Planning Review: December 2023

CVRA – DR Planning Update 29th November 2023

 

Croydon Planning – Major Changes Detected

 

Since the local elections on the 5th May 2022 across the South of the Borough there have been 150 planning applications up for decision that have been submitted by developers where the proposal was for the demolition of detached properties to be replaced with up to 9 flats or a mixture of up to 9 units of both flats and houses.  Of these 150 applications 118 applications have been refused planning approval under either the Council’s Delegated Authority or at Planning Committee meetings, with another 11 applications having been withdrawn and only 21 applications being approved.

 

Further since the 5th May 2022 local elections across the South of the Borough there are currently 23 new planning applications submitted by developers for the demolition of detached properties across the South of the Borough which have not yet been determined with 14 applications for houses, 1 applications for a mixture of both flats and houses and only 8 applications for flats.

 

Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document SPD2

 

Following Labour’s removal from power in Croydon in May, the new Conservative administration has been delivering on their planning promises.  The hated Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document SPD2, a developers’ charter, has now been scrapped.  Planning decisions are now being properly made after careful examination, instead of simply being waved through by Labour Councillors with no proper thought.

 

CVRA Local Planning Application Website

 

As previously mentioned the above-mentioned application is live and covers all roads and post codes in your Association’s area, it’s available for use by all CVRA residents free of charge.  The application is updated weekly with all new and currently outstanding planning application information, as well as having multiple search capability of planning history.  Also if you want to register your email address within the application, you’ll be advised weekly when the Planning Table has been updated, together with a direct link into the application.

 

The application can be accessed directly from the following web link:

 

http://www.localplanningapps.co.uk/croydon/cvra/anupdate/planningtable.html

 

Planning Area A

 

The Croft, 3 Binfield Road

This planning application is for the demolition of the existing bungalow and replacing it with a pair of semi detached houses, one a 5 bedroom the other a 3 bedroom, which was Approved under Planning Dept delegated authority on the 10th July 2020In September 2021 a Section 73 notice was submitted to change the approved plans by removing the inset balconies and amending the forecourt layout and other minor changes, this was approved on the 6th July2022.

 

The Croft, 3 Binfield Road

This new planning application is an alternative to the above-mentioned application which is already approved but no work has commenced and is for a full width rear extension (19.2 Metres) by 5.3 metres in depth.  The proposal has been approved on the 28th February 2023 under General Permitted Development.

 

15A Campden Road

This planning application is for the development of the land beside 15 Campden Road which has been vacant for a good number of years, although in March 2017 there was a planning approval granted for 5 flats which has now lapsed but did established a presumption of development on the site.  The new proposal is also for 5 flats with 2 parking spaces and as expected this Planning Application was Approved under Planning Dept delegated authority on the 7th August 2020As a number of discharge notices have now been approved it’s expected that construction will commence shortly.

 

Land R/O 14, 16, & 18 Castlemaine Avenue

This new planning application is for the demolition of the existing garage and swimming pool adjacent to 18 Castlemaine Avenue and formation of vehicular access to rear, and erection of two pairs of semi-detached, 3-bed houses, together with associated access, parking, amenity space and landscaping on the land to the rear of 14 to 18 Castlemaine Avenue.  This is back garden development that borders on to properties in both Castlemaine Avenue and Melville Avenue which will add 12 bedrooms and potentially 20 persons.  There has never been any previous back garden development in Castlemaine Avenue; this proposal is total out of character with the area.  Also these properties and the related land have Whitgift Educational Foundation restrictive covenants.  Currently there have been 31 resident objections to this application plus the CVRA and a Councillor referralSubsequently the developer has lodged an Appeal on the basis of Non-Determination within time allowed.  This is what some of the developers are doing when the Council has not complied with its own deadlines, which in many cases is the situation in Croydon, as they are still dealing with some applications from early 2021.  This will now potentially mean that the application will be referred direct to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol who will now make the decision without Croydon having the ability to make its own decision under either their delegated authority powers or at the planning committee meeting.  Croydon Council has on the 25th November 2022 Contested the Appeal on a number of grounds which would be the basis for refusing the application and will hopefully lead to a Dismissal of the Appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.  The Appeal is now in progress.  Good news the Appeal was    dismissed 9th August 2023.

 

80 Croham Road

This planning application is for the demolition of the existing house and the erection of two buildings, one of 6 flats with 3 parking bays the other for a terrace of 3 houses with 3 parking bays which by virtue of its bulk, mass and poor design will create an overbearing incompatible development.  This follows the withdrawal of an earlier application for 2 buildings comprising of a total of 9 flats.  The owner of this property has already paid for Planning Pre-Application advice from the Planning Department.  This application went before the Planning Committee on the 22nd April 2021 at which it was approved.  There’re Whitgift Educational Foundation Restrictive Covenants on this property.  Also the site has gone up for sale with Foxtons for £2.5 million.  I’ve drafted letters for the surrounding residents to send to both the owner of 80 Croham Road and Foxtons, these letters put both parties on notice of the Restrictive Covenants, also reserving the right to take necessary further measures to protect their interests in this connection.  Subsequently the property was then being marketed with Appleton Estates at the reduced figure of £1.8 million and was initially under offer.  Again a number of nearby residents have sent similar letters to those mentioned earlier.  Property listed again with Appleton Estates at a reduced figure of £1.6 million and is now under offer.  This latest offer appears to have fallen through as the site is now being listed for sale with Connect UK at a reduced guide price of £1.2 million and is now subsequently Sold STC.  The agent on behalf of Alim Properties submitted a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) on the 16th May 2022 which has been subsequently been refused under the Planning Dept delegated authority as it was not satisfactory in a number of aspects.

 

Melville Avenue, Old Palace of John Whitgift School

It has just been announced that the school will close permanently in August 2025 as the school has been struggling financially for many years, and the Foundation has supported the school from its general reserves in the expectation that the financial situation would improve at some point.  There will be concern over the potential development of this large site.

 

Planning Area B

 

Land the Rear of Roselea Cottage, Ballards Farm Road

This new planning application has been submitted by the owners of this house for the construction of a granny annexe in the rear garden with the main house having had considerable extensions.

 

This so called granny annexe will in all probability not be for the reasons stated in the application but will be to establish further rental accommodation for students (one can only guess how many students might be in this proposed outbuilding) and the house may potentially become a HMO.  This is based upon that at least two double rooms, in the existing house were recently being advertised for rent for students, advert as follows:

“There are two double rooms available in a beautiful detached house, located in a quiet area surrounded by woods and trees. The property has one big living room, a spacious conservatory, 3 bathrooms and one modern kitchen for tenants to share. The friendly and easy-going landlord live in the extension part of the house separating from the rented space, so you can enjoy your privacy and at the same time get help from the landlord easily when it is necessary. The house has a very big garden where you can play basketball or have barbecue during your free time. It is 5-10 minutes walk to the nearest bus station and it takes you 10-15minutes to East Croydon station”.  The good news is that the application was refused under the Planning Dept delegated authority on the 6th July 2023.

 

Since this refusal there has been a lot of work going in the rear garden of this property with large lorries both delivering / removing waste with trees taken down, such that 5 neighbouring residents have complained, I’ve asked planning enforcement to check this out, particularly as there are tree preservation orders (TPO’s) on 7 trees in the rear garden.

 

Land the Rear of Underwood, Ballards Farm Road

This new planning application has been submitted by Sterling Rose Homes which is back garden development for the erection of a terrace of 3 three storey 4 bedroom houses with 4 off road parking spaces.  There will be the loss of 11 mature trees to enable this development to take place.  There have been 55 resident objections plus your Residents Association and a local Councillor referral.  Like with 14, 16 & 18 Castlemaine Avenue application this developer has lodged an Appeal on the 16th January 2023 on the basis of Non-Determination within time allowed.  This is what some of the developers are doing when the Council has not complied with its own deadlines, which in many cases is the situation in Croydon, as they are still dealing with some applications from early 2021.  This will now potentially mean that the application will be referred direct to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol who will now make the decision without Croydon having the ability to make its own decision under either their delegated authority powers or at the planning committee meeting.  The Appeal is now in progress.

 

Underwood, Ballards Farm Road

This new planning application has been submitted by Sterling Rose Homes which is in addition to the afore-mentioned development on the Underwood site.  This is for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension, two storey front extension and then conversion into 4 flats with 4 off road parking spaces.  There have been 46 resident objections plus your Residents Association and a local Councillor referral.  Like with the afore-mentioned application the developer has lodged an Appeal on the 16th January 2023 on the basis of Non-Determination within time allowed.  This is what some of the developers are doing when the Council has not complied with its own deadlines, which in many cases is the situation in Croydon, as they are still dealing with some applications from early 2021.  This will now potentially mean that the application will be referred direct to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol who will now make the decision without Croydon having the ability to make its own decision under either their delegated authority powers or at the planning committee meeting.  The Appeal is now in progress.

 

Land the Rear of Underwood, Ballards Farm Road

This new planning application has been submitted by Sterling Rose Homes which is in addition to the two afore-mentioned planning applications that are currently pending.  This latest application is a back garden development for the Erection of a Terrace of 3 Three Storey 4 Bedroom Houses and an adjoining building of four storeys with 6 two bedroom flats with an overall total of 9 parking spaces.  The earlier pending back garden development on this site had a loss of 11 mature trees, as this latest proposal is much larger the loss of mature trees will be even greater.  To date there have been 34 resident objections plus your Residents Association and a local Councillor referral.  Like the two other applications on the same site, the developer has lodged an Appeal on the 12th January 2023 on the basis of Non-Determination within time allowed.  This is what some of the developers are doing when the Council has not complied with its own deadlines, which in many cases is the situation in Croydon, as they are still dealing with some applications from early 2021.  This will now potentially mean that the application will be referred direct to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol who will now make the decision without Croydon having the ability to make its own decision under either their delegated authority powers or at the planning committee meeting.  The Appeal is now in progress.

 

Coombe Lane, Royal Russell School

This new planning application is for the demolition of existing Junior School with the erection of replacement Junior School including Multi-Use Games Area, sports pitch, play and landscaped areas, access and plant, and other associated works.

 

This proposed development has again raised the issue of the rear gate from the school in Hollingsworth Road, particularly as both the pre application and the resultant full planning application misrepresent the fact that there’s an access route into this road.  The situation is that school numbers will increase where at both around 8am and 4pm daily during school days parents are charging up the road causing total gridlock with around 50 additional cars in this cul-de-sac with parents competing for space nearest the gate, blocking residents driveways etc.  There are very serious safety concerns that this is a bad accident waiting to happen, as there was a recent situation of a pupil running out of the gate and into the side of a moving car and not to mention the number of prangs to residents cars due to the inconsiderate behavior of parents dropping off and picking up their children and having to turn around.  Residents would either like the gate totally closed off or some form of strong restriction on the road that would prevent parent’s cars entering Hollingsworth Road.

