Appeal 6003537

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • Whether appropriate living conditions would be secured for the future occupiers of the proposed development with particular regard to outlook and size of accommodation; • The effect of the proposed development on nearby trees; • The effect of the proposed development on biodiversity; and • The effect of the proposed development on highway safety with regard to parking.

The appeal site comprises a large 2.5-storey detached, vacant building of distinct architectural Edwardian design, set within a large plot and surrounded by predominantly modest two-storey detached and semi-detached homes. My attention has been drawn to a previous single-storey detached garage situated in the front side garden area.

The proposed cycle storage would be located directly to the front of the building with a new bin storage structure and bulky goods area located adjacent to the front boundary beyond an area of parking for the proposed development. The previous garage was discreetly located within the site along a front side boundary surrounded by garden. The proposed cycle store, which would be prominently sited on higher ground level, would fail to form a visually coherent relationship with the proposed bin storage. This proposed disjointed arrangement would introduce two unrelated structures within the frontage, which would result in visual clutter that would erode the established character and appearance of the street scene.

Although the proposed bin store would provide an area of ordered waste storage in contrast to the haphazard storing of wheelie bins to the front of some dwellings in the immediate area, the introduction of a built structure in this prominent position would appear incongruous and would harm the character of the surrounding area.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed cycle and bin stores would cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (LP) as, amongst other things, development is required to respect the local character, siting and layout with cycle parking to be unobtrusively located within the setting of the building. The proposed development also conflicts with Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021, which, among other things, states development proposals should enhance the local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness including through their layout and appearance.

As required by Policy D6 of the London Plan and the National Technical Standards 2015, a material consideration, the evidence before me does not demonstrate that the proposed 3-bedroom 5 person Flat 1 would provide the required gross internal floor area. The appellant argues that minor internal alterations to the flat layout design and restricting the person number would result in the standards being reached. However, I do not agree that such changes to the proposed development are minor and could be effectively dealt with through a precise planning condition. In addition, I do not agree that a condition could be imposed to control person numbers for Flat 1 and would be unenforceable. Consequently, Flat 1, overall, would not provide an acceptable standard of accommodation and would cause harm to potential future occupants.

In terms of Flat 2, the proposed location of the cycle storage building, including access into one of its three sections, would be directly in front of the principal window to Bedroom 1. This proposed arrangement would result in an unacceptable outlook for future occupants of Flat 2 and would adversely affect living conditions.

In conclusion the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of future occupants. The proposed development conflicts with Policy DM10 of the LP and Policy D6 of the London Plan, which among other things, seek to provide a high-quality design and living environment for future occupants.

The surrounding area is characterised by mature garden trees and evenly spaced street trees along the footpaths, including T1 to T3, all of which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the locality. Although the [name] (RPAs) of trees T1, T2 and T3 already extend beneath existing footpath and highway surfacing, this does not apply to the [name] (BS5837) threshold—where no more than 20% of an RPA should be subject to new hard surfacing. The submitted information, including the [name] in Appendix 3 of the appellant’s tree survey, does not clearly demonstrate that T1 or T3 would surpass this limit, though their RPAs would extend into the site. The plans indicate that almost half of T2’s RPA would overlap with the appeal site.

While the proposed permeable hardstanding, a BS5837 recommendation, to the front of the site would extend into T3’s RPA, the new bulky goods and bin storage area would fall within the RPAs of both T1 and T2 and would not be permeable.

Although the proposed permeable surfacing within the RPAs would accommodate the vehicular access and part of a parking space, no justification has been provided for locating the non-permeable bin storage area within these RPAs. This would likely result in significant harm to the long-term health and stability of the two affected trees.

It is clear from the submitted plans that most of the proposed soakaway in the appeal site’s rear garden would be located within the RPA of neighbouring tree T5. Whilst the appellant’s tree survey report sets out necessary measures to be followed during construction, it also outlines a need for position flexibility should significant roots be encountered and therefore the precise detail required in the imposition of a planning condition would not be achieved. In addition, there is no information before me regarding the need for the proposed soakaway to be in this precise location.

Overall, I conclude the proposed development would likely adversely impact the long-term health of the above trees, which would harm the established character and appearance of the area. The proposed development conflicts with Policies DM10 and DM28 of the LP, which, amongst other things, seeks to respect the natural features and character of the surrounding area and ensures that all development proposals accord with the recommendations of BS5837 2012. The proposed scheme is also contrary to Policy G7 of the London Plan, which sets out that development proposals should ensure that, amongst other things, wherever possible, existing trees of value are retained.

The proposed development would not fall within one of the exemptions to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value. Given the projected significant net loss of the proposed development and the requirement to rely on an off-site location for habitat creation, there is insufficient information before me to confirm that the biodiversity gain objective would be met and consequent significant harm avoided.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development fails to comply with Schedule 7A ([name] in England) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as it fails to meet the biodiversity gain objective. The proposed scheme conflicts with Policies SP7, DM27 and DM28 of the LP, which states, amongst other things, that development proposals enhance biodiversity on development sites, and will avoid loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats. The proposed development is contrary to Policy G6 of the London Plan which states, among other things, the development proposals should manage the impacts on biodiversity and aim to secure net biodiversity gain.

The appeal site, with a PTAL rating of 2, would utilise an existing access and provide three on-site parking spaces, each capable of accommodating [name]. Taken together with the proposed cycle parking provision on site, a requirement of Policy SP8 of the LP, the scheme would not exceed the maximum parking standard of 3.25 spaces for the proposed development and would align with Policy T6 of the London Plan. Moreover, there is no evidence before me which demonstrates that the proposed cycle provision on site would be insufficient and would fail to mitigate transport impacts.

I conclude that the proposed development would accord with Policies SP8, DM29 and DM30 of the LP which, amongst other things, promotes sustainable travel, requires the provision of cycle parking in new developments and reduces the impact of car parking. The proposed development also would align with Policies T4 and T6 of the London Plan regarding, among other things, maximum parking standards and should reflect and be integrated with current and encourage active travel modes.

There is insufficient evidence before me to assess the impact of the proposed development on potential bat roosting. However, as the appeal is being dismissed for other reasons set out above, I do not need to give this any further consideration.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict 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.