Planning News

CVRA Objection to Coombe Wood School Overspill Parking Plan

Application Summary
Address: Coombe Lodge Playing Fields Melville Avenue South Croydon CR2 7HY
Proposal: Discharge of condition 18 (Landscape reinstatement) of planning permission 19/00303/FUL for the ‘Change of use of the site from playing fields (D2) to temporary secondary school (D1) until 31st December 2020 for 360 pupils, with associated erection of a temporary three storey school building, car parking, cycle store, bin store, fencing, soft and hard landscaping.’
Case Officer: Barry Valentine
Click for further information

Customer Details
Name: Mr Jeremy Gill
Email: [email protected]
Address: 27 Castlemaine Avenue, South Croydon CR2 7HU

Comments Details
Commenter Type: Residents Association
Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application
Reasons for comment: – Traffic or Highways

Comments: “As part of Croydon’s Planning Committee agreement to build Coombe Wood School a condition was imposed that the school provide a plan for overspill parking for parents’ evenings and other such events.

We believe proposed solution of increasing the existing car park from 96 to 114 spaces is an inadequate solution. We expect the number of teachers, parents and potential parents expected to attend these evenings will be far in excess of the 114 car park capacity given the school has a year size of 240 pupils.

We know other schools provide overspill parking facilities on their grounds using either playgrounds or grassed areas.

The school acknowledges they have a suitable space for such overspill parking, where the temporary buildings are now, but that the cost is too great for it to be used. Also they state that if it were to be used it would not be available by the time the permanent school opens.

We object to these cost and timing considerations. Adequate overspill was deemed necessary by the Planning Committee and should be provided. The school knew this was a requirement and could have planned the scheme for the construction of the school and grounds so that overspill was not an expensive add on. Secondly we are happy for overspill to be delayed for say a year so that the temporary school site can be used for such overspill parking.”

Regards Jeremy Gill on behalf of the CVRA Committee

Purley skyscraper decision – June 2020

We read this week of the decision that the Purley Skyscraper will go ahead. The timeline is that the planning inspector approved the design but the Government overruled.  The developer appealed and won a judgement that the Government is not allowed to overrule the conclusions of the – Government appointed – planning inspector.  The proposal went back to a second inspector who, with small modifications, approved the plan with no comeback allowed from the Government. Our issue with this is not that the inspector cannot be overruled, that is probably a good thing for democracy but that planning legislation is such a mess that the inspector can conclude the following.

“whilst the tower would be a prominent feature of Purley and would change the character of the town, it would not unacceptably dominate it or the surrounding residential area to the extent that any material harm is caused, and further that the proposed scheme would positively transform the area with a building of high architectural and material quality.”

Our point is decisions should not be made on such subjective grounds.  Here it is concluded that there would be change to the character of Purley and that harm to the residents is conceded but is “not material” as the change is ”not unacceptable”.  Of course one person’s acceptable is another person’s not acceptable.  There should be a whole set of specific national rules as to when how much you can intensify and in what circumstances so you do not end up with a 16 story tower in an area with existing buildings one third the height.

Some residents in the Purley area are thinking of applying for a judicial review – March 2020

Some residents in the Purley area are thinking of applying for a judicial review of the granting of planning permission for a development in Higher Drive in December 2019. Their case is that the council is using a significantly higher target for windfill site developments than should be the case.  The residents are saying the 10 year windfill site target should 6,470 – which is the target for Croydon set by the almost agreed new London Plan – whereas the residents say the Council are still applying a target of 15,100 from the 2016 London Plan.

It is difficult to keep up with which version of the Council Plan is in operation and which version of the London Plan is in operation – but what follows is our interpretation on where we are.

As we said earlier in this newsletter, at the end of 2019 the Council was asking for views on its proposed revision to its 2018 Plan and that the revisions are significantly increasing the Borough’s 20 year new housing target up to 46,040 from 32,890.  

Breaking down this new 20 year target, 20,790 of the 46,040 new homes are the 10 year target allocated to Croydon from the “emerging” London Plan as of Devember 2019.  Of that 20,790, the number allocated to windfall sites is 6,410, just over 30% of the total.

I hope you are keeping up.

Now the existing 2018 Council plan 20 year target of 32,890 includes 10,060 for windfill sites.  As that is a 20 year target if you halve it you get a current windfill target of around 5,000.  This is close to the 6,410 detailed above.

