(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Planning Committee, 05/04/2018 18:30

Public Document Pack

Planning Committee Agenda

To: Councillor Paul Scott (Chair) Councillor Humayun Kabir (Vice-Chair) Councillors Jamie Audsley, Sherwan Chowdhury, Luke Clancy, Bernadette Khan, Jason Perry, Joy Prince, Sue Winborn and Chris Wright

Reserve Members: Jeet Bains, Simon Brew, Richard Chatterjee, Pat Clouder, Patsy Cummings, Steve Hollands, Shafi Khan, Maggie Mansell and Manju Shahul-Hameed

A meeting of the Planning Committee which you are hereby summoned to attend, will be held on Thursday, 5 April 2018 at 6.30 pm in Council Chamber, Town Hall, Katharine Street, Croydon CR0 1NX

JACQUELINE HARRIS-BAKER Cliona May Director of Law and Monitoring Officer 020 8726 6000 London Borough of Croydon [email protected] Bernard Weatherill House www.croydon.gov.uk/meetings 8 Mint Walk, Croydon CR0 1EA Monday, 26 March 2018

Members of the public are welcome to attend this meeting. If you require any assistance, please contact the person detailed above, on the righthand side. To register a request to speak, please either e-mail [email protected] or phone the number above by 4pm on the Tuesday before the meeting.

THIS MEETING WILL BE WEBCAST LIVE - Click on link to view: https://croydon.public-i.tv/core/portal/home

N.B This meeting will be paperless. The agenda can be accessed online at www.croydon.gov.uk/meetings AGENDA – PART A

1. Apologies for absence To receive any apologies for absence from any members of the Committee.

2. Minutes of Previous Meeting (Pages 5 - 12) To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 22 March 2018 as an accurate record.

3. Disclosure of Interest In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act, Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that it is a requirement to register disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) and gifts and hospitality to the value of which exceeds £50 or multiple gifts and/or instances of hospitality with a cumulative value of £50 or more when received from a single donor within a rolling twelve month period. In addition, Members and co-opted Members are reminded that unless their disclosable pecuniary interest is registered on the register of interests or is the subject of a pending notification to the Monitoring Officer, they are required to disclose those disclosable pecuniary interests at the meeting. This should be done by completing the Disclosure of Interest form and handing it to the Democratic Services representative at the start of the meeting. The Chair will then invite Members to make their disclosure orally at the commencement of Agenda item 3. Completed disclosure forms will be provided to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion on the Register of Members’ Interests.

4. Urgent Business (if any) To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.

5. Development presentations (Pages 13 - 14) There are none.

6. Planning applications for decision (Pages 15 - 18) To consider the accompanying reports by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport: 6.1 17/04018/FUL Homestead, Gibsons Hill, Norbury, London, SW16 3ER (Pages 19 - 34)

Demolition of existing building: erection of three storey building with accommodation in roof space comprising 6 three bedroom and 3 two bedroom flats: formation of vehicular access and provision of associated parking

Ward: Norbury Recommendation: Grant permission

7. Items referred by Planning Sub-Committee To consider any item(s) referred by a previous meeting of the Planning Sub-Committee to this Committee for consideration and determination:

There are none.

8. Other planning matters (Pages 35 - 36) To consider the accompanying report by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport:

There are none.

9. Exclusion of the Press & Public The following motion is to be moved and seconded where it is proposed to exclude the press and public from the remainder of a meeting:

"That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within those paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended."

3 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2

Planning Committee

Meeting of held on Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 6.30 pm in Council Chamber, Town Hall, Katharine Street, Croydon CR0 1NX

MINUTES

Present: Councillor Paul Scott (Chair); Councillor Humayun Kabir (Vice-Chair); Councillors Jamie Audsley, Jeet Bains, Sherwan Chowdhury, Bernadette Khan, Jason Perry, Joy Prince, Sue Winborn and Chris Wright

Apologies: Councillor Luke Clancy

PART A

55/18 Minutes of Previous Meeting

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 8 March 2018 be signed as a correct record.

56/18 Disclosure of Interest

There were no disclosures of a pecuniary interest not already registered.

57/18 Urgent Business (if any)

There was none.

58/18 Development presentations

There were none.

59/18 Planning applications for decision // 6.0 Application Details - Items 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4

60/18 6.1 17/06297/FUL Land at Lion Green Road Car Park, Coulsdon, CR5 2NL

Redevelopment of site to provide 5 x five, six and seven storey buildings providing 157 units (96 one bedroom, 42 two bedroom and 19 three bedroom flats): provision of vehicular access, residential and town centre car parking

Page 5 spaces, hard and soft landscaping works and new private and public amenity space.

Ward: Coulsdon West

Details of the planning application was presented by the officers and officers responded to questions and points of clarification.

Peter Morgan and Ray Wookey spoke against the application.

Peter Jarvis (Chipstead Residents Association) spoke against the application.

Charles King and Maureen Levy (East Coulsdon Residents Association) spoke in favour of the application.

Colm Lacy, (Brick by Brick) and Chris Gascoigne, (DP9 Planning Consultant) spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Creatura, Ward Councillor spoke against the application.

Councillor Chowdhury moved a motion of approval

Councillor Khan seconded the motion.

Councillor Wright moved a motion for refusal on the grounds of insufficient parking provision, an over-intensification of the site and impacts on heritage.

Councillor Bains seconded the motion.

The first motion, for approval, was put to the vote and was carried with six votes in favour and four against. The second motion therefore fell.

