Appeal 6004111

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has made an application for an award of costs against the Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

The Council refers to the revised Croydon Local Plan 2024, which has been submitted for examination. I have not been supplied with a copy of the revised plan. However, the Council’s reasons for refusal do not identify any conflict with this plan and the Council outline that the policies carry limited weight, which would not outweigh current adopted policy. I have therefore based my decision on the current adopted Development Plan.

Although the Council’s case officer report may have recommended the scheme for approval, it was determined by a Planning Committee, as requested by a Councillor and due to the number of objections received. It is well established that Council Members do not need to follow the advice of their professional officers and are open to exercise their own planning judgement. I have considered this more in my cost’s decision.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No.6A) with regard to outlook.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling situated on an elevated split-level site. The site is larger than most others in the area, with the dwelling positioned on one side and a large garden area to the other side and rear of the site.

The surrounding area is characterised by large, detached dwellings on spacious plots. Many dwellings are partially concealed from the road by mature vegetation which gives a pleasant verdant appearance, particularly in the vicinity of the appeal site. Towards the bottom of [address], close to the junction with [address], there are more recently constructed flatted developments. However, these developments have generally retained a degree of spaciousness in the building pattern through lateral separation and set back from the road.

The appeal scheme seeks to demolish the existing dwelling and erect five dwellings, comprising of three terraced properties and two semi-detached dwellings, each with a private garden. The properties would be two storeys with accommodation in the roof.

The properties would extend across most of the width of the site, sitting near both side boundaries. This, coupled with the depth of the properties, would result in a footprint considerably larger than the existing dwelling. The increased bulk and massing, particularly at roof level, would be readily apparent from the street scene, and particularly noticeable near the boundary with No.6A, where there is a steep decrease in the land levels and various trees are proposed to be removed. [name] acknowledge that trees would be replanted in this area, these would take some time to become established and offer any meaningful screening.

The dwellings would be considerably narrower than other properties along [address]. The resultant plots would also be uncharacteristically small and narrow, with the gardens measuring between 6.5 metres and 9.3 metres in width. Although this may exceed size standards, it would strongly contrast with the surrounding pattern of development which is predominately characterised by large dwellings, measuring an average of 14-15 metres in width, as set out in the appellants evidence, on spacious plots. As such, the proposed layout would result in the creation of a cramped and contrived form of development.

Trees and vegetation along the front of the site would also be removed, and views of the proposed car park and wall structures would be apparent from the street. [name] acknowledge that other properties in the area have visible parking areas and additional landscaping may offer some screening, the cumulative effect of this, combined with the increased scale and massing, would result in an intrusive and dominant form of development. Additionally, the presence of domestic paraphernalia such as the bin stores to the front of the parking area and the numerous cycle stores would further highlight the overdevelopment of the site.

[name] acknowledge that the architectural style and proposed materials, when considered in isolation, may be acceptable, this would not overcome the harm identified above in relation to the uncharacteristically small plots and increased bulk and massing. The additional landscaping also would not overcome the harm in this regard.

The appellant has drawn my attention to various other developments, which they contend are similar to the scheme before me. I am however not satisfied that the scheme at 11 Hayden Avenue1 is directly comparable to the appeal scheme as it related to back land development. It also sat directly adjacent to an apartment block, whereas detached properties directly neighbour the appeal site. In any case, it is some distance away from the appeal site and therefore sits within a different context.

The scheme at 2 Beech Avenue2 is also not directly comparable as it related to 31 apartments and is some distance away from the appeal site, within a different context. Additionally, the site location plan provided shows smaller plots and cul-de-sac development within the vicinity of the site. The scheme at 35 & 37 Croham Valley Road3 is also some distance away from the appeal site, sitting within a different context. In particular, the evidence describes the variety of housing types in the area, including detached, semi-detached, terraced housing and apartment buildings. There also already appears to be back land development near this site. Given the above, I am not satisfied that it is directly comparable to the appeal scheme.

