Appeal 6004583

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are:  The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the effect on trees.  The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook, privacy and any overbearing effect to 17 and [address]  The quality of accommodation for future occupiers with particular regard to outdoor space, accessibility and daylight and sunlight to the proposed units.  Whether or not the proposed development would make adequate provision for homes of different sizes.  Whether the proposed development would promote sustainable transport modes including with regard to cycle storage.  Highway safety with particular regard to car parking.

The appeal site is within a row of properties on [address] with distinctive shared characteristics including front gables and bay windows to pairs of semi-detached properties, some with arched entrances. They are two storeys and some have accommodation within their roofs. There is some variation in ridge height, but the pitched roof appearance is prevalent. Many have two storey outriggers to the rear with pitched roofs sitting below the main ridge and retaining a large back garden resulting in a more modest, secondary character to the rear part of these plots. The appellant states these properties, and others in the street have basements however, lightwells and fenestration below ground level do not form a noticeable part of the streetscene.

There is some variation elsewhere in the road. This includes an aparthotel at [address], which has a frontage similar to the neighbouring properties, but with larger rear outriggers and a separate building to the rear (LPA ref 23/02934/FUL). There are also three dwellings on a separate site to the rear of [address] which replaced lock up garages (LPA ref 15/05102/P). Nevertheless, prominent development to the rear parts of plots is uncommon and does not form part of the area’s prevailing character. There are also flats at [address] (LPA ref 18/05930/FUL). The building appears as two storeys to eaves level with projecting gables serving accommodation in the roof.

No 19 is a detached property in a different appearance, but its two storey height and use of brick, tile and render reflect its surroundings. There is a magnolia tree in the back garden. It provides a pleasant sense of greenery to the surrounding properties but is only visible in glimpsed views from the street.

Overall, whilst there is some variation in the surroundings, the overriding characteristics of this part of [address] which set the context for the appeal site are its modest two storey residential character, with the distinctive row of houses providing a pleasant consistency in the vicinity of no 19.

The appeal scheme proposes the replacement of the existing house with a larger building with nine flats across four floors. Its ridge height would be above the adjoining properties but broadly aligned with nos 23-25 and 11-13. To the front, two gable features are proposed with windows to the lower ground, ground and first floors. To the rear a four storey outrigger would occupy the majority of the width of the plot. It has a stepped rear elevation which incorporates large, glazed patio doors and balconies at each floor. The proposal is in a contemporary style and includes an arched entrance and rear roof slopes.

The fenestration to the frontage includes three floors of windows including to lower ground level which, although partially below ground level, would be visible from the street. To the front the building therefore appears as three storeys plus a large roof. The overall height would not exceed nos 11-13 and 27-29. However, the inclusion of a basement level and the three storey appearance of the building along with the large roofslope above would result in a visually apparent increase in scale from the neighbouring two storey buildings with modest roof additions. Therefore, the building would appear oversized and dominant in the streetscene.

The rear element of the building would occupy the majority of the width of the site at four storeys and would extend beyond the neighbouring two storey outriggers at second floor and above. It would be a significantly larger mass than the existing modest outriggers and would be an unacceptably bulky and prominent addition which would harmfully erode the secondary, more modest character of the rear part of the site. The building would be set further in from the boundaries than the existing property, however its overall scale would be much greater. Consequently, the combination of the proposed height, width and depth would result in an uncharacteristically large building which would be unacceptably dominant.

The four storey height would exceed the requirement of Policy DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) (CLP) that development proposals should seek to achieve as a minimum three storeys. However, for the reasons above it would not respect the scale, height, massing and density of the surroundings which is also a requirement of the policy. As such, it would not provide support for the appeal scheme.

The proposed building includes gables to the front. This style echoes the appearance of the semi-detached properties nearby, however the scale across three floors with a large roof above would not. There are curved details to individual front doors in the street. In contrast, the proposed scale of the curved features above the proposed communal front door as well as to the rear roofslope would be large and highly prominent and consequently would be visually jarring.

The footprint of the building would be close to the magnolia tree in the rear garden, and in the absence of detailed arboricultural information I am not satisfied that the tree would be retained. However, there would be a large communal garden where suitable replacement planting could be provided which could have a similar effect to the existing urban tree. This would preserve the character of the area and would not be contrary to Policy DM28 of the CLP which seeks to avoid the loss of preserved trees that make a contribution to the character of the area. The lack of harm in this regard would have a neutral effect.

Overall, for the reasons above the proposed building would prominently and harmfully erode the modest residential appearance and distinctive characteristics of this part of [address] and would result in serious harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Therefore, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would be contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) and Policies DM10, SP4.1 and SP4.2 of the CLP. Together these set criteria for high quality design which respects local character and appearance.

The adjoining properties appear to have main windows to the rear of their outriggers and their main rear elevations at ground and first floor. No 17 also has a first floor side window. There is some existing enclosure to the windows to the main rear elevation however, the pitched roof and existing height and length to the outriggers result in sufficient openness and a reasonable outlook.

