Independent inspectors and judges at the High Court continue to rule against decisions made by Croydon’s planning department. Yet those making these dubious, developer-friendly decisions remain in place
Unimpressed: the Planning Inspectorate has over-ruled Croydon’s planners repeatedly
Research for Inside Croydon has found at least another 11 planning cases over the last 18 months in which the independent Planning Inspectorate has effectively ruled against the council’s supposedly “professional” planners.
Under senior council director Heather Cheesbrough, planning in Croydon’s dysfunctional council “is all but broken”, according to Jeet Bains, the cabinet member responsible.
And that view appears to be backed up by planning inspectors, who have sat in judgement on appeals brought by developers.
In most of the cases, the profit-hungry developers have had friendly Croydon planning officials provide recommendations that their schemes should go ahead, only to be inconvenienced when the committee of elected councillors then threw out the application.
In eight cases, it turns out that the committee members knew more about planning regs than the council’s planning officials, as the inspector agreed with the councillors and upheld their decisions not to grant planning permission.
In the other three cases, the inspectorate has ruled against Croydon Council on the grounds of “non-determination”, because of an inordinate delay by the planning department in getting around to administer the applications.
Easy touch: some firms of developers have found getting approval in Croydon less of a challenge than in other boroughs
It was the planning department’s failure to process an application to build on open space in Waddon that recently saw the planning inspectorate rule in favour of West Ham United football club owner and property magnate David Sullivan, throwing out the council planners’ feeble arguments.
Then, last month, Inside Croydon reported on how one individual resident had won a four-year planning battle against a developer and the council, when Silverleaf Developments Ltd finally withdrew its appeal to the Planning Inspector.
This planning saga had its beginnings in 2016, and had the council close to being dragged into the High Court because of the way the planning department had mishandled the case. Cheesbrough was spared having to give evidence under oath only when the developers gave up their appeal.
But there have been other expensive legal cases coming cash-strapped Croydon Council’s way.
In January 2020, Croydon’s planners granted planning permission for a “dreadful” five-storey block of 33 flats off Limpsfield Road in Sanderstead, ignoring historic covenants on the land.
More than a thousand residents had objected to the scheme – all duly ignored by Cheesbrough’s “professional” planning team. But when the locals got a legal challenge together, the four-day hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice last November upheld their case that the covenants – which allow only for single homes to be built on the site – should be observed.
‘Prison block’: the council planners granted permission to this ugly block of flats in Sanderstead, despite legal covenants that should have prevented its development
And there will be more Croydon residents at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand next month, when the long-running saga of developers demolishing bungalows on Downsview Road, all with the backing of the council’s planning department, gets a direction hearing.
In this case, the residents claim that one of the existing homes was demolished in 2020, when planning permission was granted to Hambridge Homes without neighbours being properly consulted, with the covid lockdown used as the council’s excuse.
The Downsview residents’ campaign claim that their road is also subject to a restrictive covenant which states, “Not more than one house shall be erected on any one plot.”
One of the campaign organisers said, “We will be challenging Hambridge Homes on this point in court. We have formed a legal team including a barrister and KC to fight and uphold our peace. Downsview Road has already had its fair share of developments with three multi-storey projects. Enough is enough.”
Legal challenge: residents of Downsview Road will be at the High Court next month
The hearing is set to take place on March 24.
Given Cheesbrough’s team’s recent form whenever their handiwork gets checked over by independent organisations, it would be a brave punter who wouldn’t back another defeat for the council.
Steve Whiteside, the former planning official who has been checking the council’s planners’ work over several years, has researched the following cases, from the past 18 months, which after being recommended for approval by planning officers, have been refused by the planning committee and that decision has later been backed by a planning inspector at appeal.
