The way we were: the family house at 158 Purley Downs Road, before the developers sent in the bulldozers, and despite the demands of planning conditions
STEVE WHITESIDE on the developing (geddit?) saga of a house-builder who manages to ignore planning conditions laid down by elected councillors, thanks to some considerable assistance being provided by council staff
The sad saga of 158 Purley Downs Road, where the demolition of a family home by a developer has gone ahead without key conditions laid down by the borough’s planning committee being met – or even close to being met – is an object lesson in how the council’s professional planners seem to go out of their way to assist some development firms.
What is happening at 158 Purley Downs Road, and with so many other developments, is not just about the perverse and unprofessional behaviour of certain council officials. It clearly goes much deeper than that, into places that even the Mayor’s promised “major transformation programme” will never reach… even if it were to try.
Before the original building could be demolished, there were four “pre-commencement (including demolition)” conditions that needed to be “discharged”, in the jargon of the council planning department. One of those was the “levels” condition, which had been added by councillors at the planning committee which considered the application.
The first application by the developers (22/01027/DISC) to discharge Condition 18, relating to the levels, sparked a 128-signature petition, which listed some of the many significant and material changes to what had been approved by the committee.
Plans that don’t fit: part of the objection papers submitted to council planners which demonstrated that the developers’ scheme could not fit on the site
Among other things, there were obvious changes to the site layout and introduction of substantial retaining walls, as well as the implied changes to the street elevations and confirmation (to those who chose to look) that some of the housing units to be built would not have the promised step-free access.
It was highlighted that the developers’ “red line site boundary” was not accurate and that the site wasn’t as large as had been made out. The development, as approved, just wouldn’t fit.
The MP, Chris Philp, councillor Lynne Hale and the Sanderstead Residents’ Association were among those who objected. All agreed that the applicant should be told to submit a new planning application to be determined in the proper manner.
The council planning official handling this case was Demetri Prevatt. In his report, he agreed that at least some of the matters raised in the objections were relevant to his consideration of the application.
When we had previously objected on similar applications, high-handed officials had usually told us that, “Objections hold no material planning weight on discharge of conditions”.
On September 30 last year, the application to discharge the planning conditions was “not approved”.
The decision notice said: “The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the plans include changes from the planning permission.” Our italics. Because this kind of stuff is important.
“The applicant is encouraged to engage with the Local Planning Authority through the pre-application service to discuss the way forward with regards these changes.”
We never found out if the applicant did “engage” with the council, or if officers provided any advice on “the way forward”.
What we do know is that the second attempt (22/04457/DISC) to discharge the levels condition was handled very differently by Prevatt and his bosses at the council planning department.
On October 24, a single drawing was submitted by the developers’ representatives as they sought council approval for their designs. The drawing showed the same, very feint (existing) ground levels and scattering of proposed finished ground levels, but the site layout was back to that which had been approved and the locations of retaining walls were no longer shown.
The red line site boundary remained, as inaccurate as ever.
Red lines in planning applications are just that – red lines that must not be crossed. The red line is supposed to include all land necessary to carry out the proposed development, such as land required for access to the site from a public highway, visibility splays, landscaping, car parking and open areas around buildings. So if a developer and their agents get this wrong, you’d really expect the experts in the planning department to notice, and do something about it.
On the level?: more diagrams submitted with the objections to the application to the planning conditions, which showed that the developers’ scheme could be more than 30ft higher than had been approved by the planning committee
In this October re-submission, the levels information indicated that retaining structures of up to two metres high would be required, to hold up the neighbouring properties if nothing else.
This time Prevatt decided that, “As ensuring accessibility and M4(2)/M4(3) compliance were not included as reasons for the subject condition, such matters are not material considerations in the assessment of the subject application”, and “details on retaining walls are not material to the assessment of the subject application”.
Had Prevatt been got at?
This barely altered application, with inaccurate site boundaries, was pushed through by the council planning department on February 2, along with the other remaining pre-commencement condition relating to tree protection, about which there had also been concerns raised. Planning officials had thus ignored perfectly valid objections and given a green light for the latest demolition job.
Strict rules: but the council’s guidelines, based on national planning law, appear to be ignored by developers, without the planning department taking any action
Yet a week before the planning department formally approved the start of demolition at 158, representatives of the developer had gone door-knocking at adjoining properties to tell the owners that demolition was due to start “immediately”.
In fact, the developer has a legal duty to submit a demolition notice – a Section 80 notice – and method statement to the council at least six weeks before the work was due to start. The developer should by law have given a copy of that to the owners and occupiers of “any building adjacent to the building”.
That notification to the neighbours hadn’t arrived.
Some of those living nearby made repeated attempts to get hold of the legal paperwork, either directly from council officials or through their ward councillors and MP.
Croydon Council’s “private sector housing team” (shown on the authority’s website as the contact point for those wishing to carry out any demolition works) told residents on January 25, “The planning team authorises the notices and we issue them out.”
On February 11, I wrote to Councillor Leila Ben Hassel, the deputy chair of the planning committee which had applied various conditions to the planning application for 158 Purley Downs Road, conditions which the council’s planning team were allowing the developers to ignore, such as Condition 18 on levels.
“What the information provided in order to discharge Condition 18 demonstrated was that (the approved) ‘streetscenes’ were inaccurate and would need to be revised, and that the proposals would not be step-free and that in approving them the council again failed to comply with its Public Sector Equality Duty,” I wrote.
“On behalf of the residents who would be most affected by this particular development, and those who could or would suffer similar detriment in the future if current practices within development management are allowed to continue, I ask that you urgently find the time to review this case.”