So where does the 15,100 come from? Well the residents are correct in saying the 15,100 is the old windfill target for Croydon handed down by the 2016 London Plan but from what I can see the Council never adopted that figure in the 2018 Council Plan – so is probably not relevant.  Why did the Council not adopt this figure? I do not know. 

However without doing more too much research you can see on Page 17 of the 2018 Croydon Plan that the number of new homes needed according to the population growth data was 44,149 homes but the Council thought – two years ago – that this number was not achievable and opted for 32,890 instead.  So the 15,100 was probably somewhere within the 44,149 number – which as stated above was not adopted.

So what are the implications for us?  As I wrote earlier in this newsletter, we seem to be lucky to be straddling wards with small targets in the proposed revision of the 2018 Croydon Plan and we should be quoting these numbers when objecting to new developments in our area

Chairman’s Spring Update March 2020

Not enough Family Homes in the Borough – according to the Council!

From January the Council have required planning permission to be obtained for all conversions of family homes into flats (Homes of Multiple Ownership – HMOs) for three or more unrelated people.  Previously permission was not needed as they could be converted under the Government’s Permitted Development Rights scheme.

The Council said that many conversions had previously been of poor quality and the Borough does not have sufficient family homes. Both viewpoints we agree with.

However the acknowledgement of a lack of family homes in the Borough does seem at odds with the Council’s readiness to approve almost all applications for demolition of family homes in our area for replacement by flats. 

We do understand that the Council’s definition of a family home is a three or more bedroom home (and sometimes a two bedroom flat if they are feeling in the mood) and that most newbuilds are required to have a percentage of 3 bedroom flats whereas HMO’s will not have these family flats. 

What this new requirement does highlight that having a single definition of a family home as a home of three bedrooms or above rather than multiple definitions of family homes will ensure very few “family” homes other than the smallest possible three bedroom flats will be built in the Borough.

Revision of Croydon Council’s 2018 Development Plan

The Council is now reviewing the feedback to its plans and will report back in late 2020. As we said before, the Council has divided the target into Wards.  We can therefore see that for the Green Belt/Purley Way alternatives, the South Croydon Ward has a 20 year target of 810 maximum  and Selsdon as a whole has a target of 710 maximum.  We can also see that under the Focussed Intensification alternative the wards have higher targets. South Croydon Ward has target of 1,070 homes and Selsdon also has a target of 1,070. 

These are much less than many wards.  For example Purley has a higher target of 9,000 homes and a lower target of 7,000 homes.  

For the South Croydon Ward the maximum target of 1,070 over twenty years gives about 53 per annum.  But for the South Croydon area includes the Brighton Road which is already an intensification area so we can argue this part of the ward should be used to meet the target.  For the Selsdon part of our area the implications are significantly worse.  The target also gives us 53 homes a year.  Unfortunately under all scenarios the Council has identified that – in Selsdon – the area most suitable for development is the top of Ballard Way!

Slowdown in planning applications

David will give more details of the application pipeline later on but we are pleased that the number of applications has decreased over the last year. However it might be beginning to speed up again.

148 Ballards Way

We are still waiting for the Local Government Ombudsman to give us a view on whether the approval process for the application to build at 148 Ballards Way with an out of keeping design involving multiple flat roofs was flawed as we suggest.  One Councillor at the meeting stated there were a quite a few flat roof extensions around – which there are not.

DEMOC: 10,000 collected 4,000 to go

DEMOC is the name for the campaign to have a referendum to replace the Leader of the Council with an elected executive mayor.  The Council have to have a referendum on the change in governance if 5% of elected voters want the change.  The signatures have to be collected in less than one year – which started in September 2019

This is something the Committee of the CVRA supports as we feel an elected mayor will be more high profile and therefore more accountable – to everyone within Croydon.  For example, how many of us know the name of the current Leader of the Council?

The campaign has now collected ten thousand signatures with another four thousand to go. So I ask for anyone who is thinking about supporting the petition to go to DEMOCs website and print off and sign the petition.  Drop it off with me or post it directly to DEMOC.


Revision of Croydon Council’s 2019 Development Plan  – Update 7 January 2020

We urge our residents to tell the Council what you think of the revision.  You can comment On-line or by Email or Post. You have until the 13th of January to comment. Apologies for short notice.


