Appeal 6002501

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 description of development on the application form differs from that on the decision notice. I have no evidence the applicant agreed to the change and so have used that on the form.

The application form indicates that the development has already been completed. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on the basis that it seeks retrospective planning permission.

The main issues are the effect of the development on (i) the supply of needed housing types and (ii) parking capacity and highway safety; and (iii) whether the development provides satisfactory facilities for cycle storage.

The appellant asserts that the existing house has a gross internal area (GIA) of 130.1sqm and that the development has not therefore led to the loss of a home smaller than 130sqm. However, the floor plans clearly show the GIA to be less than 130sqm, even if the rear extension is included. From the drawings and site visit, it appears more likely than not that the house had three bedrooms before the rear extension was added and that this was also the case when it was built.

Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) often provide more affordable market housing, but a clear need has been identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for family-sized homes, of which Authority Monitoring Reports show ongoing under provision. I have no similar quantitative evidence of a lack of HMOs so, on balance, the need for family housing outweighs that for HMOs. An unlawful HMO is furthermore not protected by London Plan (LP) Policy H9.

Policy DM1.2 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) (CLP) refers to ‘redevelopment’, but I am nonetheless satisfied that it is directed at preventing the loss of homes with either (a) a GIA of less than 130sqm or (b) originally three bedrooms. The development results in both and so conflicts with Policies SP2 and DM1 of the CLP, which seek to secure sufficient homes with three or more bedrooms and to prevent the loss of smaller or three-bedroom homes.

The appellant states that the development is car-free and that persons who occupy HMOs typically do not own a car. However, during my site visit, I saw a car parked on a driveway in front of the house. Furthermore, I have no evidence in respect of car ownership levels amongst residents of HMOs.

Policy DM30 of the CLP requires minor residential development to provide car and cycle spaces in accordance with the London Plan (LP). I see no reason why this should exclude changes of use to HMOs. The site is in an outer London borough and has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 3, in which circumstances LP Policy T6.1 requires development with more than three beds to have up to one space. A car-free development would comply with this.

Whether this is sufficient at peak times to accommodate parking demand without other measures is unclear. Each household is likely to have its own schedule for arrivals, visitors and deliveries. I have no parking survey, but the appellant relies upon aerial and street photographs, the dates or times of which are not stated. During my site visit around midday on a weekday in term-time, about half of the unrestricted spaces without drop kerbs were parked in.

It is difficult to extrapolate this situation into peak times, but I saw that the side of the street on which the site is located has few spaces due to its numerous dropped kerbs. I am also mindful that interested parties report issues with parking, including difficulties both finding spaces and accessing properties due to double parking and parking across dropped kerbs, which suggests that parking stress does exist, at least during some parts of the day or week.

Overall, it has not been demonstrated that the parking demand created by the development has been safely met or managed, contrary to Policies SP8, DM29 and DM30 of the CLP and [name] T4 and T6, which require parking demand to be assessed and managed, prioritising non-car access.

The current cycle storage facility is in a shed at the end of the rear garden. This necessitates cycles being taken through the house, from which it is some way. The appellant accepts that it should be closer and would accept a planning condition requiring further details of such provision. There is sufficient space at the front, particularly if the development is car-free. [name] allowed the appeal, I would have imposed such a condition requiring its location at the front of the house.

As it stands, the development does not provide satisfactory facilities for cycle storage, so fails to comply with the Policies SP8, DM10, DM16, DM29 and DM30 of the CLP and LP Policy T5, which prioritise non-car access and require well-designed cycle parking to comply with standards.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.