 

Land the Rear of 128 Coombe Lane

This new planning application has been submitted by the owner of 128 Coombe Lane which is back garden development for the erection of a pair of 2 storey 3 bedroom semi-detached houses with 3 off road parking spaces; demolition of existing garage to provide access to the rear.  A number of local residents are objecting plus your Residents Association.  To date there have been 18 resident objections plus your Residents Association and a local Councillor referral.  The good news is that the Planning Dept has under its delegated authority refused the application on the 9th February 2023.  An appeal has been lodged against the refusal decision on the 26th June 2023 which will now be decided upon by the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol.  The good news is that the Appeal was dismissed on the 7th November 2023

 

Land R/O 55 Crest Road Fronting on to Croham Valley Road

This planning application was submitted by the developer Red Banksia is for the erection of a terrace of 4 two storey 3 bedroom houses with accommodation in the roof space in the rear garden of this property fronting on to Croham Valley Road.  This is a massive overdevelopment of the site which will add 12 bedrooms and potentially 20 persons without providing any off road parking.  Prior to this latest application going before the Committee for decision the owners of 55 Crest Road sold the bottom part of their back garden to Blue Banksia Ltd.  The application received 196 objections including 3 objections from the owners of 55 Crest Road, as that it was assumed by the owners of 55 Crest Road that when they sold part of their rear garden to Blue Banksia Ltd that they would just build the approved 4 bedroom detached house, however the developer obviously had other plans for the site.  This planning application went before the Planning Sub-Committee on the 21st October 2021 where it was approved by a vote of 3 to 2.  This is also another property where there are Walton Heath Land Company Ltd Restrictive Covenants where I’ve drafted letters for the surrounding residents to send to Blue Banksia Ltd.  These letters advise Blue Banksia Ltd of the Restrictive Covenants and reference to prior court case Whitgift Homes & Ors vs Pauline Stocks & Ors where almost identical Walton Heath Land Company Ltd Restrictive Covenants where upheld by the court even upon appeal which prevented development in Ruffetts Close, also the letters reserve the right to take necessary further measures to protect their interests in this connection and further advise  should they decide to on sell this plot of land with the planning approval, that they are under notice from us that all potential buyers must be advised by them or anyone acting on their behalf of the Restrictive Covenants and the Court Case upholding the Restrictive Covenants.  A number of the nearby residents that wrote to the developer have just heard from the developers Solicitors asking some questions which I’ve drafted the appropriate reply for the residents to send.  The developer has submitted 6 discharge notices on the 23rd May 2022 which has only been partly approved with the remainder not being approved.  Clearly the developer has ignored the threat of action over the Restrictive Covenants.  The Developer has started construction on the site which shouldn’t have happened, as they don’t have an approved Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) to permit construction.  I’ve reported the issue of construction to the head of Development Management for action.  The developer has submitted 5 new discharge notices which are currently pending, presumably to regularize the situation of the discharge notices, however these are part approved / part not approved.  This developer has now built the houses without ever having the appropriate approved discharge notices in place, in spite of this issue being reported to the head of the Planning DeptThe developer has submitted 3 discharge notices on the 29th March 2023 which have subsequently been refused approval on the 12th May 2023.  All discharge notices have now been approved.

 

Land R/O 4 Croham Valley Road

Advised by the Croham Hurst Golf Club that the previously mentioned proposed development of the  land at the rear of 4 Croham Valley Road plus the intention of selling the house at 4 CVR sometime later is no longer going to take place.

 

5 Croham Valley Road

Planning approval was granted on the 27th February 2020 at the Planning Committee meeting for the demolition of the existing house and the erection two blocks of 3 houses with accommodation in the roof spaces.  One block will front on to Croham Valley Road being 4 floors 4 bedroom houses with only 2 parking bays, the other block will front on to Ballards Farm Road being 3 floor 3 bedroom houses with 2 parking bays.  Construction of the shell of the terrace of houses fronting on to Ballards Farm Road is complete with the terrace of house fronting on to Croham Valley Road having the shell of the houses almost completed for a 3 storey building.

 

At the same time Sterling Rose continue to try to change the design of the 3 houses fronting Croham Valley Road from 4 floors to 3 floor houses and a changed layout and to what we consider to be a better appearance but have not been successful in obtaining approval up to now and are on their third attempt of trying to get the change approved as a non material change which of course it isn’t.

 

The latest supposed non material change was refused on the 17th September 2021 which will give Sterling Rose a major problem as they’ve completed construction is based upon a 3 storey building of a different design and not the 4 storey building that was approved.  This has the potential to be another 54 Arkwright Road situation – see later entry under CARA.  As a result of asking Planning Enforcement to look into this, they’ve advised that Sterling Rose will now have to submit a new planning application to try to get retrospective planning approval, which has now been submitted under a Section 73a Minor Material Amendment (Retrospective), plus they also want to remove the planning approval condition of yellow lines on this part of Croham Valley Road as they’re only permitted to have two parking spaces.  There have been 26 objections including the CVRA and a Councillor referral to this retrospective application.

 

Land R/O 35 and 37 Croham Valley Road – Fronting on to Ballards Rise

The above-mentioned outline planning application that’s currently pending approval, however the developer Silverleaf has also submitted another new outline planning application on the very same site for the erection of 2 two storey buildings with accommodation in the roof spaces comprising of a total of 4 large semi-detached houses with the provision of 6 parking spaces.  The alternative proposal is almost the same size as the one for 8 flats and will add 15 bedrooms and potentially 24 persons, the same objection reasons apply equally to this alternative new application.  More details as regards the Restrictive Covenants are in the prior item above.

 

This application went before the Planning Sub-Committee on the 11th August 2022 and was refused permission with three Labour Councillors voting in favour of approval and three Conservative Councillors voting against approval with the Conservative Chair using his Casting vote to refuse.  I spoke as an Objector in person at the meeting on behalf of the CVRA and the local residents, as did our ward Councillor Michael Neal.  The developer Silverleaf has on the 28th October 2022 lodged an Appeal against refusal of the planning permission, which has subsequently been validated in December 2022; this appeal will now be decided upon by the Planning Inspectorate in BristolThe Appeal is now in progress.  Unfortunately the Appeal was allowed on the 23rd August 2023.  However on both the land at 35 and 37 Croham Valley Road there are the Walton Heath Land Company Limited Restrictive Covenants that restrict the land to not more than one dwellinghouse.  The validity of the  Walton Heath Land Company Limited Restrictive Covenants and the class of neighbours entitled to benefit from it was tested in the Court Case Whitgift Homes Ltd & Ors v Pauline Stocks & Ors where similar  Restrictive Covenants was upheld which legally prevented development on the land at 14 and 16 Ruffetts Close.

 

Croham Valley Road – Lower Part Where There’s Been All the Construction

Numerous residents have complained about blocking of the road with all the construction workers vehicles being parked on both sides of the road – some residents want double yellow line along the whole road, other have complained to our Councillors.  Although all construction is complete there are now a good number of cars now parking on both sides of the road causing limited obstruction.

 

Planning Area C

 

155 Ballards Way

Whilst the above-mentioned Appeal is pending the developer has submitted a new alternative planning application which is for alterations / extensions to the existing property and then the subdivision of the property into 2 three bedroom houses.  The affected next door neighbour is neutral with regard to this latest proposal and as such the CVRA has not objected.  Subsequently the application was approved on the 2nd February 2022 under the Planning Departments delegated authority.  Work has commenced on the site for the alterations and extensions to the existing property and then conversion into 2 three bedroom houses, work is almost complete.

 

11 Chapel View

This new planning application is for the erection of a very large outbuilding in the rear garden measuring 9 metres by 9 metres for use as a gym / office and has in all probability the potential to never be used for the purpose indicated on the planning application based upon the owners track record at this property of letting rooms out.  The owner of this property is currently advertising multi rooms of accommodation on Airbnb at this property; this proposed structure will in all probability be used for this very purpose.

 

It now seems that under this type of application residents cannot make objections with the following statement on the Councils online planning site:

 

This notifies the Council of proposed work or development not needing its permission. The Council will not be approving or refusing the proposal, so comments are not invited.

 

This is totally unacceptable; I’ve sent an email to both the case officer and the head of Development Management expressing concerns that a structure of this size doesn’t need planning approval and also the very real concerns over the future use of this outbuilding with the probably renting out of rooms.

 

142 Croham Valley Road

Residents have raised an issue that the owners of this semi-detached bungalow are running an Indian take away business from a building in their rear garden which has resulted in vermin including rats.  I’ve advised the residents to contact Environmental Services which has been done, also there are bound to be Health and Safety issues.  An inspector did visit the property; however the owners said that they were no longer running the take away business from there.  Subsequently they have started cooking again on a more limited basis.  Nearby residents are keeping a close eye on this matter.

 

6-8 The Gallop

This new planning application from Macar Developments is for the demolition of 2 small detached bungalows and the erection of 4 two storey 4 bedroom semi-detached houses with accommodation in the room spaces and a terrace of 5 two storey 3 bedroom houses.  This is a massive overdevelopment of the site that will add 31 bedrooms and potentially 44 persons.  Even before the application had been submitted 8 The Gallop had been cleared of trees including specialist trees of 2 silver birches and a pine tree that should have been saved.    The developer has already paid for Planning Pre-Application advice from the Planning Department, however the Planning Department has not yet replied to the developer.  The CVRA has already lodged an objection and Cllr Helen Pollard has raised a Councillor referral.  This application went before the Planning Committee on 13th January 2022 where David Rutherford spoke on behalf of the CVRA and the 306 local resident objectors as did our local Cllr Robert Ward and all 4 of the Conservative Councillors on the committee spoke against and voted against the application.  When it came to the vote it was tied at 4 in favour 4 against including the Chair, however the Chair used his additional casting vote to approve the application.  Some residents are considering going through the Council’s complaints process which has 3 separate stages, after which if there’s no satisfaction you can then go formally to the Local Government Ombudsman with a complaint.  The developer has on the 8th April 2022 submitted details of their Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) which has subsequently been approved.  Also a number of further discharge notices have been submitted 26th May 2022 which have subsequently been approved on the 24th August 2022A further discharge notice was submitted in August 2022 which has subsequently been approved on the 20th October 2022.  Further discharge notices were submitted 6th March 2023 which have been subsequently approved on the 20th June 2023.

 

46 The Gallop

I’m advising you of yet another new planning application on this site by the same developer for the partial demolition and extensions to the existing bungalow upwards and to the side and rear to create one 3 bedroom dwelling and one 5 bedroom dwelling, effectively a pair of semi-detached houses in a two storey building with also accommodation in the roof space with one parking spaces for each house.  The developer already has obtained planning approval on this same site for a pair of semi-detached houses of one 3 Bedroom and one 2 bedroom as detailed below.  There’s concern that both proposed semi-detached houses have studies, in the 3 bedroom property it’s on the 2nd floor which could easily be a bedroom potentially making this a 4 bedroom property, in the 5 bedroom property the study is on the ground floor but unusually there’s a full bathroom next to this study which could easily be a bedroom potentially making this a 6 bedroom property.  There have been 28 objections and the CVRA has asked for this application to be referred to the Planning Committee for decision.  At the Planning Sub-Committee meeting on the 14th September 2023 the application was approved in spite of David Rutherford speaking on behalf of the CVRA and the local residents as an objector as did our local Councillor Robert Ward.  As a result of this application being approved the application below will not be followed through with, particularly as 5 new discharge notices have been submitted that are currently pending for the construction of this application.