The proposed rear elevation extends some distance beyond the end of these outriggers and, although it would be stepped, there would be a 1.5 storey high wall plus railings to balconies, close to the boundary, extending for some length. Furthermore, the side returns would be adjoined by a mainly solid brick elevation, 2.5 storeys above ground level with a substantial roof form above. It would significantly enclose parts of the adjoining rear gardens creating a tunnel effect. The scale, proximity and bulk of the building proposed would be harmfully overbearing to these adjoining occupiers and harmful to the outlook from the windows to the main rear elevation and side windows.

The plans show that the balconies would be enclosed by metal railings. This would enable direct views from the sides of the balconies towards the parts of the adjoining gardens which are closest to the houses. The proliferation of views from multiple households would result in a harmful loss of privacy to these neighbours. The appellant has indicated that the balconies could be provided with obscure glazing to their side elevations. However, they would increase the scale of the development to the side elevations which would further exacerbate the harm from the overbearing effect set out above. As such, it would not be appropriate to secure this by condition.

Therefore, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook, privacy and the overbearing effect to 17 and [address]. Consequently, it would be contrary to Policy DM10.6 of the CLP which seeks to ensure the amenity of adjoining occupiers are protected including with regard to overlooking. Policy D6 of the LP mainly relates to the quality and standard of the proposed housing, and as such the policies set out above are more relevant to this main issue.

There is a change in levels across the site to accommodate the lower ground floor living accommodation and the windows to these units. As a result, two sets of steps are proposed along the side access route leading to the communal garden. The appellant states that these could be amended to be ramps which could be secured by condition. However, I have no detail as to the gradients that would be required and whether it would be achievable alongside the proposed fenestration. As such, I am not satisfied that such detail could be secured by condition. For these reasons this situation is different from those before the Inspector in appeal APP/L5240/W/23/3328383. Consequently, the communal garden would not be accessible to all occupiers.

One of the lower ground floor units would be M4(3) compliant with access to a private amenity area of 43sqm. This would be an appropriately sized garden area for these occupiers. As such the development would provide an amount of wheelchair user dwellings which complies with the requirements of Policy D7 of the LP. Nevertheless, the fact that there would not be an accessible route to the communal garden would not create and inclusive accessible place with a high standard of amenity for future users.

The majority of the proposed units would have access to over 5sqm of private outdoor space. However, the two lower ground floor studio units would have 3 and 4 sqm. They take the form of a recessed courtyard surrounded by four storey development facing onto the access to the communal garden or the private space for unit 3. This would be undersized and would not be high quality outdoor space. Whilst these occupiers would have a suitably direct access to the communal garden, it would provide a different function to private amenity space and should not replace this provision. These units would be 2sqm over the minimum [name] (NDSS). However, their layout and size do not provide for a similar use or activities which would replace a private garden area. Nor am I satisfied that a new building in this location results in constraints or exceptional circumstances where additional indoor space would be a suitable replacement for appropriate outdoor space. Therefore, these units would not provide suitable outdoor space for the occupiers.

The units at first and second floor would be long and narrow. They would be served by generous windows to the front and rear which face across the open aspect of the road or onto the rear garden. The central parts of the units include kitchens and bedrooms and these have windows onto the four storey recessed courtyard. The light and outlook from these windows would be restricted by the layout as well as the proximity of the adjoining properties at no 17 and 21. As such it is unlikely that light would be well distributed throughout the unit. Consequently, and in the absence of detailed daylight and sunlight information, I am not satisfied that the units would be sufficiently well lit.

The floor plans submitted with the appeal do not include changes to floor areas but are more detailed than those with the application. On this basis, the Council does not find harm with regard to the provision of overall floorspace and storage and I have no reason to disagree with these findings. However, the lack of harm in this regard is a neutral matter.

Therefore, the proposed development would provide unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to outdoor space, accessibility and daylight and sunlight to the proposed units. As such, it would be contrary to Policy D6 of the LP and Policy DM10 of the CLP. Together these require a minimum of 5sqm of private amenity space for each unit, the provision of accessible communal outdoor space for flatted development with adequate daylight and sunlight for new housing.

Policy SP2.7 of the CLP seeks that a choice of homes is available that will address the borough’s need for homes of different sizes. It sets a strategic target for 30% of all new homes to have three or more bedrooms. I am also provided with detailed evidence that recently the provision of such units was at 15%.

The appeal scheme would provide one 3-bedroom unit which would be 11% of the homes on the site. It would not result in a net loss of 3 bedroom homes and would be in accordance with Policy DM1.2 of the CLP in this regard. However, the proposed development would be a new build development in an area that is characterised by family housing and would include a very limited provision of family sized accommodation. Whilst the policy sets a strategic target, the evidence for this appeal makes it clear that it is not being met and that there is an ongoing and increasing need for three or more bedroom homes in the borough. Therefore, in these circumstances, the proposed housing sizes would not meet the needs of the borough for homes with three or more bedrooms.

