Planning application · Croydon
21/00946/FUL.
Full / Other Planning at 67 Lower Road Kenley CR8 5NH, received 25 Feb 2021 — refused on 20 May 2021 (delegated, Jimill Patel).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationCroydon profile →
Refused
Outcome
20 May 2021
12 wks
Decision time
4 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
33
Documents
33 linked
6
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Dismissed appeal
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 the existing two storey Light Industrial unit (Eg Use Class - previously B1c Use Class) and erection of a three-storey building comprising 2 self-contained flats (including change of use into C3 Use Class); hard and soft landscaping; boundary treatment; car parking; integrated refuse and cycle provision and private amenity space.
Reference
21/00946/FUL
Type
Full planning permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
CR8 5NH
Ward
Council
Received
25 Feb 2021
Validated
26 Feb 2021
Target date
23 Apr 2021
Decision date
20 May 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
21/00946/FUL
Type
Full planning permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
CR8 5NH
Ward
Council
Received
25 Feb 2021
Validated
26 Feb 2021
Target date
23 Apr 2021
Decision date
20 May 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
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 20 May 2021, delegated decision by Jimill Patel — 12 weeks from submission (4 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
25 Feb 2021
Application received
26 Feb 2021
Application validated
23 Apr 2021
Statutory target date
20 May 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Jimill Patel
Appeal
Appeal decided · Dismissed appeal
25 Feb 2021
Application received
26 Feb 2021
Application validated
23 Apr 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
20 May 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Jimill Patel
Appeal
Appeal decided · Dismissed appeal
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of the combined height, width and
depth and siting would result in substantial harm to the amenities of no.63,
69 Lower Road - Platinum Apartments and no.38, 40 Godstone Road by way
of loss of outlook, sense of enclosure, visual intrusion, overbearing impact,
loss of daylight/sunlight and overlooking and privacy. As such, the proposal
would be contrary to Policies D1, D2 of the London Plan (2021), Policies
SP4, DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) as well as the Croydon
Suburban Design Guide (2019).
2
The proposed development would result in poor quality accommodation in
regards to poor outlook/access to light for future occupiers, sub-standard and
poorly sited cycle storage alongside refuse storage, failure to provide step
free and accessible dwellings and lack of communal/play space. As such,
the proposal would be contrary to Policies D4, D5, D6, D7 of the London
Plan (2021), Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and
the Croydon Suburban Design Guide (2019).
3
The proposed development, by reason of the combined height, width, depth
and site layout alongside lack of critical character analysis and varying
material pallet would result in a dominant, excessive, incongruous, visually
intrusive and jarring and cramped form of overdevelopment that would be
detrimental to the form, proportion and appearance of the site, relationship
with the surrounding properties, character and appearance of the area and
visual amenities of the streetscene. As such, the proposal would be contrary
to Policies D1, D3, D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policies SP4, DM10,
DM18 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and the Croydon Suburban Design
Guide (2019).
4
The proposed development, by reason of the poor and convoluted/cramped
parking layout which would require multiple manoeuvres, sub-standard and
poorly sited cycle storage alongside refuse storage and lack of information
regarding vehicle/pedestrian sightlines would result in a detrimental impact to
the highway safety and pedestrian environment of the users of the area
alongside future occupiers of the development. As such, the proposal would
be contrary to Policies T1, T4, T5, T6,T7 of the London Plan (2021), Policies
SP8, DM29, DM30 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and the Croydon
Suburban Design Guide (2019).
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. The Local Planning
Authority delivered the decision in a timely manner.
1
The proposed development, by reason of the combined height, width and
depth and siting would result in substantial harm to the amenities of no.63,
69 Lower Road - Platinum Apartments and no.38, 40 Godstone Road by way
of loss of outlook, sense of enclosure, visual intrusion, overbearing impact,
loss of daylight/sunlight and overlooking and privacy. As such, the proposal
would be contrary to Policies D1, D2 of the London Plan (2021), Policies
SP4, DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) as well as the Croydon
Suburban Design Guide (2019).
2
The proposed development would result in poor quality accommodation in
regards to poor outlook/access to light for future occupiers, sub-standard and
poorly sited cycle storage alongside refuse storage, failure to provide step
free and accessible dwellings and lack of communal/play space. As such,
the proposal would be contrary to Policies D4, D5, D6, D7 of the London
Plan (2021), Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and
the Croydon Suburban Design Guide (2019).
3
The proposed development, by reason of the combined height, width, depth
and site layout alongside lack of critical character analysis and varying
material pallet would result in a dominant, excessive, incongruous, visually
intrusive and jarring and cramped form of overdevelopment that would be
detrimental to the form, proportion and appearance of the site, relationship
with the surrounding properties, character and appearance of the area and
visual amenities of the streetscene. As such, the proposal would be contrary
to Policies D1, D3, D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policies SP4, DM10,
DM18 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and the Croydon Suburban Design
Guide (2019).
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposed development, by reason of the poor and convoluted/cramped
parking layout which would require multiple manoeuvres, sub-standard and
poorly sited cycle storage alongside refuse storage and lack of information
regarding vehicle/pedestrian sightlines would result in a detrimental impact to
the highway safety and pedestrian environment of the users of the area
alongside future occupiers of the development. As such, the proposal would
be contrary to Policies T1, T4, T5, T6,T7 of the London Plan (2021), Policies
SP8, DM29, DM30 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and the Croydon
Suburban Design Guide (2019).
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. The Local Planning
Authority delivered the decision in a timely manner.
Policies cited
D1D2SP4DM10D4D5D6D7D3DM18T1T4T5T6T7SP8DM29DM30
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal decided
Outcome: Dismissed appeal
Appeal decided
Outcome: Dismissed appeal
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
6
In support
0
Total comments
7
Objections
6
In support
0
Total comments
7
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.