 

46 The Gallop

This new planning application has been submitted by the developer Red Banksia for the partial demolition and extensions to the side and rear of the existing single storey bungalow to become a two storey building with also accommodation in the roof space to create 1 two bedroom dwelling and 1 three bedroom dwelling with a total of two parking spaces, effectively changing the bungalow to a 3 storey pair of semi-detached houses.  A number of local residents will be objecting plus your Residents Association and hopefully one of the local Councillors will raise a referral.  This is the same developer that’s constructing the terrace of 4 houses in the rear garden of 55 Crest Road fronting on to Croham Valley Road and in this case is hedging his bets by submitting two similar applications at the same time.  There have been 24 resident objections to this application.  This application went before the Planning Sub Committee meeting on the 6th April 2023 and was approved.  5 Discharge notices have now been approved.

 

1 The Ruffetts

This new planning application is for the erection of a pair of two storey 3 bedroom semi-detached houses plus accommodation in the roof space to the rear of the existing property 1 The Ruffetts.  Strangely part of the roof space has a room allocated as being a writing area but could easily be another bedroom meaning in reality it’s a pair of 4 bedroom houses.  Of further concern is that this proposed development borders directly on to the approved development in the rear garden of 55 Crest Road for a terrace of 4 houses.  There have been 46 resident objections to this application plus the CVRA and a Councillor referral.  This planning application was heard at the Planning Sub Committee on the 1st December 2022 where David Rutherford spoke as an objector on behalf of the Croham Valley Residents Association (CVRA) and the local resident objectors as did our local Councillor Robert Ward, unfortunately the Sub Committee approved the application by a vote of 3 to 2 with one abstention.  Subsequently the site with the planning approval for the pair of semi-detached houses in the rear garden plus the original host property has been put up for sale at £1050K this month.  Discharge notices were submitted on the 10th March 2023 which were refused permission.  Three amended discharge notices were submitted on the 4th July 2023 which have subsequently been approved.

 

1 The Ruffetts

There are a couple of new applications as regards the existing detached property for the demolition of existing extensions and the erection of a new single storey rear extension and the erection of a single storey side extension.

 

29 The Ruffetts

The owner of this property continues to be a problem in that the approval obtained for the erection of a single / two storey front /side / rear extensions in December 2020, however it has not been built in accordance with the approved plans hence there has been the need for a new retrospective planning application, which many local residents are against, there have been 39 resident objections to this retrospective application, as they would like it built in accordance with the original approval.  The owner of this property has now amended the plans in the proposed retrospective planning application which is all about the owner of this property building what he wants and not what was approved and expecting to get approval after the event which is totally unacceptable and as a result of this having to go out for further comments there are now 78 objections.  The bad news is that at the Planning Sub-Committee on the 3rd August 2023 that the Committee approved the retrospective  planning application in spite of David Rutherford speaking on behalf of the CVRA and the local residents as an objector as did our local Councillor Robert Ward.  Further the owner of this property has now started construction of a large brick built outbuilding in the rear garden without any planning approval which has been reported to Development Management in order that hopefully Planning Enforcement officer will visit the property.

 

Planning Other

 

Restrictive Covenants

 

The following properties have either planning approval but not yet developed or have pending planning applications that are awaiting decision or are being prepared for the submission of planning applications.  All of these properties have Restrictive Covenants that restrict the sites to either only having one dwelling either detached or semi-detached and if enforced could potentially stop the sites being developed.  However restrictive covenants are a complicated legal business and can only be enforced by properties under the Touch and Concern rule (nearby but don’t have to necessarily physically adjoin) unless it can be proved that it was a Building Scheme.  Also taking legal action to enforce covenants can be expensive plus there’s always the risk that a developer might appeal the decision which would further add to the costs.  A potential cheaper alternative is to take out an Injunction to enforce the Restrictive Covenant.  Meanwhile we’re letting affected residents write to the developers making them aware of the Restrictive Covenants, reserving the right taking further action if they’re going to proceed with the development in the hope they will walk away.  Jeremy has investigated using the legal cover one has with many household insurance policies, the indication from his insurer was positive but one would need to be certain if one was to go down this route:

 

  • Underwood, Ballards Farm Rd Whitgift Educational Foundation
  • 14, 16 & 18 Castlemaine Avenue Whitgift Educational Foundation
  • 55 Crest Road The Walton Heath Land Company Ltd
  • 80 Croham Road Whitgift Educational Foundation
  • 35 Croham Valley Road The Walton Heath Land Company Ltd
  • 37 Croham Valley Road The Walton Heath Land Company Ltd

 

Croydon Alliance of Residents’ Associations (CARA)

This recently set up Croydon Alliance of Residents’ Associations have held a number of Zoom Meetings which has been very useful with sharing information with a number of interesting things coming out these meetings and subsequent email exchanges across the Group.

 

Croydon Local Plan Review

Due to be adopted in 2022, the review will update the vision and strategy for Croydon’s growth up to 2039 and set out how the council will continue to deliver much-needed new homes, jobs and community facilities.

The first stage of the review was to gain feedback from the community with a period of consultation referred to as the Issues and Options consultation.  This took place between November 2019 and January 2020 and is now closed.

All representations made during the consultation period are now being reviewed and will be used by the Spatial Plan to shape the Local Plan Review Preferred Option.

The Preferred Option will be published during a second period of consultation late 2020.  At this time a summary of what we heard during the Issues and Options consultation and the subsequent decisions that have been actioned will also be published.

The Local Plan Review was to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination early in 2021 and adopted in early 2022 but there’s slippage on the dates.

However, as a result of now having a hung Council and a newly elected Conservative Democratically Elected Mayor, the local plan review will for sure be revisited.

Further information on the status of the review will be uploaded on to the Council site as the programme continues.

Croydon – Local Plan Partial Review – Call for Evidence on Local Green Spaces

 

Only site within our area that was under this category is The Ruffet, which many residents provided information back to the Council on why this site should have some level of protection to safeguard it from potential development.  We’re still waiting to hear if this has been successful.

 

Planning Review: September 2023

Update: 25 September 2023

Croydon Planning – Major Changes Detected

Since the local elections on the 5th May 2022 across the South of the Borough there have been 134 planning applications up for decision that have been submitted by developers where the proposal was for the demolition of detached properties to be replaced with up to 9 flats or a mixture of up to 9 units of both flats and houses. Of these 134 applications 104 applications have been refused planning approval under either the Council’s Delegated Authority or at Planning Committee meetings, with another 11 applications having been withdrawn and only 19 applications being approved.

Further since the 5th May 2022 local elections across the South of the Borough there are currently 29 new planning applications submitted by developers for the demolition of detached properties across the South of the Borough which have not yet been determined with 17 applications for houses, 2 applications for a mixture of both flats and houses and only 10 applications for flats.

Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document SPD2

Following Labour’s removal from power in Croydon in May, the new Conservative administration has been delivering on their planning promises. The hated Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document SPD2, a developers’ charter, has now been scrapped. Planning decisions are now being properly made after careful examination, instead of simply being waved through by Labour Councillors with no proper thought.

Brick x Brick

October 2021 now understand from Cllr Jason Perry that the Council will not be selling Brick x Brick.
Over 25 pending Brick x Brick planning applications to build on Council owned land have since the May 2022 local elections now been withdrawn.

Planning Area A

The Croft, 3 Binfield Road
This planning application is for the demolition of the existing bungalow and replacing it with a pair of semi detached houses, one a 5 bedroom the other a 3 bedroom, which was Approved under Planning Dept delegated authority on the 10th July 2020. In September 2021 a Section 73 notice was submitted to change the approved plans by removing the inset balconies and amending the forecourt layout and other minor changes, this was approved on the 6th July 2022

The Croft, 3 Binfield Road
This new planning application is an alternative to the above-mentioned application which is already approved but no work has commenced and is for a full width rear extension (19.2 Metres) by 5.3 metres in depth. The proposal has been approved on the 28th February 2023 under General Permitted Development.

15A Campden Road
This planning application is for the development of the land beside 15 Campden Road which has been vacant for a good number of years, although in March 2017 there was a planning approval granted for 5 flats which has now lapsed but did established a presumption of development on the site. The new proposal is also for 5 flats with 2 parking spaces and as expected this Planning Application was Approved under Planning Dept delegated authority on the 7th August 2020. As a number of discharge notices have now been approved it’s expected that construction will commence shortly.

Land R/O 14, 16, & 18 Castlemaine Avenue
This new planning application is for the demolition of the existing garage and swimming pool adjacent to 18 Castlemaine Avenue and formation of vehicular access to rear, and erection of two pairs of semi-detached, 3-bed houses, together with associated access, parking, amenity space and landscaping on the land to the rear of 14 to 18 Castlemaine Avenue.[read more]This is back garden development that borders on to properties in both Castlemaine Avenue and Melville Avenue which will add 12 bedrooms and potentially 20 persons. There has never been any previous back garden development in Castlemaine Avenue; this proposal is total out of character with the area. Also these properties and the related land have Whitgift Educational Foundation restrictive covenants. Currently there have been 31 resident objections to this application plus the CVRA and a Councillor referral. Subsequently the developer has lodged an Appeal on the basis of Non-Determination within time allowed. This is what some of the developers are doing when the Council has not complied with its own deadlines, which in many cases is the situation in Croydon, as they are still dealing with some applications from early 2021. This will now potentially mean that the application will be referred direct to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol who will now make the decision without Croydon having the ability to make its own decision under either their delegated authority powers or at the planning committee meeting. Croydon Council has on the 25th November 2022 Contested the Appeal on a number of grounds which would be the basis for refusing the application and will hopefully lead to a Dismissal of the Appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. The Appeal is now in progress.
Good news the Appeal was dismissed 9th August 2023.[/read]

80 Croham Road
This planning application is for the demolition of the existing house and the erection of two buildings, one of 6 flats with 3 parking bays the other for a terrace of 3 houses with 3 parking bays which by virtue of its bulk, mass and poor design will create an overbearing incompatible development. This follows the withdrawal of an earlier application for 2 buildings comprising of a total of 9 flats. The owner of this property has already paid for Planning Pre-Application advice from the Planning Department. [read more]
This application went before the Planning Committee on the 22nd April 2021 at which it was approved. There’re Whitgift Educational Foundation Restrictive Covenants on this property. Also the site has gone up for sale with Foxtons for £2.5 million. I’ve drafted letters for the surrounding residents to send to both the owner of 80 Croham Road and Foxtons, these letters put both parties on notice of the Restrictive Covenants, also reserving the right to take necessary further measures to protect their interests in this connection. Subsequently the property was then being marketed with Appleton Estates at the reduced figure of £1.8 million and was initially under offer. Again a number of nearby residents have sent similar letters to those mentioned earlier. Property listed again with Appleton Estates at a reduced figure of £1.6 million and is now under offer. This latest offer appears to have fallen through as the site is now being listed for sale with Connect UK at a reduced guide price of £1.2 million and is now subsequently Sold STC. The agent on behalf of Alim Properties submitted a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) on the 16th May 2022 which has been subsequently been refused under the Planning Dept delegated authority as it was not satisfactory in a number of aspects.[/read]

Melville Avenue, Old Palace of John Whitgift School
It has just been announced that the school will close permanently in August 2025 as the school has been struggling financially for many years, and the Foundation has supported the school from its general reserves in the expectation that the financial situation would improve at some point. There will be concern over the potential development of this large site.