19/06036/FUL 41 Woodcrest Road Purley
Developer: Infinity Homes Group
Refused by Planning Committee 3/6/20
Appeal Dismissed 1/7/21
20/01658/FUL 36 Oakwood Ave Purley
Aventier
Refused by Planning Committee 18/12/20
Appeal Dismissed 14/10/21
20/05370/FUL 5 Smitham Downs Rd Purley
C and H Projects (1A) Ltd
Refused by Planning Committee 1/9/21
Appeal Dismissed 17/8/22
21/00108/FUL 81 The Glade Croydon (just north of A232)
Redbanksia
Refused by Planning Committee 28/10/21
Appeal Dismissed 30/5/22
21/02846/FUL 41 Fairdene Road Coulsdon
New Place Associates
Refused by Planning Committee 24/11/21
Appeal Dismissed 24/11/22
21/01274/FUL 100 Reddown Road Coulsdon
Mac Build Homes Ltd
Refused by Planning Committee 27/01/22
Appeal Dismissed 7/12/22
21/05084/FUL 29 Hollymeoak Road Coulsdon
Carvall Homes
Refused by Planning Committee 10/02/22
Appeal Dismissed 21/10/22
21/01208/FUL r/o 34, A & B Arkwright Road S Croydon
Chartwell Property Group
Refused by Planning Committee 9/5/22
Appeal Dismissed 3/11/22
It is worth noting that only the last case had its planning application refused by the planning committee chaired by Michael Neal, the Conservative councillor installed in that position after Jason Perry was elected Mayor last May. All the others were dismissed by the planning committee when it still had a majority of Labour councillors. So this isn’t because of the “impact” of any political changes at the Town Hall.
And there are three further cases in which the planning inspector has effectively found against Croydon Council’s planners.
These are “non-determination” cases, where the developers got fed up waiting for the planning department to administer their paperwork. These applications never reached the planning committee… so it might have been a bit of a wheeze by the officials in the planning department to by-pass any public scrutiny.
It could also be another sign of where cash-strapped Croydon Council is failing, with just not enough staff to cope with their workload. Croydon is understood to have 19 planners on its staff; nearby Lewisham has a planning staff of 30.
20/06250/OUT 46 Welcomes Road Kenley
Church Hill Holdings
Appeal Allowed 30/3/22
21/01273/OUT 50 Welcomes Road Kenley
Church Hill Holdings
Appeal Allowed 30/3/22
20/06645/FUL Garages r/o 31 – 49 Elmfield Way
8 Daejan Investments Ltd
Appeal Allowed 5/12/22
Whiteside told Inside Croydon, “There is far too much talk from council officials and their legal advisers at planning committee meetings of potential costs at appeal. They often imply that any refusal of permission will make an appeal certain, which it is not, and that the council is also certain to lose its case. Which, of course, is also far from the truth.”
Whiteside has been doggedly pursuing some of these cases for several years.
Five years ago, in January 2018, the planning committee approved what he calls “an atrocious scheme” for developers Aventier at 43 Downsway.
Whiteside wrote to Conservative councillor Lynne Hale (now the Deputy Mayor), and copied in her party colleagues Neal, Yvette Hopley, Maria Gatland and Jason Perry, among others.
All talk, no action: Jason Perry with his Deputy Mayor Lynne Hale
“The problem is, when a planning authority is ‘off the rails’ as this one clearly is, ‘perfectly sound’ planning objections will be countered by ‘clever’ wording in officer reports and misleading officer comment at committee,” Whiteside wrote.
“The only people who can ask the questions [in public] that could make a difference are the councillors who sit on the committee… The Paul Scott Show needs to be shown up for what it is, and perhaps the conduct of his little ‘helpers’ needs to be brought to the attention of the those who regulate their professions.
“I was hoping that councillors would be keen to participate in ‘doing the right thing’ now, especially for the sake of the residents most affected… The reputational risk to the council and its planning officers of continuing their current ‘strategy’ needs to be spelt out as soon as possible.”
Councillor Hale’s complacent comeback was, “I can assure you that we will continue to fully support our residents by speaking at planning committee meetings where we have objected and referred contentious applications.”
Most of those who were in charge of the planning department in 2018 remain in place today.
It is nine months since Perry was elected as executive Mayor, having promised the residents’ associations in the south of the borough, often the most vocal against inappropriate development, to reform this aspect of the council.
At a recent meeting with residents in Waddon, Perry said that there is, “A huge amount of work to be done to get the planning department up to scratch.”
He said that the department is “under-resourced”, and declared that Croydon’s planning department is staffed by “some really great officers”.
The situation then remains, according to Whiteside, unchanged: “All talk, no action.”
Read more: Ex-porn baron strips Croydon’s planners of all arguments
Read more: Council delays and lack of enforcement cause residents misery
Read more: Director of planning’s bogus claim over Institute membership
Read more: Director refuses to admit conflict of interest over South Drive
- Inside Croydon – as seen on TV! – has been delivering local community news since 2010. 3million page views per year in 2020, 2021 and 2022.