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to GRANT permission for development at Lion Green Road Car Park, Coulsdon, CR5 2NL subject to the following additional conditions:

 Get the appropriate split between visitor and resident cycle storage facilities onsite  Ensure the landscaping condition includes seating, children’s play area and a pond if possible  Ensure the Construction Logistics Plan maintains public car parking during construction and access to the scouts hall  Ensure the travel plan includes introduction of the car club early in the delivery of the residential units  Cycle and pedestrian environment enhancements must be secured through the legal agreement.

61/18 6.2 17/06218/OUT Land West Of 41 Malcolm Road, Coulsdon, CR5 2DB

Page 6 Demolition of outbuilding and erection of three storey building of 1,436sqm for non-residential institution (Use Class D1) together with a new access from Woodcote Grove Road.

Ward: Coulsdon West

Details of the planning application was presented by the officers and officers responded to questions and points of clarification. Peter Morgan spoke against the application. Colm Lacey – Brick by Brick (applicant) and Luke Tozer – Pitman Tozer (architect) all spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Scott moved a motion to APPROVE the application with an added informative that the final detailed application be brought back to the Committee for consideration of reserved matters.

Councillor Khan seconded the motion.

The motion was put to the vote and carried unanimously.

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to GRANT permission for development at Land West Of 41 Malcolm Road, Coulsdon, CR5 2DB with an added informative that the final detailed application be brought back to the Committee for consideration of reserved matters.

Members also requested that within the future reserved matters: 1) The existing vehicular access to Chipstead Valley Road be made a pedestrian route 2) The level of parking should be reviewed with the potential for an increase from the 2 approved 3) A drop off should be provided on site

At 20.29 the meeting adjourned and reconvened at 20.36.

62/18 6.3 17/06217/FUL Former Croydon Adult Learning and Training (CALAT) Coulsdon Centre, 41 Malcolm Road, Coulsdon, CR5 2DB

Partial demolition and reconfiguration of the existing building, including the erection of a new multi-purpose function hall together with car parking, landscaping and other associated works.

Ward: Coulsdon West

Page 7 Details of the planning application was presented by the officers and officers responded to questions and points of clarification.

Peter Morgan spoke against the application.

Charles King and Maureen Levy (East Coulsdon Residents Association) spoke in favour of the application.

Colm Lacey – Brick by Brick and Luke Tozer – Pitman Tozer spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Audsley moved a motion of approval.

Councillor Khan seconded the motion.

Councillor Bains moved a motion of refusal but the motion was not seconded.

The motion for approval was put to the vote and was carried with nine votes in favour and one vote against.

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to GRANT permission for development at the former Croydon Adult Learning and Training (CALAT) Coulsdon Centre, 41 Malcolm Road, Coulsdon, CR5 2DB.

63/18 6.4 17/06216/FUL Coulsdon Community Centre (CCC), Barrie Close, Coulsdon, CR5 3BE

Demolition of existing community centre and erection of 33 residential units comprising 4X1 bedroom flats, 12x2 bedroom flats and 17x3 bedroom houses, together with provision of car parking, landscaping and other associated works.

Ward: Coulsdon West

Details of the planning application was presented by the officers and officers responded to questions and points of clarification.

Peter Morgan spoke against the application.

Charles King and Maureen Levy (East Coulsdon Residents Association) spoke in favour of the application.

Colm Lacey – Brick by Brick (applicant), Luke Tozer – Pitman Tozer (architect) and Jennifer Islip – Carter Jonas (planning agent) all spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Creatura, Ward Councillor spoke against the application.

Page 8 Councillor Scott moved a motion of approval.

Councillor Audsley seconded the motion.

Councillor Bains moved a motion of refusal but the motion was not seconded.

The motion for approval was put to the vote and was carried with six votes in favour and four vote against.

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to GRANT permission for development at the Coulsdon Community Centre (CCC), Barrie Close, Coulsdon, CR5 3BE.

64/18 6.5 17/05189/FUL 23 Park Road, Kenley, CR8 5AS

Demolition of the existing buildings, erection of a two storey replacement building to provide 7 self-contained (C3) residential flats with associated car parking, cycle parking, bin store and landscaping.

Ward: Kenley

THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA FOR DECISION UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY.

65/18 6.6 17/06360/FUL Garages and Forecourt North Of Avenue Road, South Norwood, London

Demolition of garages and erection of a three storey building to provide 12 flats together with a disabled car parking space, landscaping and other associated works.

Ward: South Norwood

Details of the planning application was presented by the officers and officers responded to questions and points of clarification.

Alex Toogood and Diana James spoke against the applicant.

Colm Lacey – Brick by Brick and Alex Barretta – Common Ground Architecture and spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Perry moved a motion of refusal on the grounds of over- intensification of the local area, design out of character with the local area and negative effect on the amenity of local properties.

Page 9 Councillor Audsley moved a motion for deferral but the motion was not seconded.

Councillor Scott proposed a motion of approval.

Councillor Kabir seconded the motion.

The first motion, to refuse the application, was put to the vote and fell with four voting in favour and six against.

The second motion, to approve the application, was put to the vote and was carried with five voting in favour, four against and one abstaining.

The Committee therefore RESOLVED to GRANT permission for development at the Garages and Forecourt North Of Avenue Road, South Norwood.

At 22.09 the meeting adjourned and reconvened at 22.12pm At 22.09 Councillors Prince, Bains and Khan left the meeting.

66/18 5.1 17/02884/PRE 40-60 Cherry Orchard Road, Croydon

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of residential building comprising 94 units with associated parking and landscaping.

Ward: Addiscombe

Representatives of the applicant attended to give a presentation to the Members. Questions and issues were raised for discussion with further consideration prior to their submission of a planning application.