21 Melville Avenue
The approved planning application is for the demolition of the existing property replacing it with a building of 7 flats with 6 parking bays. The existing bungalow has been demolished and the site cleared ready for construction.
However, the planning approval has now lapsed.

Land the Rear of 7 – 9 Spencer Road
This new planning application has been submitted by Edgewater Group for the erection of a two storey building comprising 2 three bedroom semi-detached houses on the land to the rear which is currently car parking for the residents of 7 and 9 Spencer Road, this will result in the loss of the existing 10 off road parking spaces, having the effect of forcing up to 10 more vehicles to park on limited controlled parking spaces on Spencer Road. One of our local Councillors has already raised a referral.
The good news is this application was refused under the Planning Dept delegated authority on the 30th June 2023.

Planning Area B

Land the Rear of Roselea Cottage, Ballards Farm Road
This new planning application has been submitted by the owners of this house for the construction of a granny annexe in the rear garden with the main house having had considerable extensions.

This so called granny annexe will in all probability not be for the reasons stated in the application but will be to establish further rental accommodation for students (one can only guess how many students might be in this proposed outbuilding) and the house may potentially become a HMO. This is based upon that at least two double rooms, in the existing house were recently being advertised for rent for students, advert as follows:[read more]

“There are two double rooms available in a beautiful detached house, located in a quiet area surrounded by woods and trees. The property has one big living room, a spacious conservatory, 3 bathrooms and one modern kitchen for tenants to share. The friendly and easy-going landlord live in the extension part of the house separating from the rented space, so you can enjoy your privacy and at the same time get help from the landlord easily when it is necessary. The house has a very big garden where you can play basketball or have barbecue during your free time. It is 5-10 minutes walk to the nearest bus station and it takes you 10-15minutes to East Croydon station”. The good news is that the application was refused under the Planning Dept delegated authority on the 6th July 2023. Since this refusal there has been a lot of work going in the rear garden of this property with large lorries both delivering / removing waste with trees taken down, such that 5 neighbouring residents have complained, I’ve asked planning enforcement to check this out, particularly as there are tree preservation orders (TPO’s) on 7 trees in the rear garden. [/read]

Land the Rear of Underwood, Ballards Farm RoadThis new planning application has been submitted by Sterling Rose Homes which is back garden development for the erection of a terrace of 3 three storey 4 bedroom houses with 4 off road parking spaces. There will be the loss of 11 mature trees to enable this development to take place. [read more] There have been 55 resident objections plus your Residents Association and a local Councillor referral. Like with 14, 16 & 18 Castlemaine Avenue application this developer has lodged an Appeal on the 16th January 2023 on the basis of Non-Determination within time allowed. This is what some of the developers are doing when the Council has not complied with its own deadlines, which in many cases is the situation in Croydon, as they are still dealing with some applications from early 2021. This will now potentially mean that the application will be referred direct to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol who will now make the decision without Croydon having the ability to make its own decision under either their delegated authority powers or at the planning committee meeting. The Appeal is now in progress.[/read]

Underwood, Ballards Farm Road
This new planning application has been submitted by Sterling Rose Homes which is in addition to the afore-mentioned development on the Underwood site. This is for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension, two storey front extension and then conversion into 4 flats with 4 off road parking spaces. There have been 46 resident objections plus your Residents Association and a local Councillor referral. [read more]Like with the afore-mentioned application the developer has lodged an Appeal on the 16th January 2023 on the basis of Non-Determination within time allowed. This is what some of the developers are doing when the Council has not complied with its own deadlines, which in many cases is the situation in Croydon, as they are still dealing with some applications from early 2021. This will now potentially mean that the application will be referred direct to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol who will now make the decision without Croydon having the ability to make its own decision under either their delegated authority powers or at the planning committee meeting. The Appeal is now in progress.[/read]

Land the Rear of Underwood, Ballards Farm Road
This new planning application has been submitted by Sterling Rose Homes which is in addition to the two afore-mentioned planning applications that are currently pending. This latest application is a back garden development for the Erection of a Terrace of 3 Three Storey 4 Bedroom Houses and an adjoining building of four storeys with 6 two bedroom flats with an overall total of 9 parking spaces. [read more]
The earlier pending back garden development on this site had a loss of 11 mature trees, as this latest proposal is much larger the loss of mature trees will be even greater. To date there have been 34 resident objections plus your Residents Association and a local Councillor referral. Like the two other applications on the same site, the developer has lodged an Appeal on the 12th January 2023 on the basis of Non-Determination within time allowed. This is what some of the developers are doing when the Council has not complied with its own deadlines, which in many cases is the situation in Croydon, as they are still dealing with some applications from early 2021. This will now potentially mean that the application will be referred direct to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol who will now make the decision without Croydon having the ability to make its own decision under either their delegated authority powers or at the planning committee meeting. The Appeal is now in progress[/read]

Coombe Lane, Royal Russell School
This new planning application is for the demolition of existing Junior School with the erection of replacement Junior School including Multi-Use Games Area, sports pitch, play and landscaped areas, access and plant, and other associated works.

This proposed development has again raised the issue of the rear gate from the school in Hollingsworth Road, particularly as both the pre application and the resultant full planning application misrepresent the fact that there’s an access route into this road. The situation is that school numbers will increase where at both around 8am and 4pm daily during school days parents are charging up the road causing total gridlock with around 50 additional cars in this cul-de-sac with parents competing for space nearest the gate, blocking residents driveways etc. There are very serious safety concerns that this is a bad accident waiting to happen, as there was a recent situation of a pupil running out of the gate and into the side of a moving car and not to mention the number of prangs to residents cars due to the inconsiderate behavior of parents dropping off and picking up their children and having to turn around. Residents would either like the gate totally closed off or some form of strong restriction on the road that would prevent parent’s cars entering Hollingsworth Road.

Land the Rear of 128 Coombe Lane
This new planning application has been submitted by the owner of 128 Coombe Lane which is back garden development for the erection of a pair of 2 storey 3 bedroom semi-detached houses with 3 off road parking spaces; demolition of existing garage to provide access to the rear. A number of local residents are objecting plus your Residents Association. To date there have been 18 resident objections plus your Residents Association and a local Councillor referral. The good news is that the Planning Dept has under its delegated authority refused the application on the 9th February 2023.
An appeal has been lodged against the refusal decision on the 26th June 2023 which will now be decided upon by the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol.

Land R/O 55 Crest Road Fronting on to Croham Valley Road
This planning application was submitted by the developer Red Banksia is for the erection of a terrace of 4 two storey 3 bedroom houses with accommodation in the roof space in the rear garden of this property fronting on to Croham Valley Road. This is a massive overdevelopment of the site which will add 12 bedrooms and potentially 20 persons without providing any off road parking. Prior to this latest application going before the Committee for decision the owners of 55 Crest Road sold the bottom part of their back garden to Blue Banksia Ltd. [read more]
The application received 196 objections including 3 objections from the owners of 55 Crest Road, as that it was assumed by the owners of 55 Crest Road that when they sold part of their rear garden to Blue Banksia Ltd that they would just build the approved 4 bedroom detached house, however the developer obviously had other plans for the site. This planning application went before the Planning Sub-Committee on the 21st October 2021 where it was approved by a vote of 3 to 2. This is also another property where there are Walton Heath Land Company Ltd Restrictive Covenants where I’ve drafted letters for the surrounding residents to send to Blue Banksia Ltd. These letters advise Blue Banksia Ltd of the Restrictive Covenants and reference to prior court case Whitgift Homes & Ors vs Pauline Stocks & Ors where almost identical Walton Heath Land Company Ltd Restrictive Covenants where upheld by the court even upon appeal which prevented development in Ruffetts Close, also the letters reserve the right to take necessary further measures to protect their interests in this connection and further advise should they decide to on sell this plot of land with the planning approval, that they are under notice from us that all potential buyers must be advised by them or anyone acting on their behalf of the Restrictive Covenants and the Court Case upholding the Restrictive Covenants. A number of the nearby residents that wrote to the developer have just heard from the developers Solicitors asking some questions which I’ve drafted the appropriate reply for the residents to send. The developer has submitted 6 discharge notices on the 23rd May 2022 which has only been partly approved with the remainder not being approved. Clearly the developer has ignored the threat of action over the Restrictive Covenants. The Developer has started construction on the site which shouldn’t have happened, as they don’t have an approved Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) to permit construction. I’ve reported the issue of construction to the head of Development Management for action. The developer has submitted 5 new discharge notices which are currently pending, presumably to regularize the situation of the discharge notices, however these are part approved / part not approved. This developer has now built the houses without ever having the appropriate approved discharge notices in place, in spite of this issue being reported to the head of the Planning Dept.
The developer has submitted 3 discharge notices on the 29th March 2023 which have subsequently been refused approval on the 12th May 2023. The Developer has now submitted 3 new discharge notices on the 19th June and 12th July 2023 which are currently pending approval. Subsequently the 19th June 2023 discharge notice with regard to materials has been refused but the trees and landscaping were approved.[/read]

Land R/O 4 Croham Valley Road
The Croham Hurst Golf Club EGM has taken place with the approval of immediately selling the land at the rear of 4 Croham Valley Road to the developer Turnbull with the further intention of selling the house at 4 CVR sometime later.

5 Croham Valley Road
Planning approval was granted on the 27th February 2020 at the Planning Committee meeting for the demolition of the existing house and the erection two blocks of 3 houses with accommodation in the roof spaces. One block will front on to Croham Valley Road being 4 floors 4 bedroom houses with only 2 parking bays, the other block will front on to Ballards Farm Road being 3 floor 3 bedroom houses with 2 parking bays. Construction of the shell of the terrace of houses fronting on to Ballards Farm Road is complete with the terrace of house fronting on to Croham Valley Road having the shell of the houses almost completed for a 3 storey building.[read more]

At the same time Sterling Rose continue to try to change the design of the 3 houses fronting Croham Valley Road from 4 floors to 3 floor houses and a changed layout and to what we consider to be a better appearance but have not been successful in obtaining approval up to now and are on their third attempt of trying to get the change approved as a non material change which of course it isn’t.

