After nearly a decade of profit-hungry developers being allowed to build too-small flats in too-large blocks in Croydon’s leafy suburbs, a government official has finally pointed out that this does nothing to help the housing crisis. By BARRATT HOLMES
Out of order: how the Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal for overdevelopment on Hartley Down
Residents in Purley are this week celebrating a minor victory in their constant struggle with profit-hungry developers, after the government’s independent Planning Inspector dismissed an appeal against the rejection of planning permission for a five-storey block of flats on Hartley Down.
Even the developer’s belated offer to make the vast building have a “Tudorbethan” appearance (yep, they really did use that word) was not enough to sway Inspector DR McCreery.
But the Inspector’s findings might offer some support and solace for those residents, and their residents’ associations, in their continuing campaigns against the developer-friendly council’s planning department and the destruction of their suburban streets and neighbourhoods, block by block.
The Inspector found that the proposed nine-flat block failed to meet several of Croydon Council’s own planning policies and London housing policies – raising the very reasonable observation that the same could be applied to dozens of similar recent developments which have been waved through by the council’s planning department without any hindrance.
“The scale of development proposed in this instance would lead to demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the surroundings,” states the Inspector’s report on the scheme proposed for 6 Hartley Down by Buxworth Homes.
“As such, I do not regard the proposal to represent appropriate densification.”
Five-storey behemoth: the architects might hide their monster block behind mature trees, but nothing can mask its ugliness
In July 2020, Buxworth had sought – and paid for – pre-app planning advice from the council.
They wanted the planners onside for their money-spinning scheme to demolish the existing modest bungalow and erect a block of nine flats – three one-beds, four two-beds and two three-bed room homes – and with undercroft access to parking at the rear. By proposing only nine flats, the developers had no legal requirement to include any less-profitable “affordable housing” in their scheme.
In October that year, the council planners provided a 14-page advice note, most of which was simply a regurgitation of the relevant planning policies, or details of the additional information that would need to be submitted before the council could possibly make an informed decision.
According to one member of HADRA, the Hartley and District Residents’ Association, who has been following the case closely, “To be honest, I can’t believe developers stump up a grand or two for this twaddle.
“But I’m sure planning officers are much more helpful during the unrecorded meetings which aren’t subject to possible FoI requests.”
A planning application was eventually submitted in December 2020 for nine flats in “a three-storey building with accommodation within the basement and within the roof area”. By which they actually meant a five-storey behemoth.
This attracted lots of local objections, including from HADRA and Croydon South MP Chris Philp.
And, unusually, the council planning department issued a refusal notice in March 2021.
“Straight refusal, didn’t even go to Planning Committee,” the local said, sounding just a tad surprised.
Hence the appeal to the Planning Inspectorate in May last year.
In November, Buxworth submitted a revised planning application, reducing the proposal to eight slightly less-pokey flats.
Rearview horror: the developers claimed this was a three-storey block. The rear elevation clearly shows five storeys, on a street where existing homes are never more than two storeys
HADRA submitted further representations to both.
“Put simply, the proposed building is too big, offers poor quality accommodation and is detrimental to immediate neighbours and the local street scene,” they said.
The revised application was withdrawn in December 2021, and this week, the Inspector provided his ruling on the failings of the proposal.
The ruling may yet be parroted back at Croydon’s planning department every time that they try to approve similar over-large blocks in suburban streets.
“Considering all the evidence put forward, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area,” the Inspector said. “Consequently, there is conflict with the development plan, specifically Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Local Plan which require high-quality proposals that are respectful in terms of scale, height and massing.”
Elsewhere, McCreery noted, “The proposed development… would not result in an acceptable housing mix or living conditions for future occupants.”
The Inspector took into account the Paul Scott mantra about there being a housing crisis, but McCreery is clearly not in such thrall to developers, and their architects, as has been the most unpopular councillor in a very unpopular council.
“The benefits,” of building nine small flats on the site of a former single family home, “do not come at any cost,” the Inspector wrote.
Raising an issue which Councillor Scott managed to ignore for the six years he chaired the planning committee, the Inspector noted, “There is a balance to be struck and a line after which appropriate site optimisation and densification becomes materially harmful.
“In the case of the proposal, the benefits do not provide material considerations that would outweigh the conflict with the development plan.”
Perhaps most importantly, what the Inspector’s report said next effectively tears up the informal pact that Scott and the Croydon planning department have had with certain developers over the last eight years, of giving a green light to block after block of nine under-sized flats.
Overshadowing: the before (top) and after view of the impact the building would have on its neighbours, which the Inspector said was a ‘significantly larger structure’
“Policy SP2.7 of the Local Plan,” the Inspector points out, “sets a target for 30per cent of all new homes to have three or more bedrooms… The target should not be applied unthinkingly, however if all proposals fell short without justification, then it would never be met and the policy would be severely undermined…
“I do not accept the argument at face value that under-provision in this instance makes little difference in the wider context of the policy as other proposals would make up for it, either presently or into the future.”
Only two of the nine flats on this Hartley Down site was to have three bedrooms.
Of the four, small two-bed flats proposed, one was barely larger than some one-bedroom flats, at a mere 68.5sqm – generous, perhaps, for a rabbit hutch, but a long way short of what should be acceptable for a family home.