The main issues raised during the meeting were as follows:

 Developers encouraged to add additional stories to the proposals and removal of basement so long as higher percentage of affordable delivered.  The affordable housing offer should be at least 30%.  Design of the façade could be more bold and innovative. Possible inclusion of reference to use of stain glass used locally.  There was a discussion around materials and the desire to move beyond the ‘Croydon vernacular’  Balcony screening should be occupier friendly.  Parking provision should be kept to a minimum. Explore use of shared parking space (e.g. as landscaping/footpath).  Remove passive parking provision.  Explore duplex to ground floor units.

Page 10 Useful to have more views from Oval Road to understand impact.

67/18 Items referred by Planning Sub-Committee

There were none.

68/18 Other planning matters

There were none.

The meeting ended at 10.49 pm

Signed: Date:

Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5

PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA

PART 5: Development Presentations

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This part of the agenda is for the committee to receive presentations on proposed developments, including when they are at the pre-application stage.

1.2 Although the reports are set out in a particular order on the agenda, the Chair may reorder the agenda on the night. Therefore, if you wish to be present for a particular application, you need to be at the meeting from the beginning.

1.3 The following information and advice applies to all those reports.

2 ADVICE TO MEMBERS

2.1 These proposed developments are being reported to committee to enable members of the committee to view them at an early stage and to comment upon them. They do not constitute applications for planning permission at this stage and any comments made are provisional and subject to full consideration of any subsequent application and the comments received as a result of consultation, publicity and notification.

2.2 Members will need to pay careful attention to the probity rules around predisposition, predetermination and bias (set out in the Planning Code of Good Practice Part 5.G of the Council’s Constitution). Failure to do so may mean that the Councillor will need to withdraw from the meeting for any subsequent application when it is considered.

3 FURTHER INFORMATION

3.1 Members are informed that any relevant material received since the publication of this part of the agenda, concerning items on it, will be reported to the Committee in an Addendum Update Report.

4 PUBLIC SPEAKING

4.1 The Council’s constitution only provides for public speaking rights for those applications being reported to Committee in the “Planning Applications for Decision” part of the agenda. Therefore reports on this part of the agenda do not attract public speaking rights.

5 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

5.1 For further information about the background papers used in the drafting of the reports in part 8 contact Mr P Mills (020 8760 5419).

6 RECOMMENDATION

6.1 The Committee is not required to make any decisions with respect to the reports on this part of the agenda. The attached reports are presented as background information.

Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA

PART 6: Planning Applications for Decision

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 In this part of the agenda are reports on planning applications for determination by the Planning Committee.

1.3 Any item that is on the agenda because it has been referred by a Ward Member, GLA Member, MP or Resident Association and none of the person(s)/organisation(s) or their representative(s) have registered their attendance at the Town Hall in accordance with the Council’s Constitution (paragraph 3.8 of Part 4K – Planning and Planning Sub-Committee Procedure Rules) the item will be reverted to the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport to deal with under delegated powers and not be considered by the committee.

1.4 The following information and advice applies to all reports in this part of the agenda.

2 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 The Committee is required to consider planning applications against the development plan and other material planning considerations.

2.2 The development plan is:

 the London Plan (consolidated with Alterations since 2011)  the Croydon Local Plan (February 2018)  the South London Waste Plan (March 2012)

2.3 Decisions must be taken in accordance with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires the Committee to have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application; any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application; and any other material considerations. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the Committee to make its determination in accordance with the Development Plan unless material planning considerations support a different decision being taken. Whilst third party representations are regarded as material planning considerations (assuming that they raise town planning matters) the primary consideration, irrespective of the number of third party representations received, remains the extent to which planning proposals comply with the Development Plan.

2.4 Under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects listed buildings or their settings, the local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest it possesses.

Page 15 2.5 Under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a conservation area, the local planning authority must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

2.6 Under Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for any development, the local planning authority must ensure, whenever it is appropriate, that adequate provision is made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees.

2.7 In accordance with Article 31 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2010, Members are invited to agree the recommendations set out in the reports, which have been made on the basis of the analysis of the scheme set out in each report. This analysis has been undertaken on the balance of the policies and any other material considerations set out in the individual reports.

2.8 Members are reminded that other areas of legislation covers many aspects of the development process and therefore do not need to be considered as part of determining a planning application. The most common examples are:

 Building Regulations deal with structural integrity of buildings, the physical performance of buildings in terms of their consumption of energy, means of escape in case of fire, access to buildings by the Fire Brigade to fight fires etc.  Works within the highway are controlled by Highways Legislation.  Environmental Health covers a range of issues including public nuisance, food safety, licensing, pollution control etc.  Works on or close to the boundary are covered by the Party Wall Act.  Covenants and private rights over land are enforced separately from planning and should not be taken into account.

3 ROLE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

3.1 The role of Members of the Planning Committee is to make planning decisions on applications presented to the Committee openly, impartially, with sound judgement and for sound planning reasons. In doing so Members should have familiarised themselves with Part 5D of the Council’s Constitution ‘The Planning Code of Good Practice’. Members should also seek to attend relevant training and briefing sessions organised from time to time for Members.

3.2 Members are to exercise their responsibilities with regard to the interests of the London Borough of Croydon as a whole rather than with regard to their particular Ward’s interest and issues.

4. THE ROLE OF THE CHAIR

4.1 The Chair of the Planning Committee is responsible for the good and orderly running of Planning Committee meetings. The Chair aims to ensure, with the assistance of officers where necessary, that the meeting is run in accordance with the provisions set out in the Council’s Constitution and particularly Part 4K of the Constitution ‘Planning and Planning Sub-Committee Procedure Rules’. The Chair’s most visible responsibility is to ensure that the business of the meeting is conducted effectively and efficiently.