The latest supposed non material change was refused on the 17th September 2021 which will give Sterling Rose a major problem as they’ve completed construction is based upon a 3 storey building of a different design and not the 4 storey building that was approved. This has the potential to be another 54 Arkwright Road situation – see later entry under CARA. As a result of asking Planning Enforcement to look into this, they’ve advised that Sterling Rose will now have to submit a new planning application to try to get retrospective planning approval, which has now been submitted under a Section 73a Minor Material Amendment (Retrospective), plus they also want to remove the planning approval condition of yellow lines on this part of Croham Valley Road as they’re only permitted to have two parking spaces. There have been 26 objections including the CVRA and a Councillor referral to this retrospective application.[/read]

Land R/O 35 and 37 Croham Valley Road – Fronting on to Ballards Rise
The above-mentioned outline planning application that’s currently pending approval, however the developer Silverleaf has also submitted another new outline planning application on the very same site for the erection of 2 two storey buildings with accommodation in the roof spaces comprising of a total of 4 large semi-detached houses with the provision of 6 parking spaces. The alternative proposal is almost the same size as the one for 8 flats and will add 15 bedrooms and potentially 24 persons, the same objection reasons apply equally to this alternative new application. [read more]
More details as regards the Restrictive Covenants are in the prior item above.
This application went before the Planning Sub-Committee on the 11th August 2022 and was refused permission with three Labour Councillors voting in favour of approval and three Conservative Councillors voting against approval with the Conservative Chair using his Casting vote to refuse. I spoke as an Objector in person at the meeting on behalf of the CVRA and the local residents, as did our ward Councillor Michael Neal. The developer Silverleaf has on the 28th October 2022 lodged an Appeal against refusal of the planning permission, which has subsequently been validated in December 2022; this appeal will now be decided upon by the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol. The Appeal is now in progress.
Unfortunately the Appeal was allowed on the 23rd August 2023. However on both the land at 35 and 37 Croham Valley Road there are the Walton Heath Land Company Limited Restrictive Covenants that restrict the land to not more than one dwellinghouse. The validity of the Walton Heath Land Company Limited Restrictive Covenants and the class of neighbours entitled to benefit from it was tested in the Court Case Whitgift Homes Ltd & Ors v Pauline Stocks & Ors where the Restrictive Covenants was upheld which legally prevented development on the land at 14 and 16 Ruffetts Close.[/read]

Croham Valley Road – Lower Part Where There’s All the Construction
Numerous residents have complained about blocking of the road with all the construction workers vehicles being parked on both sides of the road – some residents want double yellow line along the whole road, other have complained to our Councillors.

24 Ruffetts Close
This new planning application is for the demolition of an outbuilding with the erection of a large part single storey, part two storey side/rear extensions. The CVRA has decided to not object to this application; however some of the residents in Ruffetts Close have objected. The Planning Dept has under its delegated authority refused the application on the following basis:[read more]
The proposed development would result in an excessive large extension which would fail to be subservient to the host dwelling and would result in an urbanising effect which would negatively impact upon the street scene. Furthermore the proposed roof form of the rear extension would fail to successfully integrate with the roof form of the side extension by way of creating an awkward and unsightly junction between these elements which would result in an incongruous feature. The proposed development would therefore in harm to both the host dwelling and the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 and Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021.

Subsequently there has been a new planning application submitted for a smaller single side / rear extension which is currently pending decision. This latest application was also refused on the 11th April 2023.[/read]

Planning Area C

155 Ballards Way
Whilst the above-mentioned Appeal is pending the developer has submitted a new alternative planning application which is for alterations / extensions to the existing property and then the subdivision of the property into 2 three bedroom houses. The affected next door neighbour is neutral with regard to this latest proposal and as such the CVRA has not objected. Subsequently the application was approved on the 2nd February 2022 under the Planning Departments delegated authority. Work has commenced on the site for the alterations and extensions to the existing property and then conversion into 2 three bedroom houses, work is almost complete.

142 Croham Valley Road
Residents have raised an issue that the owners of this semi-detached bungalow are running an Indian take away business from a building in their rear garden which has resulted in vermin including rats. I’ve advised the residents to contact Environmental Services which has been done, also there are bound to be Health and Safety issues. An inspector did visit the property; however the owners said that they were no longer running the take away business from there. Subsequently they have started cooking again on a more limited basis. Nearby residents are keeping a close eye on this matter.

6-8 The Gallop
This new planning application from Macar Developments is for the demolition of 2 small detached bungalows and the erection of 4 two storey 4 bedroom semi-detached houses with accommodation in the room spaces and a terrace of 5 two storey 3 bedroom houses. This is a massive overdevelopment of the site that will add 31 bedrooms and potentially 44 persons. [read more]
Even before the application had been submitted 8 The Gallop had been cleared of trees including specialist trees of 2 silver birches and a pine tree that should have been saved. The developer has already paid for Planning Pre-Application advice from the Planning Department, however the Planning Department has not yet replied to the developer. The CVRA has already lodged an objection and Cllr Helen Pollard has raised a Councillor referral. This application went before the Planning Committee on 13th January 2022 where David Rutherford spoke on behalf of the CVRA and the 306 local resident objectors as did our local Cllr Robert Ward and all 4 of the Conservative Councillors on the committee spoke against and voted against the application. When it came to the vote it was tied at 4 in favour 4 against including the Chair, however the Chair used his additional casting vote to approve the application. Some residents are considering going through the Council’s complaints process which has 3 separate stages, after which if there’s no satisfaction you can then go formally to the Local Government Ombudsman with a complaint. The developer has on the 8th April 2022 submitted details of their Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) which has subsequently been approved. Also a number of further discharge notices have been submitted 26th May 2022 which have subsequently been approved on the 24th August 2022. A further discharge notice was submitted in August 2022 which has subsequently been approved on the 20th October 2022.
Further discharge notices were submitted 6th March 2023 which have been subsequently approved on the 20th June 2023.[/read]

46 The Gallop
This new planning application has been submitted by the developer Red Banksia for the partial demolition and extensions to the side and rear of the existing single storey bungalow to become a two storey building with also accommodation in the roof space to create 1 two bedroom dwelling and 1 three bedroom dwelling with a total of two parking spaces, effectively changing the bungalow to a 3 storey pair of semi-detached houses. A number of local residents will be objecting plus your Residents Association and hopefully one of the local Councillors will raise a referral. This is the same developer that’s constructing the terrace of 4 houses in the rear garden of 55 Crest Road fronting on to Croham Valley Road and in this case is hedging his bets by submitting two similar applications at the same time. There have been 24 resident objections to this application. This application went before the Planning Sub Committee meeting on the 6th April 2023 and was approved.
5 Discharge notices have now been approved.

46 The Gallop
I’m advising you of yet another new planning application on this site by the same developer for the partial demolition and extensions to the existing bungalow upwards and to the side and rear to create one 3 bedroom dwelling and one 5 bedroom dwelling, effectively a pair of semi-detached houses in a two storey building with also accommodation in the roof space with one parking spaces for each house. The developer already has obtained planning approval on this same site for a pair of semi-detached houses of one 3 Bedroom and one 2 bedroom as detailed below. There’s concern that both proposed semi-detached houses have studies, in the 3 bedroom property it’s on the 2nd floor which could easily be a bedroom potentially making this a 4 bedroom property, in the 5 bedroom property the study is on the ground floor but unusually there’s a full bathroom next to this study which could easily be a bedroom potentially making this a 6 bedroom property. There have been 28 objections and the CVRA has asked for this application to be referred to the Planning Committee for decision. At the Planning Sub-Committee meeting on the 14th September 2023 the application was approved in spite of David Rutherford speaking on behalf of the CVRA and the local residents as an objector as did our local Councillor Robert Ward.

1 The Ruffetts
This new planning application is for the erection of a pair of two storey 3 bedroom semi-detached houses plus accommodation in the roof space to the rear of the existing property 1 The Ruffetts. Strangely part of the roof space has a room allocated as being a writing area but could easily be another bedroom meaning in reality it’s a pair of 4 bedroom houses. Of further concern is that this proposed development borders directly on to the approved development in the rear garden of 55 Crest Road for a terrace of 4 houses. There have been 46 resident objections to this application plus the CVRA and a Councillor referral. This planning application was heard at the Planning Sub Committee on the 1st December 2022 where David Rutherford spoke as an objector on behalf of the Croham Valley Residents Association (CVRA) and the local resident objectors as did our local Councillor Robert Ward, unfortunately the Sub Committee approved the application by a vote of 3 to 2 with one abstention. Subsequently the site with the planning approval for the pair of semi-detached houses in the rear garden plus the original host property has been put up for sale at £1050K this month.
Discharge notices were submitted on the 10th March 2023 which were refused permission. Three amended discharge notices were submitted on the 4th July 2023 which have subsequently been approved.

29 The Ruffetts
The owner of this property continues to be a problem in that the approval obtained for the erection of a single / two storey front /side / rear extensions in December 2020, however it has not been built in accordance with the approved plans hence there has been the need for a new retrospective planning application, which many local residents are against, there have been 39 resident objections to this retrospective application, as they would like it built in accordance with the original approval.
The owner of this property has now amended the plans in the proposed retrospective planning application which is all about the owner of this property building what he wants and not what was approved and expecting to get approval after the event which is totally unacceptable and as a result of this having to go out for further comments there are now 78 objections. The bad news is that at the Planning Sub-Committee on the 3rd August 2023 that the Committee approved the retrospective planning application in spite of David Rutherford speaking on behalf of the CVRA and the local residents as an objector as did our local Councillor Robert Ward.

Planning Other

Restrictive Covenants
The following properties have either planning approval but not yet developed or have pending planning applications that are awaiting decision or are being prepared for the submission of planning applications. All of these properties have Restrictive Covenants that restrict the sites to either only having one dwelling either detached or semi-detached and if enforced could potentially stop the sites being developed. [read more] However restrictive covenants are a complicated legal business and can only be enforced by properties under the Touch and Concern rule (nearby but don’t have to necessarily physically adjoin) unless it can be proved that it was a Building Scheme. Also taking legal action to enforce covenants can be expensive plus there’s always the risk that a developer might appeal the decision which would further add to the costs. A potential cheaper alternative is to take out an Injunction to enforce the Restrictive Covenant. Meanwhile we’re letting affected residents write to the developers making them aware of the Restrictive Covenants, reserving the right taking further action if they’re going to proceed with the development in the hope they will walk away. Jeremy has investigated using the legal cover one has with many household insurance policies, the indication from his insurer was positive but one would need to be certain if one was to go down this route:[/read]

    • Underwood,Ballards Farm Road  Whitgift Educational Foundation
    • 14, 16 & 18 Castlemaine Avenue   Whitgift Educational Foundation
    • 55 Crest Road                                        The Walton Heath Land Company Ltd
    • 80 Croham Road                                  Whitgift Educational Foundation
    • 35 Croham Valley Road                     The Walton Heath Land Company Ltd
    • 37 Croham Valley Road                     The Walton Heath Land Company Ltd

Croydon Alliance of Residents’ Associations (CARA)
This recently set up Croydon Alliance of Residents’ Associations have held a number of Zoom Meetings which has been very useful with sharing information with a number of interesting things coming out these meetings and subsequent email exchanges across the Group, particularly as follows:

Following a local resident taking Croydon Council to Court under a Judicial Review process, a High Court judge has ruled against Croydon’s Panning Department, quashing the decision of a senior council official to grant permission for a block of flats in Sanderstead at 54 Arkwright Road.