I wrote to Councillor Ben Hassel again on February 13, providing her with a copy of what I had sent to Harp and Harp, the Sutton-based architects working for the developers on the scheme.
This included irrefutable evidence to show that the development site as approved by the planning committee relies on pieces of land that the developer does not own.
On message: council director Heather Cheesbrough uses elected councillors to deliver her communications to residents
Later that day, after three weeks of chasing by residents, ward councillors Hale and Yvette Hopley relayed a message from Heather Cheesbrough, the council’s planning director (that’s how it works in Croydon).
“I have spoken to Nick Gracie-Langrick in Environmental Health who is responsible for the S80/81 processes,” Cheesbrough had told the councillors.
“He has informed me that the developer has submitted the S80 Notice and fee on February 7 and Environmental Health responded with the S81 Notice.”
It wasn’t until the following day, February 14, however, that a S80 notice and method statement finally arrived with neighbours, as is required by planning law. The notice was dated January 31 (not February 7, as Cheesbrough had claimed), with the method statement dated February 6. The notice was unsigned.
Does anyone really think that this was actually prepared and submitted by the developer?
On February 16, Councillor Ben Hassel responded, telling me that “disputes over site boundaries are not planning matters but civil matters”, thereby completely missing the point.
The councillor explained that she would need “to do more work on comparing minutes/amended conditions approved at committee with what is now being set out for discharge by the local authority” and that she would get back to me once she had been able to “review original/revised conditions in more detail”.
Harp practice: architects Steven and Kayleigh Harp, whose designs for seven houses appear to exceed the size of the site
More than two months later, we have heard nothing from her.
February 16 saw the start of demolition, with the majority of the house torn down by February 22. That demolition was in breach of planning Condition 8, which required tree protection to be in place, prompting the third complaint to be submitted to planning enforcement.
I suspect that the council’s procedures over demolition is deliberately shambolic. They can’t really be so incompetent, can they? I also suspect that demolition just “happens”, as far as Croydon Council officials are concerned, with or without the planning conditions being met.
While all that had been going on, and while they waited for Councillor Ben Hassel to get back to them, residents had been making their own comparisons of what was approved at committee with what is now being allowed by council planning officials.
Using the existing and proposed levels approved to discharge Condition 18, it was shown that the street elevations relied upon by officers in February 2022 were in fact a fabrication!
While the street elevations presented to committee last year showed the difference in level between neighbouring property 1 North Down and the proposed Block A as being around 2.2metres, according to the levels now approved, that difference would actually be 4.0metres.
What this fabrication has done was to help conceal the lack of subservience of Block B to Block A. In reality, the two ridges of Block B would be around 1.5metres higher than those of Block A.
At committee, Councillor Ben Hassel had been correct – there would be no subservience here, just the opposite in fact.
On March 1, Mayor Jason Perry passed on to neighbours a letter he had received from the head of development management, Nicola Townsend (that’s how it works in Croydon). The letter is dated January 25 – just a day after the developer knocked on the neighbours’ doors.
Getting kinky: objectors found plenty of evidence that the developers’ plans were inaccurate and not what had been approved by councillors on the planning committee
The letter says, “Section 80 notices fall outside the remit of the planning team and are administered by the environmental health team. Yet on that very same day, January 25, an environmental health officer had told residents, “The planning team authorises the notices and we issue them out.”
They can’t both be right.
What the discharge of Condition 18 provided was an opportunity for anyone (including council officials) willing to take a proper look at all the information available, to see that some of the previously approved drawings were inaccurate and that the proposals would not be step-free.
My own objection had concluded: “Time after time, the council has approved development that does not provide the inclusivity required by the adopted development plan and the council has thereby repeatedly failed to comply with its Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in this regard.
“This needs to stop!”
But it hasn’t stopped. The planners haven’t stopped, and it seems quite obvious that they haven’t been told to stop.
Senior planning official Richard Freeman had advised the planning committee and others watching: “…we have got an existing street scene and we have got a proposed street scene. These are submitted as drawings for approval and if they are inaccurate then that’s something which the developer needs to bear responsibility for…
“Ultimately if the developers have submitted the wrong information that they have got a permission which they can’t implement or significantly wrong information then that’s a risk which they need to run.”
It is now evident, that the developer in this case did submit the wrong information, and that the council’s professional planning officials are now helping them evade that “responsibility” and avoid any such “risk”.
Despite their acceptance of the relevance of our objections, council officials have gone on to discharge key, pre-commencement (including demolition) conditions in the full knowledge that the documents submitted conceal multiple changes to the proposals shown to the planning committee.
Croydon Council staff have thereby regularised what ought to have been unlawful demolition and condoned the implementation of a scheme that they know to be in breach of adopted planning policy and guidance.
Particularly concerning is the continuing disregard for accessibility and inclusivity, as outlined in Policy D5 of the 2021 London Plan.
On the basis of the information provided and approved in the discharge of Condition 18, at least four of the seven houses proposed to be built on the site will not meet access requirements. This is neither inclusive nor sustainable design.
Residents still wait for news from their elected representatives, Councillors Leila Ben-Hassel (Labour) and Lynne Hale (Conservative), about what they have done with the important information they hold and what happened at their meeting with officials.
Meanwhile on site at 158 Purley Downs Road, the works are allowed to continue. That’s how it works in Croydon.
Read more: How the council’s planners help developers dodge conditions
Read more: Suspicions over secrecy surrounding Slominski’s return
Read more: Council in cover-up over planning’s husband and wife act
Read more: Director of planning’s bogus claim over Institute membership
- 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
- Inside Croydon works together with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as well as BBC London News and ITV London
