Planning appeal decision
2 Beech Avenue, South Croydon , CR2 0NL
the erection of a part three- / part four- storey building comprising 31 apartments (Use Class C3) following demolition of existing detached dwellinghouse (Use Class C3), including the widening of the existing access, provision of vehicular parking and hard and soft landscaping
- Authority
- London Borough of Croydon
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Redford R
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposed development would adequately contribute to affordable homes
- Whether the proposed development would adequately contribute to family sized homes
- The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area including the landscape character and trees protected by Tree Preservation Order (TPO)
- The effect of the proposed development on fire safety
- Whether the proposed development would provide adequate living conditions for future occupants with specific regard to inclusive and accessible accommodation and outdoor space
- Whether the proposed development would provide adequate on-site parking
- Whether the proposed development would provide adequate refuse storage
- Whether the proposed development would provide adequate cycle storage
- Whether the proposed development would constitute net carbon zero development
What decided it
The cumulative harm across affordable housing, family-sized homes, character and appearance, fire safety, living conditions, parking and refuse storage, none of which were adequately addressed, outweighed the moderate benefit of 30 additional homes.
The moderate weight given to the net increase of 30 homes and limited weight to some affordable housing provision were outweighed by the significant harms identified across affordable housing quantum and delivery method, family-sized housing undersupply, substantial harm to character and appearance and protected trees, fire safety deficiency, multiple living condition failures, parking and refuse storage inadequacies.
Framework references: 130
Plan policies cited: Policy H5 C, Policy SP2.4b, Policy H5 F, Policy SP2.5, Policy H4, Policy H5, Policy SP2.7, Policy DM1, Policy DM1.1, Policy SP4.1, Policy SP4.2, Policy SP7, Policy DM10, Policy DM28, Policy D3, Policy G5, Policy G7, Policy D12, Policy D12 B, Policy SP2.8, Policy D7, Policy DM10.4, Policy DM10.5, Policy D6, Policy DM30, Policy DM29, Policy DM13, Policy SP6.2, Policy SI 2
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®