The Croydon Council Planning Sub-Committee met on 6 November 2025, to discuss three planning applications. A proposal for a new dwelling on Blenheim Crescent was refused due to its impact on the character of the area and neighbouring properties. A retrospective application relating to a property on Northampton Road was withdrawn from consideration, and an application concerning alterations to a property on Hartley Down was approved.

Hayes Lane, Kenley

The Planning Committee considered an application for the erection of a two-storey development comprising five flats at 2-3 Hayes Lane, Kenley, including six parking spaces, cycle parking, refuge storage, associated soft landscaping, and formation of a new access onto Hayes Lane.

Planning officer Andrew Kauks introduced the item, noting that the site formerly contained a single-storey detached dwelling that was demolished in 2023. He outlined the planning history of the site, which included several previous applications for redevelopment that were refused by the council and dismissed at appeal. However, an outline application for a pair of semi-detached houses was approved in 2023, representing a valid fallback position.

Mr Kauks explained that the current proposal was initially submitted for six flats, but this was reduced to five due to insufficient floor-to-ceiling heights. The unit mix would include two three-bedroom units, one two-bedroom unit, and two one-bedroom units, contributing to the council's policy of increasing the supply of family-sized homes. He also noted that the proposal included six car parking spaces, which was consistent with previous applications where parking numbers did not constitute reasons for refusal. The recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to a legal agreement to secure £2,000 per unit sustainable transport contribution, as well as conditions relating to landscaping and storage.

During the discussion, Councillor Lara Fish, Deputy Cabinet Member for Customer Service, sought clarification on whether the electric vehicle charging points and green roofs on the cycle and bin stores were secured by condition. Mr Kauks confirmed that the green roof would form part of the landscaping condition, and that electric vehicle charging points are now covered in building regulations.

Councillor Clive Fraser raised concerns about the layout of the ground floor, particularly the corridor and a potential fire door. Mr Kauks confirmed the presence of a kink in the corridor, and that fire safety would be covered by building regulations.

The committee then heard from three speakers: an objector (whose name was withheld), Karl Roach (objecting), and Councillor Ola Koladi (ward councillor, objecting).

The objector's statement, read by Liam Semugabi, raised concerns about insufficient car parking provision, increased traffic on Hayes Lane, and the impact on residents.

Karl Roach argued that the proposal should be declined due to its impact on the character and appearance of the area, citing reasons given by an inspector in a previous application.

Councillor Koladi raised concerns about the density of the development, the impact on the character of Hayes Lane, overlooking of neighbouring gardens, and road safety.

In response, Mr Kauks addressed the concerns raised by the speakers, stating that the balconies were further away from neighbouring properties than in a previously dismissed scheme, that the level of hard standing was comparable to a previously dismissed scheme where the inspector found no issue with it, and that the parking provision was acceptable.

During the committee's deliberation, Councillor Fraser supported the scheme, stating that it was good in its design and layout, utilised the plot well, and provided much-needed additional housing. Councillor Fish agreed, noting that there was already extant permission¹ on the site for two homes with hard standing, and that the size of the proposed development was not significantly different. Councillor Mark Johnson concurred, stating that the proposal was policy compliant.

Councillor Stuart King agreed with Councillor Fish regarding the extant permission, and added that the provision of family-sized homes was welcome. Councillor Humayin Kabir also supported the application, stating that it ticked all the boxes and that he liked the design. Councillor Christopher Hermann echoed these sentiments, welcoming the additional family homes and car parking spaces.

Councillor Michael Neill, Chair of the Planning Committee, expressed some reservations, noting that the development would change the character of Hayes Lane, but ultimately concluded that this was not enough to refuse the application.

The committee voted to grant planning permission, with eight members in favour and none against.

Blenheim Crescent, South Croydon

The sub-committee considered an application 1 Blenheim Crescent, South Croydon, for the demolition of an existing garage and the erection of a detached two-storey dwelling with associated parking and amenity space.

