Planning committee report from Cllr Tim Pollard
Tonight I spoke at Croydon's Planning Committee against another dreadfully out-of-context block of flats, proposed to replace a pair of semis on Addington Road just beyond the McCarthy & Stone development. What was proposed is too dense, but also in a design which is totally out of keeping. As per usual, the Labour-controlled committee pretended to be almost convinced it should refuse or defer, only then to fall into line and vote the proposal through.
The four Conservative committee members all voted against, but were outvoted.
The image shows how badly the new block fits it with the hundreds of surrounding properties, all with traditional pitched roofs.
For the record, below is what I said to committee......
I’ve heard the suggestion from time to time that Conservative councillors object to everything in their ward. It is a long way from true, and proof of this is that the Sanderstead councillors supported the development next door to this one, Atwood House.
Why did we support that one, but not this one? Well, Atwood House was sympathetically designed to fit in with the Sanderstead villagescape and not be excessively dominant. It looked broadly similar to the dwellings around it and now it is built you barely notice the change.
What a contrast with this design. There’s nothing particularly wrong with this design, in the right context. Place it next to East Croydon Station and you may well feel it is an attractive addition to the streetscape. But this isn’t East Croydon, it is Sanderstead, and the location is within eyeshot of one of the key historic buildings of the area, All Saints Church.
In this context the proposed building is quite simply a carbuncle. It would be the only building in the area not to try to fit in. It almost flaunts its unsuitability. It is massive – much taller than Atwood House and much more bulky. Its boxy, flat roofed design is totally out of character with everything around it and particularly with the 800-year-old church. The street elevation available in the online portal clearly shows how out of context this design is.
It is also very dense – much more so than recommended in the London Plan for an area with such low PTAL. As an apparently 100% affordable site it is likely to attract mainly families, so could well accommodate 20-30 children. Because of its density there is very little amenity space and it seems to have learned nothing from the lessons of the current pandemic. I would not wish to have to endure lockdown with 19 other families in such a confined space, should we face another pandemic in the future.
There is also no doubt that it will result in a significant loss of privacy to its immediate neighbours
I cannot deny that this site is a viable development site. But this is the wrong development for the site – too large, too tall, too dense and most importantly, too out of character.
So I would ask the committee to reject this design and suggest to the developer that a more sympathetic and modest scheme is needed here.