Planning Refusals Welcomed by Joint Planning Committee

The Residents Associations  Joint Planning Committee is pleased that the planners have refused a number of applications.

3 Covington Way. Erection of gable end roof extensions and dormer extensions in rear roof slope.  Reason:

‘The development would detract from the appearance and fail to respect the character of the host building, would harm the architectural rhythm of the houses and the spaces between them and would be detrimental to the amenities of the street scene by reason of dominance, siting and design …’

Lidl Store, 1 Hermitage Lane

Illuminated freestanding sign

Reason(s) for refusal :-

  1. The advertisement would compromise road safety and would also be detrimental to the visual amenities of local residents by reason of size and prominent siting.

1355-1357 London Road

(a)    Installation of plant equipment and shopfront.  Reason:

The security shutters would harm the host building’s frontage and character of the street scene

(b)   Illuminated fascia sign and window signs. Reason:

‘The number, size and location of the advertisements would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene…’

1581 London Road. Erection of single storey rear extension.  Reason:

‘The development would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining property by reason of its size and siting resulting in loss of light and visual intrusion …’

44-46 Norbury Crescent. Alterations; conversion to form 9 two bedroom flats; demolition of single storey rear extensions and construction of two storey rear extension with roof accommodation over and basement under.  Reason:

  1. The proposal would not respect or positively respond to the character, scale and original integrity of the host building and surrounding area, does not represent high-quality design, would be an overdevelopment of the site and would be detrimental to the appearance of the host building and surrounding area by reason of its design, size, massing and siting…
  2. The development would be detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining occupiers by reason of visual intrusion, dominance, loss of daylight/sunlight, noise disturbance and loss of privacy…
  3. The development would result in sub-standard accommodation for new occupiers by reason of insufficient light, outlook and privacy and poor quality communal external amenity space…’

150 Norbury Crescent. Erection of single/two storey rear extension. Reason:

‘The development would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining property by reason of its size and siting resulting in visual intrusion …’

This property has a complicated planning history which the Joint Planning Committee is trying to grapple with, as the developer keeps submitting new applications.

84 Northborough Road. Erection of dormer extension in rear roof slope. Reasons:

‘1.    The development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Norbury Estate Conservation Area, …

  1. The development would be out of keeping with the character of the locality and detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene by reason of its scale, design and prominent siting,…’

61 Norton Gardens. Alterations; erection of single storey rear extension, hip to gable and dormer extension in rear roof slope with Juliet balcony and conversion to form 2 two bedroom flats. Reasons:

‘1.    The development would result would result in the loss of a small house …

  1. The development would result in sub-standard accommodation by reason of inadequate floor area and unsatisfactory layouts…
  2. The hip to gable and rear dormer roof extension extension would be detrimental to the appearance of the property and the character and visual amenity of the area by reason of its excessive size and siting and would not respect or improve the existing pattern of buildings and the spaces between them…’

37 Ryecroft Road. Erection of gable end roof extension with dormer roof extension. Reason:

‘The development would harm the character of the host property and would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area …’

62 Ryecroft Road. Demolition of existing garage; erection of two storey side/rear extension with dormer extension in rear roof slope. Reason:

‘The development would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene by reason of its scale, design, bulk and mass and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area…’

Advertisements

About seancreighton1947

Since moving to Norbury in July 2011 I have been active on local economy issues with Croydon TUC and Croydon Assembly, and am a member of the latter's Environment Forum. I am a member of the 5 Norbury Residents Associations Joint Planning Committee, and a Governor of Norbury Manor Primary School. I write for Croydon Citizen at http://thecroydoncitizen.com. I co-ordinate the Samuel Coleridge-Taylor and Croydon Radical History Networks and advise the North East People's History Project.. I give history talks and lead history walks. I retired in 2012 having worked in the community/voluntary sector and on heritage projects. My history interests include labour movement, mutuality, Black British, slavery & abolition, Edwardian roller skating and the social and political use of music and song. I have a particular interest in the histories of Battersea and Wandsworth, Croydon and Lambeth. I have a publishing imprint History & Social Action Publications.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s