The Croydon Planning Sub-Committee convened to discuss two planning applications. Councillors resolved to grant permission for the retention of a decking area with added screening at 151 Caterham Drive, and also voted to grant permission for the conversion of a house into a 12-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) at 14 Stafford Road.

151 Caterham Drive, Coulsdon

Councillors approved a retrospective application for the retention of land levels, retaining walls, decking areas, steps, balustrading, and the provision of additional screening adjacent to the boundary with number 153 Caterham Drive. The application was referred to the committee at the request of Councillor Nikhil Oshiril Thampi and due to the number of representations received.

Lucy Page, the officer presenting the application, noted that the decking was a retrospective application, and that the land levels rise up quite significantly as you travel up the garden. She also noted that there was an existing outbuilding which had been converted as part of a lawful development certificate application in 2022. The recommendation was for approval subject to conditions, including additional screening.

Councillor Lara Fish, Deputy Cabinet Member for Customer Service, asked if the screening had to be fencing, or if the committee could decide what the screening is. Lucy Page clarified that the application proposes that screening, but councillors could consider another type of screening.

Councillor Michael Neill, Chair of the Planning Subcommittee, asked if there were any flood and drainage mitigation measures in place. Lucy Page responded that because it was a retrospective application, they did not know for sure what was under the decking, but that the majority of the garden remained undeveloped and therefore had the capacity to take rainwater.

Objector Juliette Cole spoke about the build, stating that the applicant was explicitly advised that planning permission was required for raised levels, but carried out works without consent. She also raised concerns about an inaccurate site description, flood risk, unacknowledged ground works, drainage, the height and overbearing impact of the decking, environmental harm, and procedural integrity, claiming the applicant said they had a friend in the planning office and quoted information from a confidential email.

Councillor Nikhil Oshiril Thampi spoke against the application, stating that the conditions were not sufficient to address the fundamental issues. He said the tiered decking was visually dominant and out of keeping with the garden and surrounding area, and that even with the proposed screening, the structure's height, bulk and proximity to the boundary would still cause overlooking, loss of privacy and an overbearing impact on 153 Caterham Drive. He also raised concerns about surface water flooding and the loss of natural garden space, reducing opportunity for wildlife and biodiversity.

Nicola Townsend, Head of Development Management, clarified that the committee's role was to determine the application based on land use planning matters, and that matters of construction were for building control. She also addressed the allegation against the planning department, stating that all planning officers make a declaration of interest at the start of the year, and that they were not aware of anybody in the planning department who knows the applicant.

During the deliberation, Councillor Lara Fish said she was concerned about the additional screening being fencing, and would like to see more soft landscaping within the development. Councillor Sean Fitzsimons said that he had sympathy for the objector, but could not see a ground to oppose the recommendation. Councillor Appu Srinivasan agreed, stating that the neighbour had the option to seek further clarification for the party wall act and building regulations.

The committee discussed the possibility of alternative solutions, such as further soft or hard landscaping to prevent certain parts of the decking being used. Lucy Page said that a further site visit could assess if there was a position to have an area within the decking that wasn't accessible, moving human activity away from those closer areas to the boundary.

The committee resolved to grant planning permission, removing condition one and updating condition two to require details of the exact location and height of all screening to be submitted and agreed with the local planning authority, together with details of landscaping. Six councillors voted in favour, with none against and no abstentions.

14 Stafford Road, Croydon

Councillors approved the change of use of the property at 14 Stafford Road from a single dwelling house to a 12-bedroom HMO, with associated refuse and cycle storage and the installation of a new side elevation window.

Ross Gentry, Central Area Team Leader, presenting officer, explained that the existing property is 330 square meters in floor area, and has five bedrooms, meaning that policies protecting smaller family dwelling houses are not engaged. He said that the scheme includes five bedrooms all en suite on both the ground and first floors, with two bedrooms and a kitchen area on the roof space. He also noted that they had worked with the applicant to ensure that the cycle storage details work, and that the waste team have confirmed there is sufficient bin storage. The recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to a legal agreement covering restriction of access for residents to parking permits, and removal of the front cross over and curb reinstatement.

Councillor Lara Fish asked about bedroom 12, which was less than the minimum stealing height¹. Ross Gentry explained that while bedroom 12 did not meet the 75% requirement for head height, the room was 20 square metres in area, exceeding the minimum 10 square metres requirement.

Councillor Michael Neill asked if the bins were enclosed, and if they could be the largest bins possible. Ross Gentry confirmed that the structure is proposed to being enclosed, and that the waste team have said it requires six 1100 litre bins, with space for seven.

Councillor Humayun Kabir asked if having a kitchen on the roof level was in accordance with fire safety agreements. Ross Gentry responded that the HMO team had reviewed the application and were happy, and that a fire statement had been submitted and reviewed. Councillor Humayun Kabir also asked if every room was a family size, or if some of the rooms were double rooms. Ross Gentry clarified that the scheme is proposed as 12 person, 12 bedroom, and that occupancy would be limited to 12 people.

Councillor Sean Fitzsimons asked if there was sufficient lighting in the loft rooms, and if the property was in a conservation area. Ross Gentry confirmed that the bedrooms had normal windows, and that the kitchen made use of three roof lights. He also confirmed that the property is not in a conservation area. Councillor Sean Fitzsimons also raised concerns about how to ensure that the amenities of the people who are sleeping in bedrooms six and seven are not unduly disturbed by the kitchen above. Ross Gentry responded that the building control team have advised that the separate rooms within a HMO would be covered by building regulations to ensure that independent rooms are suitably insulated.

Councillor Rye, the ward councillor, spoke against the application, raising concerns about overcrowding, substandard accommodation, the number of HMOs in the area, and the lack of a parking survey. He stated that the internal communal space for 12 residents consists of three crammed kitchens, and that there were many other HMOs in the area that had been overlooked in the officer's report. He also argued that saying the development would be car free does not mean that none of the 12 residents would own a car, and that on street parking in the location has reached its saturation point.

Ross Gentry responded that the HMO team had raised no objection in terms of the quality of the accommodation, and that the numbers quoted in the report were provided by the HMO team. He also stated that London plan policy T 6.1 E states that sweet generous residential uses should be car free, and that is why there isn't a parking stress survey.

During the deliberation, councillors discussed the lack of a communal area, and whether the number of rooms meant that the quality of the product was compromised. Councillor Sean Fitzsimons said that the scheme has a lot of merits compared to other HMOs, and that his objections had mostly been answered either through the report or through responses to the question. Councillor Lara Fish agreed, stating that the application was compliant with current policies.

The committee resolved to grant the application, following the officer's recommendations. Five councillors voted in favour, with one against and no abstentions.

Other Planning Matters

The committee noted the report on weekly planning decisions taken between 14 July 2025 and 3 August 2025.