REPORTS FROM THE RECORDER & ADVERTISING RATES
PLANNING ADVICE ON
USEFUL LOCAL INFORMATION & LINKS
(Things to do, join and help with)
AND ITS COMMON
To confirm the status of a “SUBMITTED” application, click on the application number below. This will take you to Croydon Council’s website. Any written representations on a planning application, either in favour, commenting or objecting, can be made on line, by clicking on the “comments” tab on the Council’s website. Or you can e-
Applications when granted, are only valid for 3 years from the date of the decision.
CROYDON COUNCIL’S DECISION CALLED IN BY SECRETARY OF STATE 12/4/17 -
FINAL DECISION EXPECTED BY 6 AUGUST 2018
Purley Tower – Public Inquiry -
The RRA have been told today, as the lead 'Rule 6 Party' on the Purley tower development, that the Planning Inspector's report for the 'Call-
We are also told the Secretary of State, now James Brokenshire, who replaced Sajid Javid, should make his final decision on or before 6 August 2018.
Following the announcement in April 2017, by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Sajid Javid that he had "Called In" Croydon Council’s decision to grant planning permission for this large development in Purely District Centre (PDC), the Public Inquiry into the decision by Croydon Council’s Planning Committee took place from 9 January 2018. The Inquiry lasted 6 days and completed on 17 January. It was held in the Purley Baptist Church. The ‘Call In’ was requested to the Secretary of State, by our MP; Chris Philp.
The development was opposed by seven local Residents Associations (RAs). The seven Associations were; Riddlesdown, Hartley & District, Sanderstead, East Coulsdon, Coulsdon West, Old Coulsdon and Kenley & District. The RAs applied to the Planning Inspector and Riddlesdown RA was granted ‘Rule 6’ status (as the lead RA) and we presented our case to the Inquiry. Because we had ‘Rule 6’ status we were allowed to cross examine witnesses.
The Planning Inspector leading the Inquiry was David Nicholson. At the Inquiry, the RAs were represented by Charles King (East Coulsdon), Dennis King (Sanderstead), Diane Hearne, Lee Cooper (Hartley) and Phil Thomas (Riddlesdown). The Planning barrister for the applicant (Thornsett & Purley Baptist Church) was Christopher Katowski QC, and the barrister acting for the Council was Stephen Morgan.
Although seven RAs objected to the scheme, the Purley & Woodcote RA (PWRA), in whose area the site is located, supported the proposal. However, the feedback the seven RAs received from PWRA members, was that this view is not shared by many of their residents.
The seven RAs were also not opposed to new development on these sites, as we understand that growth will be key to the future vitality and viability of suburban District Centres like Purley. We recognise the acute housing needs in the area and wish to see more new homes that are genuinely affordable provided for local people and our group are not anti-
At the Inquiry, we put forward the issues which we believe were not considered sufficiently by the Council when granting planning permission. The main issue with this development is the height of the 17 storey tall building. The RAs believe it will have an unacceptably harmful impact on the PDC and the surrounding townscape by virtue of it being at least 5 times higher than the immediate and surrounding buildings in the district centre. The 17 storey tower will be at least twice as high as the proposed development in Brighton Rd/Banstead Road. We believe the tower will not enhance the skyline, rather it will fragment the townscape through its bulky and dominant appearance. The tall building is to sit very closely behind the pavement on the Brighton Rd frontage. The main entrance would be inappropriately located on the corner of Russell Hill Road and the Brighton Road, given the constant heavy and noisy traffic on the A23.
We believe the density at 817 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha) is well beyond the density range in the London Plan density matrix which identifies “urban” areas with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) score of 4-
The sites are on the edge of the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Zone’s 2 and 3. The proposals have the potential to significantly increase surface run off in an area which already experiences severe flash flooding and drainage issues. The sites are also within 100 metres of the Caterham Bourne, which is prone to periodic extensive flooding, the last significant occasion being in February 2014. Purley, Kenley and Whyteleafe have all experienced extensive flooding in recent years which has resulted in the A22 (Godstone Rd) being closed to all traffic for several weeks.
For the Island site, the scheme only makes provision for 50 parking spaces for the Church and community use, whereas the planned auditorium will accommodate 500 people. There will be 28 car parking spaces for the 114 residential units (11 of which will be for blue badge holders). For the south side, there will be 9 accessible car parking spaces for 106 residential units. The 500 seat auditorium is likely to be used on all days of the week, as well as Sunday. When fully utilised this will put considerable pressure on local public carparks which are already at capacity, as well as nearby residential on street parking.
To exit the car park for the island site (church & flats), vehicles will be exiting the site into Russell Hill Rd and will have to turn right into three lanes of traffic already stacking for the traffic lights on Brighton Rd. If site traffic wishes to go along the A22 (southbound) then it will have to cross at least one lane, if not two lanes, in order to be able to proceed straight on at the second and third set of traffic lights. There is very little option for drivers to ensure they get into the correct lane before the traffic lights on Russell Hill Rd. We believe this is not safe and will it increase risks of accidents at this location. Traffic entering into the island site will also access at this location on Russell Hill Rd, to add to the congestion. For better road safety, we believe an entrance/exit should be in Banstead Rd.
The proposed development will be a phased construction and is expected to take at least 47 months (minimum) to complete. The RAs have major concerns about the effect that the development will have on the existing A23/A22 Purley Gyratory System during construction and after construction. Traffic lanes will be closed off during the day. We also believe the recently approved Westfield development in Croydon town centre (which has also been approved by the London Mayor) will also add to traffic congestion on Purley Cross both during construction and more so when it is completed.
These are just some of the issues the seven RAs raised at the Inquiry. The Inspector has said his report will go to the Secretary of State, on or before 8 May. So it is now just a question of waiting for the Secretary of State’s decision and whether he accepts the Inspector’s recommendation. The Secretary of State can overrule his decision if he wants to.
In our opinion, the seven RA’s presented a very valid argument and the legal teams for the applicant and Council did congratulate the RAs for the way we put forward our presentation at the end of the Inquiry, although of course they didn’t agree with our views! It was a long hard slog by a number of members in the seven RAs and we did it without any legal representation! We did our best and we wait the outcome with interest.
REFUSED Former Good Companions Public House and 247 -
Lidl's controversial planning application for a store, car park and flats on the former Good Companions Public House site in Tithepitshaw Lane, Warlingham has been refused by Planning Officers without the need to go the Planning Committee.
The full grounds for refusal were:
Reason(s) for refusal :-
1. The development would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area and detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene by reason of poor design, prominent siting and scale of the buildings and would not respect the existing pattern of buildings, nor maximise the opportunities for creating an attractive and interesting environment and would thereby conflict with the objectives of the NPPF, Policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2015), Policies UD2, UD3, UD12, UD13, UD14 and H2 of the Croydon Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 and Policies SP1.1, SP4.1 and SP4.2 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (2013).
2. The development would adversely affect pedestrian and highway safety on the adjoining transport network by reason of the siting of the access and egress points and the associated traffic and would thereby conflict with the objectives of the NPPF, Policy 6.3 of the London Plan, Saved Policies T2, UD12 and UD13 of the Croydon Replacement Plan (2006) Saved Policies 2013 and Policies SP8.6, SP8.17 and SP8.18 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies (2013).