Appeal 6005298

The appeal is dismissed.

A planning obligation has been submitted which seeks to promote sustainable transport. I will return to this matter later in the decision.

The main issues are • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including with regard to trees. • The quality of living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to outlook, light, outdoor space, cycle and bin storage. • The effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to any overbearing effect to 15, 17 and [address], privacy to 28 and [address] and the effect on the outdoor space to [site address] . • Whether the proposed development would support sustainable transport modes.

[site address] is a two-three storey building which has been subdivided into flats. Its features including its hipped and pitched roof and fenestration including bay windows results in an attractive traditional appearance. The building sits towards the front of the plot with a generous garden to the rear which is divided into three gardens for ground floor flats and a communal garden beyond.

Along South Park Hill Road there are properties in a more modern style, including flat roofs, alongside traditional buildings. The pattern of development mainly includes properties towards the front of the plot and generous gardens to the rear. There are some exceptions and the development at no 7, and ‘[name], as well as nos 54, 56 and [address], include buildings in back gardens. In these cases, the rear part of the site is generally secondary and subservient to the main frontage development. Therefore, the prominence of the frontage development and the more modest, secondary character to the rear parts of the sites are important features of the area.

There are a number of trees on the site and in the adjoining garden including two very large [name] trees in the garden of no. 15 (T4 and T5). These are protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) and they are highly visible, particularly from the surrounding properties and make a positive contribution to the green garden areas to the rear of the built development.

The proposed development would introduce a three storey, flat roofed block within the existing back garden area. The overall height of the building is smaller than no. 17 and, whilst there is some disagreement as to the percentage of the site area that the proposed building would cover, the footprint of the building is smaller than the host property. It would include angled bay windows and a stepped form to the western elevation above an irregular shaped ground floor plan. The outdoor space would be subdivided to provide two gardens to the new flats along the southern boundary, a communal garden for the existing flats and the subsequent reduction of the private garden areas to existing flats A, B and C.

The proposed building is an angular and boxy form across the full height of its three floors. It would have an extended ground floor with multiple projecting elements, and the bay windows add further massing. The western elevation would be largely blank with fenestration behind privacy screens resulting in a lack of articulation, individuality or interest to this highly visible elevation which contributes to the boxy and bulky appearance. These features highlight its three storey scale in this garden setting. It would be over 10m from the rear of the existing building and would not be contrary to Policy DM10.4 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) (CLP) in this regard. Nevertheless, the bulk and massing in the form proposed would appear dominant in this context and would not respect the secondary character to the rear part of the plot which is an important part of the character and pattern of development in the area.

The bay windows to bedrooms in [name], C and D, although angled, would face towards the canopy of the nearby TPO trees. These are the only windows to the only bedroom in two of these properties. Given the size and proximity of the canopies, even though deciduous, they would restrict light to these windows. Consequently, the development would create pressure to prune which would limit the future growth of the trees. The submitted arboricultural information also shows that an area of pavement would be within the root protection zone (RPZ) of tree T4. It would be constructed using a no dig method with a cellweb/geoweb layer, and the surface would be air and water permeable. However, it would cover a notable area of the RPZ. Taken together, I am not satisfied that the proposed development would ensure the protection of these trees. Their loss or deterioration would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

There are other modern properties in this area and earlier decisions have not objected to the development of the previously proposed modern designs, nor to a three storey height in this rear garden location. The proposal is also smaller than that considered for an appeal at this site in 2022 (Ref: APP/L5240/W/21/3284670). However, I agree with the appellant that the appeal scheme is a completely new proposal. For the reasons specific to this appeal set out above it would unacceptably erode the character and appearance of the area.

Therefore, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, including with regard to trees. As such, it would be contrary to Policies SP4, DM10 and DM28 of the CLP and D3, D4, H2, G5 and G7 of the London Plan (2021) (LP). Together these set criteria to achieve high quality design for development which respects local character, including on small sites, and to protect and enhance trees and contribute to urban greening amongst other things. Policy SP7.4 mainly relates to biodiversity and therefore the policies set out above are more relevant to this main issue.

In addition to the TPO trees mentioned above there are other trees including a 7m high group of [name] in the north eastern corner of no. 19 as well as two [name] along the side boundary which would be retained.

The proposed main windows would achieve an unobstructed 25 degree line from a point 1.5m above ground level, taking into account physical features such as fences. However, this does not take into account the existing trees. Whilst they do not cast shade in the same way as a solid building, in this case there is a pair of large trees up to 22m high at the time the survey was undertaken in 2024. Although the units are dual aspect, taking this into account and for the reasons set out above the bedroom bay windows in [name], C and D would not achieve, and continue to achieve suitable levels of light or outlook to these main rooms. Consequently, there would be poor quality living conditions for future occupiers.

The private amenity space to the proposed [name] would have a single more modest tree within it. The removal of some existing trees along the boundary would create an open aspect to a large part of the garden to [name]. As such, even with the trees and proposed fences, on this basis I find that these south facing spaces would be suitably well lit as would the windows which open onto them, and the windows above.

