Four-bedroom detached house at 127 Pollards Hill South, Norbury, London SW16

What was proposed

The application proposed replacing the existing bungalow with a two-storey four-bedroom detached house, roof accommodation, solar panels and a rear outbuilding.

“PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE AGENDA 25 September 2025 PART 5: Planning Applications for Decision Item 1 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS Ref: 25/00667/FUL Location: Pollards Hill South, Norbury, London SW16 4LS Ward: Norbury and Pollards Hill Description: Demolition of existing dwelling, erection of two-storey four bed detached dwelling with accommodation in the roof, solar panels to side roof, outbuilding in rear garden and provision of associated landscape, cycling and refuse…”

“The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing bungalow, and the erection of a two-storey four bed detached dwelling with accommodation in the roof, solar panels on the side roof, erection of an outbuilding in the rear garden and provision of associated landscape, cycling and refuse storage.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a large residential plot with a bungalow, garden, parking and surrounding detached and terraced homes on a suburban road.

“Following receipt of the above information re-consultation with neighbours was carried out by letter dated 23.06.2025. Site and Surroundings 3.3 The application site consists of a single storey detached bungalow with accommodation within the roofspace and associated garden area. The site is a large plot located on the western side of Pollards Hill South.”

“Three storey residential accommodation blocks with flat roofs are located beyond the rear of the site on Recreation Way. These can be glimpsed from Pollards Hill South in gaps between the built form.”

Officer report

Earlier planning decisions

Earlier proposals were refused or dismissed on appeal because of concerns about the site’s character and appearance.

“11/00620/P Demolition of existing building; erection of 2 two storey four- bedroom detached houses with accommodation in roof space and 2 four-bedroom detached chalet bungalows; formation of access road and provision of associated parking and landscaping. Appeal contested on grounds of character and appearance and impact on neighbouring amenity. Appeal dismissed on grounds of character and appearance.”

“22/03070/FUL Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of three-storey six- bedroom detached dwelling with outbuilding in rear garden and provision of associated landscaping, cycle and refuse storage. Refused on grounds of character and appearance. Appeal dismissed on grounds of character and appearance (Ref: APP L5240/W24/33397/37)”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, considering the replacement family home well designed, suitable for the site, acceptable for neighbours and satisfactory for transport.

“SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION • The proposal makes better use of the site by replacing a bungalow with a two- storey house. • There would be no harmful impacts on neighbours. • The proposed house would be in keeping with the existing pattern of development and would be a positive addition to the street scene. • A much need family sized home has been provided using high quality materials and rooms that more than meet the National Space Standards.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A planning officer presented the application, followed by one objector and two speakers supporting it.

Committee debate

The committee first considered approval on the officer’s recommendation, then a refusal motion based on the development’s size, bulk, scale, massing and effect on local character.

“The motion to GRANT the application based on the officer’s recommendation was proposed by Councillor Fraser. This was seconded by Councillor Islam.”

“Councillor Redfern proposed a new motion to refuse on the basis that the size, bulk, scale, massing and it’s resulting impact on the character of the area. This was seconded by Councillor Zaman.”

Minutes

The votes

Approval received three votes for and three against, while refusal passed with the chair’s casting vote after an equally split vote.

“The motion to GRANT the application was taken to a vote and fell with three members voting in favour, three members voting against and no abstentions. The Chair used his casting vote against the motion.”

“The motion to refuse the application was taken to a vote and carried with three members voting in favour, three members voting against and no members abstaining. The chair used his casting vote to refuse the application.”

Minutes