4.2 The Chair has discretion in the interests of natural justice to vary the public speaking rules where there is good reason to do so and such reasons will be minuted. Page 16 4.3 The Chair is also charged with ensuring that the general rules of debate are adhered to (e.g. Members should not speak over each other) and that the debate remains centred on relevant planning considerations.

4.4 Notwithstanding the fact that the Chair of the Committee has the above responsibilities, it should be noted that the Chair is a full member of the Committee who is able to take part in debates and vote on items in the same way as any other Member of the Committee. This includes the ability to propose or second motions. It also means that the Chair is entitled to express their views in relation to the applications before the Committee in the same way that other Members of the Committee are so entitled and subject to the same rules set out in the Council’s constitution and particularly Planning Code of Good Practice.

5. PROVISION OF INFRASTRUCTURE 5.1 In accordance with Policy 8.3 of the London Plan (2011) the Mayor of London has introduced a London wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to fund Crossrail. Similarly, Croydon CIL is now payable. These would be paid on the commencement of the development. Croydon CIL provides an income stream to the Council to fund the provision of the following types of infrastructure: i. Education facilities ii. Health care facilities iii. Projects listed in the Connected Croydon Delivery Programme iv. Public open space v. Public sports and leisure vi. Community facilities

5.2 Other forms of necessary infrastructure (as defined in the CIL Regulations) and any mitigation of the development that is necessary will be secured through A S106 agreement. Where these are necessary, it will be explained and specified in the agenda reports.

6. FURTHER INFORMATION 6.1 Members are informed that any relevant material received since the publication of this part of the agenda, concerning items on it, will be reported to the Committee in an Addendum Update Report.

7. PUBLIC SPEAKING 7.1 The Council’s constitution allows for public speaking on these items in accordance with the rules set out in the constitution and the Chair’s discretion.

8. BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS 8.1 The background papers used in the drafting of the reports in part 6 are generally the planning application file containing the application documents and correspondence associated with the application. Contact Mr P Mills (020 8760 5419) for further information. The submitted planning application documents (but not representations and consultation responses) can be viewed online from the Public Access Planning Register on the Council website at http://publicaccess.croydon.gov.uk/online- applications. Click on the link or copy it into an internet browser and go to the page, then enter the planning application number in the search box to access the application.

9. RECOMMENDATION

9.1 The Committee to take any decisions recommended in the attached reports. Page 17 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6.1

Page 19 This page is intentionally left blank PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 05 April 2018

PART 6: Planning Applications for Decision Item 6.1

1 SUMMARY OF APPLICATION DETAILS

Ref: 17/04018/FUL Location: Homestead, Gibsons Hill, Norbury, London, SW16 3ER Ward: Norbury Description: Demolition of existing building: erection of three storey building with accommodation in roof space comprising 6 three bedroom and 3 two bedroom flats: formation of vehicular access and provision of associated parking Drawing Nos: 4844-11, 4844-01, 4844-03 Rev A, 4844-04 Rev A, 4844-05 Rev A, 4844-06 Rev A, 4844-07 Rev A and 4844-20 Applicant: Mr Datoo Agent: Ideal Planning & Design Ltd Case Officer: Katy Marks

1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 bed Flats 0 3 6 0 Totals 0 3 6 0

Number of car parking spaces Number of cycle parking spaces 9 18

1.1 This application is being reported to Planning Committee because objections above the threshold in the Committee Consideration Criteria have been received and the ward councillor (Councillor Khan) made representations in accordance with the Committee consideration criteria and requested committee consideration.

2 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That the Planning Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

A. That the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport has delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the following matters:

Conditions

1) Development in accordance with the submitted plans 2) Submission of details of external facing materials, including samples and detailed drawings of design elements 3) Submission of balcony and screening details 4) Submission of details of hard and soft landscaping 5) Submission of tree survey and new tree planting schedule 6) Submission of tree protection plan 7) Submission of construction logistics plan 8) Submission of details of boundary treatment 9) Submission of details of cycle and refuse store

Page 21 10) Submission of detailed drawings for the parking layout, disabled parking and electric vehicle charging points 11) The parking spaces shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation 12) The existing vehicle access points will be removed and the pavement reinstated (at the applicant’s expense) prior to occupation. 13) 19% reduction in carbon emissions 14) Water usage restricted to 110 litres per person per day 15) Installation of at least 2 water butts 16) Commencement of the development within 3 years 17) Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport

Informatives

1) Site notice removal 2) CIL liability 3) Any other informative(s) considered necessary by the Director of Planning and Strategic Transport

3 PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS

Proposal

3.1 The proposal involves:

 Demolition of the existing building  Erection of a 3 storey building (with accommodation within the roofspace)  The building would accommodate six 3 bedroom flats and two 2 bedroom flats  Formation of vehicle access  Provision of 6 parking spaces to the front of the building and 3 on the adjacent land  Associated landscaping  Associated cycle parking and bin storage

3.2 The size of the building has been substantially reduced during the course of the application but the number of units remains unchanged. The original application proposed significantly oversized flats, the flats in the scheme now all meet or slightly exceed the minimum space standards.

Site and Surroundings

3.3 The application site is located to the southern side of Gibson’s Hill between Leathfield Close and Averil Grove. The site comprises a detached 1930s residential property with several extensions. The land slopes south/westward with a fall of about 1.3m. There are a number of mature trees along the western boundary of the site.

