Norwood Society object to Highfield Hill demolition plans

14 Highfield Hill Image: Norwood Society archives

The Norwood Society are objecting to plans which would see the demolition of 14 Highfield Hill, built before 1863 and one of the few remaining Victorian houses in the road.  

A total of 40 objections – 27 from people living in the SE19 postal area – have already been sent to Croydon council over the plans.

In their letter of objection, the amenity group’s planning sub-committee say:

• The replacement of the “attractive” Victorian dwelling with two pairs of semi detached houses, one pair fronting Highfield Hill and the other pair located in the rear garden would be inappropriate; 
• The scale of the proposed development would be overdevelopment by reason of height, scale and bulk; and that
• The development proposals for the rear garden would be considered backland development which is inappropriate.

The Society’s sub-committee also say:

• The plans indicate that vehicular access to the rear two properties would be via the access road of the adjoining property Mill Court. “It is questionable whether a right of way would allow access and servicing for these additional properties. “Further it is also unclear how vehicles can access all the parking spaces as there is a parking space adjacent to the garage block. 

• The plans indicate that a number of trees would be removed or under threat including those on the boundary with Mill Court. We are concerned about the loss of trees on the site and the impact the development would have on trees in adjoining properties.

It is suggested in the Biodiversity Plan that the beech tree adjoining the boundary in the rear garden of 16 Highfield Hill would be able to have its tree roots modified. It would appear the biodiversity plan was completed by the architect not an arboriculturist. We raise concern about damage to this tree by these proposed works.

The final date for objections to be received is tomorrow (Saturday).

Outline Planning permission (Scale only) for Demolition of Victorian detached dwelling house and erection of pair of two semi-detached dwellings (1×3 bedroom and 3×4 bedroom) with associated accesses, parking, amenity space and refuse and cycle stores. 

Norwood Society letter in full:

I am writing on behalf of the Norwood Society to object to the outline planning application for the demolition of this property and the erection of 4 houses with associated access, parking, amenity space etc. 

Firstly we question the validity of the application as there is no site plan showing the ownership details.  I also understand that not all owners have been given notice of the application. 

The site in question contains a Victorian single family dwelling that was built prior to 1863 (it is shown on the 1863 os map) and is one of the few remaining Victorian houses in this road.  

Given the nature of the site we consider that the submission of an outline application seeking only approval of scale and reserving access, appearance, layout and landscaping is unacceptable. The applicants have submitted detailed plans to support their application but as this is an outline application the plans to support this application can only be indicative.  The application form specifies materials but again these can only be indicative. 

The replacement of this attractive Victorian dwelling with 2 pairs of semi detached houses, one pair fronting Highfield Hill and the other pair located in the rear garden would be inappropriate. With respect to scale of the proposed development we consider it to be over development by reason of height, scale and bulk.  The development proposals for the rear garden would be considered backland development which is inappropriate.

These 1×2 storey and 1×3 storey semi detached houses in the rear garden would affect the outlook of the adjoining property 16 Highfield Hill with a high blank wall close to the boundary. Such a development would impact on the neighbours and affect their amenities.

The plans indicate that vehicular access to the rear 2 properties would be via the access road of the adjoining property Mill Court. It is questionable whether a right of way would allow access and servicing for these additional properties. Further it is also unclear how vehicles can access all the parking spaces as there is a parking space adjacent to the garage block. 

We are concerned about the loss of trees on the site and the impact the development would have on trees in adjoining properties. 

The plans indicate that a number of trees would be removed or under threat including those on the boundary with Mill Court. 

It is suggested in the Biodiversity Plan that the beech tree adjoining the boundary in the rear garden of 16 Highfield Hill would be able to have its tree roots modified. It would appear the biodiversity plan was completed by the architect not an arboriculturist. We raise concern about damage to this tree by these proposed works.

We consider that the proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of this site with  loss of this Victorian dwelling located close to the Church Road conservation area and should be refused.