House extensions at 245 Violet Lane, Croydon

What was proposed

The application proposed front, wraparound, rear and side extensions, chimney removal and associated works to the house.

“APPLICATION DETAILS Ref: 25/02686/HSE Location: Violet Lane, Croydon CR0 4HN Ward: Waddon Description: Erection of single-storey front extension, ground-floor wraparound extension, first-floor rear extension and side extension, demolition of chimney stack, and all associated works. Drawing Nos: TSL/245/HH/EXT/01, TSL/245/HH/EXT/02, TSL/245/HH/EXT/03, TSL/245/HH/EXT/04, TSL/245/HH/EXT/05, TSL/245/HH/EXT/06 and TSL/245/HH/EXT/07.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The detached house adjoins a presbytery, a semi-detached home, rear gardens, a school and children’s care facility.

“The surrounding area is mixed in character. To the south of the site, the street is mostly residential, featuring detached and semi-detached dwellings of varying scales and designs. A number of nearby properties, in particular Nos. 243 to 253, have benefitted from front, rear and side extensions of various scales. To the north and east, the school, church and Violet Lane Medical Practice result in more mixed character.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions covered rear and side extensions, including a six-metre rear extension approved in July 2025.

“16/06237/GPDO • Prior approval was granted in March 2017 for the erection of single storey rear extension projecting out 5.3 metres with a maximum height of 3 metres.”

“25/01782/GPDO • Prior approval was granted in July 2025 for the erection of a single storey rear extension which projects out by 6 metres from the rear wall of the original house, with an eaves height of 3 metres and a maximum height of 3.3 metres.”

Officer report

Objections and concerns

Fourteen objections were received, raising concerns about character, privacy, daylight, noise, traffic, fire safety and possible future occupation.

“Objection Officer comment Character and design Harm to design and character of the property and the streetscene This matter is addressed in Section 7 under the subsection “Design and impact on character of the area”. Obtrusive by design Overdevelopment Concerns regarding the internal layout (e.g. kitchen, bathroom, toilet positioning) potentially compromising functionality and causing damp.”

“Other Traffic or highway impact This matter is addressed in Section 7 under the subsection “Traffic and highway impact”. Side wall being too close to No. Violet Lane, posing fire risk. This matter is addressed in Section 7 under the subsection “Fire safety”. Party wall issue This is not a planning consideration and is instead a civil matter governed by the Party Wall Act. Rubbish or balls entering neighbouring gardens This is not a planning consideration.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer presented the application, the applicant spoke in support, and three councillors and a church representative spoke against.

Members’ debate

Members focused on the first-floor rear extension, enclosure, daylight loss, pastoral use, insufficient drawings and the cumulative scale of the extensions.

“Councillor Fish raised concerns in relation to the proposed first-floor rear extension, noting that it would result in a sense of enclosure to the neighbouring presbytery due to loss of daylight, thereby worsening the relationship between the two buildings. The cumulative size of the extensions was also considered to significantly alter the proportions of the building, to such an extent that it would appear out of character within the surrounding area.”

“The Chair further commented that the first-floor rear extension would have a harmful impact on the presbytery in terms of loss of light. It was also noted that the cumulative impact of the single-storey rear extension, ground-floor wraparound extension, and first-floor rear extension was too much and would adversely affect neighbouring residents.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to grant permission was not proposed or seconded, while a refusal motion was proposed and seconded.

“Following deliberations, there was no proposer nor seconder for the motion to GRANT the application based on the officer’s recommendation.”

“Councillor Fraser proposed a new motion to refuse planning permission on the grounds that the proposed first-floor rear extension, by virtue of its height, bulk and mass, would cause an unacceptable loss of daylight to the presbytery at No. Violet Lane. This new motion was seconded by Councillor Redfern.”

Minutes