The Planning Sub-Committee of Croydon Council met on Thursday 11 June 2026 to discuss planning applications. The committee considered a proposal for alterations and the erection of a front porch and single-storey rear extension at 37 Pollards Hill South, Norbury, which was ultimately resolved to be granted permission. The committee also discussed a significant application for 12 to 14 Tennyson Road, South Norwood, involving the conversion of existing houses of multiple occupation into flats and the construction of a new rear building. After considerable deliberation, this application was resolved to be refused.

12 to 14 Tennyson Road, South Norwood

The committee resolved to refuse planning permission for the proposed development at 12 to 14 Tennyson Road, South Norwood. The application sought to convert two existing houses of multiple occupation (HMOs) into 12 flats and construct a new rear building to provide an additional 12 flats, resulting in 24 homes in total.

Key discussions and reasons for refusal included:

• Harm to Locally Listed Buildings: Concerns were raised about the demolition and alterations to the existing locally listed buildings at numbers 12 and 14 Tennyson Road. While officers noted that some of the proposed demolition involved non-original additions, it was acknowledged that parts of the original Victorian structure would be affected.
• Design of the Rear Building: Several councillors expressed dissatisfaction with the design of the proposed new building to the rear. It was described as unattractive, jarring, and not complementing the character of the existing Victorian frontages. While it was noted to be in keeping with the adjacent development at number 18 Tennyson Road, the overall aesthetic was considered incongruous.
• Parking Provision: The proposal included only five parking spaces for 24 flats, leading to concerns about increased parking stress in the surrounding area. Councillors noted that this level of provision was insufficient and could exacerbate existing parking issues.
• Lack of Affordable Housing: The absence of any affordable housing within the development was a significant point of contention. While the applicant's viability assessment indicated an inability to provide affordable housing, some members felt this was a missed opportunity, particularly given the need for social housing in Croydon. Officers advised caution in refusing on this ground, as the viability assessment had been independently assessed and could be challenged at appeal.
• Family-Sized Units: The development narrowly missed the 40% target for three-bedroom units, providing 37.5%, although it met the strategic target of 30%.

Despite acknowledging the benefits of providing 24 new homes and making effective use of land, the committee ultimately resolved to refuse the application. The refusal was based on the cumulative impact of the harm to the locally listed buildings, the design of the rear building, and the inadequate parking provision, alongside the absence of affordable housing.

37 Pollards Hill South, Norbury

The committee resolved to grant planning permission for alterations and the erection of a front porch and single-storey rear extension, including a raised patio, at 37 Pollards Hill South, Norbury.

Key discussions and reasons for approval included:

• Modest Scale and Design: Councillors agreed with the officers' assessment that the proposed works were modest in scale and design. The front porch was considered to be of a suitable size and would not dominate the street scene. The rear extension, being single-storey and set back from neighbouring properties, was deemed not to be overly dominant.
• Neighbouring Amenity: The committee was satisfied that the proposed development would not result in significant harm to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. The rear extension's projection was considered acceptable in relation to the existing extensions at numbers 35 and 39 Pollards Hill South. Privacy screens were to be installed to mitigate any potential overlooking from the raised patio.
• Parking: The applicant stated that the existing garage would be converted into habitable accommodation but confirmed that they would not use street parking, relying on the existing driveway which could accommodate two vehicles. Officers noted that while this represented a loss of garage parking, the site benefited from sufficient on-site parking in accordance with relevant standards.
• Previous Applications: Clarification was provided regarding previous planning applications, with officers explaining that a previous refusal under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) was based on non-compliance with specific criteria, not on the scale of the proposed extension.

The committee resolved to grant permission, agreeing with the officer's recommendation that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms, subject to conditions relating to materials, commencement time, privacy screens, and the provision of a water butt.