- If you want real journalism, actually based in the borough, you should consider paying for it. Please sign up today. Click here for more details
- 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
- Our comments section on every report provides all readers with an immediate “right of reply” on all our content. Our comments policy can be read by clicking here
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
- ROTTEN BOROUGH AWARDS: Croydon was named among the country’s rottenest boroughs for a SIXTH successive year in 2022 in the annual round-up of civic cock-ups in Private Eye magazine
Interesting and relevant article I may have a similar situation
Since SPD2 was abandoned in July 2022 it’s highly unlikely the Planning Inspectorate will uphold appeals by greedy little developers. Their Croydon pay day is over. Croydon will loose substantially fewer Appeals from now on. I’d suggest as much as 80% of Appeals will now not be upheld compared to two years ago.
This has nothing to do with the skills of Heather Cheesbrough. The reverse, in fact. Heather is the immensely naive fool who originally penned SPD2.
If Heather Cheeseburger is as bad as people say, how come she hasn’t been sacked?
Good question Arfur … any ideas?
Maybe HC knows where the bodies are buried.
Quite so Chris … maybe.
As do (maybe) a few others who have tried to run for the hills, only to return with nothing more than a (slightly) different email address, to carry on the ‘good work’.
I think that answer is obvious?
Cheesbrough briefly left about a year ago – until her future employer read IC – Kerswell’s first big mistake was letting her back in again. Cheesbrough is afflicted by a condition that means she positively dislikes the people whose interests she is supposed to protect. That’s an irretrievable situation.
It’s a sort of reverse Stockholm Syndrome.
Kerswell should never have agreed to take her back.
Heather Cheesborough’s supercilious behaviour towards residents has permeated the planning department and the decisions made by her and Nicola Townsend have been damaging for Croydon. It’s no wonder they can’t recruit planners – who would want to come to a department with such a terrible reputation and to have bosses whose conduct has been exposed time and time again? Unless there is a change of leadership at the top of the team, the situation will not change. It would appear from these pages that residents have enough evidence for Perry to justify moving both on.
Kerswell has lost credibility and shown she has been unable to rein in Cheeseborough and Townsend and Perry’s political career will be over very quickly if he too fails to act.
Kerswell should not have been given a full time job. She was brought in to lay people off. Even that she did badly.
“Since SPD2 was abandoned in July 2022 it’s highly unlikely the Planning Inspectorate will uphold appeals by greedy little developers. Their Croydon pay day is over. Croydon will loose substantially fewer Appeals from now on. I’d suggest as much as 80% of Appeals will now not be upheld compared to two years ago.”
In the quarter when SPD2 was ‘repealed’, the percentage of planning appeal successes against Croydon was 17%. The national average is 33%.
In the two quarters since SPD2 was abandoned, the appeal success rate for developers has gone up to, first, 22% and is now 29%.
Developers are currently winning more appeals, not fewer.
Councillor Hale’s complacent comeback was, “I can assure you that we will continue to fully support our residents by speaking at planning committee meetings where we have objected and referred contentious applications.”
Absolutely amazing.
Lets see. How many developments with complaints and objections are not brought before the Council but are decided by delegated authority?
How many developments with complaints and objections decided by delegated authority have records of what was taken into account?
How many of the above were notified to Ms Heather Cheesebrough and Shifa Mustafa and where an investigation was promised by email from Ms Mustgafa and copied to Ms Cheesebrough?
How many of those developments breeched planning regulations but were called a perfectly legal development by the Planning department and the level 1 responded to by Ms Cheesbroughs underling Ms Nicola Townsend?
How many of said developments has Ms Townsend herself allow the discharge of conditions as being met of that same perectly legal development when they patently had not and anyone passing could have seen they had not.
How many allowed residents to receive Parking tickets improperly by a developers actions and then the Councils further actions covering the moving of parking susopended notices with intent and the full knowledge that said residents would receive tickets by that action?
If at any time anyone would like to see the full evidence of that development and both Ms Cheesbroughs and Ms Townsends activities I will be happy to provide the full pictures video and emails. This was also sent to Ms Kerswells office however strangely the executive dealing with the issues moved on and her emails were not able to be accessed – luckily I have them all but strangely Ms Townsend did not want to see them or take them into account.
I am sure she had some very good procedural reasons for that but definitely not a residents interests or even their safety.
One wonders if the decisions had anything to do with the development possibly being used to ease Council housing?
I am still waiting for the FOI’S to be answered and the EQIA to be released but suspect it was never done.
Oh and the Councillors were made aware of this also – not a peep from them!
And that is the tip of the issues – which range from
Building codes not being adhered to
Pollution not being adhered to
Working times not being adhered to
Skips blocking the road without bays being suspended.
7.5t signs being ignored.
