Appeal 6005396

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form refers to the development as being retrospective albeit not completed. During my site visit I observed that although some of the rooms appeared to be in line with the submitted plans, others were not. I have assessed the appeal proposal on the basis of the submitted plans.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the supply of family sized housing in the borough, and; • highway safety, with particular regard to parking provision.

Policy SP2 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) (CLP) amongst other matters, outlines that the Council will seek to ensure that a choice of homes is available in the borough that will address the borough’s need for homes of different sizes. Specifically, this will be partly achieved by a strategic target for 30% of all new homes to have three or more bedrooms.

Policy DM1 of the CLP relates to housing choice, stating that, the Council will permit the redevelopment of residential units where it does not result in the net loss of three-bedroom homes (as originally built), or the loss of homes smaller than 130m2.

The Council has provided evidence, in the form of floor plans from a historic planning application, which demonstrate that the appeal property was previously a three-bedroom dwelling. The appellant has not disputed this point. In the context of Policy DM1 of the CLP, the development has therefore led to the net loss of a three-bedroom home, contrary to policy.

The Council has directed my attention to the definition of family housing within the London Plan (2021) (LP), which generally relates to properties of three or more bedrooms. The conversion of the dwelling to a house in multiple occupation (HMO), which by their very nature are occupied by separate households, has therefore led to the loss of a family sized dwelling which forms a specific housing need within the borough, as outlined through the policies within the CLP.

Based on the above, I find that the loss of a family sized unit, and its replacement with a 6 person HMO, fails to account for and contribute to a housing mix which meets the identified needs of the borough. The development is therefore contrary to Policies SP2 and DM1 of the CLP.

The appeal site is within the [site address] [name] (CPZ). Despite the good accessibility rating of the area (a public transport accessibility level of 3 with 1 being the lowest score, and 6 being the highest score in regard to provision of public transport), I observed during my site visit that on street car parking was frequent and of limited availability. [name] appreciate that this represents a snapshot in time, there is little in the evidence before me to suggest that demand for on street parking is usually lower.

Policies SP8 and DM30 of the CLP in part seek to reduce the impact of car parking in any development located in areas of good public transport accessibility, or areas of existing on-street parking stress. This corresponds with Policy DM29 of the CLP which includes a requirement for development to promote measures to increase the use of public transport, cycling and walking, whilst not having a detrimental impact on highway safety.

The front of the appeal property is laid to hard standing which it is suggested caters for both vehicle and cycle parking. Even if the area of hardstanding provides sufficient space for the parking of two vehicles, based on the total occupancy of the HMO, it remains highly likely that there is a residual demand for on street parking.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I find that the development is leading to additional vehicles seeking to park in a heavily trafficked controlled parking area, adding additional pressure to the parking stress within the area. A lack of available parking spaces could lead to an increased likelihood of illegal or obstructive parking which would have associated detrimental impacts to highway safety through an increased risk of vehicle and pedestrian conflict.

I therefore find that the development has a materially harmful effect on highway safety, with particular regard to parking. It is therefore contrary to Policies DM29 and DM30 of the CLP. Whilst the Council’s reason for refusal also refers to Policy SP8 of the CLP, given the strategic nature of this policy, I have identified no direct conflict with it.

I note that the Council has not resisted the development based on several factors including its ability to meet HMO standards, its impact on the character and appearance of the area or neighbouring living conditions. Nevertheless, these matters do not specifically weigh in favour of the development.

The development offers an alternative type of housing, with access to local services which represent minor social and economic benefits to the scheme. However, it does not lead to a net increase in the number of dwellinghouses. In the absence of any robust evidence to suggest that HMOs are specifically needed in this locality, I have attached the social and economic benefits of the development limited weight.

The development is in conflict with the development plan when read as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed.