Appeal 6005406

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupiers of House 1, with particular regard to private amenity space; and, • the effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to parking provision.

The appeal site is within a primarily residential area, with a wide variety of dwelling types including flats, semi-detached and terraced dwellings all within close proximity to the site. The variety of dwelling types is corresponded by a diversity in building design and materials, with a mixture of hipped and gabled roofs as well as material finishes including brick, cladding and render.

As existing, the site accommodates two single storey garages. There are further garages to the rear of the site accessed via a driveway adjacent to the site boundary. Notwithstanding the appeal sites association with 73a and 73b Woodside Green (Nos 73a and 73b), the closest residential property to the proposed dwellings would be [address] (No 24) which forms an end terraced dwelling. The terraced row to which No 24 forms part of has a relatively consistent set back from the highway with small gardens in front of the dwellings, some of which are laid to hardstanding providing parking provision.

There is an extant permission for a single dwelling on the appeal site. The appeal proposal is materially different insofar as it relates to the provision of two dwellings rather than one. I also understand from the evidence before me that the appeal proposal would have a greater overall form and massing when compared to the extant scheme.

Unlike the extant scheme, which had a pronounced step in the building line, the appeal proposal would introduce a wide expanse of two storey built form, notably forward of the building line established by the adjacent terraced row. Although the built form associated with No 73a site abuts the pavement, this is formed of the side gable rather than a principle elevation, noting the location of No 73a at a corner plot.

Given the orientation and positioning of the proposed dwellings, the proposal would be largely interpreted in the context of the adjacent terraced row. In this setting, the overall scale and massing of the dwellings would appear as a bulky and obtrusive addition to the street scene. The sub-division of the plot would further emphasise the overly constrained layout of the proposal, leading to the built form becoming excessively prominent, even noting the potential fall-back through the extant scheme.

Based on the above I find that the proposal would have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) (CLP) which collectively require for development to be of a high quality, respecting and enhancing Croydon’s varied local character including the scale, height and massing of the surrounding area. It would also be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP), which amongst other matters, requires for development proposals to positively respond to local distinctiveness including through their layout and scale.

Both Policy D6 of the LP and Policy DM10 of the CLP set standards for private outdoor space, requiring a minimum of 5m2 of private outdoor space for a 1-2 person dwelling and an extra 1m2 for each additional occupant thereafter. Policy D6 of the LP also sets the requirement that the space should be a minimum of 1.5m in depth and width.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the proposed outdoor amenity areas for both dwellings would meet the spatial standards set through policy. However, Policy DM10 of the CLP is not entirely reliant on the size of outdoor amenity spaces, also requiring them to be of high quality design, providing a functional space.

The private garden area for House 1 would be modest and narrow in its extent, proposed to be enclosed by a timber fence to the side boundary, with the proposed cycle store at the rear.

Given the size of the space, and the location of the access gate, proposed patio doors and cycle store, the functionality of the garden area would be severely restricted. Even if occupiers were content to regularly move any associated garden furniture in order to access the cycle store, there would be extremely limited areas where outdoor furniture, such as chairs for sitting out or washing lines, could be positioned without obstructing either the gated entrance or the patio doors.

Notwithstanding that the garden area would be raised so that the full height of the fence along the site boundary would not be perceived, the overall enclosed nature of the space would further decrease its desirability for any meaningful usage, even if an appropriate noise environment would be achieved. Consequently, I find that the space would be little more than an access to the cycle store.

Without appropriate outdoor amenity space, the future occupiers of House 1 are likely to feel constrained in their indoor living environment, which would be to the detriment of their overall living conditions.

The proposal would therefore fail to provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupiers of House 1, with particular regard to private amenity space. In this respect it would be contrary to Policy DM10 of the CLP in its failure to provide a high quality and functional private amenity space. It would also be contrary to Policy D6 of the LP insofar as it requires housing developments to be of high quality design.

Policy T6 of the LP states that car parking should be restricted in line with levels of existing and future public transport accessibility and connectivity. The appeal site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) score of 2, with 1 being the lowest score, and 6 being the highest score in regard to provision of public transport. Nevertheless, even in areas which are less well-connected by public transport, Policy T6 of the LP is clear that developments should be designed to provide the minimum necessary parking.

This broadly corresponds with the intentions of Policy DM29 of the CLP which seeks to promote measures to increase the use of public transport, cycling and walking.

According to Policy DM30 of the CLP, which in part directs assessment to the standards within the LP, the proposal should provide up to 1 car parking space for the three-bedroom dwelling and up to 0.75 spaces for the two-bedroom dwelling. The Council has rounded this up to a maximum of 2 car parking spaces. However, noting that these are maximum standards, and that the premise of both the CLP and the LP is to reduce the reliance on the use of private vehicles, I find it reasonable that the requirement should be for 1 car parking space.

Unlike the extant scheme on the appeal site, the appeal proposal does not propose any off street car parking. As is demonstrated by the results of the parking stress survey (and my own site observations), parking demand in the surrounding area is high.

Whilst there would be no on site parking provision, the proposal would include the demolition of existing garages which as existing are a barrier to on street parking along the highway in front of the appeal site. The proposal would therefore create an additional space for on street parking.

There is no reasonable mechanism before me to ensure that this space would be available for occupiers of either of the proposed dwellings. Nevertheless, it would mean that in the context of the existing parking stresses in the area, the proposal would likely have minimal effect.

Any additional demand for on street parking in the area would be marginal and, in this context, would not amount to a highway safety issue. In respect to this main issue, I have therefore identified no specific conflict with Policies DM29 or DM30 of the CLP. The proposal would also comply with Policy T6 of the LP.

Policy T7 of the LP relates to deliveries, servicing and construction. The content of the policy is of limited relevance to this main issue and as such I have identified no direct conflict with this policy.

Whilst the Councils reason for refusal refers to Policy SP8 of the LP, this policy does not exist and therefore I have taken this as a typographical error and considered Policy SP8 of the CLP instead. This is a strategic policy relating to transport and communication with an overall aim of encouraging sustainable modes of transport and limiting parking spaces in the borough. I have therefore identified no conflict with Policy SP8 of the CLP arising from the proposal.

I note that the Council has not resisted the development based on several factors including its impact on neighbouring living conditions and the ability to provide appropriate bin and cycle storage. Nevertheless, these matters do not specifically weigh in favour of the proposal.

The proposal would lead to the creation of two additional dwellings in a sustainable location. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) outlines an overall support for the delivery of small sized sites, recognising the associated benefits with housing delivery. Whilst these represent economic and social benefits of the proposal, in the context of two dwellings, the benefits are modest and not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified in respect to character and appearance and living conditions.

[name] have found no harm in relation to highway safety, neither this or the benefits of the proposal outlined above, outweigh the overall harm in respect to the character and appearance of the area and inadequate living conditions for proposed occupiers. This brings the scheme into 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 that the appeal should be dismissed.