Appeal 6005471

The appeal is dismissed.

The address of the appeal site given on the application form is ‘28-32 [name], Croydon [postcode] ’. The appeal form and decision notice cite the address as ’ [site address] ’ which I have used in the banner above as this is a more accurate description of the address.

It was not possible to see the whole site from public land. Therefore, I entered the site with the agreement of staff from [name] and was able to see the rear part of the site.

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 highway safety; • whether acceptable living conditions would be provided for future occupiers, with particular regard to light, internal and external space and access; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, with particular regard to privacy and outlook.

The appeal site comprises part of a building in educational use fronting [name] within Croydon town centre, which has a distinctive triple gable frontage. The area is characterised by various styles of building which are mostly 3-4 storeys high, some of which incorporate upward extensions including at 24-26 [name]. To the rear, there is a mix of built mass, setbacks and roof forms and the appeal property has utilitarian flat roof additions.

The proposed scheme includes an extension set back from the frontage but projecting above two gables on the appeal property. Whilst additional storeys are not precluded in principle, due to its significant height and flat roof extending over much of the building, the roof extension would appear as a bulky and boxy addition, discordant with the multi-pitched gable geometry of the existing structure. The front windows would broadly align with those on the lower floor, but the extent of solid walls to the front and sides would accentuate the box-like appearance of the proposed addition.

The extension would have various roof heights and junction arrangements, be finished in zinc cladding, bricks and render, and contain irregularly aligned side and rear openings. The contemporary design is intended to distinguish the new development from the existing building, with a robust masonry base and lighter weight upper additions, and openings reflecting the internal layout and the need to maintain privacy. However, the mixed materials and roof forms and the unevenly positioned side and rear openings would give the proposed addition a disjointed appearance, poorly related to the existing building.

The appeal scheme would be of a smaller scale compared to previously refused or withdrawn applications for the site. Nonetheless, for the reasons set out above, the proposed extension would be a prominent and incongruous addition to the building and street scene, evident in public views from [name] and from properties to the rear.

Consequently, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. In this respect, it would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) and Policies DM10 and DM38 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (CLP). Together, these seek high quality, cohesive developments which respect the appearance and built features of the surrounding area, amongst other things.

Policy D4 of the LP relates to processes and actions required to deliver good design. However, this does not directly link to the harm identified and therefore I find no specific conflict with Policy D4 when reaching my conclusion on this matter.

The appeal site is in a town centre location within walking distance of many facilities and transport connections. It has a public transport access level (PTAL) of 6b, meaning it has the best access to public transport. A controlled parking zone (CPZ) operates in the area with only paid and permit holder parking available during the daytimes from Monday to Saturday.

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 T6.1 of the LP outlines that residential development in PTAL 5 - 6 areas should be car free. Further, 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 two additional residential units on a site where it is not possible to provide off-street parking. Given its location and access to public transport, the parties accept that the scheme could be car free. The appellant is willing to secure this by a planning obligation preventing future occupiers from obtaining resident parking permits within the CPZ, but this has not been submitted.

Although only a snapshot in time, at my daytime site visit I observed that there were very few spaces available for on-street parking in this part of the road and therefore significant parking stress. In the absence of a planning obligation restricting access to parking permits for future residents, there would be no mechanism to ensure that the development would be car free in practice.

As a result, the occupiers of the proposed flats could own vehicles and seek to park in the CPZ. The increased number of vehicles and the lack of available spaces could lead to a greater likelihood of illegal or obstructive parking which would have associated detrimental impacts to highway safety through an increased risk of vehicle and pedestrian conflict.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would harm highway safety. It would conflict with Policies T4 and T6.1 of the LP and Policies DM29 and DM30 of the CLP. Together, these set out maximum parking standards and require development to not increase road danger, amongst other things.

Policy DM13 of the CLP and Policy T5 of the LP relate to refuse facilities and cycling. As these do not concern highway safety, I find no direct conflict with these policies in reaching my conclusion.

Policy D6 of the LP sets out standards and emphasises the qualitative aspects of housing development. It requires private outside space to be useable and have a balance of openness and protection, appropriate for its outlook and orientation. The proposed 12m2 rear balconies would exceed the amount of outdoor space required by Policy D6. Nonetheless, except for a 1.1m high glass balustrade on one side of the third-floor balcony, the outdoor spaces would be surrounded by 1.7m high obscure glazed screens, creating a poor outlook for future occupiers of the flats when using the balconies.

There is a relatively narrow fire escape access between the appeal building and 34-36 [name] which is enclosed by solid gates onto the street with anti-intruder metal spikes above. To retain separation from the education uses on the lower floors, future residents would have to use these gates and the narrow side alley to access their properties. Even with conditions requiring lighting and security measures, the nature of the external access route would create a hostile and inappropriate entrance for future occupants of the flats.

Policy D6 of the LP also requires at least 75% of the gross internal floor area of each dwelling to achieve a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.5m. However, the rooms in the proposed flats would be only 2.4m high which the appellant states are commonly accepted for upper floor extensions and conversions particularly in town centre locations, without providing any relevant examples. Whilst the internal floorspace would exceed the minimum space standards, with both living rooms having sizeable floor areas, this does not compensate for the substandard room ceiling heights, particularly for the proposed smaller flat on the third floor.

The flats would have deep floorplates with the living/kitchen/dining areas extending well into the interior of the building. The proposed elevations do not clearly indicate the full extent of the openings to these rooms, but the proposed 3D views suggest they would have large windows beside glazed patio doors. I am satisfied that with a suitably worded condition to agree the details of these openings, the extent of glazing would ensure sufficient daylight to the living areas of both units.

Therefore, whilst there would be adequate light to the proposed flats, the appeal scheme would provide unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers in terms of the quantity of internal space and the quality of the external space and access. In this regard, it would be contrary to Policies D3 and D6 of the LP and Policies SP2 and DM10 of the CLP. Together, these require new homes to meet minimum design standards and provide safe and inclusive environments, appropriate outlook and high-quality private amenity space, amongst other things.

There is a row of dwellings behind the site, with the southernmost residence having room windows facing towards part of it. There are three large first floor openings on the rear elevation of the appeal building facing a yard alongside this dwelling. The proposed extension would bring first floor windows in the educational premises closer to the neighbouring dwelling. However, given that they would be a similar size and face the same direction as the existing windows, the proposed scheme would not cause undue overlooking of the front rooms of this house.

The second and third floor extensions would be above part of the existing building, around 16m from the nearest house to the rear, with the proposed screened balconies around 14m away. The appeal scheme would alter the views from front windows of the neighbouring dwellings. Nevertheless, given the dense town centre context, the reasonable distance between the proposed upper storeys and the existing houses, and the offset position of the extension’s higher levels relative to the adjacent properties, the proposal would not cause a harmful loss of outlook from the front rooms of nearby dwellings.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, with particular regard to privacy and outlook. In this respect, it would accord with Policy D3 of the LP and Policy DM10 of the CLP which together require proposals to protect the amenity of the occupiers of adjoining buildings, including delivering appropriate outlook and privacy. Policy D4 of the LP referred to in the respective reason for refusal is not directly relevant to this issue.

The proposal would contribute towards the supply of housing in a highly accessible town centre location whilst retaining the education use on the ground and first floors. However, there is little evidence that the Council is not meeting the needs for housing in its area. This tempers the weight I have attached to housing delivery, albeit that the provision of two additional dwellings is still a limited benefit to be factored into the planning balance.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including the principle of development, cycle and refuse storage, ecology, flood risk, energy efficiency, air quality and impacts on heritage assets. Nonetheless, 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 Council’s Planning Officer’s Report indicates that there has been a failure to demonstrate that fire safe access and adequate means of escape would be provided and thus the proposal would be contrary to Policy D12 of the LP. Nevertheless, although Policy D12 is referenced, this matter is not otherwise included in the reasons for refusal. There is no need for me to consider whether the development would expose future occupiers to an unacceptable fire safety risk as the scheme is unacceptable for other reasons.

I have found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and highway safety and provide unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers. These are planning harms which attract considerable weight. The delivery of housing attracts limited weight and the 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.