Single family dwelling at 26 Warham Road, South Croydon

What was proposed

The application proposed a single-storey, three-bedroom house behind 26 Warham Road, with access, cycle storage, refuse storage and garden changes.

“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 by 3 Months the legal agreement has not been completed, the Director of Planning and Sustainable Regeneration is delegated authority to refuse planning permission.”

“Amendments 3.2 The application has been amended as follows: - • Reduced the height of building from 4.2m (3.3m at eaves) to uniform height of 3.2m • Pulling building back from neighbouring boundary to the north from 2.5m to 5.18m; south from 3.7m to 4.8m; west from 1.6m to 4.1m • Reduced the size of the building from a 6-person house (109sqm floorspace) to 4-person house ( 81.3sqm floorspace); • Introduction of shared refuse storage arrangements and enclosure with existing…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was an overgrown rear garden beside flats, houses and trees, with a side pedestrian access and several flood and parking constraints.

“Adjoining occupiers have been reconsulted on the proposed changes Site and Surroundings 3.4 The site (0.028ha) is located to the rear of 26 Warham Road. No.26 Warham Road is four-storey semi-detached building (including lower basement level) which is divided into 4 flats.”

“Figure1.2: Aerial View Planning Designations and Constraints 3.5 The site is subject to the following formal planning constraints and designations: • PTAL:5 • Borough Classified Road • Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) • Flood Risk Zone:1 • Surface Water flood risk area • Critical Drainage Area…”

Officer report

Earlier planning decisions

An earlier two-storey dwelling was refused and dismissed on appeal, while permission in principle was later granted for one dwelling.

“22/01073/FUL: Planning permission refused for the erection of a two storey detached dwelling house (Reason: character and appearance; scale, height and siting impact on amenity; absence of sustainable transport contribution) Dismissed on Appeal ref: APP/L5240/W/23/3324218 in Dec 2024 (Reason: impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of outlook and lack of legal agreement)”

“24/02734/PIP Permission granted in principle for the erection of one dwelling.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the home acceptable in principle, appropriately designed, suitable for future occupiers, respectful of neighbours and supportive of sustainable travel.

“SUMMARY OF KEY REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Planning permission is recommended for the following reasons • The previous planning appeal decision confirmed that an additional dwelling would be acceptable in principle, and permission in principle has already been granted for the construction of one new dwelling.”

“The proposed development is of an appropriate scale and makes effective use of the site increasing the family housing stock in the borough, and providing an acceptable living environment for future occupiers with step-free access.”

Officer report

Objections from neighbours

Thirty neighbouring responses opposed the application, citing concerns about character, privacy, construction disturbance, access, trees, waste, transport, flooding and sewage.

“OFFICIAL 4.2 The following sections of this report summarise the officer assessment and the reason for the recommendation. CONSULTATION REPONSE 5.1 The views of the Planning Service are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below. LOCAL REPRESENTATION 6.1 A total of 75 neighbouring properties were notified about the application and invited to comment.”

“The following issues were raised in representations that are material to the determination of the application, and they are addressed in substance in the next section of this report: Objection Officer comment Character and design Unsightly, not in keeping, poor access, out of character; detrimental to surroundings; loss of brick boundary wall in Barnham Road part of hailing manor estate property; too large; too high at 4.2m internal 3.22m; poor design statement; loss of…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A council planning officer presented the application; an objector spoke against it and the agent spoke in support.

The committee’s consideration

After hearing the speakers, committee members deliberated and considered a motion to grant permission with additional fire statement and boundary treatment conditions.

“After the speakers had finished, the Committee deliberated.”

“The motion to GRANT the application in accordance with the officer recommendation, including the additional conditions relating to a fire statement and boundary treatment, was proposed by Councillor Johnson and seconded by Councillor Attwater.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to grant was carried unanimously, with six members in favour, none against and none abstaining.

“The motion to GRANT the application was taken to a vote and carried unanimously, with six members voting in favour, no members voting against and no members abstaining.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee resolved to grant planning permission in accordance with the officer recommendation, including the additional conditions.

“Therefore, the Committee RESOLVED to GRANT the application for…”

Minutes