Detached family dwelling at Land To The Rear Of 164 Pampisford Road, South Croydon

What was proposed

The application proposed one detached dwelling with associated parking and private amenity space, amended to reduce the rear roof dormer and add landscaping.

“Confidential PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE AGENDA 15 th January 2026 PART 5: Planning Applications for Decision Item 5.1 1 APPLICATION DETAILS Ref: 25/02957/FUL Location: Land to the Rear of 164 Pampisford Road, South Croydon, CR2 6DA Ward: Purley Oaks and Riddlesdown Description: Erection of detached dwelling and provision of associated parking and amenity space.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The vacant, partly excavated plot sits behind 164 Pampisford Road, fronts Barnards Place, and has a history of refused dwelling applications and appeals.

“Confidential Site and Surroundings Figure 2: Site Location Plan 3.4 The application site is located to the rear of 164 Pampisford Road, off the south- western side of Barnards Place. The site comprises a vacant plot of land, which is accessed off Barnards Place and has previously been partially excavated. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, comprised of single and two-storey detached dwellings.”

“Confidential Planning History 3.7 The following planning history is of relevance to the application: Rear of 164 Pampisford Road…”

Officer report

Officers’ main assessment

Officers considered the reduced height addressed the earlier design concern, although ceiling-height standards were not fully met because the dwelling was significantly oversized.

“Quality of residential accommodation 8.19 Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 outlines that housing development should be high-quality design and should provide adequate-sized bedrooms and residential units, as well as sufficient floor to ceiling heights and light.”

“Confidential would be served by a lightwell measuring 1.6m in depth and 10m in width, which would provide some natural light. It is noted that a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.5m does not appear to be achieved for 75% of the GIA of the proposed dwelling, contrary to policy D6. Furthermore, the National Technical Standards sets a lower requirement of 2.3m for 75% of the total GIA, which is also not achieved.”

Officer report

What people said

Fifteen neighbours objected and none supported the application, while councillor and MP objections focused on overdevelopment, character, neighbours, plans, parking and highway safety.

“The following Councillor and MP made representations: Councillor Alasdair Stewart [objecting] on the following grounds: • Substantially similar to previously refused applications • Impact on character of the area • Transport and highway safety • Inappropriate size, scale, and massing • Impact on neighbouring occupiers in relation to outlook, loss of light, dominance and visual intrusion • Overdevelopment MP Chris Philp [objecting] on the following grounds: • …”

“Confidential • Out of character • Does not respect the existing development pattern • Fails to respect the separation distances in Barnards Place • Impact on neighbouring properties in relation to overlooking and overbearing impact, dominant, visual intrusion, loss of light and loss of outlook • Accuracy of plans and lack of measurements • Parking stress and highway safety 6.4 The following issues were raised in representations that are material to the determination of the…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker objected, the applicant supported the proposal, and the ward councillor addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members disagreed about whether earlier concerns had been resolved, debating the dwelling’s scale, massing, dormer, relationship with a neighbour, design, parking and pedestrian safety.

“After the speakers had finished, the Committee deliberated. Cllr Fish noted the need for family homes in Croydon and the positives of the application but considered that the scheme had not sufficiently addressed the previous reasons for refusal. The reduction in height was noted, but concerns were raised in relation to the scale and masing, as well as the size and siting.”

“Cllr Fitzsimons raised two concerns: character/design and parking/pedestrian safety. The scheme was considered out of keeping with the character of the cul-de-sac, and it was considered that the changes made to the roof had compromised the design. Concerns were also raised in relation to the parking layout, depth of the forecourt, and whether vehicles would overhang the pavement, which in turn could impede pedestrian movement.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The approval motion was not seconded, while a refusal motion was carried by three votes to one, with two abstentions, and permission was refused.

“Cllr Fish proposed a new motion to refuse planning permission based on the size, scale and massing of the proposed dwelling, particularly due to the rear dormer (which is larger than that previously proposed), and the resulting impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and the area.”

“The motion to refuse the application was taken to a vote and carried with three members voting in favour, one member voting against and two members abstaining.”

Minutes