This makes very interesting reading, particularly as we’ve a potentially similar situation with 5 Croham Valley Road.

The following is the web link to the story in Inside Croydon:

 

 

Unspent Infrastructure Levies
It has come to light that Croydon Council is sitting on £22500K on unspent infrastructure levies. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section 106 Contributions are the monies paid by developers in return for being allowed planning permission for their proposed schemes. This was featured in Inside Croydon following an investigation by Property Week covering London boroughs, as Councils now have to publish an annual infrastructure funding statements, or IFS.

  • The link to the article is:
    https://insidecroydon.com/2021/03/15/council-is-sitting-on-22-5m-in-unspent-infrastructure-levies/
  • Another concern is that Planning Enforcement has become an issue due to lack of staff, particularly where flats are being built.
    There are currently a number of sites where contractors / developers are working and breaching decision / conditions and planning law. emails to Planning Enforcement are coming back – we have few staff now for the south.
    Ward Councillors and the Tory Opposition leader to take it up with the Chief Executive and the Executive Director Place – to recruit more staff. Approved Inspectors are just as bad in not complying with the Building Regulations.

Croydon Local Plan Review
Due to be adopted in 2022, the review will update the vision and strategy for Croydon’s growth up to 2039 and set out how the council will continue to deliver much-needed new homes, jobs and community facilities.
The first stage of the review was to gain feedback from the community with a period of consultation referred to as the Issues and Options consultation. This took place between November 2019 and January 2020 and is now closed.
All representations made during the consultation period are now being reviewed and will be used by the Spatial Plan to shape the Local Plan Review Preferred Option.
The Preferred Option will be published during a second period of consultation late 2020. At this time a summary of what we heard during the Issues and Options consultation and the subsequent decisions that have been actioned will also be published.
The Local Plan Review was to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination early in 2021 and adopted in early 2022 but there’s slippage on the dates.
However, as a result of now having a hung Council and a newly elected Conservative Democratically Elected Mayor, the local plan review will I’m sure be revisited.
Further information on the status of the review will be uploaded on to the Council site as the programme continues.

Croydon – Local Plan Partial Review – Call for Evidence on Local Green Spaces
Only site within our area that was under this category is The Ruffet, which many residents provided information back to the Council on why this site should have some level of protection to safeguard it from potential development. We’re still waiting to hear if this has been successful.

The following article has been issued by the Croydon Conservatives (Major Jason Perry and Deputy Major & Chair Croydon Conservative Federation Lynne Hale) which makes very concerning reading for all residents of Croydon.

REVEALED: The true scale of Croydon Labour’s toxic financial mismanagement
Croydon Council has today had to issue a new Section 114 notice which states that the Council cannot set a balanced budget next year with the resources it has. This is a direct result of legacy issues from the previous Labour Administration bankrupting the Borough.

When Croydon Labour were in power they bankrupted the Council. Whilst we all knew the situation was bad, Labour were hiding just how bad it was.

Upon entering office in May, Mayor Jason Perry ordered the Council to “open the books” – which has revealed the true scale of Labour’s mismanagement. Official reports detail shocking “mistakes” made in the previous Administration’s budgets – which Labour claimed were “balanced” at the time.

These mistakes include:

Parking
Labour set estimates for parking income that they knew were totally unrealistic. The Council actual parking income is over £10 million less than the amount Labour budgeted for.

Housing
Croydon Labour sold Council-owned properties for £73 million. They spent all the money but got the accounting wrong and at least £9 million now needs to be paid back.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (‘LTNs’)
Croydon Labour’s budget forecast that the Council would make millions of pounds by implementing many new Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. However they didn’t work out which roads these new LTNs would be implemented on. It later turned out that this would be impossible to deliver.

These mistakes will cost Council taxpayers ten of millions of pounds.

Croydon Council’s Debt
When Labour were voted out of power in May they also left £1.6 BILLION of debt. This costs £47 million to service every single year – roughly one sixth of the Council’s entire expenditure, or about four times what it costs to empty the bins.

Labour’s toxic legacy issues mean that next year we would have to cut Council spending by 40% – nearly half – which is not safe or sustainable.

We have already met with the Government’s Cabinet Minister in charge of local Councils. Together Croydon Council will work with the Government to work out a viable plan that will bring our Borough back to financial sustainability.

Fixing Labour’s Mess
The previous Labour Administration has left a legacy of unprecedented financial mismanagement toxic bad debt and a lack of governance and transparency that shames Croydon and continues to have a long-lasting impact on the sustainability of our Council.

Despite the hard work of Council staff the toxic level of Labour’s debt means that Croydon is trapped in a vicious cycle. Even with Government support the years ahead will be incredibly financially challenging for Croydon Council. Ultimately this will mean the Council needs to do and spend less with significant spending reductions in the coming years.

We are determined to fix what the previous failed Labour Administration broke and to protect our residents our staff and the Borough as much as possible but getting the Council back on track to recovery and long-term financial and operational sustainability will take a long time and need radical solutions.

Details of call with Helen Gough, Director of Property for the Whitgift Foundation

I sent a mail to the Whitgift Foundation saying some residents wanted to have a meeting about the covenants I received a reply  from Helen Gough suggesting we had a chat.  So I called.
I said that we, the residents of the Croham Park Estate (the land sold by the Whitgift Foundation to Donald Young in  October 1905 comprising Castlemaine, Melville, Pilgrims Way and the parts of Coombe and Croham between them);
– were aware of the restrictive covenants on the land
– believed them to be still relevant as the nature of the core of the estate has not changed significantly.
– would like any purchaser to take into account our views whilst making plans for the site.
– we were happy to be relatively flexible.
Helen said the following;
– the WF had taken extensive legal advice regarding the covenant without giving any indication as to what that advice was.
– our concerns would be passed onto any potential buyers of the site and she was sure they would want to get in contact in due course.
– in fairness to remaining pupils the marketing of the site will only progress after the Summer Term finishes
– the main outcome for the WH was to maximise the benefit for the WF, this was not necessarily the same as maximising sale proceeds.
– they had not ruled out selling to another educational organisation
Helen said that the WF were logging all interaction with interested parties.  She gave an example of a call to the WF expressing concern about the retention of the stained glass windows in one of the buildings.
I I propose we do nothing more for now (except to ask the Council for TPOs).  The WH knows we are concerned and are aware of the covenants. They will pass on our concerns to any purchaser.

Croydon Development Plan Revisions – What do you think?

The Local Plan provides an overall strategy, guides decisions on future development proposals and addresses the needs and opportunities of the borough over a 20 year time horizon. The Current plan was drawn up in 2018 by the Labour administration. The Plan must be consistent with the London wide plan and UK government planning guidelines.

Changes to the plan are being made to reflect Mayor Perry’s views on development which is called his “Business Plan 2022-2026”.  Final consultation on these revisions will be taking place during Jan and Feb of 2024 and adopted later in the year. The main changes from the current plan – the 2018 plan are as follows.

In terms of Urban Design, the Mayor has already revoked SPD2 which the previous regime used to justify many inappropriate infill developments. The new recommendations are for the removal of all suburban intensification areas and the removal of 3 storey blanket policy.  The Mayor will also promote design over density, respecting Croydon’s unique character and identity and allocate larger brownfield sites and sustainable locations to meet housing targets.

All this is much appreciated and a confirmation of what we have seen recently in Planning Committee decisions over the last 18 months.

However is Croydon building sufficient new homes – and the right mix of housing for these policies to continue and Mayor Perry not to be reeled in by either Mayor Khan or the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

The current target per annum agreed with Mayor Khan is 2,079 units up to 2029 and Croydon Council are proposing around 1,200 per annum from 2029 until December 2040.  The Council is currently meeting these targets and had a pipeline of 11,893 as of March 2022 – the last time figures were published.

I suspect Croydon is well in excess of its targets given the number of block completed around East Croydon in the last year. As I have said before, to me all this high rise development around East Croydon is on balance good.

However how is Croydon doing in meeting its targets on affordable homes and family homes. The answer is badly.   For affordable homes the target is 50% and the current run rate is 17%. For family homes – homes with three bedrooms or more – the target is 30% and the current run rate is 16%.

Whilst Croydon is not alone in not meeting its targets I think these targets are worth trying to achieve. For example what is going to happen to all those 20 somethings living in the new 1 and 2 bed flats in the towers all around East Croydon.  Are they all going to have to leave us when they turn into new families. And what about those people who cannot afford these new flats and there is insufficient affordable housing.

We at the CVRA will be raising these affordability and size issues in the January consultation.  If there is anything else you would like us to raise, please get in touch.

The Council’s update document can be found below:

Plan Revision Document

Consultation on the Lloyd Park bowling green and the Council’s plan for the evolution of the park

The Friends of Lloyd Park are consulting with local residents’ associations regarding the Council’s plan evolution of the park.  Examples of questions are “do you want areas of the park where dogs have to be on leads?” and “do you want more events (such a music festivals) in the park.

It was a three minute survey for me (so probably a two minute survey for most) so if you are a user of the park or impacted by it please fill in the survey.  The link , below.

Turkish Kangol Dogs in Lloyd Park

 

A follow up from our MP Chris Philp.

Below is the email from Chris.  I was concerned that the only thing we had heard from the police or MPs regarding this incident was from Croydon Central MP Sarah Jones who stated “The dogs have once again been seized and the local police are doing everything they can to ensure they don’t get released back to the owner.” So I asked Chris Philp MP to request an update from the police.  The response is below. It says the investigation is ongoing under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and also that the courts will decide whether the dogs are released back to the owners. The fact that the courts will make the decision (which I believe is under the Dogs Act 1871 and is independent of a any proceedings under the 1991 Act) is, to me, reassuring.
Thank you Chris for this update

Dear Jeremy, 
Following from our previous correspondence, I have now received a response from the Metropolitan Police. Please find a copy of this response attached for your reference which I do hope you find helpful.

“The South BCU take all dog related matters, that are reported directly to police, very seriously. Regardless whether we have a complaint that meets the threshold of an offence under s.3 of the Danger Dogs Act legislation or not.
 
We have a working practice were all irresponsible dog owners or owners of problematic dogs, will be engaged with, regardless of social background of the owner and the breed of dog involved. There is legalisation in place for police to deal with prohibited breeds, i.e. Pit bull terriers, Japanese Tosa, Dogo de Argentino and  Fila Brasileiro and we will looked to enforce this piece of legislation where applicable.
 
