Croydon's Planning Committee has refused permission for alterations and extensions to a property at 24 Church Hill, Purley, which aimed to create five new residential units. The decision, made on Thursday 30 April 2026, followed two previous refusals and dismissed appeals for similar applications at the same site.
While officers argued that the scheme was policy compliant and that previous inspectorate decisions held significant weight, the committee ultimately voted to refuse the application. The refusal was based on grounds of design, specifically citing the overdevelopment of the forecourt, clutter, and visual intrusion. The officer's advice to the committee highlighted that the proposed design, particularly the forecourt area with car parking, bins, and cycle storage, was considered out of character with the surrounding streets and homes. This was seen as an 'overdevelopment of the forecourts' and contributed to a 'cluttered, overdeveloped forecourt'.
Councillor Samir Dwesar, the referring ward councillor, and local residents had objected to the plans on grounds of overdevelopment, visual intrusion, inadequate transport accessibility, and concerns about the accuracy of highway assessments. Councillor Dwesar noted the site's PTAL rating of 1A and its distance from Purley Station (a 25-minute walk), arguing that approving intensification in such a location runs contrary to the London Plan's spatial strategy, leading to car dependency. Concerns were also raised about the highway's technical note being incomplete, failing to account for parking pressures from St. Mark's Church and John Fisher's School. Furthermore, there were concerns about safety due to tight maneuvering space and the lack of adequate SuDS details, with the officer's report acknowledging the groundwater flood risk and the need for further testing.
The site at 24 Church Hill, Purley, has a history of previous inspectorate decisions. Two previous applications were refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal. The most recent appeal, following a refusal in 2025, saw the inspector consider the massing and design to be acceptable but upheld refusal reasons related to vehicle and cycle parking. An earlier refused application was dismissed at appeal for reasons including standard of accommodation, fire safety, ecology, design, vehicle and cycle parking, and S106 highways matters.
The proposed scheme included four car parking spaces for five units. While officers considered this provision acceptable, the committee's refusal on design grounds ultimately superseded this assessment. The report does not explicitly state the current parking requirements for developments of this size in Croydon, but it does mention that the previous inspector found the parking provision to be insufficient. [1]
