The Croydon Planning Committee met on Thursday, 15 January 2026, to discuss a pre-application for redevelopment at Trinity School and a planning application for a new dwelling at the rear of 164 Pampersett Road. The committee resolved to refuse the planning application for the dwelling at 164 Pampersett Road due to concerns over its scale, massing, and detrimental impact on the street scene.

Trinity School Redevelopment (Pre-Application)

The committee received a presentation on the proposed redevelopment of Trinity School, which aims to expand its facilities and transition to co-educational learning. Key discussions revolved around the balance between enhanced educational and community facilities and the loss of staff accommodation, the proposed site layout and design, and the provision of car parking. While officers supported the principle of the development, noting the benefits of improved educational facilities, they highlighted policy transgressions regarding the loss of staff accommodation. Concerns were raised by councillors about the scale, massing, and architectural expression of the new buildings, particularly the sixth form block, and the adequacy of the proposed car parking and traffic management. The committee acknowledged the extensive pre-application engagement and the design evolution following feedback from the Design Review Panel and officers. However, further refinement was deemed necessary regarding architectural details, materiality, and a comprehensive transport assessment. The committee agreed that the benefits of the enhanced facilities outweighed the loss of staff accommodation, supported the overall site layout and design approach in principle, and acknowledged the proposed car parking provision, while noting the need for further work on traffic management and sustainable transport.

Land to the Rear of 164 Pampersett Road, South Croydon (Planning Application)

The committee considered a planning application for a two-storey detached three-bedroom dwelling with accommodation in the roof space and a basement level at the land to the rear of 164 Pampersett Road. This site has a history of refused applications and dismissed appeals, primarily due to concerns over scale, massing, and character.

Decision: The committee resolved to refuse the application.

Reasons for Refusal:

• Scale and Massing: Despite a nominal reduction in height, the committee found that the proposed dwelling, particularly with its rear dormer, remained overly dominant and detrimental to the character and appearance of Barnard's Place, a low-density cul-de-sac of two-storey detached houses. The rear dormer was considered to make the building appear larger and bulkier, akin to an extra storey, negatively impacting the outlook for neighbouring properties at numbers 1 and 3 Barnard's Place.
• Impact on Street Scene and Neighbours: The close proximity of the proposed dwelling to number 1 Barnard's Place, with a gap of only two metres, was considered uncharacteristic of the area and created a cramped and intrusive form of development. The committee also expressed significant concerns about the adequacy of the five-metre parking depth at the front of the property. They argued that this was insufficient for modern vehicles, leading to potential overhanging onto the narrow pavement, which is the only pedestrian access on one side of the cul-de-sac. This was seen as a detriment to pedestrian safety and the character of the street.
• Inadequate Addressing of Previous Refusals: The committee felt that the current proposal had not sufficiently addressed the core reasons for previous refusals and the appeal dismissal, particularly concerning the scale, massing, and relationship with neighbouring properties.

Key Discussions:

• Height and Scale: Councillors noted that while the height had been slightly reduced, the introduction of a bulky dormer had exacerbated the perceived scale and massing, making it appear overbearing.
• Parking and Highway Safety: Significant concerns were raised about the five-metre parking depth, the narrowness of Barnard's Place, and the potential for vehicles to overhang the pavement, impacting pedestrian safety, especially given the proximity to a junior school. The adequacy of parking for modern vehicles was questioned.
• Character and Appearance: The proposal was considered out of keeping with the low-density, two-storey character of Barnard's Place.
• Previous Planning History: The committee referenced the repeated refusals and the appeal inspector's findings, noting that the current application was substantially similar to previous refused schemes.
• Internal Ceiling Heights: Councillor Alistair Stewart highlighted concerns about low internal ceiling heights in the basement, citing policy requirements for habitable rooms. Officers clarified that the basement was not intended for habitable rooms and that the overall dwelling met national space standards.

Speakers:

• Joyce DeCosta (Objector): Argued that the proposal remained overly dominant and harmful to the character of Barnard's Place, citing previous refusals and appeal dismissals. She highlighted the lack of spatial separation and the potential for increased parking stress and congestion.
• Joy Mudhaven (Applicant): Stated that the proposal was designed to match the scale and appearance of adjacent properties and had been revised to comply with planning policies. He highlighted the site's current disuse and the need for a place to live.
• Councillor Alistair Stewart (Ward Councillor): Reiterated concerns about the inappropriate development, insufficient front space, and low ceiling heights, urging refusal based on previous inspectorate decisions.

Officer's Response: The officers clarified that the inspector had previously found the parking depth and separation distances acceptable, and that the current proposal met national space standards for internal ceiling heights. They advised focusing refusal reasons on the scale and massing, particularly the dormer, as this was a key reason for previous refusals.

Vote: The motion to refuse the application was carried with three votes in favour, one against, and two abstentions.

Other Matters

The committee noted the weekly planning decisions list, which detailed decisions taken by local planning authorities between 22 December 2025 and 4 January 2026. No specific applications were highlighted for discussion.