The LEAD (Local Environmental Awareness on Dogs) Initiative is a police led initiative that deals with ALL dogs related incidents that do not meet the threshold of an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act legislation. Through engagement and early intervention we, (and through working with partner agencies), offer intervention by way of  police engagement regardless of the breed of dog and the social background of the owner.  LEAD has highlighted that through early intervention we can prevent escalation. If during the process offences are highlighted or it is felt that enforcement is required, this will be taken. LEAD encourages partnership work and shares the responsibility/risk. LEAD helps in dealing with Safe Guarding communities.
 
LEAD is endorsed by Government departments (DEFRA) and Government ministers, National Dog Charities, RSPCA, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs Home etc.  While also being recognised as ‘Best Practice’
 
In relation to the community’s concerns in regards to the three Turkish Kangal Dogs linked to Coombe Farm. Firstly, and most importantly, ALL THREE DOGS are currently being held in secure police kennels and will be staying within police kennels until such time the courts have made a final decision.
 
We currently have two ongoing  investigations into these dogs and their actions under s.3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act. One non-aggravated offence, (NO injuries caused to a person or Assistance dog) and an aggravated offence, (injuries Caused to a person or an assistance dog).
 
As these are still ongoing investigations you will understand that we are unable to quote on the matters at hand. But we can assure you that police are working diligently to uphold the legislation under the act, in a way that will protect and safeguard the local communities. However the final decisions will lie with the courts and it will be up to them to decide the final outcome on the evidence produced.”

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me and if I can be of any other assistance please let me know.
 

Kind regards,

Chris 

Rt Hon Chris Philp MP
Member of Parliament for Croydon South
House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
www.chrisphilp.com | @chrisphilp_mp

Purley Pool Development – Some Questions

Would you use the proposed new pool in Purley? Would you go there by public transport? Do you currently use any of the four public pools currently in operation in the Borough? Would you prefer more affordable accommodation provided by the developer rather than a Leisure Centre?

The contentious issues surrounding the current plans are;
– The considerable reduction in parking available, down to a proposed 40 spaces for both the residents and the users of the leisure centre.
– The height of the tallest tower  –  twelve stories.
– The lack of affordable accommodation because of the costs of building the leisure centre.
– The running costs of the pool and leisure centre.
Both Chris Philp  and Jason Perry are in favor of the scheme but agree that the residents need to be consulted and listened to.
There are interesting trade offs here and just because we do not live in Purley it does not mean we do not have a say – as for example it will be our Council Tax used to support the leisure centre if it can not cover its costs. Another issue might be that if this is a say 40 year development then within 15 years it will probably be the case that cars are no longer a polluting problem and we will be regretting restricting parking availability.
More information is here:  https://purleypool.co.uk/
We are liaising with other residents associations to come up with a consistent set of comments.
What are your views?

Chairman’s Chat

Eyesore Fixed in Castlemaine Avenue!

April 2023

Well done to Councillor Denton, the developer and the Castlemaine resident who reported the mess in the first place.
For some reason the developer of 86 Coombe Lane had left a gap in the boundry wall. Over the last year this gap, around 2m by 2m, has filled up with rubbish (and worse) and became an eyesore and health hazard. Councillor Denton got involved and as you can see a fence has been put up. This might be a temporary solution but it has removed the eyesore. I said when this was built it was a nice looking block. It is again. Well done all.

Chairman’s Chat

This Post has moved here

April 2023

Eyesore Fixed in Castlemaine Avenue!

Well done to Councillor Denton, the developer and the Castlemaine resident who reported the mess in the first place.
For some reason the developer of 86 Coombe Lane had left a gap in the boundry wall. Over the last year this gap, around 2m by 2m, has filled up with rubbish (and worse) and became an eyesore and health hazard. Councillor Denton got involved and as you can see a fence has been put up. This might be a temporary solution but it has removed the eyesore. I said when this was built it was a nice looking block. It is again. Well done all.

March 2023

Meeting with the Planning Department March 7 2023

Your Chairman went along to the 6 monthly meeting with the Planning Department (PD) earlier this month.

At the previous meeting, which was the first under the new administration of Mayor Perry, the whole meeting was spent talking about new build targets, the levels of completions against those targets and the adverse impact of the cumulative numbers of new developments on the availability of school places, transport and health services for residents in some of the other areas of Croydon. However there was less animosity as there had been at previous meetings as it was already apparent that the rate of approvals in the suburbs of Croydon was slowing down.

As I wrote at the time, listening to the complaints from other RAs made me realise that on balance most of us within Croham Valley had not been badly affected by the last administration’s desire to build so much in the suburbs of Croydon.

This time the PD gave us an update on the internal workings of the department and the plans over the next few years.

In 2022 the Department had been reviewed by the Government’s Planning Advisory Service (PAS) and the results have just been released. Not surprisingly the PAS stated that the department had somewhat fallen behind in processing applications as it had been under resourced (see below). In addition the PD had some bad practices and had lost the confidence of Croydon residents. The PAS did say however that the department was willing to learn.

The PAS made many recommendations;

  • The PD make the process of validating new applications more efficient along with many other working practices recommendations.
  • The PD becomes better at communicating citing poor communication (rather than actual use) around the use of the monies from the CIL and Section106 received by Croydon from developers.
  • The Department become better at Enforcement against developers who build something other than that which has been approved!
  • The Department improve their IT. See more of this below regarding Tree Preservation Orders.

I wondered whether some of the bad press the PD received was due to their poor IT.

The PD then went on to talk about enforcement. The council have a bad reputation for enforcement. The three new townhouses down Croham Road are three story but the plans said they should be four. This was reported over a year ago but no action has been taken and the townhouses are now occupied. As an aside we obviously prefer three stories but want to make the point that compliance is compliance.

Councillor Jeet Bains (Conservative – in charge of the Planning process) explained that Brent – a similar sized Council has many times the number of enforcement officers. We were told that recruiting the right type of people (someone ready to have a vigorous discussion) is difficult. Since May 2022 outstanding cases are down partly as a result of having a “no phone answering” session”.

The numbers since May 2022 are:

Cases outstanding then 1,350.
Now 1,100
Closed 800
New cases 550 (my calculation)
6 Enforcement Notices
2/3 Prosecutions

We did not have a chance to discuss the apparent low levels of enforcement notices/prosecutions compared to the number of cases closed. The Council acknowledged that it needed to publicise its successes, prioritise the big cases give more information of what is being enforced generally and going forward communicate progress a lot better.

A part of the discussion on Enforcement it was agreed that protecting trees was a priority and that both planning and enforcement officers would “drop everything” if it was reported a tree with a TPO was in danger. It was acknowledged however that the TPO details were on paper and should have been computerised by now in common with many other Councils.

Steve Pennington from the PD talked about planning policy in general.

The “Local Development Scheme” (LDS) which is the project plan for the planning policy process (if that makes sense) is out of date and is to be replaced. The new Scheme is to go to Cabinet in March. The timetable for the Local Plan Review is attached below.

The Local Plan Review (for consultation early next year) is to focus on;

  • design criteria
  • removal of intensification areas
  • long term new build numbers
  • post current planning cycle
  • HMO policy
  • Strengthening of Green Belt

The PD made the following comments

  • No change in existing targets following the recent Governmental NPPF consultations.
  • Despite retraction of the SPD2 document the Local Plan still has to be in compliance with the London Plan. However no specific issues were raised.
  • The small sites target is still in operation – although there was no further discussion on this. I think it was implied that going forward there will be better designed applications to fill the small site target.

The last topic presented on by the PD was in terms of Validation of planning applications. This was one of the items of improvement mentioned by the PAS. Most of the changes suggested seemed common sense. Many changes were directed towards clarifying the requirements for small developments/extensions.

What was more interesting were the statistics regarding timing of approvals. In addition to individual decisions going to the Inspectorate if a desicion is not made within 8/13 weeks for a small/large application (if I am correct) I was not aware that the Inspectorate will start the process of making all decisions if a PD falls below 70% compliance for less than 8 week for small and 60% compliance within the 13 weeks (or longer if prior agreement with the developer) for large.

The PD stated that after significant extra work they are currently at 75% compliance for both small and large whereas in May 22 they were very close to breaching both targets. The RAs were appreciative that the PD had retained its own decision making abilities.

Overall I sensed a PD coming to terms with the new administration and seeming to enjoy the more relaxed relationships with the RAs arising from the policies of the new administration.

November 2022

Talk by Mayor Perry to the CVRA 3 November 2022

We thank Jason and Maria and Danielle for attending our AGM. Here is a write up of Jason’s talk.
Jason said he had come from a production at the Fairfield Halls reminding us that it is open!

Jason told us that it is a privilege to be Mayor. The Council is in a “no overall control” status but the Mayor is in charge of everything except for the quasi-judicial aspects of planning and licensing. The Planning Committee is split 50:50 but in addition with a Concervative Chair

A brief overview of the current issues were:

The debt is still there at £1.5bn. Interest costs are £50m per year.

The main short term priority is to clean up the Borough. Jason is talking to Viola whereas no-one from the previous regime had talked to them for over 6 months. In addition Jason has given the police additional powers to deal with anti-social behaviour issues.

Jason is also concentrating on Regeneration both in terms of encouraging inward investment and and applying for every type of development grant available.

In terms of planning policy the new new emphasis is on design rather than density.

Jason took questions from the audience.

Q1: Was Jason worried that despite Planning Committee rejection of various proposals the developers will win on appeal to the inspectorate especially as the Planning Department have been recommending acceptance.
Jason replied that most recent appeals have been won. Twelve recently. This has given Jason the opportunity to nudge the Planning Department towards interpreting the current guidelines in light of the “design rather than density” objectives of Jason’s regime.

Q2: Funding for Community Groups has been reduced.
Jason agreed but referred to the debt levels. He said that they are encouraging community groups to work together. Previously there was some overlap.

Q3: What is Jason’s view on the Borough’s social responsibilities in terms of providing housing and helping the homeless
Jason replied that there were over 1,000 refugees in Croydon’s hotels – which was more than their share. In terms of other homeless he was trying to promote a more holistic strategy as many homeless have not previously wanted to engage with the help offered. In terms of Social Housing, Croydons stock was in a bad way from actions from the last regime.

Q4: Jason was asked about the lack of bus shelters for over 18 months
Jason replied that the supplier – Valo Smart City is having problems fulfilling the contract. This is potentially a legal issue.

Q5: There were complaints regarding blocked drains at the bottom of Croham Manor Road. The resident complained that she was fed up with repeatedly pulling leaves out of the drains.
Maria mentioned she would report to the relevant department.

Q6: There was a report of a dangerous dog in Lloyd Park.
Maria said she would work with Fairfield Councillors and the Dog team to deal with.

Q7: There were complaints that the Coombe Farm site in the middle of the park was in poor condition and continued to be an eyesore.
Jason indicated that it was a difficult issue as it is privately owned but was been looked at.

Q8: Jason was asked when there would be full recognition that “wrong had been done” by the previous regime.
Jason talked about the Penn report (on the how of what happened) and the Kroll report (possible illegal actions in the redevelopment of Fairfield Halls) and said they would be published in due course.
It was agreed that the electors had recognised wrong had been done because if not he would not be Mayor.
Lastly Jason pointed out that moist of the current regime’s efforts were trying to help provide better services going forward.