Email: [email protected]

Post: Spatial Planning, Bernard Weatherill House, Zone 6B, 8 Mint Walk, Croydon CR0 1EA


Our views, which we have submitted, are as follows.  We wrote this after further review of the Revision and the inspection of the original all- London Plan by three  Government appointed inspectors in October 2019
“The target of 46,000 homes overall for the Borough over twenty years is too high.  The Council should be planning for 2,079 homes per year as per the recommendation by the Government Inspectors in their 8 October 2019 report on the London Plan.
The Council should also follow the recommendation of the Government Inspectors that the small site target for the Borough should be 6,410 over ten years or 641 per annum.
This small sites target is consistent with your options B and C where the small sites target of 25% of your 46,000 over 20 years equates to a target of 575 units per annum.
We therefore disagree with option A where 40% of your target of 46,000 is allocated to small sites being 920 homes per annum – considerably above the recommendations.
Therefore we do not approve of the need to consider all areas within 800m of a train or tram stop to be areas for intensification of development – as is considered by you in option A.
Also we do not agree with use of the specific sites of the Green Belt mentioned in Option B until a full London review of the Green Belt is undertaken.
In addition we believe the that the target of one third of all new homes being within central Croydon is too low.  We believe the continuing uncertainty over the Westfield development shows that the central Croydon site should contain more residential and less retail.  We acknowledge that more housing is needed.  We are not aware of many people within our resident’s association area saying that more retail is needed.”

Chairman’s Winter Update – 4 December 2019

Revision of Croydon Council’s 2018 Development Plan
The Council has published a “Croydon Local Plan Review”.With first consultation ending on the 13th January 2020.  
The Council  seems to be saying that their 20 year housing allocation has gone up to an estimated 46,040 new homes against the target of 32,890 houses in the original 2018 Plan.   Whereas the Council were meeting the original target, they are saying they will have to do something more radical to meet the new targets.
The numbers seem huge.  There are approximately 150,000 dwellings in the borough at the moment so an increase of 46,040 is approximately one third. This seems huge but is just less than 1.5% per annum  when compounding is taken into account.
However assuming the numbers are realistic, the council is saying to meet the extra targets we need to either build on some Green Belt or build more everywhere – especially within 800m of a train station or tram stop.  These latter areas will be called development areas. 
Now almost all our area is within 800m of either Lloyd Park or Coombe Lane tram stops so we could become one giant “development area”.
I have said before I see building on some Green Belt a good idea.  Some of it it not accessible. Other parts do not even look that nice.  Some areas have both characteristics.
The Green Belt sites proposed are not within our area. 
So it it the initial view of the committee that, providing the numbers are properly calculated and that building in the center of Croydon and along the Purley Way as proposed will not meet the targets then building on Green Belt is preferable.
This is a bit nimby-esque but we already have a chunk of our ex-Green Belt being built on as I type.
We will do a bit more looking at these plans as they emerge.  The Council does not expect this review to be finished before 2022 so there is plenty of time however I would welcome your views.
DEMOC is the name for the campaign to replace the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet with an elected executive mayor.  The Council have to have a referendum on the change in governance if 5% of elected voters want the change.  The signatures have to be collected in less than one year – which started in September 2019.
This is something the Committee of the CVRA supports as we feel an elected mayor will be more high profile and therefore more accountable – to everyone within Croydon.  For example how many of us know the name of the current Leader of the Council?
Within our area over 5% have signed the petition however I think overall within the borough it is  going to be touch and go so I ask for anyone who is thinking about supporting the petition to go to DEMOCs website and print off and sign the petition.
Specific Developments
David has written about the current proposals within out borough.  You can see David’s report under”Local Planning”.  You still have time to comment on the development at 6 Croham Valley Road.  Whilst the design looks like it is sympathetic with the existing housing, it is the size which to us looks excessive. I will be over 900m in area over three floors. The Council has rejected much smaller proposals before based on size so we hope they take the same view.  You can look and comment on:
Our Website –
If you are reading this online you will see we have made progress on our website.  Much more still to do.

AGM Follow up – 4 December 2019.  Trees marked for cutting down on Coombe Lane. 

At the AGM is was noted trees opposite the new school were marked for cutting down opposite the current site entrance to the school and there was concern that this action was connected to permanent vehicle access to the new school.  
We received – via Chris Philp – an assurance from Matthew Burnell the Council’s Trees and Woodlands Manager that the trees were being cut down due to disease or decay.   Matthew went on to say trees might superficially look healthy but sometimes are not and to say the removals will be replaced.
Matthew also went on to say there were some trees further down the road that were earmarked to be felled for the new pedestrian crossing but his department had objected to the proposal on the basis there was a potential pedestrian crossing point slightly further up where no trees would be felled.
Thanks to both Matthew and Chris.
In addition Maria forwarded correspondence from the planning department stating that the current (as of end October 2019) policy of the Council is to design a crossing avoiding tree loss.
Thanks to Maria.


