey Semi-detached with gabled room forms, which does not respect the predominant build type of bungalows of the locality.
- The proposal has not shown any in-built storage for the future occupants which is an indication of overdevelopment as the Developer is attempting to squeeze as much as possible into a limited site area which does not allow the minimum internal space standards to be implemented.
- The proposal exceeds the local Post Code Area Type by 58.52% requiring bridging the established Area Type the range of ‘Outer [London] Suburban’ to ‘Suburban’ with no increase in supporting infrastructure.
- The Post Code (CR0 7QZ) has a ‘Housing Density’ of ≈27.22 Unit/ha (Outer [London] Suburban Area Type) and a ‘Residential Density’ of ≈66.44 Persons/ha (Outer [London] Suburban Area Type). In contrast, the Applicant’s proposal has 43.15 Unit/ha (Suburban Area Type), a 48.52% increase, and 172.6 Persons/ha (‘Urban’ Area Type), a 159.78% increase setting (bridging a Suburban Area Type) as defined by the National Model Design Code & Guidance (NMDC&G). These increases are proposed without any proportionate increase in local Infrastructure, especially accessibility to Public Transport which is currently PTAL 1a (≡ 0.66), and thus clearly indicates an over development for the locality.
- The London Plan Residential Parking provision is given at Policy T6.1 Table 10.3 and for “outer London” at PTAL 0 to 1 which includes PTAL1a. The Parking provision appropriate is 1.5 Spaces per Unit, which again for 4 Units would require ‘6’ Parking Bays.
- The proposal only provides 5 Parking Bays, in a locality of PTA1a (≡ 0.66) which fails to Meet the Croydon Local Plan Policy DM30 or the London Plan Policy T6.1 Table 10.3.
- Our assessment is that the parking provision for the proposal is inadequate in both capacity and Area due to the inappropriate parking configuration with limited manoeuvrebility. The Swept Path analysis clearly indicates that Parking provision is inadequate, and that Parking manoeuvres and clearances proposed would be probably impossible and therefore is ‘unacceptable.
- It is our considered view that the driveway Access is inadequate for the number of additional Pedestrians (16) and (Car 5) regular vehicular traffic movements by occupants and visitors. It does NOT meet Public Realm design requirements. The 3.7m width depicted in the Drawing No ORCHRD-ZZ-04-DR-A-01_302-A3 Date 29-05-2024 is unreliable and misleading.
- We are convinced that a Fire Appliance vehicle with high pressure pump cannot get within 45m of any part of the proposed development to be reached by Pressurised Hose.
- The proposal also fails to meet the Refuse Recycling Bin pull distance and capacity requirements for 4 Units as defined by the Croydon Council Refuse Waste and Recycling Planning Policy.
- The proposal meets most accommodation standards as defined by the New London Plan (2021) except that the proposal does NOT identify any ‘In-Built’ Storage capacities.
- These Standards are appropriate for the storage of the normal living clutter requirements for future occupants as defined in the New London Plan (2021) Table 3.1 which indicates 3b4p Dwellings should provide 2.5sq.m. In-Built Storage per Dwelling and the London Plan Guidance LPG – Housing Design Standards Table 1A.1. indicates a Best Practice for 3b4p dwellings of 3sqm. In-Built Storage per Dwelling.
- These are ‘Minimum’ Accommodation Space Standards which, in addition, the London Plan recommends “these minimum standards should be exceeded if at all possible”. It is unacceptable that this requirement is not fully met and gives further evidence of overdevelopment of the site area of 927m2 or 0.0927ha as there is insufficient space to provide the minimum in-built storage space required.
- We also believe that the configuration with respect to 25 Orchard Rise would allow significant invasion of privacy and overlooking, as the separation distance between the Flank Wall of 25 Orchard Rise, which contains a Window to their Dining Room would be directly overlooked by the proposed development Ground Floor Kitchen and first floor bedrooms at approximately 15.8m perpendicular distance. This fails to meet the recommended 18 to 21 metres recommended spacing between facing windows.
MORA Submission: 2nd Sep 2024
MORA Addendum: 14th Feb 2025
Consultation Closes: 8th Sep 2024
Target Decision: 8th Oct 2024
• Total Consulted: 31
• Objections: 47
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Sue Bennett (11th Sep 2024)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 20th Mar 2025
New
40 The Glade – Ref: 25/00608/FUL
Demolition of existing house and the construction of a three bedroom bungalow.
Consultation Closes: 26th Mar 2025
Target Decision: 28th Apr 2025
• Total Consulted: 7
• Objections: 0
• Supporting: 0
23 Woodland Way – Ref: 24/04217/FUL
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2 x 4-bed dwellings with associated parking, cycle and refuse storage.
We objected to the proposed development on the grounds that:
- The proposal requires the demolition of an existing bungalow to be replaced by two detached Units of 4b/6p.
- The proposal is located at the end of a Cul be Sac with a very narrow entrance, widening as progressed into the site of 0.086ha. Swept path drawings should be provided showing entrance requirements from the public highway into the development site for a range of vehicles, including a 4.8m long car and any required servicing, waste, or emergency vehicles.
- The proposal entrance is extremely restricted and would limit the size of vehicles which could reasonably be required to service the units.
- The proposal does not include an acceptable Fire Safety Assessment as required by the Validation Checklist. An authoritative Fire Safety Assessment Report may require the 2 Units to be fitted with a more comprehensive ‘Fire Alarm System’ and/or a comprehensive ‘Sprinkler System’ due to the access limitations to the site by fire appliances and fire fighters, but this requires the provision of a Fire Safety Report assessment by a suitably qualified assessor, which is clearly absent from the proposal.
