9 two-storey homes at 60 And Land R/O, Upper Norwood, London SE19

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing 60 Beulah Hill and building nine two-storey homes with parking, cycle storage, refuse storage and landscaping.

“Confidential PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA 5 th February 2026 PART 6: Planning Applications for Decision Item 1 1 APPLICATION DETAILS Ref: 25/01694/FUL Location: And Land R/O 62 And 62A Beulah Hill, Upper Norwood, London SE19 3EW Ward: Crystal Palace And Upper Norwood Description: Demolition of No. Beulah Hill; erection of 9 x two-storey dwellings, associated car parking, cycle parking, refuse storage and landscaping.”

“That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That if within 3 months of the committee meeting date, the legal agreement has not been completed, the Director of Planning and Sustainable Regeneration is delegated authority to refuse planning permission.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contained a two-storey detached house and garden land in a residential area, with nearby conservation areas and high parking stress.

“Re-consultation was not necessary. Site and Surroundings 3.4 The application site is located on the north side of Beulah Hill. Number 60 Beulah Hill is a two-storey detached dwellinghouse located on a side road off Beulah Hill. The property was constructed in the 1950s with red brick finish and pitched roof with gable ends. It has a front garden with a driveway and a front garage projection and a long rear garden containing a number of small outbuildings and sheds.”

“Figure 2: Aerial view of site Planning Designations and Constraints 3.7 The site is subject to the following formal planning constraints and designations: • PTAL: 2 • In proximity to, but not within, the Beulah Hill Conservation Area (west) and the Harold Road Conservation Area (north).”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier schemes on the site were refused, including proposals affected by design, amenity, refuse, fire access, parking and highway concerns.

“The proposed development fails to make adequate arrangements for the collection of the refuse waste generated by the proposed development, resulting in detrimental impacts in terms of highway safety and the living conditions of the future occupiers, and would therefore conflict with Policies DM13 and DM29 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018. 4.”

“23/04273/FUL: Demolition of No. Beulah Hill, erection of 9 x two-storey dwellings (plus an additional storey within the roof space), associated car parking, cycle parking, refuse storage, and hard and soft landscaping. – Permission refused 20.06.2024 on the following grounds: 1.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered that the proposal would provide family homes, fit the surrounding backland development, avoid neighbour harm and overcome earlier highway issues.

“Note: this application is similar to the current, with the same site boundary. No mitigation was provided for displaced off-street parking for Nos. 62 and 62A so the scheme would contribute to increased parking stress in an area that already experiences high parking stress, resulting in highway safety issues. the refusal reasons were upheld by the Inspector. The issues have been addressed in the current application.”

“Confidential would be no loss of on-street parking provision, and 12 parking spaces are proposed on site. • The proposal would provide a net increase of 8 x family sized dwellings with a high quality of accommodation.”

Officer report

Consultees and residents

Transport and ecology officers raised no objection after amendments, while the Tree Officer sought replacement planting and eight neighbours objected.

“Confidential • Wiggins racks in the cycle store only allow front tyre to be secured which is not acceptable. Sheffield stands required. Space for wider and adapted bike required. o Officer response: plans amended. • A plan has been provided showing that the site access achieves the required pedestrian 1.5x1.5m pedestrian sightlines within the site boundary and 2.4x25m vehicle sightlines for the access point.”

“No arb objection. • Reservations regarding the high volume of tree removal and the inability to replant replacement trees to mitigate given the limited space available. • It is recommended that replacement planting of instant impact trees be included along the access road and incorporated along the proposed new boundary adjacent to the proposed parking spaces. This may require the creation of a small amenity strip to accommodate the recommended tree planting.”

Officer report

Main objections

Residents objected that parking stress, access, development scale, accommodation, neighbour impacts, tree loss and other local problems made the scheme unacceptable.

“Confidential Nothing has changed since the previous application. the previous application, discussed in the report. The site is garden land, not urban land, should not be developed. The principle of development on this land has been established in the previous applications on the site. Highways Parking stress is higher than the 85% threshold. The proposal will increase local parking stress. Discussed in the report.”

“Issues with the parking stress survey Parking surveys overestimate available parking spaces (due to double yellow lines on the entrance to Stonebridge Mews and the slip road). There are 12 spaces. Our Transport Officer has measured 11 spaces on site. Discussed in the report. One survey was undertaken on a bank holiday Saturday, so results are skewed Noted. Discussed in the report. The new access junction will result in loss of 3 parking spaces, not 2.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker objected, the agent supported the application and Councillor Claire Bonham addressed the committee as ward councillor.

The committee’s decision

After deliberation, members voted unanimously to grant the application in line with the officer recommendation.

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

“The motion to grant the application was taken to a vote with ten members voting in favour, no members voting against and no members abstaining.”

Minutes