3.4 The area is residential in character, with a mixture of houses and blocks of flats, and the site lies opposite the Norwood Grove Conservation Area. However, it is not within a conservation area itself. There are three Grade II Listed Buildings in close proximity of the site on Arnull’s Road (Beech Cottage on the corner with Gibson’s Hill and nos.4 and 10) and St Joseph’s College on the corner of Gibson’s Hill is locally listed, the

Page 22 nearest of these is located about 40m from the front boundary of the site. The site does not have any other constraints.

Planning History

3.5 The following planning decisions are relevant to the application:

 06/01652/P – Planning permission refused and dismissed on appeal for erection of a two storey building with accommodation in roof space comprising 11 x 2 bedroom units and 1 x 1 bedroom units. Reasons:

o The development was not considered to have a high quality design that respects its context o The building would be set some 8m further forward than the existing building line. o The ground level changes, large footprint, height, proportions and design including steeply pitched roofs to all sides would result in a very large and bulky building and there would be relatively few features to break up its overall mass. o This would be particularly apparent on the side elevations which would be as prominent in views from Gibson’s Hill and Leafield Close as the front elevation. o In these respects the development would be an overdevelopment and an unduly dominant and intrusive feature in the street scene.

4 SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

4.1 The proposed development would contribute to meeting the Borough’s housing targets. The redevelopment of the site for residential flats is acceptable in principle and the quantum and layout would not harm the character and appearance of the street scene.

4.2 The massing and scale of the building would not impact upon adjacent neighbours living conditions given the distances between the site and neighbouring properties and orientation of the building.

4.3 The proposed flats would provide high quality living conditions for future occupiers including suitable amenity space.

4.4 A sufficient level of car parking is provided and the development is not considered to give rise to any significant transport concerns in terms of on street parking and congestion.

5 CONSULTATION RESPONSE / LOCAL REPRESENTATION

5.1 The application has been publicised by way of letters sent to neighbouring occupiers of the application site and by 3 site notices displayed in the vicinity of the application site (due to the site’s position adjacent a conservation area). Re-consultation was also undertaken by way of letters (to neighbours and objectors) and site notices on the receipt of amended drawings. The number of representations received from neighbours, local groups etc in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:

Page 23 No of individual responses: 70 Objecting: 70 Supporting: 0 (8 of these objections are 2nd objections received in response to the re-consultation)

5.2 The following issues were raised in representations. Those that are material to the determination of the application, are addressed in substance in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section of this report:

Summary of objections Response Principle Overdevelopment – overly large The development is not considered to be an development and introduction of overdevelopment. See paragraphs 7.2-7.5. flats to replace 1 house would affect the character of the area

The number of 3 bedroom flats There is an identified need in the borough for 3 means no affordable housing bedroom properties. See paragraph 7.4. would be provided

Previous smaller scheme was The policy framework has changed since the refused and dismissed on appeal previous application. See paragraph 7.5. (in 2006) Layout/Design/Scale & Massing -The development is significantly The development is considered to be an larger than the existing in height appropriate response to the context of the site. and footprint and sits further The amendments have helped to reduce the forward in the street scene scale and bulk of the development and -It is overly large, too tall for the improve the design and proportions. See prominent site and is out of paragraphs 7.6-7.11. proportion with the surrounding properties -The development is out of keeping with the character of the area and the conservation area -Amendments have not significantly reduced it -Harm to the visual amenity of the area and aspect of the street scene -Design is old fashioned and not in keeping with the modern style of the area. St Josephs is not an appropriate precedent. It is inconsistent with the pattern of the area where there are no newly built properties. -Does not fulfil the provisions of the London Plan regarding size and volume of surrounding buildings and would detract from the established character of the street -Balconies out of character

Page 24 Amenity of neighbours -Number of windows will result in The development is not considered to result in loss of privacy for neighbours harm to the living conditions of neighbours as -Height would result in loss of set out in paragraphs 7.12-7.14. light -Harm to the visual amenity of residents in the conservation area -Overlooking from rear balconies -Increase in noise and disturbance Residential amenity of future residents Insufficient amenity space The amenity space is considered acceptable to (especially given front garden meet Local and London Plan standards. See parking rather than basement paragraph 7.16. parking in the 2006 application) Highways and Transport -Insufficient parking for the 9 parking spaces are proposed (1 for each flat) number of occupants. which is in line with London Plan standards. -Impact on grass verge on The development is not considered to result in Gibson’s Hill from parking a significant increase in numbers of cars and pressure. on street parking. There are no parking -Parking and access issues for restrictions along parts of Gibson’s Hill and existing residents and waste Averil Grove and therefore an existing parking collection along Averil Grove issue here cannot be controlled through this More people parking illegally planning process.

-Increased congestion and traffic The number of cars and journeys to and from in area which is already busy due the site is not considered likely to result in to nearby school. significant increase in congestion or traffic or -Increased traffic would result in harm to pupils. Traffic associated with this increased danger for pupils of development is not considered to exuberate an neighbouring school existing issue. Trees The parking area would result in These trees are not considered to be of a high the loss of trees and shrubs quality and would not warrant a tree preservation order. New landscaping is proposed.

Loss of trees and green areas The existing trees on the site are proposed to and harm to trees from be retained. The building would be located at foundations least 2m from the side boundary of the site closest to the grass verge on Leafield Road. With an appropriate tree protection plan it is not considered to result in harm to these tree. This would be secured by condition.

Loss of habitat for local wildlife No evidence has been provided suggesting that there are any protected species on the site. A full landscaping plan would be secured by condition and should seek to improve biodiversity.

Page 25 Other Insufficient bins for the site These are shown on the proposed site plan Where are the cycles and refuse and are considered acceptable. The screening bin collection area be located? and size of the bin enclosure and cycle store would be secured by condition.

