Recent planning victories in Croydon South

What would you rather in our neighbourhood – four family homes or blocks of 24 flats?

I write with another periodic update of more recent good news on local planning matters. I have continued to work closely and successfully with Mayor Jason Perry to safeguard the character of our area and protect family homes.

I know many residents share my view that, while some new flats are needed (especially for younger people trying to get on the property ladder for the first time) we should not be destroying family homes, which local families need, or changing the character of green suburbs like ours to build them. New flats are better suited to places like Croydon town centre, city centres and brownfield sites.

Local objections to over-development – including mine as our local MP and those of local Residents’ Associations and councillors as well as individual residents – continue to now be listened to under Mayor Perry’s new planning approach in Croydon, and applications to destroy family homes and replace them with blocks of flats are now almost always rejected after proper consideration.

For far too long in Croydon, the previous Labour Council used to just wave through nearly every application with barely a moment’s consideration. By granting indiscriminate planning applications, often destroying family homes and concreting over green spaces to make way for the over-intensive flats, they risked changing the green character of many neighbourhoods in our area and reduce the number of houses available for families.

Below is an update of some recent very positive planning decisions, where inappropriate applications have been declined. For a variety of reasons, these proposals were clearly inappropriate for these sites in our local neighbourhoods and I shared residents’ concerns about them, so I am pleased to see that all of these applications have been refused.

I remain delighted to see planning decisions in Croydon now being made properly, only after careful consideration, and with respect for the character of our local areas.

Purley Rise, Purley, CR8 3AU (25/00986/FUL):

Proposed destruction of a family home to build a block of 8 flats. Refused as its design, bulk and massing would be an overdevelopment of the site and result in an overbearing visual impact on neighbours. It would also result in poor quality accommodation and would not mitigate the impacts of transport, highway and sustainability demands created. Result: Refused permission

Church Hill, Purley, CR8 3QN (25/01095/FUL):

Proposed conversion of a family home into a block of 5 flats by extending to the side, front, rear and roof. Refused as the massing and design would fail to respect the surrounding character and cause significant harm to the character of the area. In addition, inadequate vehicle access, parking arrangements and cycle storage are proposed, and financial contributions to mitigate the transport and highways impacts are not secured. Result: Refused permission

Woodcote Valley Road, Purley, CR8 3BG (25/01031/FUL):

Proposed destruction of family home to build a block of 6 flats. Refused as its design, layout, siting, massing and scale would be an unsympathetic and visually dominant addition to the streetscene and locality, would be at odds with the existing pattern of development and fail to respect and enhance Croydon’s varied local character and contribute positively to the townscape. It would constitute an unneighbourly form of development that would harm the amenity of neighbours, be overbearing, create an increased sense of enclosure and loss of sunlight. It has also not been demonstrated that the rear car park would not cause undue noise and disturbance. Result: Refused permission

Riddlesdown Road, Purley, CR8 1DH (24/02793/FUL):

Proposed destruction of family home to build a block of 5 flats. Appeal refused as the scheme would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area, the bulk and height of the building, and the positioning close to the boundaries of the site would be very evident from the adjoining properties. The length, height and position of the side elevations would create an undue and harmful sense of enclosure and overbearing influence detracting from the living conditions of the neighbours. Result: Appeal refused