Appeal 6005408

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s third reason for refusal relates to the accessibility of the proposed cycle facilities. In response, the appellant submitted amended plans with the appeal documents showing a larger internal cycle storage area, and the inclusion of Sheffield stands and a hinged lid for the external cycle store. Given the minor nature of the changes, my consideration of the revised plans would not cause procedural unfairness or prejudice to interested parties. Thus, I have had regard to the amended plans in my determination of the appeal. The Council has confirmed that with the addition of a suitably worded condition relating to the door width of the internal cycle store, which the appellant agrees to, these amendments would overcome this reason for refusal.

The appellant sought to introduce information and evidence relating to an appeal decision in 2023 for a proposal at 73 St. [address], Croydon1. I did not accept this new evidence as there had been no change in circumstances since the submission of the appellant’s statement and to do so could cause procedural unfairness or prejudice to other parties.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] and [address], with particular regard to outlook and light; and 1 Appeal ref: APP/L5240/W/22/3300152 • whether the proposed scheme would make appropriate provision for parking and sustainable transport initiatives.

The appeal site lies on [address] and previously contained single storey storage buildings but is now mainly used for the open storage of materials. This side of the road comprises semi-detached villas with open areas in front, and outbuildings and rear boundary features associated with houses fronting Park Road, with the appeal site lying between the two. There are detached villas opposite, and purpose-built flatted blocks further along the road. Whilst there is a mixed character in the wider area, the villas directly north of the site give visual rhythm to the built form along this part of [address].

The villas in the road have gaps between the buildings, reflected in the plot width to building width ratios provided by the appellant. The proposed structure would occupy the entire width of the site, with a large part of it attached to the lower floors of the adjacent building. This would result in built development continuing alongside the villa, detracting from the semi-detached character of the existing building, and giving the new residential block a cramped appearance in this part of [address].

The appellant has provided width to height ratios of buildings in the vicinity, but these have been calculated for individual properties and do not reflect the terraced and semi-detached form of the existing structures in [address] and Park Road. The large pitched roof brick villas alongside the appeal site have a grand, elegant appearance with front windows and bays following a relatively uniform pattern.

In contrast, the proposed building would have a much narrower frontage and be significantly lower, with large areas of flat roof alongside a pitched roof. Although most windows would be vertically proportioned, they would have various sill levels and those in the bay would not align with other front openings. Further, the frontage would be finished with a mix of different coloured brickwork, decorative concrete banding, and powder coated metal.

The contemporary covered entrance would meet the requirements in Part M4(2) of the Building Regulations and is intended to reinterpret historic door openings, and the appellant has provided examples of similar ones elsewhere. However, the low-level entrance with canopy and pillar would fail to pick up on the well-defined, vertically proportioned higher-level entrances which characterise the villas on this side of the road.

Together, the narrow frontage, lower roof height, different roof styles and materials, inconsistently sized and positioned window openings and proposed entrance arrangement would give the proposed structure a squat and disjointed appearance at odds with the traditional buildings in the street.

Blank flank walls are not uncommon on end terraced properties. Nonetheless, in common with other buildings in the locality, the flank wall on the neighbouring villa includes various windows with lintels, giving visual interest to this elevation. Instead of openings, the proposed structure would include recessed panels framed by a change of brick bond in the flank wall, creating some visual relief and avoiding overlooking of neighbouring properties. Nonetheless, the flank would still effectively comprise a large expanse of brick wall, failing to provide a sufficiently interesting design response to this building face which due to the relative juxtaposition of buildings would be prominent in the street scene.

Further, the bin and cycle stores would occupy a large part of the area in front of the new building. Although the bin stores would be set back from the pavement edge, to maintain pedestrian access to them and the building entrance there would be limited space for screen planting. Due to their size and position, the bin and cycle stores would add visual clutter, harmfully at odds with the open frontages which characterise the villas on [address].

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) and Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (CLP). Together, these require developments to respond to local distinctiveness and respect local character, amongst other things.

Policy D4 of the LP relates to processes and actions required to deliver good design. As it does not directly link to the harm identified, I find no specific conflict with Policy D4 in reaching my conclusion.

The appeal site lies between properties at [address] (No 10) and [address] (No 1). The house at No 10 has several rear openings and a fence and wall separate its adjoining rear garden from the site. No 1 comprises flats, with some projecting front bay windows and rear openings close to the mutual boundary, and side windows overlooking the site. The proposed building would mainly provide accommodation over three levels with part of it being one storey high.

The appellant’s Daylight and Sunlight Assessment (DSA) considers the proposal against the BRE’s Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight guidance. This indicates that if the vertical sky component (VSC) is both less than 27% and less than 0.8 times its former value, occupants of the existing building would notice a reduction in the amount of skylight. It also includes a method of calculating whether sunlight to an existing dwelling may be adversely affected.

