Appeal 6004486

The appeal is dismissed.

At appeal stage the appellant has submitted amended plans to revise the location, layout and design of the bin and cycle stores. Both stores would still be located to the front of the dwelling. Given the nature of the change, I do not consider that the proposed amendments introduce a fundamental change to the application. I also do not consider that it is so changed that to consider it would deprive those who should have been consulted on the changed development of the opportunity of such consultation. The Council have had the opportunity to review the amended plans prior to submitting its statement of case. I have therefore based my decision on the amended plans.

The second refusal reason, amongst other things, references the effect of the refuse provision on the amenities of flat 1 with regard to noise, disturbance, smells outlook. However, following the submission of the amended plans, the Council has confirmed in its statement of case that the amendments would result in the bins not harming the occupants of flat 1. I have therefore not considered this element of the refusal reason further.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to the provision of private amenity space, noise and disturbance; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposed development would provide adequate cycle storage facilities; • whether the proposed development would provide adequate refuse storage facilities; and • whether a planning obligation would be required to mitigate the demands created for on-street parking and to secure a financial contribution towards sustainable transport initiatives.

The scheme would provide private gardens for each flat and a communal garden area to the rear of the site. The occupiers of flats 2 and 3 would have direct access to their garden areas whereas the occupiers of flats 1 and 4 would have to travel through communal areas and down a narrow path to the side of the main property to access their private gardens. This arrangement would be inconvenient for future occupiers of flats 1 and 4 and diminish the benefits and purpose of a private amenity space. Furthermore, the distance a resident would need to walk through the internal space and along the side path would make usual activities associated with an external amenity space such as hanging washing impractical. In this regard the private amenity spaces for flats 1 and 4 would be impractical and inconvenient, discouraging use by future occupiers. I do not consider that the use of LED lighting along the side path would encourage usage as it would not address the distance residents of flats 1 and 4 would have to travel to use the space. I note the Inspector for a similar scheme at the site came to a similar conclusion 1.

Both flats 1 and 2 would also have windows which would face out onto the narrow access path. The windows facing the path in flat 1 would serve the kitchen element of the studio flat whereas the windows in flat 2 would serve a bedroom and a hall area. The windows would be obscurely glazed up to 1.7 metres.

Although movements along the access path would be limited to other occupiers of the development, there would be no restrictions as to when and how often the occupiers of the other flats would use this path. This would result in noise and disturbance which would be apparent to the occupiers of flats 1 and 2, particularly from the bedroom of flat 2 and the kitchen area of flat 1. Additionally, the access path appears to serve as the primary access to flat 2, therefore any time an occupier enters or exits flat [address] past the windows serving flat 1. This would result in additional noise and disturbance for the occupiers of flat 1.

Whilst the windows in flat 1 would sit behind kitchen units, this would offer little mitigation. Furthermore, as flat 1 is a studio flat, occupiers would not be provided with any relief from the noise and disturbance. The impact would also be exacerbated by the narrowness of the path.

Rubber paving is proposed along the access way; however, I have little information before me regarding how much noise reduction this would offer. Due to the nature of my concerns, which relate to noise and disturbance, the proposed 1 APP/L5240/W/25/3361859 LED lighting and obscure glazing would not offer suitable and sufficient mitigation. Whilst the windows facing the access way would be non-opening below 1.7 metres, they could still be opened above this point. In any case, I am not satisfied that this would adequately minimise any noise and disturbance. I also note that the ground level in the side passage is marginally lower than the internal floor area, however this minimal difference would not sufficiently minimise noise and disturbance.

I acknowledge that the scheme has been amended from the previously refused scheme at the site, as mentioned. However, one bedroom and the studio flat would still face out onto the narrow access path. Whilst future occupiers would be aware of the arrangement prior to occupancy, this is not sufficient justification to allow development which would not provide satisfactory living conditions. The appellant outlines how side passage access arrangements are common in London and other similar schemes have been approved. However, I have not been provided with details of these schemes.

For the above reasons, the scheme would fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to the provision of private amenity space, noise and disturbance. It would therefore be contrary to Policy DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (CLP) and Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 (LP). Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers.

The appeal site relates to a semi-detached dwelling on [address]. The property is set back from the road by a small front garden and benefits from a garden to the rear. The surrounding area is residential in character and includes mainly semi-detached and terraced dwellings of a similar size and style. Various properties within the area appear to have been converted into flats or houses of multiple occupancy (HMO).

The Council raise concerns in relation to the effect of the proposed roof terrace on the character and appearance of the area. The proposed roof terrace would be situated on an existing single storey rear projection. It would be substantially set back from the edges of the rear projection, and the enclosure would measure approximately 1.7 metres in height, sitting well below that of the main ridge line. Its relatively small size would ensure it remains subservient to the main dwelling.

