Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed16 February 20263373162

81 Cherry Orchard Road, CROYDON, CR0 6BE

Demolition of existing public house building, construction of a new 7 storey building with roof terrace level and basement to re-provide a public house (Sui Generis) together with 19 flats with associated access, amenity space, and landscaping works

Authority
London Borough of Croydon
Appeal type
major · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Hearing
Development
residential · Other Major Developments
Inspector
Pattison B

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
  • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight
  • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of future occupiers, with particular regard to access to shared amenity space, outlook, noise and cycle parking
  • whether the proposal would make an appropriate affordable housing contribution
  • whether the proposal would provide satisfactory provision for servicing and storage of waste
  • whether the proposal would provide an adequate level of car parking for disabled persons
  • whether the proposal necessitates obligations including contributions towards carbon emission offsetting, air quality management, highway alterations, sustainable modes of transport and promotion, local employment and training strategy, and affordable housing and, if so, whether an appropriate mechanism to secure these has been secured
  • the effect of the proposal on air quality
  • whether the proposal can demonstrate compliance with the London Plan's energy hierarchy
  • the effect of the proposal on drainage
  • whether the proposal can demonstrate compliance with fire safety standards
  • the effect of the proposal on protected species

What decided it

The cumulative and unresolved harms — particularly to character and appearance, neighbour and future occupier living conditions, and the failure to secure affordable housing and other necessary mitigation through a completed legal agreement — outweighed the benefits of the scheme.

The identified harms (character and appearance, neighbour and future occupier living conditions, parking, waste servicing, affordable housing shortfall, unresolved air quality/drainage/fire safety concerns, and unsecured obligations) weighed heavily against the proposal and were not outweighed by the moderate benefits of principle of development, reprovision of the public house, and economic benefits, resulting in conflict with the development plan as a whole.

Plan policies cited: Policy D3, Policy D4, Policy DM10, Policy D6, Policy DM10.6, Policy T5, Policy DM30, Policy D7, Policy SP2, Policy SP2.4, Policy SP2.5, Policy H4, Policy H5, Policy H6, Policy DF1, Policy SI7, Policy DM13, Policy T6.1, Policy T6, Policy DM29, Policy DM21, Policy SI1, Policy DM23, Policy SI2, Policy SP6, Policy SI12, Policy SI13, Policy DM25, Policy D12, Policy G6, Policy DM27

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.