Potential for antisocial behaviour Suitable boundary treatment and gating would from the separate car parking be required for the parking area. This would be area (dumping, drug taking/ secured by condition. prostitution)

Design does not appear to use The design would have to meet carbon dioxide environmentally friendly building reductions and water targets as set out in methods or energy saving paragraph 7.24. The building regulations also technology control environmental performance of buildings which would have to be complied with.

Non-material issues Ownership issues – concern that The applicant has signed Certificate A on the the car parking area is not application form and has provided evidence located within the applicant’s that this land is within their ownership. This is ownership as it has been considered sufficient for planning purposes. A included within a fenced area for condition is proposed to ensure that the the neighbouring site parking is implemented prior to occupation.

Noise, dust and visual impact of A condition required the submission of a construction work construction logistics plan.

Security of neighbouring site The security of individuals on neighbouring given its use to house diplomats sites is not considered to be a material consideration and should not restrict development in the area. Procedural issues An objection was received from This is not considered to be a valid support Mr Donald Trump which states letter ‘What s all the fuss’ No site notices seen outside The application was advertised in line with the property Council’s procedures. Site notices were Insufficient consultation process erected and the council is in possession of photographic evidence. See paragraph 5.1. Application not dealt with as a The application does not meet National major application threshold for major applications (10+ flats) Applicant has filed an application An application for 9 units rather than 10 does for 9 units rather than 10 which not result in less scrutiny. Should the applicant would result in more scrutiny and later decide to apply for more units, the they can modify it after amended scheme would be fully assessed. It is described as a 3 storey Whilst there are 4 storeys of accommodation, building but it is 4 storeys the description of a 3 storey building with accommodation in the roof space is considered accurate.

5.3 Ward Councillor Shafi Khan has made the following objections to the scheme:

Page 26  The proposal would represent an overdevelopment of the site, out of keeping with the character of the area and detrimental to the appearance of the street scene by reason of its size, siting and design and would therefore conflict with Policies SP3, UD2, UD3 and H2 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Plan.  The development would have a cramped and overcrowded layout with inadequate private amenity space for the occupiers of the dwelling and would thereby conflict with Policy UD8 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Plan [Officer note: The Council has now adopted CLP 2018 which supersedes the UDP policies]

5.4 The Norwood Society make the following objections:

 Notwithstanding the modifications to the original proposals contained in the amended plans, we still believe that this development is inappropriate in its context.  We remain of the opinion that the proposed block of flats, by reason of its size and massing, is overlarge and over dominant in the local context and in that of the site itself. The modifications to the principal elevations, i.e. front and rear, are minimal, there are still nine flats and the footprint of the building has barely changed from that originally proposed. The design, a pastiche of that of the neighbouring early nineteenth century St. Joseph’s School, is wholly inappropriate to a building of this nature.  There is too little private amenity space provided for future residents of the nine proposed flats.

5.5 London Assembly Member, Steve O’Connell, has made the following objections:

 Although amended, the building is far too large for the site which adjoins the Norwood Grove Conservation Area and is totally out of proportion with the surrounding properties, would ruin the aspect of the area due to height and would be out of scale with the buildings around it  It would not fulfil the provisions of the London Plan regarding the size and volume of surrounding buildings and would detract from the established character of the street  Properties in the area would suffer a loss of privacy as there appear to be windows on each side of the building  Parking provision is totally inadequate and would exacerbate an already difficult parking situation  The refuse storage also appears unrealistic

5.6 The Member of Parliament for Croydon North, Steve Reed, has made the following objections:

 Comments sent in response to concerns raised by a constituent  Development over-dominant inappropriate in light of the street scene  Overlooking to neighbouring properties  9 parking spaces to accommodate a possible 48 tenants  Similar to a previous planning application which was refused

Page 27 6 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES AND GUIDANCE

6.1 In determining any planning application, the Council is required to have regard to the provisions of its Development Plan so far as is material to the application and to any other material considerations and the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Council's adopted Development Plan consists of the Consolidated London Plan 2015, the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (CLP) and the South London Waste Plan 2012.

6.2 Government Guidance is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), issued in March 2012. The NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development, requiring that development which accords with an up-to- date local plan should be approved without delay. The NPPF identifies a number of key issues for the delivery of sustainable development, those most relevant to this case are:

 Requiring good design.  Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions

6.3 The main policy considerations raised by the application that the Committee are required to consider are:

Consolidated London Plan 2015 (LP):

 3.3 Increasing housing supply  3.4 Optimising housing potential  3.5 Quality and design of housing developments  3.8 Housing Choice  5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions  5.3 Sustainable design  6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity  6.9 Cycling  6.13 Parking  7.4 Local character  7.6 Architecture  7.21 Woodlands and trees

Croydon Local Plan 2018 (CLP):

 SP2: Homes  SP4: Urban Design and Local Character  SP6: Environment and Climate Change  SP8: Transport and Communication  DM1: Housing choice for sustainable communities  DM10: Design and character  DM13: Refuse and recycling  DM16: Promoting healthy communities  DM18: Heritage assets and conservation  DM23: Development and construction  DM27: Protecting and enhancing our biodiversity

Page 28  DM28: Trees  DM29: Promoting sustainable travel and reducing congestion  DM30: Car and cycle parking in new development  DM41: Norbury

Supplementary Planning Guidance as follows:

 Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standards

7 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:

1. Principle of development 2. Townscape and visual impact 3. Residential amenity of adjoining occupiers 4. Residential amenity of future occupiers 5. Highways and transport 6. Trees and landscaping 7. Sustainability, flood risk and drainage

Principle of development

7.2 Policies support new housing in existing residential areas. The principle of demolishing the existing property and redeveloping it would be acceptable as the floor space of the existing dwelling is over 130m² and its demolition would not result in the net loss of a 3 bedroom home.

