Appeal 6002264

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice as it more accurately describes the scheme than the original application form.

I was able to view the site from the public highway, and observed that the property had been subdivided into two flats. Section 73A of the 1990 Act allows for the submission of retrospective applications, which are subject to the same considerations as those made prior to development commencing.

The flats are numbered 36 and 36B, but the Council’s decision notice refers to the impact of the development on both Flat 36 and Flat 36A. I have determined the appeal on the basis that the Council’s concerns relate solely to Flat 36, as is apparent from the submissions. No injustice would be caused to any party in taking this approach.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the development on housing choice; • whether the development provides suitable living conditions for occupiers with particular reference to external space and outlook; • the effect of the development on on-street parking and the highways network; and • whether the development makes satisfactory provision for cycle parking.

In order to maintain housing choice and retain single family houses, Policy DM1.2 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (CLP) states that the Council will permit the redevelopment of residential units where it does not result in the net loss of three bedroom homes (as originally built) or the loss of homes smaller than 130sqm. Both limbs of the policy must be satisfied.

The plans show that the dwelling had three rooms on the upper floor, plus a bathroom. No evidence is before me that this was not the original configuration of the dwelling, and so it is very likely that the dwelling originally contained three bedrooms. The third bedroom is below the 7.5sqm minimum floor area for a single bedroom prescribed by the [name] – [name] (NDSS), but nonetheless as originally built the dwelling would have had three bedrooms. The appeal decisions supplied by the appellant1 relate to the assessment of bedroom dimensions in proposed dwellings rather than, a dwelling as originally built and therefore have limited relevance to the appeal. The dwelling’s loss is therefore contrary to Policy DM1.2 as it would result in the net loss of a three bedroom home as originally built.

The gross internal area of the property is 125.25sqm, which includes a recent rear extension2, implying that the floor area of the original dwelling would have been substantially less than 125sqm. It follows that the development would result in the loss of a home smaller than 130sqm, contrary to Policy DM1.2. As a consequence, even had I found differently on the matter of the third bedroom, the development would not accord with Policy DM1.2.

For the above reasons, the development would adversely affect housing choice in the area, contrary to Policy DM1.2 of the CLP, which seeks to enable housing choice for sustainable and socially balanced communities.

Both flats would have more than the minimum requirement of 5sqm of private outside space for a 1-2 person dwelling. However, whilst Flat 36B has the benefit of a private rear garden, Flat 36’s outside space is located at the front of the property. Owing to its proximity to [address] and lack of boundary treatment, Flat 36’s outside space would not have adequate levels of privacy. Whilst the lack of boundary treatment could potentially be remedied at least in part, the outside space would not provide an area of quiet enjoyment for occupiers.

The Mayor of London Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance March 2016, which is a material consideration, guides that in exceptional circumstances, where site constraints make it impossible to provide private open space for all dwellings, a proportion of dwellings may instead be provided with additional internal living space equivalent to the area of the private open space requirement. In this instance, it has not been demonstrated that site constraints make it impossible to provide private open space at the property. Furthermore, Flat 36 is the minimum size for a one bed two storey dwelling, indicating that additional internal living space has not been provided to compensate for the lack of private open space. 1 PINS reference APP/D5120/W/25/33664054 and APP/T5150/W/25/3359152 2 LPA reference 24/01051/GPDO

The appellant has highlighted the existence of three parks nearby which, although more distant from the property than estimated by the appellant, are within walking distance of it. However, notwithstanding that the flat is unlikely to accommodate children, parks provide a complementary function to onsite private outside space and do not completely negate the requirement to provide it.

The plans show bins for both flats being stored in the area where Flat 36’s private outside space is proposed, where they would adversely impact on the outlook from the flat’s kitchen/dining room. It has not been demonstrated that there is sufficient space to provide bin storage as well as private outside space, and even if there were enough space for both, the proximity of the bin store would affect the quality of the outside space.

The appellant has expressed a willingness to be bound by a condition requiring the submission of bin store details, but a condition would only be appropriate if there were clear evidence that both outside space and bin storage could be accommodated, which has not been provided.

Having regard to the above matters, the development would provide inadequate external space and outlook for Flat 36, and as a result would not provide suitable living conditions for occupiers. The development would conflict with Policy D6 of the LP and policies DM10.1 and DM10.4 of the CLP, which together require new residential development to be of high quality and functional private amenity space.

The development would be car-free. The appeal site has a Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) rating of 5, indicating very good public transport accessibility. Occupiers would therefore have access to alternative modes of transport, as well as being within walking distance of local facilities, thus reducing their reliance on the private vehicle.

[address] and nearby roads are within a [name]. [name] have not been made aware that residents of the former dwelling were prevented from applying for parking permits, the development would create an additional household and it is appropriate to restrict the ability of residents to apply for parking permits. A mechanism is needed to ensure that anyone living in the flats, other than a [name] holder, would not be eligible to apply for a resident’s parking permit. As no such mechanism has been provided, there is no certainty that a car-free development could be delivered.

The development could therefore increase parking stress in nearby streets, with a resultant harmful effect on on-street parking and the highways network. The development would therefore conflict with policies T3 and T6 of the LP and policies SP8, DM29 and DM30 of the CLP, which together aim to encourage car-free development in sustainable locations and reduce the impact of car parking in areas of existing on-street parking stress.

Secure on-site cycle storage is required to maximise alternatives to the private car. The plans do not show where bicycles could be securely stored on site, although the appellant has suggested that they would be stored at the front of the property, and has offered to be bound by a condition requiring the submission of cycle storage details.

I have alluded to the difficulty of finding sufficient space for private outside space and bin storage at the property. The requirement for secure cycle storage makes it even more challenging to achieve these requirements within a confined area at the front and side of the property. In the absence of evidence that there is space to provide secure cycle storage in addition to private outside space and bin storage, it would not be appropriate to attach a condition, in the event that I were minded to allow the appeal.

I conclude that the development does not make satisfactory provision for cycle parking, contrary to Policy T5 of the LP and Policy DM30 of the CLP, which together require cycle parking provision within residential developments.

The development contributes positively to local housing supply in a sustainable location, and provides accommodation which meets the internal space standards set down by the NDSS. However, these benefits do not overcome or justify the harm I have identified in respect of the main issues.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.