AGM  23 October 2019

Guest Speaker – Mr Chris Philp MP, Councillors and questions from the floor

Mr Philp started off by stating that it was nice to escape from Westminster and from Brexit.  Today’s vote in Parliament was not a Brexit vote.


Croydon approve 90% of all applications taken to the Planning Committee.  This is a very high proportion for those applications deemed to be potentially contentious. This high level of approval is not the case in the neighbouring boroughs of Bromley and Sutton.

Croydon also have a policy of allowing conversion of family homes into flats within an abrasive environment at the Council.

Croydon also have identified that 2/3rds of the housing target can be achieved by developing on brownfield and city centre sites.  Chris’s view is that these sites should be built on first and then the target reassessed to see whether family homes to flats (windfall sites) still need to be developed.

The Purley skyscraper which has now subject to an independent enquiry is another example of insensitive approvals by the Council

However the current Council will not change its policy so Chris is recommending we support the petition to vote for a change in governance arrangements in Croydon to abolish the post of leader of the Council and to have an elected mayor instead.

Southern Railway

Services through East Croydon have improved significantly since earlier last year. 

The £2billion project to widen Windmill Junction and therefore create more capacity on the London to Brighton Line is progressing it is still at the design phase.

Local Business Rates

Eighteen months ago Chris was approached by Simon Cripps to help in-town retailers reduce business rates to be able to better compete against out of town retailers.  Chris followed up with Philip Hammond and from April 2019 obtained a 1/3rd rate reduction for small retailers.

Mayday Hospital

A new larger A&E department was opened in May 2019 following a £22million redevelopment.  In addition a further £13million has been awarded to increase the number of intensive care beds.


Croydon has been historically underfunded as it is an outer London borough receiving fewer funds than inner city boroughs despite having many of their issues. In the latest spending round Croydon was awarded a 7% spending increase which was the second highest in the country.

Chris’s New Role

Chris is now a minister in the Justice Department. One of the issues he is focussing on is more help for criminals with disabilities and mental issues to help them integrate into society when their sentences are finished.

In addition as part of the nationwide increase in police numbers, Croydon is getting a further 100-120 more officers.  This is a large percentage increase on the 700odd officers we have at the moment.

There were now questions from the floor.

Fairfield Halls

There was dissatisfaction with the results of all the money spent on Fairfield Halls. It was commented on that it was double the price for the A&E. Robert Ward indicated a lot of the money was spent on asbestosis removal, the fabric of the building and disabled access. Robert indicated that it was probably under-budgeted and overspent however there seemed to be a lack of scrutiny as the work was undertaken by Brick to Brick.

It was also noted that there were at present no parking spaces available whereas 300 were promised.


The scheme is now being redesigned to reuse some of the existing and will be a smaller scheme.  The new plans are being awaited.

Trees in Coombe Lane

Trees opposite the Coombe Wood School construction site have been marked.  Maria said she did not think it was anything to do with the construction but will investigate.

Persecution of Christians in countries in receipt of UK aid

Mr Jaffer Kapasi asked for UK aid to be linked to freedom of expression, not just for Christians but all religions.  It is not at present.  Chris Philp agreed the request was a reasonable one.

Planning Issues – Maria Gatland

Maria informed the meeting that Croydon Planning Committee approved more proposals forwarded to it than most Committees.  Given forwarded proposals were the contention ones this approval ratio indicated a preference for developers rather than residents.

For residents concerned with parking there is a standard procedure to effect change involving residents being balloted on proposals put forward by residents’ groups.

The railway bridge over Sanderstead Road will be replaced over Christmas involving considerable disruption – especially to St Gertrude’s Church.

Planning Issues – Jason Perry

The Local Plan is to be reviewed – halfway through its term. The key proposals are;

Designation of areas within 800m of a public transport stop as Intensification Areas.  Whatever they are.

Building on certain green belt. The land down Gravel Hill was mentioned as a candidate area.

It was pointed out there was no capacity left on the tram for additional commuters.  The consultation runs from 8Nov to 8Jan.

Points from the Floor

It was suggested we move the AGM away from ½ term as this might improve turnout.  This was agreed as a good idea for next year.

Certain residents were unhappy we have moved to two newsletters a year and they were being distributed to all residents – not only subscribers.  The Chair asked the resident to think of themselves as members rather than subscribers and to think of the money given as a domation rather than a subscription. In addition we have moved to two issues as we felt too much time was spent “publishing” and too little focussing on the issues of the area.