7.3 The proposed development would contain 6 three bedroom properties and 3 two bedroom properties. There is a specific need in the borough for larger three bedroom properties in particular and whilst there are no site specific targets for this size of development, larger developments in this area are expected to provide a minimum of 70% three bedroom properties. The suburban location of the site makes it suitable for family sized accommodation and it is therefore considered to contain an appropriate mix of unit sizes and would meet an identified need in the borough.

7.4 Local residents have raised concerns about the lack of affordable housing on the site. Sites providing 10 or more residential units are expected to provide affordable housing. This site provides 9 units and therefore this policy does not apply to the site. Some resident’s felt that the site could provide more than 9 units. However, during the course of the application, the applicant has sought to overcome concerns with regards to the height, scale and massing and this has reduced the size of the building and therefore the number of units which can be provided on the site. It is noted that had the applicant chosen to provide smaller units, there may have been some scope to provide additional units and affordable housing, however the housing mix currently proposed is considered to be acceptable and additional units on the site would give rise to other requirements such as an increased parking need and amenity requirements.

7.5 Local residents have also raised concerns that the development is of similar size or larger than a scheme which was refused in 2006. This previous development was different in design, massing and layout. It proposed a 2 storey building with accommodation in the roofspace providing 12 flats with basement parking, with the

Page 29 basement access taking up much of the rear of the site. Since the date of this decision, the planning policy framework has changed with the adoption of NPPF, a new London Plan and the Croydon Local Plan 2018. All of these promote sustainable development and have prioritised the provision of housing to meet increased housing targets. The scale of the development is considered acceptable in this new policy context and the design and layout is considered to be an improvement from the previous scheme.

Townscape and visual impact

7.6 The proposed building has been reduced since the application was submitted, with the rear section of the building significantly reduced in scale. The building would be 3 storeys in height, with accommodation within the roof space, with a rear projection of 1-2 storeys in height.

7.7 The surrounding area has a very varied character in terms of both building massing, heights and designs. Opposite the site within the Norwood Grove Conservation Area, the properties are generally 2 storey detached houses (mostly of early to mid-20th Century design) and there are several listed buildings along Arnull’s Road and locally listed St Joseph’s College on the corner of Gibson’s Hill and Beulah Hill. The properties adjacent to the site to the east and west are a mixture of modern terraced properties of 2-3 storeys in height with pitched roofs and 3 storey blocks of flats. The area is very green with several mature trees and most properties set back within their sites with planting to boundaries.

7.8 The massing is considered to be an appropriate response to the local character and would not appear overly dominant or prominent within the street scene. The height would be in keeping with the Local Plan which seeks to achieve a minimum of 3 storeys whilst respecting the surrounding area. The reduction of the rear part of the building means that the massing would appear less bulky in the street scene with this part of the building appearing subordinate to the main street frontage.

7.9 Given the varied context of the site, with large flatted blocks and house as well as the St Joseph’s College building on the corner of the road, the development would not appear out of keeping with the area and it is not felt that it would harm the setting of the conservation area. The design would reflect the Georgian design found at St Joseph’s College. Amendments have been received which improve the proportions of the front elevation, with an oversized front door and porch central to the façade and appropriately sized windows with decorative façade treatment in the form of coining, window surrounds and decoration to the eaves and dormer roofs. Full details of these decorative features would be secured by condition.

7.10 To the rear, the balcony balustrades have been simplified and set partially into the parapet of the roof below. This helps to reduce the bulk and appearance of the rear section of the building. Planters would be incorporated into the larger terraces to provide privacy and reduce the impact of the railings. Taller screening would be provided between the two larger terraces for the first 3m which would be wrought iron trellising with planting. Full details of the balustrades and privacy screens and planting would be secured by condition.

7.11 The proposed facing materials would be brick, with render detailing and a slate roof. Whilst red brick would be the preferred option to reflect the elevations of St Joseph’s College, the proposed materials would be secured by condition to ensure that the brick would be of a high quality which would be appropriate within the context of the area.

Page 30 7.12 In summary, the proposed building is considered to be an appropriate design response in an area of varied character without appearing as a pastiche. The scale is considered to be appropriate in its context and is also considered appropriate in the policy context of the Croydon Local Plan 2018.

Residential amenity of adjoining occupiers

7.13 The proposed dwelling is well separated from all adjoining occupiers. There are no adjoining neighbours either side of the application site, the nearest neighbours to the east and west are separated by Leafield Close and Averil Grove and are located between 17-20m away from the boundary of the site. It is not considered that these neighbours would be impacted by the development.

7.14 To the rear, the site is bounded by a block of garages (to the south) and to the south east, the site abuts the side boundary of 2 Leafield Road. This property does not have any windows to the side elevation facing onto the application site. Whilst the proposed building is taller than the existing building on the site, it would actually be positioned further away from the boundary with this neighbour than the existing property. At ground floor, the proposed new building would be located a minimum of 10m away from the boundary. At first and second floor, the bulk of the building would be stepped back further back. The main bulk of the building would be set more than 16m away from the boundary. The proposals would result in balconies at first floor and above, however, the boundary treatment and soft landscaping along the boundary of the site would reduce any visual impact of the building. The proposed building would also be angled away from the neighbour and would therefore not result in significant overlooking to their garden. The distance is considered acceptable to ensure that it would not result in significant overlooking of the neighbours garden.

