Planning application · Croydon
26/00734/FUL.
93 Blenheim Park Road South Croydon CR2 6BL
Full / Other Planning at 93 Blenheim Park Road South Croydon CR2 6BL, received 11 Mar 2026 — refused on 7 May 2026 (delegated, Christopher Grace).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationCroydon profile →
Refused
Outcome
7 May 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
102
Documents
102 linked
23
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?
Retention of the Existing Host Building, containing 4 Self-Contained Flats (1x1bed, 2x2bed and 1x3bed) and Erection of Three 2 Storey Buildings containing 4 Self-Contained flats (1x1bed, 2x2bed and 1x3bed) with associated car and cycle parking spaces, bin enclosures, amenity space and landscaping at the land rear.
Reference
26/00734/FUL
Type
Full planning permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
CR2 6BL
Ward
Council
Received
11 Mar 2026
Target date
6 May 2026
Decision date
7 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
26/00734/FUL
Type
Full planning permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
CR2 6BL
Ward
Council
Received
11 Mar 2026
Target date
6 May 2026
Decision date
7 May 2026
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 7 May 2026, delegated decision by Christopher Grace — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
11 Mar 2026
Application received
6 May 2026
Statutory target date
7 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Grace
11 Mar 2026
Application received
6 May 2026
Statutory target date
7 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Grace
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of scale, mass, form and design
would appear dominant, unsightly, uncharacteristic, obtrusive and out of
character with the surrounding area and would fail to integrate successfully
in townscape terms or make a positive contribution to the setting and
appearance of the local character and immediate surroundings, resulting in a
dominant, visually intrusive form of development contrary to Policies SP4
and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and D3 and H2 of the London
Plan (2021).
2
The proposed development would result in a poor standard of
accommodation due to poor outlook from a number of the units combined
with poor amenity space to flats 6 and 7, poor quality communal space and
play space due to the cramped and enclosed environment, and failure to
demonstrate M4(2) unit compliance to all units, contrary to Policies SP2.8
and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and D6, D7 and S4 of the
London Plan (2021).
3
The proposed development due to the change in levels and the close
proximity of the buildings to its respective neighbours would result in an
obtrusive and imposing form of development when viewed from the rear
gardens of the neighbouring properties at 95 Blenheim Park Road and 24
Kingsdown Avenue, thereby conflicting with policy DM10 of Croydon Local
Plan (2018) and D3 of the London Plan (2021).
4
The proposal fails to demonstrate suitable gradients for pedestrian access,
acceptable cycle storage, and bin storage and collection arrangements, in
addition to failing to secure sustainable transport contributions to mitigate
highways impacts and promote more sustainable transport modes.
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 fails to provide the information required to demonstrate
appropriate biodiversity net gain, contrary to Policy DM27 of the Croydon
Local Plan (2018), Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) and Section 40 the
Natural Environmental Rural Communities Act 2006.
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. The scheme does not comply with guidance
and no pre application discussions were entered into. 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's suggested improvements were not adopted by the applicant. The Local
Planning Authority delivered the decision in a timely manner.
1
The proposed development, by reason of scale, mass, form and design
would appear dominant, unsightly, uncharacteristic, obtrusive and out of
character with the surrounding area and would fail to integrate successfully
in townscape terms or make a positive contribution to the setting and
appearance of the local character and immediate surroundings, resulting in a
dominant, visually intrusive form of development contrary to Policies SP4
and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and D3 and H2 of the London
Plan (2021).
2
The proposed development would result in a poor standard of
accommodation due to poor outlook from a number of the units combined
with poor amenity space to flats 6 and 7, poor quality communal space and
play space due to the cramped and enclosed environment, and failure to
demonstrate M4(2) unit compliance to all units, contrary to Policies SP2.8
and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and D6, D7 and S4 of the
London Plan (2021).
3
The proposed development due to the change in levels and the close
proximity of the buildings to its respective neighbours would result in an
obtrusive and imposing form of development when viewed from the rear
gardens of the neighbouring properties at 95 Blenheim Park Road and 24
Kingsdown Avenue, thereby conflicting with policy DM10 of Croydon Local
Plan (2018) and D3 of the London Plan (2021).
Show all 5 rows
4
The proposal fails to demonstrate suitable gradients for pedestrian access,
acceptable cycle storage, and bin storage and collection arrangements, in
addition to failing to secure sustainable transport contributions to mitigate
highways impacts and promote more sustainable transport modes.
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 fails to provide the information required to demonstrate
appropriate biodiversity net gain, contrary to Policy DM27 of the Croydon
Local Plan (2018), Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) and Section 40 the
Natural Environmental Rural Communities Act 2006.
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. The scheme does not comply with guidance
and no pre application discussions were entered into. 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's suggested improvements were not adopted by the applicant. The Local
Planning Authority delivered the decision in a timely manner.
Policies cited
SP4DM10D3H2SP2.8D6D7S4DM29DM30DM13T4T5T6.1DM27G6
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
23
In support
0
Total comments
23
Objections
23
In support
0
Total comments
23
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.