The Croydon Planning Committee met on Thursday, 3 September 2026, to discuss several development proposals. Key decisions included the granting of outline planning permission for a six-storey hotel on Brighton Road, South Croydon, and the approval of a detached bungalow at 47 Graham Road, Pearly. A pre-application presentation was also given for the redevelopment of land north of Lansdowne Road, Croydon, which will inform future planning decisions.

Land North of Lansdowne Road, Croydon, CR0 2NF

The committee received a pre-application presentation for the proposed redevelopment of land north of Lansdowne Road. The applicant, Croydon Gateway Limited Partnership, presented plans for two residential buildings of 21 and 12 storeys, comprising 268 homes, with flexible ground-floor commercial space and landscaping. The vision is to create market-sale homes, with a strong emphasis on sustainability, including a fabric-first approach, 100% electrical heating, and the potential to connect to district heating networks. The development aims to complete the Ruskin Square masterplan, providing new public realm facing Lansdowne Road.

Ward councillors expressed support for the scheme's design and sustainability measures, but raised concerns about the low percentage of affordable housing and potential congestion. Committee members questioned the outlook from lower-level flats near the multi-storey car park and the viability of the commercial element. Discussions also covered the distance of blue badge parking, the marketing of the market-sale homes, and the potential for noise complaints from nearby Box Park. The applicants clarified that the flexible ground-floor space could accommodate community uses if commercial viability was an issue. Concerns were also raised about overshadowing and loss of privacy for neighbouring properties, with officers noting that studies had been conducted and the building's octagonal shape could help mitigate shadow casting. The viability appraisal for affordable housing was noted as zero, and the applicant was encouraged to explore grant funding. The distance of blue badge parking from the hotel entrance was discussed, with the applicant noting it would be approximately 30-35 meters. The marketing of the market-sale homes would focus on lifestyle, quality homes, high ceilings, daylight, and gardens. The percentage of studio and one-bedroom apartments was questioned due to market saturation, but the applicant expressed confidence in their marketability. Pedestrian flow was discussed in relation to the proximity of East Croydon Station and the Home Office, with assurances that the outline consent had already addressed these concerns. Lighting strategies for public spaces were discussed in relation to safety, particularly for women and girls, with details on bollard and bannered lamps provided. The colour scheme of light grey brick and metallic bronze was justified as a way to complement existing Croydon architecture rather than compete with it. The management of the community space was noted as undetermined but would be managed. The loss of parking spaces was acknowledged, with a vacancy in the adjacent multi-storey car park noted. Concerns were raised about the height of the buildings exceeding local plan guidance, and the viability of commercial units was questioned due to existing vacancies in nearby developments. The mix of housing, particularly the low percentage of affordable housing (less than 6%), was a significant concern, with councillors advocating for at least 30% affordable homes. The market for one-bedroom flats was also questioned due to a perceived drop in prices and a preference for larger units post-COVID.

1A Brighton Road, South Croydon, CR2 6EA

The committee considered two applications for 1A Brighton Road. The first, 26/00075/OUT, sought outline planning permission for a five-storey block comprising 25 flats and two commercial units, with access reserved. This application was recommended for approval, subject to a legal agreement securing affordable housing contributions and highway works. The second application, 26/00079/OUT, sought outline planning permission for a six-storey hotel building with ancillary dining facilities and a basement structure, with all matters reserved except for scale. This application was also recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a legal agreement covering transport, environmental, and employment obligations.

During the discussion for the hotel application, Councillor Mark Johnson expressed strong reservations about the height and scale of the building, feeling it was out of place, but acknowledged there were no planning grounds to refuse it based on previous approvals. He questioned the logic of a hotel in that location and the planning law's equal treatment of hotels and private homes. Councillor Helen Redfern shared concerns about flooding and the impact on the locally listed Swan and Sugar Loaf building, but noted that the scale had been approved previously. Councillor Matthew Dormer voiced significant concerns, calling the application completely undesirable and preferring family homes. He highlighted concerns about flooding, the impact on the Swan and Sugar Loaf, and the lack of detail provided for an outline application. Councillor Stuart King defended the outline application process, stating that design acceptability would be assessed at the reserved matters stage. Councillor Appu Srinivasan supported the application, noting the need for development and the benefits of a hotel, but raised concerns about blue badge parking provision. Officers clarified that disabled parking is a reserved matter. The committee voted to grant permission for the hotel development by seven votes to one.

47 Graham Road, Pearly

The committee granted planning permission for the erection of a detached bungalow at 47 Graham Road, Pearly. The application proposed a single-storey dwelling with accommodation in the roof space, incorporating two parking spaces for the host dwelling and one for the proposed dwelling. This revised scheme addressed previous reasons for refusal concerning siting, scale, massing, and height, resulting in a subservient and less visually prominent development. Concerns raised by a neighbour regarding overlooking and privacy were addressed by officers, who noted the oblique angles of the windows and the distance to neighbouring properties. The applicant's agent spoke in support, highlighting the modest scale of the proposal and its contribution to housing delivery. The committee voted to approve the application, with six members in favour and none against.

Weekly Planning Decisions

The committee noted the weekly list of planning decisions determined by the local planning authority, either by committee or by officers under delegated powers, since the last meeting.