Site icon Inside Croydon

Council’s planners lose multiple cases at appeal and in court

insidecroydon

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


Exit mobile version