Q9: The cycle lane on the Brighton Road has harming local businesses
Jason and Maria agreed and said it would be looked at.

Q10: What was the Council’s response to the Cost of Living Crisis.
Jason said they were doing what they could but there were not additional C.O.L.C. funds available from the Government.

Jason and Maria and Danielle were thanked for their time and their competent and considerate replies.

October 2022

Letter Sent to the South Croydon Ward Councillors 13 October 2022 objecting to Melville Avenue turning into a Healthy School Street

Dear Michael, Maria and Danielle,

Croydon Council is proposing that Melville Avenue becomes a Healthy School Street and therefore access to non-residents is restricted during school opening and closing times. It is claimed this will make for safer and quieter streets and therefore encouraging more walking and cycling resulting in healthier pupils and better air quality.

I do not believe any of these objectives will be met in any significant way to overcome the inconvenience involved for many of the residents in Melville Avenue and the surrounding streets. This view is shared by many other residents.

Melville Avenue, Castlemaine Avenue and Croham Park Avenue run in parallel between Croham Road and Coombe Road. They are linked via Ballater Road and Binfield Road. My view is that if the scheme goes ahead the vast majority of the traffic that currently enters Melville Avenue will go via Castlemaine Avenue and Croham Park Avenue instead.

Why do we think this? We conducted a survey of the traffic going along Melville Avenue on Thursday the 6th October (attached). Of the traffic in Melville during the proposed restricted periods 239 cars dropped off or picked up pupils with 125 for Old Palace Junior School and 114 for Coombe Wood School. This was out of a total of almost 1,600 journeys – so around 15% of journeys were school drop offs or pick ups. The numbers are below.

Results of Traffic Survey of Melville Av, Castlemaine Av and Croham Park Av on Thursday 6 October 2022. A Term time day with no rail or tube or tram strikes.

Traffing Turning INTO Melville Castlemaine and Croham Park Avenues
       
  From Coombe From Croham Total
08:00 – 09:30      
Melville Av 0 247 247
Castlemaine Av 208 78 286
Croham Park Av 105 185 290
Total 313 510 823
       
14:00 – 16:00      
Melville Av 154 50 204
Castlemaine Av 225 49 274
Croham Park Av 148 142 290
Total 527 241 768
       
AM + PM      
Melville Av 154 297 451
Castlemaine Av 433 127 560
Croham Park Av 253 327 580
Total 840 751 1,591
Traffing Turning OUT OF Melville Castlemaine and Croham Park Avenues Ins less Outs
         
  Into Coombe Into Croham Total Total
08:00 – 09:30        
Melville Av 168 62 230 17
Castlemaine Av 75 196 271 15
Croham Park Av 204 101 305 -15
Total 447 359 806 17
         
14:00 – 16:00        
Melville Av 245 50 295 -91
Castlemaine Av 30 195 225 49
Croham Park Av 143 126 269 21
Total 418 371 789 -21
         
AM + PM        
Melville Av 413 112 525 -74
Castlemaine Av 105 391 496 64
Croham Park Av 347 227 574 6
Total 865 730 1595 -4
Notes: The Numbers look consistent : Well done Peter, Helen, Angela and Sharon (and her CPA team) We would ecpect more cars into the network than out AM and for this to reverse PM as teacers and others park AM and then un-park PM The number of cars exiting Melville into Coombe turning right was 67 AM (40%) and 107 PM (45%) The number of drop offs/pick ups outside Coombe wood School was 66 AM and 48 PM The number of drop offs outside Old Palace Junior School was 80 AM / 45 PM, (62 AM / 30 PM from cars going towards Coombe and 18 AM / 15 PM from cars going towards Croham) Only 129 AM / 94 PM of the cars in the network are dropping off or collecting pupils.

Why do we think most of this traffic will divert? There are three reasons for this.

Old Palace School is a private junior school and nursery with a large catchment area. This cannot be ignored. I spoke to a parent who said he came from Shirley with no realistic other way of his daughter getting to school. He said he would have to park either in Castlemaine Avenue or Croham Road or come earlier. I suspect most will.

For Coombe Wood School parents currently driving up Melville, I cannot see that parents dropping off or or picking up in Castlemaine Avenue will be much of a deterrent for them as Castlemaine Avenue is less than 400 yards from the Coombe Wood School gates via Ballater Road and is less than 150 yards to the school gates from its junction with Coombe Road. This latter distance is closer to the school than locations along Melville Avenue where many of the cars dropped off/picked up during the survey.

Lastly all the cars not dropping off will mostly be commuters. This is the majority. Closing Melville Avenue to them will also force the overall majority into Castlemaine Avenue and Croham Park Avenue.

However I agree Melville will be safer. But Melville is already safe – whereas the Castlemaine/Coombe junction is not (as per crashmap.co.uk).

Before I go to the downsides, I am interested in what targets you have for sustainable/healthy journeys to school. There were at maximum about 120 pupils dropped off / picked up at Coombe Wood School from Melville. Now that is 120 of around 1,250 pupils so I would say the vast majority of pupils are already choosing either to walk, cycle or use public transport – as the school said they would do when it set up. Well done to all of you at the school. So what is the Council’s target!

Now for the downsides to the scheme. If our survey is representative and our assumptions are correct you are going to increase the traffic in Castlemaine by around 95%. This will increase queuing time whilst exiting Castlemaine Av to greater than currently from Melville and Castlemaine. Therefore your overall intention of improving air quality will not happen.

The other downsides are of course for residents having to arrange permits for themselves and for visiting trades people and helpers whether professional or family. We have many older people and some disabled living in Melville (and Castlemaine Avenue and Croham Park Avenue) who need a multiple of helpers. One said to me this scheme is discriminating against the old and disabled. I agree.

If you want to be sure you will improve the already good sustainable journey percentage for Coombe wood school and to force Old Palace Parents to not drive you should include Castlemaine Avenue. However if you do you have to include Croham Park Avenue as well as traffic will increase there by 180% if all Melville and Castlemaine traffic go through there.

Whilst I applaud the aims of the scheme for our roads based on our experience and our survey numbers – it will not work in its current state. If you are determined to go ahead without Castlemaine and Croham Park Avenue I make two requests:

First you wait until the results of the consultation of the previous trial schemes – which the ended April 2022 – is published.

Second and most importantly please do your own traffic surveys before and during implementation of the trial period on our roads so we can all see your actual results and all be guided by them.

Finally if you insist on bringing in this scheme then I suggest you do not need to make Melville one way as planned as the poor behaviour caused by the small number of parents who reverse and u-turn whilst picking up at present will obviously disappear. Therefore the only remaining people going up Melville from Coombe Road during the restricted times will be the very small number of residents in that part of Melville.

However if you do not bring in this scheme then you can eliminate this poor parent driving by putting a traffic warden outside the school at 15:15. If will undoubtedly be revenue raising.

Regards

Jeremy Gill
*** Address ***

September 2022

Why is Croydon’s housing target so high?

Recently I went to the latest six-monthly meeting between the representatives of the local resident associations and Croydon’s Planning Department.  We now have had a few Croydon Council Planning Committee meetings since our Mayor has been elected and the new Committee have been reversing some of the approval decisions by made by the Planning Department so overall we are seeing a reduction in approvals but it is still worth getting an insight into the Planning Department.
 
Even though Croydon is behind its target for the current ten year planning cycle which started in 2019 (albeit not by much),  many of the reps were complaining that the extra infrastructure needed to support the additional housing already built was not there. The planners told us it was their responsibility to consult with the  infrastructure providers. The ones mentioned repeatedly were  Thames Water, primary school providers, transport providers and the NHS.  However we were told the adequacy of infrastructure could not be a determining factor in making individual planning decisions.
 
This all seems reasonable enough for individual decisions but you would think that at some point someone would say ” we are already too stretched in that bit of the Borough, we better slow down over there”.  You would think the housing targets by ward would take this into account but the planners say the targets are discretionary and every application is judged on its own merits! Interestingly almost immediately after the meeting three West London Boroughs announced an indefinite  ban on all new approvals due to electricity shortages.  This will be pointed out at our next meeting!
 
So how do we get to a situation where infrastructure is not keeping up yet we are below target. Is it because our target is so high?
 
Croydon’s 10-year housing target is 20,790 units (2079 per year).  This is significantly higher than our outer London neighbours with Bromley’s target being 7,740 units (774 per year) and Sutton’s target 4,690 (469 per year).  Looking across London, four boroughs have similar targets.  These are Barnet, Brent, Ealing and Southwark.  Only three have higher targets.  These are Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets. Of these seven boroughs only Barnet like Croydon is an outer London Borough.
So why have Barnet and Croydon been allocated such high targets?  Part of the answer for Croydon is simple. If you look at “The London Plan 2021” page 165, the only outer London area with the highest Public Transport Access Level (which is 6b) is Croydon Town Centre.  So it is planned for a significant majority of the new builds to be built in the centre of Croydon, as we can see happening.  As long as these flats are of sufficient quality to be a credit to Croydon in the future then to me this is good.  Interestingly there is no 6b equivalent for Barnet – a reader might know what they did to be allocated such a target.
 
However out of our 2,079 target,  640 is for Small Site developments. These are on sites of 1/4 hectare or less ( just over 1/2 an acre or less).  Here Croydon really sticks out.  We have the second highest SS target of 641 per annum – just behind  Hackney with 658.  Even unlucky Barnet does not even come close with 434.  Comparing with our neighbours, Bromley is 379 and Sutton is 268. Whilst the SS targets for Bromley and Sutton are closer to Croydon’s SS target as a percentage compared to the large and small sites target combined, you would initially think that Bromley’s should be higher than ours and Sutton’s smaller than ours based solely on size. I hope you are keeping up.
Here we have to go back again to the maps within the London Plan 2019.  One of the determinants of high SS development is being close to Public Transport Access Level 3-6 or within 800yards of a train tube or tram station or stop. Looking at page 169, all of Croydon above Croydon town centre (except Crystal Palace) is caught by this definition as is a lot of the south as it is along either the Brighton Line, the Caterham Line, the East Grinstead Line or the Tram up to New Addington. Shirley is not designated neither is the area around Sanderstead/Selsdon or the Old Coulsdon area.
 
Comparing to our neighbours, Sutton is half our size but has the same percentage of SS eligible areas so a target of about half of ours makes sense whereas almost all of Bromley below Bromley town centre is not eligible for high SS development so their target also seems reasonable if access to transport is the main criteria.
 
The only research I have done to write this article is to look at the London Plan 2019. I am sure there is more to this than meets the eye (Barnet again!) but our target looks reasonable given the criteria which again seems reasonable 
 
Also this does not answer the infrastructure issue and whether the recent SS development is within the 800m from transport but might explain one factor in the Planning Department recommending the recent development in The Gallop.  By my calculations  as  the crow flies parts of the Gallop are within 800m of Coombe Lane Tram Stop.
 
More implications of all this  to follow.