7.15 Concerns have been raised about overlooking and loss of light to neighbours to the north. However, the nearest properties are separated from the site by about 30m, which is a considerable distance in an urban context. It is not considered that the development would harm the living conditions of any neighbours to the north. The scale and massing of the building is considered appropriate to the size of the site and the surrounding area, therefore it is not considered that the development would result in visual intrusion or harm to the amenity of neighbours.

Residential amenity of future occupiers

7.16 The internal floor space and private amenity space for all the flats is set out in the table below:

Type Proposed layout Space standards

Internal Amenity Internal Amenity

Flat 1 3b4p 81sqm 30sqm 74sqm 7sqm

Flat 2 2b4p 74sqm 14.7sqm 70sqm 7sqm

Flat 3 3b5p 92sqm 35sqm 86sqm 8sqm

Flat 4 3b5p 86sqm 8sqm 86sqm 8sqm

Page 31 Flat 5 2b3p 64sqm 8sqm 61sqm 6sqm

Flat 6 2b3p 64sqm 15sqm 61sqm 6sqm

Flat 7 3b4p 78sqm 26.5sqm 74sqm 7sqm

Flat 8 3b4p 74sqm 26.5sqm 74sqm 7sqm

Flat 9 3b5p 87sqm 14.5sqm 86sqm 8sqm

7.17 The flats would all comply with or slightly exceed the nationally described space standards for internal floor space requirements. The room sizes, circulation, and storage is all acceptable and the flats are well laid out. All of the proposed flats would receive sufficient light and natural ventilation. Some of the ground floor flat windows would have an outlook out onto shared communal space. However, the proposed landscaping plan indicates that there would be a rockery area providing some separation between these windows and the communal amenity space. This would provide privacy for future occupiers.

7.18 Each property would have access to private amenity space in the form of a balcony or terrace in line with (or in excess of) London Plan standards. There would also be a shared communal garden to the rear of the site. The layout and size of the balcony and gardens is considered acceptable to meet the standards for both private amenity space and child play space. It is recommended that the hard and soft landscaping of the rear garden is secured by condition.

Highways and transport

7.19 The site is located within an area with poor public transport accessibility (PTAL 2). It is however close to several bus routes on Beulah Hill and Crown Lane/Crown Dale and close to local shops and schools. A total of 9 car parking spaces within 2 areas is proposed. This level of parking provision and the layouts proposed are considered acceptable. Electric vehicle charging points should also be provided and one of the parking spaces within the front forecourt should be designed for disabled use and be located close to the entrance to the property. It is recommended that details of this should be secured by condition.

7.20 There are 2 existing vehicle access points to the front of the site, which should be reinstated to footway at the applicant's expense and controlled by condition. For all accesses to the parking areas pedestrian visibility splays should be provided to either side of the access with no obstruction over 0.6m in height. Vehicle sight lines should also be indicated on the deposited plans. It is recommended that this detail is secured by condition.

7.21 Two cycle stores are proposed, which comply with London Plan standards and are acceptable. The external stores would need to be secure and covered. It is recommended that these details are secured by condition.

7.22 The location of a refuse store is considered acceptable. It is recommended that details of the screening and size for the proposed refuse store should be secured by condition.

Page 32 Trees and landscaping

7.23 There are several trees on the site and several large mature trees on a piece of land to the east of the site. The development would be set further away from the trees on the neighbouring land and is therefore not considered to result in any harm to these trees. However, given the proximity of the trees and the importance of these trees for the appearance of the area, a tree protection plan would be secured by condition to ensure that appropriate protection is put up during construction.

7.24 The plans show that the existing trees on the site would be retained and hard and soft landscaping would be provided to the front and rear gardens. The proposed plans suggest that there would be an improvement to the landscaping for the site which is currently mostly hardstanding to the front garden. Whilst the retention of the existing trees would be supported, it is not clear from the submitted information whether these trees are all of high quality. Some appear to have been cut back significantly in the past. Given this, it is recommended that a tree survey and a detailed landscaping plan and planting strategy should be secured by condition.

7.25 The submitted information confirms that new boundary treatment would be provided to the site boundaries and to the parking area to the side of the site. Boundary treatment or landscaping is also required within the site to segregate the private amenity space and provide privacy for future occupiers. It is recommended that the details of the boundary treatment should be secured by condition.

Sustainability, flood risk, drainage and air quality

7.26 Conditions are recommended to secure a 19% carbon dioxide emission reduction and a water use target of 110L per head per day thereby meeting sustainability targets.

7.27 The site does not fall within a major flood risk area or surface water flood risk area and no mitigation measures are considered necessary. However, in order to reduce any potential surface water runoff through rain water harvesting, a condition is recommended to secure the provision of at least 2 water butts for the site.

Conclusions

7.28 The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

7.29 All other relevant policies and considerations, including equalities, have been taken into account.

Page 33 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8

PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA

PART 8: Other Planning Matters

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 In this part of the agenda are reports on planning matters, other than planning applications for determination by the Committee and development presentations.

1.3 The following information and advice applies to all those reports.

2 FURTHER INFORMATION

2.1 Members are informed that any relevant material received since the publication of this part of the agenda, concerning items on it, will be reported to the Committee in an Addendum Update Report.

3 PUBLIC SPEAKING

3.1 The Council’s constitution only provides for public speaking rights for those applications being reported to Committee in the “Planning Applications for Decision” part of the agenda. Therefore reports on this part of the agenda do not attract public speaking rights.

4 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

4.1 For further information about the background papers used in the drafting of the reports in part 7 contact Mr P Mills (020 8760 5419).

5 RECOMMENDATION

5.1 The Committee to take any decisions recommended in the attached reports.

Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank