The Croydon Planning Committee met on Thursday 11 June 2026 and refused a planning application for the erection of extensions and associated alterations to two existing houses of multiple occupation at 12-14 Tennyson Road, South Norwood, for conversion into 24 flats. The committee also granted planning permission for alterations and the erection of a front porch and single-storey rear extension at 37 Pollard's Hill South, Norbury.

12-14 Tennyson Road, South Norwood

The committee refused planning permission for the development at 12-14 Tennyson Road, South Norwood, which proposed the erection of extensions and associated alterations to two existing houses of multiple occupation (HMOs) and their conversion into 12 flats. An additional new building to the rear was also proposed to contain a further 12 flats, resulting in a total of 24 flats on the site.

The refusal was based on several grounds, including concerns about the severe damage to the locally listed buildings, the scale, mass, and density of the development, and the inadequate parking provision. Councillors also expressed concerns about the design of the rear building, deeming it out of keeping with the character of the front buildings and incongruous with the local area. While the proposal offered some benefits, such as making effective use of land and providing new homes, the committee felt these were outweighed by the identified harms.

37 Pollard's Hill South, Norbury

Planning permission was granted for alterations and the erection of a front porch and single-storey rear extension at 37 Pollard's Hill South, Norbury. The application was for a two-storey detached dwelling, which was noted to be in a poor state of repair. The proposed works included a single-storey rear extension projecting an additional 3.5 metres, a raised patio, and a new front porch.

The committee found the alterations to be modest and not to cause harm to neighbours. Concerns raised by an objector regarding overdevelopment, overlooking, and proximity to neighbouring properties were addressed by officers, who clarified that previous applications had been refused on different grounds and that the current proposals were compliant with permitted development rights or did not raise significant planning concerns. The applicant also highlighted that the extension would not negatively impact neighbours and that adequate parking would be available. The committee voted to grant permission, agreeing with the officer's recommendation.