Planning application · Croydon
20/02402/FUL.
59 Reddown Road Coulsdon CR5 1AP
Full / Other Planning at 59 Reddown Road Coulsdon CR5 1AP, received 5 Jun 2020 — refused on 12 Aug 2020 (delegated, Peter Milles).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationCroydon profile →
Refused
Outcome
12 Aug 2020
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
63
Documents
63 linked
147
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Croydon planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a building to provide 9 residential units, with associated landscaping, parking, cycle and refuse storage
Reference
20/02402/FUL
Type
Full planning permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
CR5 1AP
Ward
Council
Received
5 Jun 2020
Target date
31 Jul 2020
Decision date
12 Aug 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
20/02402/FUL
Type
Full planning permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
CR5 1AP
Ward
Council
Received
5 Jun 2020
Target date
31 Jul 2020
Decision date
12 Aug 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Croydon portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 12 Aug 2020, delegated decision by Peter Milles — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
5 Jun 2020
Application received
31 Jul 2020
Statutory target date
12 Aug 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Peter Milles
5 Jun 2020
Application received
31 Jul 2020
Statutory target date
12 Aug 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Peter Milles
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The development would be out of keeping with the character of the locality
and detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene by reason of its
size, bulk, mass and design and would thereby conflict with the NPPF,
Policies 7.1, 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (consolidated with alterations
since 2011) policies SP4.1, SP4.2 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan
(2018) and Suburban Design Guide (Supplementary Planning Document)
2019.
2
The development would result in sub-standard accommodation by reason of
inadequate provision of accessible and adaptable and wheelchair user
dwellings and would thereby conflict with Policy 3.8 of the London Plan
(consolidated with alterations since 2011), the London Housing SPG and
policy DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018)
3
The proposal did not provide sufficient cycle store parking provision and
manoeuvring, nor sufficient accessibility from the refuse store to the highway
and the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would
propose suitable sustainable transport mitigation. The application would
thereby conflict with policy DM13.1, SP18.2, SP18.3 and DM30 of the
Croydon Local Plan 2018 and Policy 6.13 of the London Plan (consolidated
with alterations since 2011).
4
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that sufficient provision has been
made for surface water or flood risk mitigation within the site to serve the
development. The development would thereby conflict with Policy SP6 and
Policy DM25 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 and Policies 5.13 of the
London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2011).
In reaching this decision the Local Planning Authority has sought to work in a
positive and pro-active manner based on seeking solutions to problems in the
following way:
To assist applicants the Local Planning Authority has produced policies and written
guidance, all of which is available on the Council's website and offers a pre
planning application advice service. In this instance the pre application advice was
not adhered to. The Council is ready to enter into discussions with the applicants to
assist in the preparation of a new planning application.
1
The development would be out of keeping with the character of the locality
and detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene by reason of its
size, bulk, mass and design and would thereby conflict with the NPPF,
Policies 7.1, 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (consolidated with alterations
since 2011) policies SP4.1, SP4.2 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan
(2018) and Suburban Design Guide (Supplementary Planning Document)
2019.
2
The development would result in sub-standard accommodation by reason of
inadequate provision of accessible and adaptable and wheelchair user
dwellings and would thereby conflict with Policy 3.8 of the London Plan
(consolidated with alterations since 2011), the London Housing SPG and
policy DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018)
3
The proposal did not provide sufficient cycle store parking provision and
manoeuvring, nor sufficient accessibility from the refuse store to the highway
and the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would
propose suitable sustainable transport mitigation. The application would
thereby conflict with policy DM13.1, SP18.2, SP18.3 and DM30 of the
Croydon Local Plan 2018 and Policy 6.13 of the London Plan (consolidated
with alterations since 2011).
Show all 4 rows
4
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that sufficient provision has been
made for surface water or flood risk mitigation within the site to serve the
development. The development would thereby conflict with Policy SP6 and
Policy DM25 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 and Policies 5.13 of the
London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2011).
In reaching this decision the Local Planning Authority has sought to work in a
positive and pro-active manner based on seeking solutions to problems in the
following way:
To assist applicants the Local Planning Authority has produced policies and written
guidance, all of which is available on the Council's website and offers a pre
planning application advice service. In this instance the pre application advice was
not adhered to. The Council is ready to enter into discussions with the applicants to
assist in the preparation of a new planning application.
Policies cited
London Plan 7.1London Plan 7.4London Plan 7.6SP4.1SP4.2DM10NPPFLondon Plan 3.8DM13.1SP18.2SP18.3DM30London Plan 6.13DM25London Plan 5.13
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
147
In support
0
Total comments
147
Objections
147
In support
0
Total comments
147
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.