Planning officer Haniel Li introduced the item, noting that the site is located in an established residential area and that the proposal would make efficient use of land by delivering a small-scale residential development.

Alina Molla, a resident of 32 Blenheim Park Road, spoke in objection to the application, arguing that the proposed dwelling would cause unacceptable harm to her garden due to its height and proximity. She stated that the blank wall of the proposed dwelling would dominate her outlook and create a claustrophobic and oppressive environment.

Brodie Hill, the applicant, spoke in support of the application, stating that it would provide a new family home and improve the street frontage. He argued that the design takes direct inspiration from the distinctive architectural features present locally and that the proposal would optimise the development potential of the site.

Councillor Danielle Denton, the ward councillor, spoke in objection to the application, arguing that it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene, would harm the amenity of neighbouring properties, and would exacerbate parking stress in the surrounding roads.

During the committee's deliberation, Councillor Fish stated that she saw both positives and negatives with the development, expressing concerns about the impact on the amenity space of neighbouring properties. Councillor Fraser supported the application, praising the applicant's initiative to undertake a self-build project and arguing that the proposal would meet housing needs. Councillor Joseph Lee, Deputy Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, expressed concerns about the disruption to the established pattern of development and the potential for setting a precedent for similar infill developments. Councillor Mohammed Islam, Deputy Civic Mayor, supported the application, stating that the design fits well within the surrounding area and that it keeps a reasonable distance from other properties. Councillor Humayun Kabir also supported the application, stating that it met many guidelines and that there was an opportunity to provide more small, affordable homes.

Following the discussion, the committee voted on the officer's recommendation to grant the application. The vote was tied, with three members in favour and three members against. Councillor Michael Neill, Chair of the Planning Committee, used his casting vote against the motion.

A new motion was proposed by Councillor Fish to refuse the application on the grounds of visual intrusion, overbearing impact, and impact on the character of the local area, as well as the absence of a legal agreement to secure the self-build biodiversity net gain exemption². This motion was seconded by Councillor Lee and carried, with three members voting in favour, two members voting against, and one member abstaining.

Land Rear of 30 Northampton Road

The sub-committee was scheduled to consider a retrospective application for the retention of a new house and the erection of a new detached garage and boundary treatment on land to the rear of 30 Northampton Road, fronting onto Carlyle Road. However, the application was withdrawn from consideration because the referring ward councillor withdrew his referral. As a result, the item will now be determined by officers under delegated powers.

Hartley Down, Purley

The sub-committee considered an application for 82 Hartley Down, Purley, for the installation of a balustrade behind the door openings on the second floor, the creation of a first-floor balcony with the installation of obscure glazed screens to both sides, and a balustrade to the rear. The application was partly retrospective, as some of the works had already been carried out.

Planning officer Thomas Wilson introduced the item, outlining the extensive planning history of the property. He explained that the current proposal sought to address previous concerns raised by the council and the Planning Inspectorate regarding overlooking and the impact on the character of the area.

Colin Etheridge, representing the Hartley & District Residents' Association, submitted a written statement in objection to the application. The statement raised concerns about the applicant's poor track record of complying with planning permissions and argued that the permanent solution was to remove the second-floor balcony to prevent overlooking.

Councillor Samir Dwesar, the ward councillor, also submitted a written statement in objection to the application. The statement echoed the concerns raised by the residents' association and argued that the proposal would perpetuate the significant overlooking and loss of privacy experienced by neighbouring residents.

During the committee's deliberation, Councillor Fish welcomed the fact that the applicant was now working with officers and emphasised the necessity of condition one, which required the proposed screening and balustrade to be installed within two months of the date of the permission. Councillor Neill thanked the officers for working diligently with the developer and expressed hope that the enforcement officers would be able to report back with positive results after the two-month period.

The committee voted to grant the application, with five members in favour, no members against, and one abstention.