Barricading disabled residents cars and blocking them in for over a year
Debris being thown over neighboring properties.
And more
Complacent? That would be the understatement of the Century.
If Ms Townsend or Ms Cheesbrough would ever like to explain the above I am all ears!
“How many developments with complaints and objections are not brought before the Council but are decided by delegated authority?”
First, there is an objection threshold (I think it’s 10 or 12) at which point an application is automatically referred to committee.
Second, most (all?) local Residents Assocations have right of referral to committee and most (all?) use that right with abandon.
Third, a single objection from a ward councillor (usually, I imagine, under pressure from their RA) is enough for referral to committee.
Ergo, few controversial applications (i.e those attracting 12 objections and/ or an RA objection and/ or a councillor objection) are decided by delegated authority and, if/ when they are, it’s because the committee have pushed it back to the dept. because of not getting through all the items on its agendas.
We must remember that shedloads of the stuff we don’t like around here was approved by the ‘Scott committee’.
“How many developments with complaints and objections decided by delegated authority have records of what was taken into account?”
All of them. All decisions come with detailed reports, published online, quoting local, London and national planning policies and how a development conformed with or departed from them.
Most planning decisions are box-ticking excercises, with the main subjective elements being massing, overdevelopment or out of character. The ‘Scott committee’ seemed to have few problems with those three concepts: the ‘Perry committee’ flings them about like confetti.
I find that most requests for FOIA often end up with Sweet FA…
I have a ton of evidence of Heather Cheesborough, Nicola Townsend and Ross Gentry making statements that were untrue or unfounded, unlawfully withholding documents, avoiding FOI requests, allowing the developer to use inaccurate visualisations, waiving policy including mandatory policy and allowing the developer to use a back-dated letter as a Certificate B notice. I also have some letters from the Council (including their solicitor) where they admit to some of this. Perhaps it’s time to compile a dossier for Gove’s office since Kerswell and Perry continue to turn a blind eye to what is going on.
Reports to the relevant professional bodies – who does Cheesbrough claim to be a member of this week? – might be more effective.
I do note that there is a difference between information and evidence.
I have information and even witnesses. But I also ahve video and photographic evidence of actual wrongoing that includes individual Builders taking actions that they denied they were doing and The Developer denied were ever happening.
One video clearly shows both the owner of the Building company and the Developer actually on site witnessing the acts taking place. Another shows the Builder beside the suspension of parking sign removed by him from another location to outside his site and him attempting to use that to prevent people parking in the bay that had not been suspended. Again despite this the Developer had ”no knowledge” of that and has failed to answer since. One can clarly see the sign was from another area as the detail did not relate to that area. in fact the person doing signage confirmed that they had not put up that sign there and the tag was a different colour to what Croydon used.
What was amazing was that on calling his Manager at the Council he was instructed to take the illegal signage down and replace it with appropriate signage and allow the bays to be suspended. This ignored that people were actually parking in those bays and were fined. It also ignored the purpose of signage which was to allow notice to residents to make other arrangements to park and as a warning tha works were being carried out at the area. So on notice was given the Building codes were not adhered to and that was a condition of the planning being granted.
Ms Townsend is clearly listed on the Council website as the officer agreeing the conditions were discharged. It was clear that on that date they had not and in fact 6 months later still had not been met.
I do not know if that is allowed within Ms Townsends role or if she is acting on instructions or even if it is legal.
What I can say very clearly and based on the evidence is that the Planning department in the way it is running is likely not fit for the purpose intended not operating according to what could reasonably be interpreted.
If a conditon is imposed in the granting of planning permission then one can reasonably expect it to be met and enforced.
If a conditon is imposed in the granting of planning permission and it is stated it must be met before building work commences then one can reasonably expect it to be met and enforced.
If a conditon is imposed in the granting of planning permission and it is stated it must be met before occupancy commences then one can reasonably expect it to be met and enforced.
Clearly that is not the case with Croydon Council Planning department in that instance.
Still no light studies being made availalble, still no completion of party wall act – it is actually difficult to find much that was done in the correct way.
All council planners harbour a single dream – that one day in the future they will have a job with a property developer where they will rise up in the company and become a board member.
Sad, really. Property developers want smart, canny, switched on people – not local planners.
“If a conditon is imposed in the granting of planning permission then one can reasonably expect it to be met and enforced.
If a conditon is imposed in the granting of planning permission and it is stated it must be met before building work commences then one can reasonably expect it to be met and enforced.
If a conditon is imposed in the granting of planning permission and it is stated it must be met before occupancy commences then one can reasonably expect it to be met and enforced.
