Appeal 6005092

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposed development on the supply of small two/three bedroom dwellings; • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with regard to parking provision; and • whether the proposed development would provide adequate waste storage.

The appeal site relates to a three-storey terraced property on [name]. The ground floor is occupied by a commercial unit and residential accommodation is situated on the upper floors. The surrounding area comprises a mix of commercial and residential uses. It is located within a Primary Shopping Area and within New Addington District Centre.

Policy DM1.2 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (CLP) seeks to promote housing choice in order to deliver suitable communities. It outlines how the Council will permit the redevelopment of residential units where it does not result in the net loss of 3-bedroom homes (as originally built) or the loss of homes smaller than [address] metres (sqm). This policy is reiterated by Policy SP2 of the CLP which highlights the need to provide a choice of homes in order to address the need within the borough for homes of different sizes.

The existing plans show the property currently being used as two one-bedroom flats. The evidence before me states that this does not benefit from planning permission. The submitted ‘pre-existing’ plans show the property comprises of two bedrooms and a study. The appellant contends this is the original lawful layout of the property. The Council however set out that under a previous application (Ref: 23/03506/FUL) the existing plans showed the property as benefitting from three bedrooms, each measuring over 7sqm. Given the above, it is unclear as to whether the property was originally built as a three-bedroom dwelling.

Nonetheless, even if the property was not originally built as a three-bedroom dwelling, it measures under 130sqm and thus falls under the ambit of Policy DM1.2. The scheme would result in the loss of a property smaller than 130sqm, contrary to this policy.

The scheme would arguably contribute to the mix of housing types and tenures in the area, thereby supporting housing choice. Additionally, I recognise the role of HMOs in providing more affordable and flexible accommodation. However, the policy specifically seeks to protect against the loss of homes smaller than 130sqm.

Whilst the dwelling is located on the upper floors of the building, above a commercial parade, and does not include a garden, I am not satisfied that this would completely preclude it from accommodating a family. In any case, not all families include young children and babies using prams.

Whilst other local planning authorities may take a different approach to protecting specific types of housing, I have assessed the scheme based on the adopted Development Plan, which clearly seeks to protect dwellings smaller than 130sqm.

Overall, for the reasons set out above, the scheme would result in the loss of a home smaller than 130sqm. This would harm the supply of small two/three-bedroom dwellings and would be contrary to Policies DM1.2 and SP2 of the CLP. Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to protect homes smaller than 130sqm and provide a choice of homes which addresses need.

The proposed HMO would accommodate up to four unrelated persons. Whilst the existing dwelling could be occupied by four people at present, its use as an HMO would likely generate materially greater parking demands in comparison to a single household. In particular, the occupants of the HMO would have differing independent lives and living, working and social patterns, with comings and goings at different times of the day and night, often travelling, potentially by car, on their own or without any of the other occupiers of the HMO. Whereas in a single household, it is likely that occupants would have similar living patterns, often travel together and share cars.

The site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) score of 3, meaning it has good access to public transport. The surrounding highways are subject to controlled parking. During my mid-afternoon site visit there was evidence of moderate parking stress, with few parking spaces available. I am aware that this represents a snapshot in time but given the commercial and residential nature of the area, I have no reason to believe that what I saw is not representative.

The scheme would not include any vehicle parking, which is supported by policy. However, to ensure that the development would be car free, a mechanism is required to ensure that anyone living at [address]. There is no mechanism before me to ensure this. Whilst the site may be situated close to several public transport options, without any mechanism, occupiers may still utilise private cars for day-to-day transport requirements for those journeys that are not possible or practical on public transport and therefore try to obtain a parking permit. This would lead to an increased demand for parking.

This increased demand for parking, coupled with parking stress in the area, would increase the likelihood of residents and visitors parking close to road junctions and may also reduce the number of places that pedestrians can cross the road with good intervisibility between pedestrians and road users, thereby increasing the likelihood of collisions. This would harm highway safety.

The appellant contends that no evidence has been provided to demonstrate the Council’s position on this issue, however based on its reasoning, such conclusions are reasonable to make. To the contrary, the appellant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the local area could accommodate any increased parking demand.

For the reasons set out above, and in the absence of a legal agreement, the scheme would result in increased parking demand and stress in the area, which would harm highway safety. It would be contrary to Policies SP8, DM29 and DM30 of the CLP and Policies T4, T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan 2021 (LP). Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that car parking does not compromise highway safety.

Concerns are raised regarding the layout of the proposed bin storage, in that it would open out into a public right of way (PROW). However, I am satisfied that the area to the front of the property is of sufficient size to accommodate the bin store in a way that it does not open into the PROW. I am also satisfied that the area is of sufficient size so as to accommodate the number of bins required to serve the development.

It is unclear whether residents would have to place their bin bags on [name] for collection, as per the existing arrangement, or take the bins down the stairs for collection, which may pose safety and practicality concerns. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that all the properties on the upper floors along [name] are in the same situation, given their positioning above shops. Therefore, given the specific circumstances and the context of the site, I am satisfied that, on balance, an appropriate waste management system would be possible.

[name] were to allow the appeal, I could use a planning condition to ensure the submission of such details to include the position and design of the bin store and arrangements for collection.

For the above reasons, on the basis that details could be secured by condition if I were to allow the appeal, I am satisfied that the scheme would comply with Policy DM13 of the CLP. Amongst other things, this policy seeks to ensure the provision of adequate waste facilities.

The proposal would be capable of ensuring adequate waste storage facilities. However, it would result in the loss of a home smaller than 130sqm, which the CLP specifically seeks to protect. Additionally, in the absence of an effective mechanism to prevent occupiers from applying for a parking permit, it would result in additional parking demand and stress in the area, thereby harming highway safety. It would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. The appeal is therefore dismissed.