Council Issues Enforcement Notice on 32 Pollards Hill North

Back in November 2015 the Council refused planning permission to retain a single storey rear extension. The applicant appealed. The Planning Inspector rejected the appeal in April this year.

For the Inspector the main issue was ‘the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbours.’

The property is a two storey home in a residential area.

‘The fall of the land is such that the end of the extension is in a markedly elevated position and a balcony has been added which is not referred to on the submitted plans.’

The Council was ‘concerned that the development is detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining property by reason of its size and siting resulting in loss of light, visual intrusion and loss of outlook. This type of extension is limited under Council policies to a projection of 3 metres. ‘The combined projection of the latest works attached to previous extension would be 5.8 metres using the Appellant’s figures.’ The ‘scale of the appeal proposal’ is ‘a step too far’  in the opinion of the Inspector. ‘The proximity, projection distance and height of this edifice in relation to the two rear facing windows and patio area of the neighbouring semi-detached property is such that there would be unacceptable loss of daylight and outlook. I would deem the ‘blinkering’ effect to be most unneighbourly and unacceptable in residential amenity terms.’

The Inspector concluded that  the appeal scheme would run contrary to Council planning policies and the London Plan which seek to protect ‘residential amenity for people living alongside development.

The Inspector considered that ‘the scheme would represent very unfortunate design’; ‘it does not reflect the existing development pattern and visual character of these dwellings.’  In ‘terms of balcony type and location and the extension’s scale, massing, fenestration, projection and consequent elevation which is an alien box like adjunct.’

He did however point to misunderstandings between the Council and the applicant.

As a result the Council issued an Enforcement Notice under Section 172 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 ‘because of the breach of planning control has occurred within the last four years.’ ‘The development is detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining property by reason of its size and siting resulting in loss of light, visual intrusion and loss of outlook.’

The JPC is asking when action will be taken to ensure compliance with the notice.

The full appeal decision can be seen at


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 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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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