As mentioned, there a number of flatted developments towards the bottom of [address]. The scheme at [address] is read in a somewhat different context to the appeal site given its positioning at the junction with [address]. Various recessed elements have also been used to soften the visual impact of the increased bulk and massing and gardens wraparound the building on its corner plots, which create a sense of openness. Additionally, it is separated from [address] (No.1A), another flatted development, by a car park.

No.1A is larger in scale, bulk and mass than [address] (No.3), however it is downslope of No. 3, which ensures that it reflects the underlying building pattern and responds to its context.

There is also more variation in the pattern of development in the area surrounding the scheme on Sanderstead Road4. For example, smaller plots along [address] are situated adjacent to the site. I am therefore not satisfied that this scheme is directly comparable to the appeal scheme. There is also reference to developments of 9 self-contained dwellings and 8 to 40 apartments in Purley. However, these are some distance away and sit within a different context.

As such, I conclude that none of the examples provided are directly comparable to what is before me. In any case, appeals are determined on individual merit. The Council has no objection to the principle of development, but it remains that what is before me would fail to reflect or respect its context.

Overall, for the reasons set out, the scheme would result in the creation of a cramped and contrived form of development which would be at odds with the surrounding pattern of development. It would be contrary to Polices DM10 and SP4 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (CLP) and Polices D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021 (LP). Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure that development positively responds to a sites context and respects the character of an area. [name] acknowledge that the scheme has been reduced in scale from 1 APP/L5240/W/24/3351412 2 APP/L5240/W/23/3331137 3 APP/L5240/W/22/3309970 4 20/00064/FUL a previously refused and dismissed scheme at the site 5, for the reasons set out, I am not satisfied that it would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The existing dwelling is on land that is several metres higher than that of No. 6A’s plot. The scheme would be positioned within proximity to the shared boundary with No.6A and, notwithstanding the hipped roof, would have an additional storey of accommodation compared to the existing dwelling. It would also have a flank wall that would project beyond No. 6A’s rear elevation by approximately 5.7 metres, as set out in the appellant’s evidence. As such, there would be a substantial increase in bulk and mass close to the boundary with No 6A. As a result, the development would appear overbearing and visually intrusive to occupiers of No. 6A. This effect on outlook would also be exacerbated by the removal of trees along the shared boundary, which at present provide natural screening of the site and existing dwelling. Although replacement trees would be replanted, these would take some time to become established and offer any meaningful screening.

[name] acknowledge that the scheme has been reduced in scale and the property closest to No.6A would have a lower ridge line, in comparison to the previously refused and dismissed scheme, the scheme would extend substantially beyond the rear elevation of No.[address] distance.

To conclude, for the reasons set out above, the scheme would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.6A, with regard to outlook. The scheme would therefore be contrary to Policies DM10.6 of the CLP and Policies D3 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other matters, these polices seek to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

The third refusal reason relates to the absence of a signed completed legal agreement to secure a contribution towards improvements to sustainable transport. At appeal stage a signed and completed legal agreement has been provided. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, it has not been necessary for me to consider this matter in any further detail.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application and the withdrawal of a Supplementary Planning Document. However, these are not matters that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and do not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

The scheme may have no adverse impact on the operation of the highway, subject to a financial obligation. It may not result in harm to protected trees or ecology or increase the risk of flooding. It may promote sustainability and not result in a harmful loss of light to the occupants of No.6A. The site is also not situated within a conservation area, and the existing property is not listed. These are however considered neutral factors which do not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal. 5 24/01843/FUL

The proposed scheme would result in a net increase of 4 family homes. This would help meet the governments targets of delivering 1.5 million homes, and targets set out in the LP. The scheme would also make efficient use of an existing brownfield site within a settlement, somewhat close to various public transport facilities. The properties may provide good quality living conditions for future occupiers and one of the dwellings may be complaint with [name] building regulations. Given the scale of the development, at most I afford these benefits moderate weight in favour of the scheme.

Overall, the benefits of the proposed development do not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area and to the occupiers of No.6A, and its subsequent conflict with policy, to which I afford substantial weight.

The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.