The Croydon Planning Committee met on Thursday 15 January 2026 to discuss a pre-application for Trinity School and a planning application for land to the rear of 164 Pampersford Road. No decisions were made regarding the Trinity School pre-application, as it was for information only. However, the committee resolved to refuse the planning application for land to the rear of 164 Pampersford Road.

Trinity School Pre-Application

The committee received a presentation on the proposed redevelopment of Trinity School, located at Shirley Road/Addiscombe Road, Croydon, CR0 7LB. This pre-application proposal, known as Trinity 2030, aims to expand the school's co-educational offering and enhance its facilities. Key aspects of the proposal include the erection of a new sixth form block and a fitness suite/classroom block, the demolition of existing staff accommodation, and alterations to the entrance layout, including improved drop-off and pick-up areas and the reconfiguration of car parking.

Officers presented three key questions for the committee's consideration:

1. Whether the enhanced educational and extracurricular facilities would outweigh the loss of staff accommodation. Officers were of the view that the benefits would outweigh this loss.
2. Whether the overall site layout, design approach, and elevational treatments were supported. Officers supported the proposed site layout but noted that the buildings required further refinement in their architectural treatment, expression, and materiality.
3. Whether the provision of 175 car parking spaces, reconfigured parking layout, and enhanced drop-off/pick-up facilities to accommodate increased staff and pupil numbers were supported. Officers felt the proposed parking arrangements struck an appropriate balance.

The applicants, represented by Richard Henley of HGH Consulting, Robin Paulson (architect), Matt Harris (transport advisor), and Bethan Thomas (landscape advisor), presented their vision for the school's expansion. They detailed plans for new sports facilities, classrooms, a sixth form centre, and improved public realm and landscape spaces. Sustainability was a key focus, with aims to achieve BREEAM Excellence and employ a fabric-first approach.

During the discussion, councillors raised numerous points, including concerns about traffic management, the justification for the number of car parking spaces, road safety on Shirley Road, and the impact of the development on the surrounding area. Specific questions were asked about the co-educational transition timeline, the design of the sixth form building, and the daylight and sunlight assessments. The committee noted the extensive engagement with various stakeholders, including residents, students, and Transport for London (TfL).

While no decision was made at this pre-application stage, the committee's feedback will inform the subsequent planning application submission.

Land to the Rear of 164 Pampersford Road, South Croydon

The committee considered a planning application for the erection of 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 Pampersford Road, South Croydon. The site is accessed off Barnard's Place, a cul-de-sac.

The application had a complex planning history, with several previous proposals refused, including one dismissed at appeal on grounds of character and appearance due to the scale and massing of the proposed dwelling and inaccurate drawings of the neighbouring property, No. 1 Barnard's Place. The current application sought to address these concerns by reducing the height of the proposed dwelling to be marginally lower than No. 1 Barnard's Place.

Grace Hewitt, Senior Planning Officer, presented the application, highlighting the amendments made to address previous reasons for refusal, particularly regarding the height and scale of the building. She noted that the proposed dwelling's ridge height was now 0.1 metres lower than No. 1 Barnard's Place, and the rear dormer, while increased in height, was considered to have limited visibility from the street.

Objectors, including Joyce De Costa, raised concerns about the development's scale, massing, and its uncharacteristic proximity to neighbouring properties, arguing that it would create a cramped and intrusive form of development. They also highlighted issues with parking stress, congestion, and pedestrian safety in the narrow cul-de-sac.

The applicant, Joy Mudhaven, spoke in support, stating that the proposal was designed to match the scale and appearance of adjacent properties and that access had been previously agreed. They also highlighted the site's disused nature and the need for a place to live. Councillor Alistair Stewart, the referring ward councillor, spoke against the application, reiterating concerns about the scale, massing, and non-compliance with ceiling height requirements, comparing the current proposal to previous refused applications.

During the committee's deliberation, councillors expressed concerns about the adequacy of the five-metre parking depth for modern vehicles, the potential for overhanging cars to impact pedestrian safety on the narrow pavement, and the overall scale and massing of the development. Councillor Fish noted that while the height had been reduced, the concerns about scale and massing, particularly regarding the rear dormer, had not been adequately addressed. Councillor Prasad shared concerns about the parking depth and its impact on pedestrian movement. Councillor Redfern echoed these concerns, stating that the bulky dormer made the building appear larger and more overbearing.

Ultimately, the committee voted to refuse the application on the grounds of the size and massing of the property, particularly the rear dormer, and its detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Decisions Made:

• Trinity School Pre-Application: No decision made, presented for information and feedback.
• Land to the Rear of 164 Pampersford Road: Refused.