- The Locality is clearly inappropriate for Incremental Intensification and from the above analysis it can be seen that the proposed development exceeds the National Model Design Code & Guidance Area Type by 45.803%. and thus, does not reflect local character.
MORA Submission: 7th Mar 2025
Consultation Closes: 14th Mar 2025
Target Decision: 8th Apr 2025
• Total Consulted: 7
• Objections: 3
• Supporting: 0
Awaiting Decision
41 Homer Road – Ref: 24/03363/FUL
Erection of 1no. 1-bedroom 2-person bungalow in rear garden, provision of associated parking and vehicular access from Littlebrook Close, associated boundary treatments and alterations, and provision of pedestrian footway along Littlebrook Close.
Consultation Closes: 15th Nov 2024
Target Decision: 16th Dec 2024
• Total Consulted: 13
• Objections: 9
• Supporting: 0
159 – 161 The Glade – Ref: 24/01924/FUL
Demolish two existing bungalows and associated garages to create a combined site of 950 sqm to deliver four family homes with associated parking, gardens and cycle storage, and visitor parking. 
We objected to the proposed development on the grounds that:
- The Post Code CR0 7QR has an Area of 0.41hectares and embraces 12 Units (Housing Density 29/27Units/ha) which equates to an Outer Suburban Area Type setting as defined by the National Model Design Code & Guidance.
- The proposed Application would provide 4 units on a site area of 0.095ha equating to a Housing Density of 42.11Units/ha and with 28 occupants, would provide a Residential Density of 294.74Persons/ha.
- These application parameters would place the application in a Suburban Area Type Housing Density with a high Residential Density more appropriate to a Central Area Type Residential Density.
- A proposed development of 4 dwellings on a Site Area of 0.095ha in an Outer Suburban Area Type Setting exceeds the available Site Capacity and is Non-Compliant to the London Plan Policy D3 – Optimising Site Capacity through the Design-Led Approach.
- We understand the need for additional homes; however, we have conclusively illustrated that the proposal offered is much too dense for the local Area Type and that the applicant is attempting to squeeze much too much accommodation into a very small and restricted site capacity which is extremely inappropriate for the locality.
- We have clearly shown that the location CR0 7QR is inappropriate for “Incremental Intensification” and unsuitable for “Growth” beyond the existing Suburban Area Type setting without the offer of significant infrastructure improvement.
- The Site Capacity of 0.095ha is inadequate for 4 Units at a Suburban Area Type setting.
- We therefore suggest that this proposal is refused and that a new proposal is presented which is less dense and more appropriate for the Local Area Type Setting as defined by the local character parameters of the Post Code CR0 7QR.
MORA Submission: 1st Jul 2024
Consultation Closes: 11th Jul 2024
Target Decision: 29th Jul 2024
• Total Consulted: 24
• Objections: 6
• Supporting: 0
Councillor Referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (16th Jul 2024)
Councillor Referral withdrawn: 15th Oct 2024
Appeals Pending
71 Tower View – Ref: APP/L5240/W/25/3358689
Subdivision of existing dwellinghouse to form two dwellings with addition of flat-roofed rear ground floor extension and pitched roof to existing two-storey side extension.
We objected to the proposed development on the grounds that:
The proposal fails to meet the London Plan Policy D6 on accommodation
Space Standards.
The dimensions provided on the proposed Floor Plan for the Proposed Unit 7a Bedroom 3 (and confirmed by scaled off measurement) is 2.250m x 3.310m = 7.4475 sq.m. which is 0.0525 sq.m. short of the required 7.5 sq.m. of London Plan Policy D6 for a single sized bedroom. Therefore, Unit 7a would only provide 2b3p accommodation (not 3b4p) as stated in the proposal.
However, the Unit 7a bedroom 3 problem could be resolved by a slight extension of the dividing wall between Bedrooms 2 & 3 with a slight repositioning of bed 2 door to align with the wall dividing bedroom 2 and the bathroom to 2.25 x 3.5 = 7.875sq.m. This would result in a slight reduction in the landing area which might be considered acceptable.
Permission Refused
Reason(s) for refusal :-
- The proposed development would result in the inappropriate subdivision of the existing property which would harm the established rhythm and pattern of development in the area resulting in a cramped and incongruous form of development. The proposed development would therefore fail to comply Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018, Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023.
- The proposed development, by reason of the inadequately sized car parking spaces and impractical layout would have an unacceptable impact on the safety and efficiency of the highway network. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies T4, T6, and T6.1 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies SP8, DM29 and DM30 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018.
- The proposed development would fail to provide appropriate, fully accessible and easily located cycle facilities for future residents and therefore would fail to actively promote sustainable transport choice. As such, the development would be contrary to Policies SP8, DM29 and DM30 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 and Policy T5 of the London Plan 2021.
- The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development
would achieve the highest standards of fire safety and would be safe for all users. As such the proposal would fail to comply with Policy D12 of London Plan 2021.
MORA Submission: 6th Nov 2024
Consultation Closes: 10th Nov 2024
Target Decision: 4th Dec 2024
• Total Consulted: 11
• Objections: 16
• Supporting: 0
Permission Refused: 4th Dec 2024
Appeal Notice: 13th Jan 2025
[No copyright infringement is intended. We do not own nor claim to own the rights to any of the Applicant’s Evidence shared on our website. The material is used for the sole purpose of commentary and criticism, which falls under the “Fair Dealing” ‘doctrine’ of UK copyright law.]
DEREK RITSON
MORA Planning
| < February 2025 Planning Report | April 2025 Planning Report > |