There is very little information as to the size or detail of any play space, therefore the evidence with this appeal does not demonstrate that the development would provide good-quality, accessible play provision for children and young people who are likely to use it. However, the proposed communal garden for the host property would be used and managed in association with the existing units, similar to the current arrangement. As such there would not be a change in its management and so there would not be harm in this regard.

The existing top floor windows at the host property would be some distance from the private amenity space for [name] and [name] combination with the proposed privacy screening, harmful overlooking towards this space would be unlikely. Nor would the fencing to the units’ own private garden space with open views above result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure.

Furthermore, it appears that the bin store is within [address] and therefore within the distance that refuse collections can take place. Although within a distance of 30m as the crow flies from the proposed front door the walking route for residents may be slightly longer to access the furthest bin. However, it is on a direct flat paved route, and occupiers would pass the bin store each time they enter or exit the property. As such, the bin stores would be suitable for future occupiers.

The plans show a suitable area for cycle storage to the front of the proposed building and the appellant has confirmed that the units would be M4(3) compliant. On this basis, and subject to conditions, the Council have not identified harm in these regards. I have no reason to disagree with these findings and so there would not be a conflict with Policy D7 of the London Plan which relates to accessible housing. Additionally, whilst I have not found harm to matters including the quality of the proposed outdoor space, cycle and bin storage, the lack of harm in these regards is a neutral matter.

Therefore, overall, the proposed development would result in an inadequate quality of living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to outlook, light and play space. Consequently, it would be contrary to Policies SP2.8 and DM10 of the CLP and D6 and S4 of the LP. Together these require that homes meet the needs of residents including with regard to play provision and daylight and sunlight amongst other things.

The building would be seen from the existing windows at no. 17 as well as from the gardens of no 15 and 19 although views from the windows at 15 and 19 would not be direct. It would be located over 10m from any of the windows at no. 17 and at its closest point there is around 12m separation distance at ground floor which would increase at first and second floor. Whilst this falls below the recommended window to window distances, there are no proposed windows which would provide direct views between occupiers. Nevertheless, for the detailed reasons above the appeal scheme would have a dominant appearance in this back garden setting. Taking into account the proximity of the building along with its scale and height, its dominant appearance would result in a harmful overbearing effect and sense of enclosure to the nearby properties.

On the eastern side of the site is a garage block and parking area which appears to serve [address]. It adjoins a lawned garden on one side with the rear part of the long garden to [address] on the other. The proposed angled bay windows would look towards the rear part of these gardens. However, any views would be in a location where there is already some, albeit more distant, overlooking from neighbouring properties and, importantly would be set some way back from the buildings. Overall, there would not be a harmful loss of privacy to 28 and [address].

The size of the private gardens to the existing units would reduce. However, they would remain suitably sized for these occupiers. Furthermore, all existing flats would also have access to the communal garden space. As such, whilst there would be a reduction in the amount of open space accessible to the residents of the host property, the resultant garden area would provide a suitable outdoor space for these occupiers. Therefore, there would not be an unacceptable effect on the outdoor space to [site address] . Nevertheless, the absence of harm to overlooking and the quality of outdoor space would not outweigh the harm with regard to the overbearing effect of the proposed development.

Consequently, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to the overbearing effect to 15, 17 and [address]. As such it would be contrary to policy DM10 of the CLP and D3 of the LP. Together these require appropriate amenity to the occupiers of adjoining buildings.

Policies DM29 of the CLP and T4 of the LP require development to promote sustainable transport measures and mitigate adverse transport impacts including through financial contributions. The appellant has provided a planning obligation which includes a contribution towards sustainable transport matters for £1,500 per unit, which is the amount sought by the Council. [name] am not provided with a specific project for the contribution, the amount sought per unit is modest. Therefore, I am satisfied that this contribution is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and I have no detail that demonstrate that the obligation would not secure this contribution.

As such the proposed development would mitigate the effects on sustainable transport. Consequently, it would be in accordance with policies DM29 of the CLP and T4 of the LP the aims of which are set out above. Albeit the lack of harm in this regard is a neutral matter.

The appellant considers that the proposed development addressed concerns of previous schemes. However, the appeal scheme is a new design that goes beyond modifications and adaptions and differs in its scale, siting, layout and appearance. I have taken into account the previous applications at the site and their reasons for refusal. Nevertheless, the appeal scheme would be harmful for the reasons set out above.

The proposed development would provide 4 new units on a small windfall site in an urban area, with good public transport accessibility and within 300m of [name] train station. It would provide one family unit. This would be 25% of the overall units, below the strategic target of 30%, but higher than the average delivery of 11% and it makes a positive contribution towards the provision of family units. Policy H2 of the LP supports well-designed new homes on small sites. Although it would be a small site, its is not a well designed development for the reasons set out above, and as such it does not comply with this policy. The appeal scheme would contribute to driving up housebuilding in London which would be a valuable positive benefit. However, taking into account the scale of the development, these benefits are no more than moderate.

On the other hand, the proposed development would not result in a high standard of amenity for existing and future users for a number of reasons and would not create a high quality place which is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Overall, the harm to these multiple important matters would be significant. Consequently, the moderate benefits would not outweigh this significant harm.

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.