The DSA finds that the scheme would not result in a harmful loss of daylight or sunlight to the rear windows and amenity space at No 10. The upper floors would be inset around 2m from the boundary with this property and the rear of the building. Nevertheless, the sizeable structure would be close to the rear openings at No 10, extending for a significant distance along the shared boundary, with much of it considerably higher than the existing boundary fence and previous structures. The parties disagree on whether the new building would encroach on the 45-degree angle from the rear windows on this neighbouring house, and I note that its occupiers support the proposal. Regardless of this, due to its height, depth and relative position, the proposed development would have an overbearing effect, dominating the outlook of the occupiers of No 10 when using their rear rooms.

The DSA indicates that the proposal would cause the loss of daylight and sunlight to several windows in flats at No 1 below that set out in the BRE guidance. However, from the evidence before me, these largely provide openings to kitchens, bathrooms and stairwells which are non-habitable rooms. The exception is one of the windows in the front bay of the upper-level unit immediately adjacent to the site which provides an opening to the main living area of this studio flat. Nonetheless, as the proposed scheme would not affect the two other windows to this room, it would not cause a harmful loss of daylight and sunlight to the occupiers of this flat when using their living area.

The new building would project beside and beyond the rear face of flats at No 1 and be visible from rear kitchens and bathrooms. However, as these are not habitable rooms, the proposal would not unacceptably harm the outlook for the occupiers of these dwellings. The uppermost flat at No 1 has a flank window providing one of the openings to the living, dining and kitchen area, but as this is above the level of the proposed structure, the appeal scheme would not cause a harmful loss of outlook from this room. As no side openings are proposed, there would be no overlooking of existing rooms at No 1 by occupiers of the new flats.

Therefore, whilst the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on light to neighbouring properties, it would cause a harmful loss of outlook to the occupants at [address]. This would be contrary to Policy D6 of the LP and Policies SP4 and DM10 of the CLP. Together, these require development to be of a high-quality design which enhances well-being and protects the amenity of adjoining occupiers, amongst other things.

The appeal site is within a controlled parking zone with only paid or permit holder parking available during the daytimes from Monday to Saturday. There are bus routes running along nearby [address], and [name] train station is only a short walk away. As such, the site has a public transport access level (PTAL) of 4 and neighbours an area with a PTAL of 5, meaning it has good access to public transport.

The overall thrust of policies in the LP and CLP is to minimise parking provision and encourage the use of other forms of transport, particularly where development is well served by public transport. Policy DM30 of the CLP requires new development to reduce the impact of car parking where it is located in areas of good public transport accessibility or areas of existing on-street parking stress.

The proposal would create three additional units with no off-street parking provision. Given its access to public transport, the parties accept that the scheme could be car free.

Although only a snapshot in time, at my daytime site visit I observed that there was adequate space available for on-street parking in this part of the road and therefore limited parking stress. However, no section 106 agreement2 restricting future occupiers from applying for parking permits has been submitted. In the absence of this, the scheme could increase the demand for on-street parking by future residents in an area well served by public transport which Policy DM30 seeks to avoid.

Amongst other things, Policy SP8 of the CLP requires new development to contribute to the provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, car clubs and car sharing schemes. The Council states that a financial contribution of £1,500 per 2 Under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 unit is required to contribute towards sustainable transport initiatives in the local area, and the [address] has accepted that this is a valid approach3. Thus, in this case, the Council’s suggested financial contribution towards sustainable transport initiatives is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The proposal includes provision for cycle parking, and future residents would have access to transport modes other than private vehicles. The appellant is agreeable to making the financial contribution, but there is no legal agreement to secure this. As such, the proposed scheme would not meet the requirement to contribute towards schemes to reduce car use and promote low emission vehicles.

Therefore, in the absence of a legal agreement, I conclude that the proposal would fail to secure a car free development or make appropriate provision for sustainable transport initiatives. This would be contrary to Policies T4 and T6 of the LP and Policies SP8, DM29 and DM30 of the CLP which seek to encourage sustainable travel choices and set out maximum parking standards, amongst other things.

The Framework seeks to significantly boost the housing supply, and the LP recognises that the lack of supply of homes that Londoners need has played a significant role in London’s housing crisis. National and development plan policies support development which makes efficient use of land. The proposal would make more effective use of an under-utilised, unsightly brownfield site, contributing towards the supply of housing. Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that Croydon has over a five-year housing land supply and has delivered more housing than required by the Framework. This tempers the weight I have attached to housing delivery, albeit that the provision of three additional dwellings is still a limited benefit to be factored into the planning balance.

The biodiversity net gain carries weight in favour of the proposed development. Nonetheless, given its relatively small scale, this benefit would be limited.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including flood risk and impacts on heritage assets. However, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the proposed scheme.

The appellant indicates that the proposal has been revised following the Council’s pre-application response. Nonetheless, I must determine the proposed scheme on its merits based on the plans before me.

I have found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and fail to secure a car free development or make appropriate provision for sustainable transport initiatives. These are planning harms which attract considerable weight. The delivery of housing and biodiversity net gain attract limited weight and the 3 Whiteside v the Council of the London Borough of Croydon [2022] EWHC 3318 remaining matters only neutral weight, which accordingly do not outweigh the harm I have found.

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