Robert Ward outlined the Selsdon Community Plan Day on Saturday 9th November and asked residents of come along and give their views. A representative from St Paul’s Church gave details of upcoming Christmas events. The Chairman said he would come along to the Christmas Card sale.

Chairmans Letter: Autumn 2019

An Elected Mayor in charge of Croydon?
Members from your committee have attended meetings of the DEMOC group. DEMOC stands for Democratically Elected Mayor of Croydon and the group want Croydon to have a referendum to decide whether we have an executive Mayor for Croydon. Under recently enacted Government legislation if 5% of registered votes say they want a referendum
then one has to be held.  An elected Mayor will be completely in charge. They will dictate policy and tell the Councillors what to do.
You could say that the current system is similar in that the leader of the council dictates policy and tells the other Councillors what to do however the difference is the Mayor will have to be elected. We believe for any candidate to be elected they will need votes from all around the borough and therefore their manifesto might reflect the wishes of all across the
borough. We believe it is as simple as that and therefore we enclose a signature sheet with your Newsletter for you to sign – if you wish. You can either post the form off to the DEMOC PO Box stated on the form or you can drop it off to me and I will batch them up and send them off.  My address is 27 Castlemaine Avenue.

Planning Applications
I would like to thank members of the committee for their work on individual planning applications details of which are included later in this newsletter. As David will explain later. We are at last experiencing some more sensible decisions by the Planning Committee in their most recent deliberations!

Coombe Wood School
As the construction of the permanent school is behind scheduled the some approval for the temporary school needed to be extended and was therefore presented to the Planning Committee. Once again we argued that there is no protection for the pupils crossing
Castlemaine Avenue and that Castlemaine is more dangerous than Melville Avenue – where the pupils are protected. Once again the members of the Planning Committee heard our objections yet agreed the extension. However, they added the condition that if the already delayed crossing of Coombe Road above Melville Avenue is not ready for the beginning of the Autumn term the situation will be assessed. This crossing which will solve all the safety issues is still not started let alone ready and we now have twice as many pupils at the school.
As I write I have not seen what the assessment involves. I was pleasantly surprised when just before the start of term Castlemaine Avenue was made exit only through a temporary barrier across part of the road –therefore making it the same as Melville Avenue. However according to Transport for London this is a result of gas works. We can live in hope.  It might be that the Councillors are correct in saying these are secondary school kids and there are plenty all over Croydon who have difficult journeys. Let’s just hope the permanent crossing is completed as soon as possible.
On a second note the frame for the main school is now complete and highlights our concern that it is unnecessarily close to the first few houses of Melville Avenue and reminds us of the failure of the Councillors on the Planning Committee to stand up for the interests of these residents.

148 Ballards Way
We have now completed stage two of the official complaint process against the award of planning permission regarding the design of this property. Not the size for which we do not think we have a legitimate grievance but the design features, specifically flat roofs and glass
balconies.  Our complaint is that the design “creates a negative impact” on the area
and that the Councillors were unaware of this as the planning officer did not provide sufficient information about the existing architectural styles.
As a result of this lack of information provided by the planning officer, the Councillors came to their conclusions based on a questionable statement by one of them.  We know it’s a long shot but we feel we must try our hardest when an architectural style so at variance to our area is approved so thoughtlessly by the system. We know the decision cannot be reversed but we want some kind of acknowledgement it was flawed and that the process can be
so much better.  The Council has dismissed our complaint and the next stage is the Ombudsman.

The residents of Winchelsey Rise have campaigned against a plan to build a block of flats in their road and at the moment the developer has pulled out. The residents were planning to use the Whitgift Foundation covenants restricting development to one dwelling per plot to oppose the plan. The developer pulled out before any legal action came about. The residents were helped by Whitgift Foundation Estate Residents Association who are in the process of trying to enforce a similar covenant in their area along the Addiscombe Road. If their opposition goes to court which it looks like it might we wish them all the best and thank them for undertaking such a significant action which hopefully will help all of us.

Don’t Mess with Croydon App
I walked my usual circuit with the dog yesterday and winced again at the overflowing bin in Croham Road by the bus stop and the mess all around the wire framed bins in Lloyd Park. Presumably the mess in the Park is caused by the birds picking at the rubbish through the holes in the frame.  So I loaded the “Don’t Mess with Croydon” App on my phone and will
photo the offending bins today and report them to the council as there is a specific app for this.  I recommend you load the app and report similar stuff as you walk
around our area.

Jeremy Gill