Appeal 6003296

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a hip to gable roof alteration to the existing dwelling. Demolition of the existing garage and the erection of an attached [address] four-bedroom dwelling with rear dormer and basement at [site address] , Coulsdon, Croydon, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02976/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Planning permission was previously granted at appeal in August 2022 for a hip-to-gable roof alteration to the existing dwelling and the demolition of the existing garage, construction of an attached two storey end of terrace three-bedroom dwelling with rear dormer1. The current proposal is broadly similar but includes a basement with associated front and rear lightwells, stair accesses and railings.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and surrounding area; and • whether the proposal would provide adequate refuse and cycle storage.

The appeal site lies on the western side of [address] within an established residential area. The street is characterised by terraced housing of broadly consistent scale and form, typically finished in pebbledash or similar render, with 1 Appeal Reference APP/L5240/W/21/3285651 shallow pitched and hipped roofs. [address] links two busier roads, Chipstead Valley Road and [address], and is straight for the most part, with a shallow bend part way along the road. The street ascends gradually from Chipstead Valley Road towards [address], with the terraced properties stepping down in height along the frontage to accommodate the change in levels.

[address] is distinctly suburban in character, with on-street parking occurring along both sides of the carriageway. Front gardens along the street are generally shallow and varied in treatment. Some retain soft landscaping, whilst others have been hard surfaced to provide off-street parking. As a result, there is a mixed but not uncharacteristic appearance. Boundary treatments are similarly varied, including low walls, hedges and some more open frontages.

The existing dwelling at No [site address] is an end of terrace property situated near to the north end of the road. It occupies a slightly more open and transitional position within the streetscene due to the former presence of a side garage, which has since been demolished. This has resulted in a wider than typical frontage and a more open, hard-surfaced area to the side of the host dwelling. It is within this part of the site that the appellant proposes the new attached dwelling, the construction of which has already commenced.

Furthermore, a narrow private lane lies beyond the northern side boundary of the property. It gives access to garages and gardens at the rear of properties that have their front elevations in Chipstead Valley Road.

The previously allowed scheme established the acceptability in principle of the additional dwelling and its above-ground scale, form and general design within the surrounding context. In this appeal, the Council’s objection is directed specifically to the basement and its associated lightwells, stairs and related structures rather than to the wider form of the dwelling.

The basement would be subterranean and would not alter the accepted above-ground form of the development. The front lightwell, steps and railings would be visible from the street, but they would be modest in scale and read as recessed features within the frontage rather than as dominant or prominent additions. Their limited physical presence and partially below-ground nature mean they would not appear incongruous or so prominent as to harm the character and appearance of the terrace or wider street scene.

The proposed lightwell, steps and railings would be read as incidental features associated with the use of the dwelling, rather than unfamiliar features. Whilst there are no other basements on [address], these proposed features would nonetheless be fairly typical of residential developments. They would also be contained within the curtilage of the site and would not project into the public realm.

The proposal would introduce a somewhat more engineered frontage than a conventional garden arrangement, but that change must be seen within its current surroundings. The character of [address] is defined primarily by the consistent form, scale and rhythm of the terraced built form, rather than uniformity in frontage treatments. In this context, where there is already a mix of front gardens, paved driveways, and boundary treatments, the proposed frontage would not appear discordant. The proposal should also be considered against the fallback of the previously approved development, which already involved substantial alteration to the side plot and front curtilage.

For these reasons, the basement and its associated features would not be visually intrusive or harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area. Therefore, the proposal would not conflict with Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (CLP) and Policy D4 of the London Plan 2021 insofar as they seek to ensure proposals are well-designed and respect local character.

The proposed plans show a constrained front forecourt with limited space around the parking space. The two 240L refuse bins are shown at lower ground level within the proposed lightwell, at the bottom of the stairs. This would be impractical and an unacceptable location for their storage. Furthermore, the plans do not indicate any cycle storage. The Council’s Transportation Team also noted that the proposed layout of the frontage would not allow enough space for the required emergency access/egress to the front door of the property.

In light of the above, the submitted plans do not clearly demonstrate a satisfactory arrangement for the required refuse and recycling storage and secure cycle parking alongside the proposed parking and access arrangements. In that respect, the Council’s concerns are acknowledged.