Wrong move: the Hartley Down block – without any of the promised Tudorbethan touches – did nothing to help fix the housing crisis
The proposed building, the Inspector found, “would be seen to rise significantly above the neighbouring bungalow with a substantial portion sitting forwards of the front building line of it. As such, the building would … be perceived as a significantly larger structure than others in the surroundings…
“The combination of the height and mass of the front and side elevations, as seen in the views described, would result in a built development of excessive perceived scale. It would be seen to dominate the surroundings in a fashion that would have a negative and harmful effect on the suburban character of the area.”
Not that the residents of Hartley Down are getting out their bunting for a street party just year.
HADRA’s Lucia Briault told Inside Croydon, “Our peaceful suburbs remain under attack from greedy developers.
“There’s another block of flats being built a few doors up at No22. Buxworth Homes are still devising more schemes, including one to replace two bungalows a few doors down with two sizeable blocks of flats. At least Buxworth are not trying to circumvent the affordable housing contribution by bringing forward the two sites separately.
“We’re not ‘Nimbys’. We desperately want new homes to be built locally for our children and grandchildren.
“But we also want the infrastructure improvements that need to accompany rapid population growth.
“What we object to more than anything is the preponderance of ‘luxury’ flats which no one except rich investors can afford to buy, leaving future generations caught in an unenviable trap: paying rent that’s higher than the mortgage payments would be, as well as uncontrolled management charges on top.
“There’s a reason they call these new builds ‘fleecehold’.”
Figures on Zoopla give the buy-to-let investor’s game away. A typical three-bed semi in Purley might cost around £600,000, which would require mortgage payments of about £1,500 per month (if you can get a mortgage that’s 10-to-15 times your salary).
But if you wanted to rent the very same house, Zoopla estimates that it will cost £1,800 per calendar month.
And meanwhile, Croydon Council’s delivery of homes for social rent has been miserably poor, providing little help to end the housing crisis.
Briault said, “Flooding the market with expensive flats for sale or private rent will not drive down the price of houses.
“Demand for suburban houses with gardens is increasing in our post-lockdown world, and while developers are still willing to pay over the market price for sites with potential for development, so there are proportionally fewer and fewer houses available and their price continues to rise.”
Read more: Buyers beware: High Court judge puts planners in the dock
Read more: Director of planning’s bogus claim over Institute membership
Read more: Developers given free rein from a council with no controls
Read more: Objections? What objections? Opposition? What opposition?
- If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, or want to publicise your residents’ association or business, or if you have a local event to promote, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network- Inside Croydon works together with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as well as BBC London News and ITV London
- Inside Croydon: 3.3million page views in 2021. Seen by 1.6million unique visitors in that 12-month period
This application looked optimistic from the get go, as it is really quite tight site indeed. Although, who knows, a couple of years ago it may have got through.
The flats at 22 Hartley Down aren’t really comparable as the site is much more generous and screened (currently) from the road.
As I’ve said here before, I sense the planning sentiment in Croydon is shifting away from flats – except for around the more unlovely vistas adj. railway lines and arterial roads – towards houses.
A few doors down from No. 6, another bungalow was gobbled up and the land now sports two pairs of semis that aren’t bad at all and make much better use of a site that was oversized for its previous occupant.
The No. 6 site in question might well stand a terrace of three similar houses that would offer more appropriate housing and sit better in the local context. Not that the RA wouldn’t object to that either.
Lucia remarks: “Buxworth Homes are still devising more schemes, including one to replace two bungalows a few doors down with two sizeable blocks of flats”.
I guess this means from No. 6 back towards Reedham railway bridge, and adj. to the new semis.
I agree that flats here would be too much, yet a row of houses similar to the new ones – and replacing what isn’t the greatest looking stretch of properties – would be fine IMHO and add value and good habitable space to the area.
Which leads me to where I think the RAs (and Chris Philp, admittedly our least worst MP yet) are getting things wrong. (I will use HADRA as an example, but they’re all the same).
First, HADRA sends out emails objecting to new applications and linking to its website, where it has long blog posts detailing its issues with any given project. It also recommends that residents template these issues as letters of objection to the LBC.
The problem is that the vast majority of what it posits as objections aren’t actually valid in planning terms, and they are so much white noise. If it disciplined itself to focus on actual, legitimate planning objections, it – and other parties – might gain more traction.
Second, it seems that the RAs , and Chris Philp, object to absolutely everything. I mean EVERYTHING and Chris in particular gives the impression that he thinks the south of the borough should be totally exempt from any development.
Lucia states: ““We’re not ‘Nimbys’. We desperately want new homes to be built locally for our children and grandchildren”.
But I can’t see that HADRA’s track record in planning supports this, as I think it has objected to every single housing scheme yet – regardless of whether flats OR houses. Every. Single. One.
Like IC’s other loyal reader, Sebastian Tillinger, I have read SDP2 and bits of it strike me as rather OK – especially the idea of sprinkling small, discreet developments of four to six houses into what are often ludicrously oversized (and no doubt hugely underused) back gardens.
These would provide good accommodation, three bedrooms or above; are less likely to be snaffled by speculative investors; usually come with their own parking and don’t impact upon the existing streetscapes.
If HADRA were to support these (it doesn’t), or at least not complain (it does), it would perhaps further encourage the council and developers away from flats and towards useful family units that don’t impact the locale anywhere near as negatively and promote the very community the RA aims to protect.
Your method of explaining is so well I m so impressed keep providing in future