Appeal 6002492

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. This is the subject of a separate decision.

The application was submitted in outline with all matters reserved except scale and layout. The submitted drawings include detail beyond scale and layout. I have treated such additional detail as illustrative.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the South End Local Heritage Area and the locally listed former Swan and [name] public house.

The site contains the ground floor and outer walls of a demolished building on [address] next to the locally listed former Swan and [name] public house, which is now a convenience store with flats over. Its distinctive two- and three-storey main frontage faces a focal junction within South End Ye Market Local Heritage Area (LHA) and is seen from some distance away on the approach from the north. The site has excellent accessibility by public transport.

At the other end of its [address] frontage is a two- and three-storey restaurant (no. 3) on a wedge-shaped plot with a narrow frontage, beyond which a five-storey block of flats (no. 5) has recently been created by adding two storeys to a former commercial building. Behind the site are the back yards of two- and three-storey shops on [name] and opposite is [name], a long three- and four-storey parade of shops with flats over and dormer windows in the roof.

The proposal would create a mostly six-storey building directly on to [address], abutting no. 3 and the former public house to either side, albeit the part nearest the latter would be four storeys. It would have two shop units at ground level and flats above. The six-storey element would be almost 18m tall and 20 metres deep, set 11m to 25m from the back of buildings on [name]. The top storey would be set in from the front, rear and northern side elevations.

Outline permissions with all matters reserved except scale and layout exist for a five-storey block of 25 flats and two shops of 16.6m total height with a three-storey part near the former public house of 10.6m height,1 and for a six-storey block of 31 flats and two shops of 17.1m total height.2 The proposed building would exceed the taller of these by 850mm and present greater height nearer to the locally listed building, both of which would be visible from within the LHA.

The effect of this would be to create significant height to [address], albeit the set-back top floor would reduce the sense of scale. Whilst not adjacent to the site, the height of the additional two storeys at no. 5 would be comparable. However, the step down to a single storey element of the former public house would be somewhat more abrupt than permitted. Combined with the proposed depth, the height would create significant bulk visible from within the LHA to the north.

[name] accept that storey count is of limited relevance, I do not accept that the difference in height would be imperceptible – the total effect would be visible in the background of the former public house from a wider area to the north, including within the LHA, and from the east and south-east than the previously permitted proposals would. Permitted or built six-storey buildings here or elsewhere do not validate the proposed height in this specific context.

Proposals, site and policy contexts are rarely replicated, so planning appeals do not create binding precedents. Transitions in the number of storeys previously found acceptable and the need to optimise the use of accessible land must be read in the context of massing and its effect. I do not have full details of all the appeals quoted, but the proposal is the tallest on this site; therefore, previous findings as to height may no longer be relevant.

[name] have lengthy assessment of the significance of previous decisions before me, I have little about the significance of the locally listed former public house or the LHA, or analysis of the likely impact on them. I saw on site that both have well-defined late Victorian character, including a scale typically around three to four storeys. Whilst earlier proposals may have been less visible in views from within the LHA, I am not convinced that this proposal would.

Similarly, I am referred to numerous judgements relating to matters including the circumstances and extent to which previous appeal decisions must be followed to ensure consistency. I have had regard to previous appeal decisions, particularly those referred to above, but my conclusion is based largely on the proposal, the evidence as to its likely effects and policies relevant to it. I have considered the cases quoted, but in the light of that assessment. 1 24/01006/OUT 2 24/03390/OUT

I conclude that the proposed height and bulk, whilst less perceptible from [address], would be apparent in views from within the LHA and create a dominating presence in views towards the former public house. This would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the locally listed building and the LHA, and therefore conflict with Policies SP4, DM10 and DM18 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021).

These policies seek a design-led approach that respects and enhances local character, directing growth to areas of focussed intensification and regeneration, and protecting conservation areas and LHAs.

The lack of planning obligations to secure affordable housing, fit out and end user of the commercial unit, air quality, carbon offsetting, energy requirements, highway works, sustainable transport and local employment and training was a reason for refusal. An agreement was provided during the appeal process but was signed only by the appellant and mortgagee as a unilateral undertaking, together with a letter purporting to grant the Council authority to sign and date it.

I have neither an undertaking signed by the appellant and mortgagee as such nor an agreement signed and dated by all parties, so cannot be sure the necessary obligations would be created or enforceable. Even were they to be, the benefits they would provide, such as affordable housing, are insufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified. [name] am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, it is not necessary to consider the agreement or undertaking in further detail.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.