Although there are no examples of other roof terraces in the surrounding area, there are numerous examples of other single and two storey rear extensions. In this regard, the roof terrace would not appear at odds with surrounding development. Given its positioning to the rear of the property, views from the street scene would be extremely limited. Although it would be visible from neighbouring dwellings, for the above reasons, I do not find any harm in this regard. As such, for the reasons set out, the proposed roof terrace would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the host property or the surrounding area.

Concerns are also raised regarding the cumulative effect of the proposed refuse and cycle stores and the parking space to the front of the dwelling. The bin and cycle stores would be situated against the side boundaries, towards the front of the site.

The siting of bins and bicycles to the front of properties is common within the surrounding area. On my site visit I observed many properties in the area with numerous bins to the front of the dwelling, alongside often two parked cars and motorbikes. I acknowledge that many of these properties may have been granted planning permission or certificates of lawfulness for flats and HMOS some time ago or under historical legislation. Nonetheless, given the number of examples, this is a characteristic of the area.

Additionally, the proposed bin and cycle stores would arguably offer an improvement to other examples in the area, by providing stores to screen the bins and bicycles. Also, given the generous size of the area to the front of the property, the stores and parking space would only occupy a small proportion of it so as to not result in unacceptable clutter. Overall, for the above reasons, the proposed bin and cycle stores and parking space would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. If the bike store was to become slightly larger to accommodate a wider/adaptable bike, I am still satisfied that the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area.

To conclude, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would be in accordance with Policies SP4, DM10 and DM13 of the CLP and Policy D3 of the LP in this regard. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that responds positively to the character of an area.

The Council set out that a total of six spaces should be provided, and at least one of these spaces should be for a wider/adapted bike, which would require a 1.5 metre clear width on the side of the stand. It contends that the proposed cycle store is therefore too small.

However, given the size of the area to the front of the property, I am satisfied that there would be sufficient space to accommodate the required cycle parking. [name] were to allow the appeal, I could use a condition to require the submission of amended cycle storage details.

Given the above, I am satisfied that the scheme would be capable of ensuring adequate cycle storage. It would therefore be in accordance with Policy DM29 and DM30 of the CLP and Policy T5 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure that development facilitates and encourages cycling.

The amended plans would ensure waste storage in accordance with the Waste and Recycling Planning Policy Document. The scheme would be accordance with Policy DM13 of the CLP which seeks to ensure that development makes adequate provision for refuse and recycling facilities.

The evidence before me indicates that the site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) score of 3, meaning it has good accessibility to public transport. The area is not situated in a controlled parking zone (CPZ). The Council contend that a legal agreement is necessary to remove access to parking permits for occupiers if a CPZ is brought in in future, and to secure a contribution towards improvements to sustainable transport initiatives including, but not limited to, on street car club spaces with electric vehicle charging points and electric vehicle charging points in general.

Regarding removing access to parking permits, the site is not situated within a CPZ and there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that parking stress in the area is at an unsustainable level, or there are plans to make the area surrounding the site a CPZ. Indeed, the evidence indicates that there would be sufficient capacity to accommodate parking demand from the development within the street. As such, I am not satisfied that it would be reasonable or necessary to remove access to parking permits if a CPZ is brought in in future.

Regarding a contribution for improvements to sustainable transport, I lack any specific, up-to-date and quantified evidence regarding the existing facilities and whether or not they can meet additional demands, details of the methodology for calculating the contribution and sufficient detail of exactly what any contributions would be spent on.

Accordingly, I cannot be certain that the contributions sought would be necessary to make the development acceptable or that they would be directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Consequently, I am unable to conclude that a planning obligation seeking to provide contributions to sustainable transport initiatives would comply with Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).

In these circumstances, the absence of a planning obligation does not weigh against the development, and I do not find any conflict with Policies SP8, DM29 and DM30 of the CLP and Policies T4 and T6 of the LP in this regard.

The flats and garden sizes would exceed the [name]. The flats may also benefit from adequate levels of natural light and outlook. The site is not situated within a conservation area, and the property is not listed. The scheme may also not result in the loss of a family sized dwelling and there may be no harm to the living conditions of neighbours. Cycle parking would be provided, thereby promoting sustainable methods of transport. These are however considered neutral factors and do not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

The scheme would optimise the capacity of the site and provide three additional dwellings of various sizes on a windfall site. This would contribute to the government’s targets of providing more homes and the targets set out in the LP. Given the relatively small scale of development, this at most attracts moderate weight in favour of the development.

The scheme would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would also be capable of providing adequate cycle storage and would ensure adequate waste storage. The absence of a planning obligation does not weigh against the development. Accordingly, these are considered neutral factors in the planning balance.

Overall, the benefits of the proposed development do not outweigh the harm in respect of the living conditions of future occupiers and its subsequent conflict with policy, to which I afford significant 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.