However, the evidence indicates that the constraint arises primarily from the inclusion of the on-site parking space, and that alternative arrangements, such as reliance on on-street parking and reconfiguration of the frontage, would allow sufficient space to be provided. The Transportation Team state that the reinstatement of the crossover and removal of the parking space would facilitate the provision of the required refuse and cycle storage and adequate front door access.

This indicates that the site is capable of accommodating policy-compliant refuse and cycle storage and that the issue is one of detailed layout rather than a fundamental limitation of the site. I am therefore satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of a compliant layout being achieved. In these circumstances, the matter can be appropriately addressed by a condition requiring details of refuse and cycle storage and a finalised layout to be submitted and approved before the dwelling is occupied.

Given this, the proposal would provide adequate refuse and cycle storage. It would not conflict with policies DM13 and DM30 of the CLP as well as Policy T5 of the London Plan insofar as they seek to ensure new developments provide adequate refuse storage and cycle parking. It would adhere to Policy DM29 of the CLP insofar as it seeks to ensure that developments, through the provision of cycle parking, promote sustainable means of transport.

Third party comments raise concerns regarding encroachment onto neighbouring land, use of adjoining driveways and the placing of scaffolding. These are private legal or civil matters and do not weigh materially in the determination of this appeal.

Concern was also expressed that the development has not been built in accordance with the previously approved plans. The site is subject to an ongoing enforcement investigation, which is a separate matter from the planning merits of the scheme now before me.

Some local residents questioned whether the property might be used as a House in [name] (HMO). However, the appeal proposal is for a single dwellinghouse, and there is no substantive evidence before me that the permission sought is for any different use. I therefore attach little weight to that concern.

Comments were made that no other nearby properties have basements. I have taken that into account, but for the reasons already given, the basement and associated features would be modest in scale and largely subterranean. The fact that basements are uncommon locally does not, in this case, demonstrate unacceptable harm.

Conditions requiring compliance with the approved plans and materials are essential for certainty and to safeguard the quality of the development within the established street scene. A condition requiring the development to commence within a specified period is also unnecessary, as works have already begun.

Pre-occupation conditions are imposed where further detail is required, including the site and front forecourt layout, refuse and cycle storage, landscaping and drainage, to ensure these matters are appropriately resolved before the dwelling is brought into use. A condition securing water efficiency is also reasonable in the interests of sustainable development, and the restriction on the use of the basement is necessary to ensure it remains ancillary to the main dwelling.

All conditions meet the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework in that they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

Some conditions suggested by the Council have not been imposed where they would fail those tests. In particular, a condition requiring electric vehicle charging provision has not been included given the uncertainty as to whether on-plot parking will be provided within the forecourt. However, condition 3 requires the submission of details of electric vehicle charging provision if on-plot parking is to be provided within the finalised front forecourt layout.

Similarly, a condition removing permitted development rights has not been imposed, as there is no clear evidence that restricting development permitted by the General Permitted Development Order is necessary or reasonable in this instance.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos GB13-17-[name], GB13-18-[name].

Unless otherwise specified in the application, the external materials of the new dwelling hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling at No [site address] .

Prior to first occupation of the new dwelling hereby permitted, details of the site layout and the front forecourt, including vehicle and pedestrian access, any changes to vehicular crossovers, designated residential parking spaces (if any), location of refuse and cycle storage and, where on-plot parking is to be provided, details of electric vehicle charging provision shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The details to be submitted shall include plans and sections indicating design, layout, levels, gradients, and materials. The access and front forecourt layout shall be constructed in accordance with the agreed details and completed prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved.

Prior to first occupation of the new dwelling hereby permitted, details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include: - earthworks showing existing and proposed finished levels or contours; - means of enclosure and retaining structures; - boundary treatments; - vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; - hard surfacing materials; - minor artefacts and structures e.g. refuse or other storage units; - proposed and existing functional services above and below ground e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating alignments, levels, access points, supports as relevant; - lighting; The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is first occupied and retained thereafter.

Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

The development must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the [name] by Mattix Limited dated September 2025.

Prior to first occupation of the new dwelling hereby permitted, a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall: i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and surface waters; ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and, iii) provide, a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The sustainable drainage system shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan.

The development hereby permitted shall achieve a minimum water efficiency standard of 110/litres/person/day.

The proposed basement hereby approved shall only be used for purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of the new dwellinghouse hereby permitted and not for any trade or business purposes or as an independent self-contained residential unit.