Planning application · Croydon
25/03911/OUT.
Hobart Court 60 South Park Hill Road South Croydon CR2 7DW
Full / Other Planning at Hobart Court 60 South Park Hill Road South Croydon CR2 7DW, received 5 Dec 2025 — refused on 4 Mar 2026 (delegated, Christopher Grace).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationCroydon profile →
Refused
Outcome
4 Mar 2026
13 wks
Decision time
5 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
19
Documents
19 linked
4
Objections
2 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?
Outline planning application (access, layout and scale only) for demolition of existing garages and erection of two pairs of semi-detached houses to provide four dwellings.
Reference
25/03911/OUT
Type
Outline planning permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
CR2 7DW
Ward
Council
Received
5 Dec 2025
Validated
9 Jan 2026
Target date
6 Mar 2026
Decision date
4 Mar 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
25/03911/OUT
Type
Outline planning permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
CR2 7DW
Ward
Council
Received
5 Dec 2025
Validated
9 Jan 2026
Target date
6 Mar 2026
Decision date
4 Mar 2026
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 4 Mar 2026, delegated decision by Christopher Grace — 13 weeks from submission (5 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
5 Dec 2025
Application received
9 Jan 2026
Application validated
6 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
4 Mar 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Grace
5 Dec 2025
Application received
9 Jan 2026
Application validated
6 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
4 Mar 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Grace
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
By reason of its layout, siting, scale and access arrangement, the proposal
would result in an obtrusive form of development, appearing visually
dominant and substantially changing the character and appearance of the
site and its setting. The proposal would fail to positively respond to local
distinctiveness and would have an unacceptable impact on the visual
amenities of the area, contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan, Policies SP4
and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018), and the provisions of the
NPPF.
2
By reason of its layout, siting , scale and access arrangement, the proposal
would result in an intrusive form of development causing harmful and
unneighbourly impacts in terms of outlook, loss of light and loss of amenity
space for the neighbours at nos. 58, 60 and 68 South Park Hill Road. The
development is therefore contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and
Policy DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018), and the provisions of the
NPPF.
3
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would provide
adequate fire safety measures involving suitable access and facilities by
reason of the siting and access contrary to Policy D12 of the London Plan
2021.
4
The proposal fails to demonstrate that well designed accessible cycle and
bin storage (including storage area for bulk waste) and suitable delivery and
servicing arrangements due to poor access and siting at a significant
distance from the public highway to the rear of the existing block of flats at
Hobart Court resulting in highway and pedestrian safety. Therefore the
proposal would be contrary to Policies DM29, DM30 and DM13 of the
Croydon Local Plan (2018) and T4, T5 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021).
5
The proposal development fails to demonstrate that it would not result in an
overspill of parking to the CPZ from the garages, due to the lack of
information within the Transport Survey on any parking taking place within
the garages at the time of the survey or within the garages overall and what
impact such dispersal on to the public highway would have on the transport
survey results. Therefore the proposal would be contrary to Policies DM29,
DM30 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and T4, T5 of the London Plan
(2021).
6
The applicant has failed to secure through an appropriate mechanism (such
as a Section 106 agreement) appropriate mitigations and obligations to
ensure compliance with policy in respect to Sustainable Transport, contrary
to Croydon Local Plan (2018) policies SP8 and DM29 and London Plan
(2021) policies T4 and T9. As a result, the application fails to ensure that the
appropriate off-site infrastructure is provided to mitigate its impacts.
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 via the Council's Pre
Application process. The Local Planning Authority delivered the decision in a timely
manner.
1
By reason of its layout, siting, scale and access arrangement, the proposal
would result in an obtrusive form of development, appearing visually
dominant and substantially changing the character and appearance of the
site and its setting. The proposal would fail to positively respond to local
distinctiveness and would have an unacceptable impact on the visual
amenities of the area, contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan, Policies SP4
and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018), and the provisions of the
NPPF.
2
By reason of its layout, siting , scale and access arrangement, the proposal
would result in an intrusive form of development causing harmful and
unneighbourly impacts in terms of outlook, loss of light and loss of amenity
space for the neighbours at nos. 58, 60 and 68 South Park Hill Road. The
development is therefore contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and
Policy DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018), and the provisions of the
NPPF.
3
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would provide
adequate fire safety measures involving suitable access and facilities by
reason of the siting and access contrary to Policy D12 of the London Plan
2021.
Show all 6 rows
4
The proposal fails to demonstrate that well designed accessible cycle and
bin storage (including storage area for bulk waste) and suitable delivery and
servicing arrangements due to poor access and siting at a significant
distance from the public highway to the rear of the existing block of flats at
Hobart Court resulting in highway and pedestrian safety. Therefore the
proposal would be contrary to Policies DM29, DM30 and DM13 of the
Croydon Local Plan (2018) and T4, T5 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021).
5
The proposal development fails to demonstrate that it would not result in an
overspill of parking to the CPZ from the garages, due to the lack of
information within the Transport Survey on any parking taking place within
the garages at the time of the survey or within the garages overall and what
impact such dispersal on to the public highway would have on the transport
survey results. Therefore the proposal would be contrary to Policies DM29,
DM30 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and T4, T5 of the London Plan
(2021).
6
The applicant has failed to secure through an appropriate mechanism (such
as a Section 106 agreement) appropriate mitigations and obligations to
ensure compliance with policy in respect to Sustainable Transport, contrary
to Croydon Local Plan (2018) policies SP8 and DM29 and London Plan
(2021) policies T4 and T9. As a result, the application fails to ensure that the
appropriate off-site infrastructure is provided to mitigate its impacts.
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 via the Council's Pre
Application process. The Local Planning Authority delivered the decision in a timely
manner.
Policies cited
D3SP4DM10NPPFD12DM29DM30DM13T4T5T6.1
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
4
In support
2
Total comments
6
Objections
4
In support
2
Total comments
6
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.