Clearly that is not the case with Croydon Council Planning department in that instance.”
Surprisingly, planning enforcement is not a statutory duty of councils – it’s not something they are obliged to do and it’s discretionary.
Unsurprisingly, when a council is short staffed, under resourced and overloaded, planning enforcement is one of the things that slides.
It might be – but I do think Wayne has a point. Perhaps we should all complile a dossier of all the wrongdoings and take it to Gove as a type of class action complaint against Croydon Councils failings. It would at least shine a light on the regulations governing Local Councils activities and whether they in themselves are git for purpose?
Perhaps Mr Gove might take a dim view of those antic’s and feel that a tightening of regulations may assist – which it would.
But if it is a big enough pot of information and evidence it would be difficult for him to ignore and may also generate unwanted publicity like the Housing and again those actions would be curtailed?
Gove would do nothing. Why would he? Far better to smile sweetly, take your document and then file it, probably in the same cabinet Barwell used for cladding warnings, never to be seen again.
Complaints to professional bodies could get the individuals concerned struck off if the case against them is proved.
They could, IF the professional body would investigate.
But if you’re looking to the Royal Town Planning Institute to help you out here, I suspect you may be disappointed.
Tried that, only to find that the RTPI has LOTS of reasons why they can’t (or just won’t) look into pretty much anything, to do with Croydon Council.
I agree, the problem often, is the Governing Bodies actually acting and striking members off. If members are sacked ,as well, often the lucrative pensions become affected together with job prospects. Realistically the press is very effective, as is seen with the excellent IC.
I concur with the posters above. The planning department are turning a blind eye to a developer in Councillor Hale’s own ward, who is adding extra overlooking windows during construction contrary to any approved plans. They claim they have visited the site, and there is no window-shaped hole, we must be imagining it. They can’t produce an approved plan that shows the extra windows, so have now just resorted to ignoring our emails completely. No doubt they’ll just give it planning retrospectively.
Yep that has been my experience
And of course Heather, there’s ‘retrospective’ and then there’s …
‘Croydon retrospective’!
Take 28 Grasmere Road for example.
There’s an outstanding application (19/02898/DISC) to discharge PRE-COMMENCEMENT conditions dating back to June 2019. The application was ‘not approved’ in February 2020.
The developer appealed and that appeal was dismissed in December 2020 with regard to conditions 4(landscaping) and 5 (sustainable drainage). There has been nothing added on the website since that Appeal Decision.
That’s 50 months and counting ….
There’s also a planning application (20/02911/CONR) from July 2020, which will HAVE to be treated as a retrospective application, since by the time it was submitted the development was substantially complete. But apart from the one plan (in Feb 2021) and some consultee comments (in Feb 2022) there has been no movement on the website since December 2020.
That’s 43 months and counting …!
According to the Council’s website Building Regulations for this development were signed off in October 2020. According to Land Registry, all the flats had been sold by June 2021.
In April 2022, Heather Cheesbrough told an adjoining owner that the applicant was “…still in breach of these latter two conditions, which they are trying to resolve through the current application reference 20/02911/CONR. …”
In July 2022 Eddie Adamczyk (Team Leader Planning Enforcement & Trees Team) told the neighbour “At the moment I am awaiting a formal decision on the planning application. … It is against normal natural justice that the developer not be given a chance to see if the planning proposal can be considered acceptable. …. I am sure that my colleagues will expedite matters and a formal recommendation be made to the Council’s Planning Committee in the near future, dependant upon resources available”.
We’re still waiting … The developer meanwhile has gone into liquidation!
Why is the current Conservative-led administration unwilling to do what former mayoral candidate Pelling said he would do if elected: remove the current head of planning?
Is it now the intention for Conservative-favoured developers to have their planning applications waived through?
Have you watched a planning committee since May? Looked at the delegated business list? Huge amounts being refused now, especially at committee.
Labour Councillors still sit at committee voting for these schemes. It’s bonkers. At least Paul Scott had the common sense to pretend to be a NIMBY in opposition.
But that proves my point. Many of these applications shouldn’t even reach the planning committee IF the process was being dealt with wholly objectively and impartially in accordance with the planning laws and regulations.
Croydon Tax Payers must be paying upwards of a quarter of a million pounds for Heather Cheesborough and Nicola Townsend’s salaries and generous pensions before any of the costs of their disastrous management of the planning are accounted for.
In other news, Croydon Taxpayers are facing a 15% increase in Council Tax.