My attention has been drawn to an appeal which was allowed with no three bedroom units (ref: APP/L5240/W/19/3224659). In that case, the Inspector identified the arrangement was not suitable for family housing. I also understand that planning permission has been granted elsewhere in the borough for around 13-14% provision of three bedroom houses (LPA ref: 19/02736/FUL and 23/02405/FUL). However, I am not provided with evidence that satisfies me that the circumstances for these cases are comparable to that before me now.

Therefore, the proposed development would make inadequate provision for homes of different sizes and would be contrary to Policy SP2.7 of the CLP in this regard, the aims of which are set out above.

The appeal site is located in Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) areas 2-3. [name] understand that at one end of the road the PTAL level rises to 6, nevertheless the additional distance from transport links means that there is not good public transport accessibility at this location. As such, it would be attractive to future occupiers to use a private car.

The development would not provide any car parking spaces for the unit, and therefore it would not exceed the maximum parking standards set out in Policy T6.1 of the LP and Policy DM30 of the CLP. However, there is no mechanism to ensure the development is car free. As such, it is likely that occupiers will park on the street. Furthermore, in the absence of detailed information, such as a parking stress survey, I am not satisfied that there is capacity for additional safe car parking on the street. Taking all the above into account, the development is likely to result in additional cars parking on the street which could not be accommodated, leading to highway safety concerns and not supporting sustainable modes of travel.

Consequently, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety with particular regard to car parking. As such it would be contrary to policies DM29 and DM30 of the CLP which require that there should not be a detrimental impact on highway safety and promote sustainable transport.

Cycle parking is proposed to the rear garden, which would be accessed via two sets of stairs, and along a narrow path which is under 1.2m wide. These features mean that it would not be attractive to cyclists and would not be accessible to adapted cycles. This would not therefore encourage sustainable transport modes.

[name] state that cycle storage inside the home can work well, if it is provided over and above the minimum gross internal floor area and minimum storage and circulation space requirements. However, whilst some of the units exceed the NDSS, their layout does not demonstrate that there would be sufficient, suitable space to store bicycles. Consequently, in the circumstances of this case, internal cycle storage in the individual units would not be an appropriate replacement for secure covered cycle parking. [name] stands could be provided to the forecourt. However, this area is highly visible in the street and used for access, circulation and bin storage. As such, and in the absence of any detail I am not satisfied that a sufficient amount and size of safe and secure parking could be provided for the development.

The Council has sought to secure £1,500 per unit towards improvements to sustainable transport measures. Policy SP8 of the CLP requires development to contribute to the provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, car clubs and car sharing schemes. [name] am not provided with a specific project for the contribution the amount sought per unit is modest. Consequently, I am satisfied that this contribution is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to this development. The appellant indicates that they would be willing to enter into a legal agreement to secure the contribution. However, the Procedural Guide - Planning Appeals is clear that an executed and certified copy of the planning obligation must be received at the time of making the appeal. No obligation has been received and as such there is no mitigation proposed.

As such, the proposed development would not promote sustainable transport modes including with regard to cycle storage. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to policies T5 of the LP, SP8 and DM29 of the CLP. In addition to the aims set out above these seek to promote measures to increase the use of public transport, cycling and walking and secure appropriate levels of cycle parking including parking for larger cycles amongst other things.

Policy D12 of the LP requires that development proposals must achieve the highest standards of fire safety and that major development should be submitted with a fire statement. The appellant indicated that access can be provided for fire appliances and alarm systems would be provided. Albeit as the development is for less than 10 units a fire statement has not been submitted. Nevertheless, I am not provided with details as to how the development, with direct access to the street, would not ensure the safety of all building users. As such I am satisfied that the proposed development could achieve fire safety.

Policy SI 12 of the LP requires that flood risk is minimised and mitigated amongst other things. Although the development proposes an increase in built form and changes to levels, the appeal site is at a low risk of flooding from any sources. As such it is unlikely that the site would flood and therefore, as the development is for less than 10 units, a flood risk assessment would not be required, following the requirements of Policy DM25 of the CLP. A SUDs strategy would be needed. However, there is little detail before me that an appropriate SUDs strategy could not be achieved on the appeal site. Therefore, based on the evidence in this case, it would be appropriate for such detail to be secured by condition. Consequently, the proposed development would not increase flood risk on site or elsewhere. Therefore, the development would be in accordance with policies DM25 of the CLP and SI 12 of the LP, the aims of which are set out above.

The appeal scheme would develop 9 new flats in an existing settlement along with the social and economic benefits of such provision. Part of the development would be on previously developed land and I give substantial weight to the value of using the land for homes. However, taking into account the scale of development, overall, the benefits of the appeal scheme are moderate. On the other hand, for the reasons above, harm has been identified with regard to the multiple matters of character and appearance, existing and future living conditions, the type of housing proposed, sustainable transport and highway safety. The harm to these numerous and fundamental issues is substantial. Therefore, this would not outweigh the moderate benefits outlined above.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.