Appeal 6005745

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area with particular reference to the [site address] Conservation Area (CA); • whether the proposal would provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers with particular reference to internal space; • the effect of the proposal on on-street parking and the highways network; and • whether the proposal would provide adequate cycle storage.

The appeal site forms part of a building which dates from the latter part of the nineteenth century and comprises retail units on the ground floor and ancillary accommodation above. The [site address] Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP) places the building within the historic core character area, where a large concentration of taller Victorian buildings on narrow plots creates an enclosed and urbanised character. The appeal building, though unlisted, exhibits such characteristics, and the CAAMP identifies that it makes a positive contribution to the CA.

The significance of the CA derives from [site address] ’s evolution as a Victorian suburb following the arrival of the railway in the mid nineteenth century. The layout of the main commercial area of [address], [address] and [address] survives intact and comprises buildings mainly constructed between 1840 and

These buildings are predominantly three storeys high and terraced, and built to the pavement edge. London stock brick and render predominate, with key architectural features including sash windows and decorative banding, and often parapets. Historic shopfronts in the area have cornices, pilasters and stallrisers. Although many of the buildings have been altered over time and some replaced, [site address] retains its essential Victorian character.

The appeal site’s frontage consists of a modern glazed shop front which contains two doors (one of which leads to the upper floor) and a metal grille. Whilst the original stallriser below the shopfront no longer exists, the pilasters on either side of the shop front remain intact, and it is possible that the original cornice survives behind the modern fascia sign. The other shop fronts within the building have been altered to varying degrees, but all retain their pilasters and cornices, giving the building a unified appearance and a link to its original design.

The CAAMP, which is a material consideration, advises that the loss of historic shopfront features is a threat to buildings in the CA. The proposal would result in the removal of the building’s surviving architectural features, which Croydon Council’s Conservation Area General Guidance Supplementary Planning Document, also a material consideration, explains are integral elements of traditionally-designed shop fronts. The loss of these features would be harmful to the building of which the appeal site forms a part. It would harm the CA, which is included on Historic England’s At Risk Register owing to the poor condition of some buildings within it and the threat of further deterioration.

The CAAMP encourages that, where possible, buildings should remain in their original use. Although modern, the loss of the existing shop front, and its replacement with a brick skin and domestic doors and windows, would clearly signify that the ground floor was no longer in commercial use. The loss of the unit’s commercial identity would harm this part of [address], which has retained its historic commercial function and resisted becoming predominantly residential. Such an outcome would be harmful to the CA.

I saw on my site visit that the ground floor of the adjoining [address] has been converted to residential use, which the Council has advised is unauthorised and subject to enforcement action. The development has significantly altered the appearance of the unit and, although it is not part of the same building as the appeal site, it would further erode the CA’s character if repeated elsewhere.

I observed that the Victorian buildings at 66-74 and [address] have been largely converted to residential use at ground floor, under planning permissions which I understand were granted before this section of [address] was included in the CA. The change to residential use has substantially altered their character and appearance, to the evident detriment of the CA. The appellant has indicated that Nos 88, 98 and 104 have also been converted to residential use, but as these properties have not lost their shop fronts, the change to residential use has had only a limited impact on the CA.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a statutory duty on decision makers to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a CA. The proposal would lead to a high degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that in such circumstances, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits.

The appellant has explained that it is increasingly difficult for small retail premises to operate viably in the current economic climate, as evidenced by the significant number of shops nearby which have been converted to residential use. The premises has been vacant for a number of years, highlighting the lack of demand. Bringing the building back into use as residential accommodation would contribute towards meeting London’s pressing housing need in a sustainable location, while preventing long term vacancy and deterioration of the property.

Against the public benefits I must weigh the harm to the heritage asset. The Framework states that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to significance. Any harm to the significance of a heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. In the heritage balance, I have given limited weight to the economic and social benefits. However, the adverse impact on the CA is a matter of considerable importance and weight. Overall, the harm to the heritage asset outweighs the benefits.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, with resultant harm to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to policies D3, D4 and HC1 of the London Plan March 2021 (LP) and policies SP4, DM10 and DM18 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (CLP). Together these policies require a design-led approach that delivers good design which respects local character and is sympathetic to the significance of heritage assets.

Policy D6 of the LP sets minimum standards for private internal space based on gross internal floor area and built-in storage. The proposal is for a 3 person 2 bed flat, for which the minimum gross internal floor area is 61sqm, together with 2sqm of built-in storage.

The parties disagree on the floor space of the proposed flat, with the appellant stating that it would have 60sqm of internal floor space and the Council calculating the amount to be 57.4sqm. Irrespective of which figure is correct, the proposal would fall below the minimum floor area stated in Policy D6. Whilst the shortfall would be relatively small, the standard is expressed as a minimum, and no justification for non-compliance with the standard has been advanced. Moreover, it has not been indicated that there is space for 2sqm of built-in storage. As a consequence, the proposed flat would be cramped and provide sub-standard accommodation for future occupiers.

I conclude that the proposal would provide inadequate living conditions for future occupiers owing to the shortfall in internal space, contrary to Policy D6 of the LP, the aims of which I have outlined above. I have not found conflict with policies SP4 and DM10 of the CLP which do not set internal space requirements.

The proposal is for a car-free development, which to be effective requires the site to be within a [name] (CPZ) and close to facilities or alternative transport options. The parking restrictions in force in the vicinity of the appeal site, which limit on-street parking to permit holders or to a maximum stay of four hours, indicate that it is within a CPZ. The appeal site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 4, which means that it has good access to public transport. The conditions for a car free development are therefore met.

To secure the scheme as car free, it is necessary that future residents do not apply for parking permits. As a condition to achieve this would be unlikely to meet the tests in paragraph 57 of the Framework, a deed of unilateral undertaking under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is required. Such an undertaking would meet the three tests of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 and paragraph 58 of the Framework. However. although the appellant has indicated a willingness to enter into such an agreement, no such undertaking has been provided. In the absence of a mechanism to prevent future residents from applying for a parking permit, there is no certainty that the proposal would operate as a car free development. It therefore has the potential to exacerbate parking stress on nearby streets, with a resultant risk of inconsiderate parking which could in turn create a highway danger to other road users.

The Council has sought a financial contribution towards sustainable transport initiatives in the vicinity, to alleviate traffic generation it considers would be caused by the development. Policies SP8.12 and SP8.13 of the CLP set out the Council’s ambition to deliver electric vehicle charging infrastructure and to require new development to contribute to the provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, car clubs and car sharing schemes. Policy T4 of the LP tempers the requirements of Policy SP8.13 by requiring mitigation where appropriate when adverse transport impacts are identified. The Council has referred me to the judgment in Whiteside, R. (On the Application Of) v The Council of the London Borough of Croydon [2022] EWHC 3318 (Admin) (21 December 2022), which reaffirmed the evidential requirements under Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 in relation to Policy SP8.13, However, the judgment does not remove the need for the tests to be applied in individual cases.

I have found that, in order to ensure that the development is car free, it is necessary for future residents to be prevented from applying for a parking permit. In such circumstances, the proposal is unlikely to generate additional traffic. In the absence of evidence that traffic from the proposal would necessitate or justify mitigation measures, this aspect of the proposal would not conflict with Policy T4 of the LP or policies SP8.12 and SP8.13 of the CLP. The three tests of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 and paragraph 58 of the Framework would not be met, and a contribution towards sustainable transport initiatives has not therefore been justified in this instance.

I conclude that in the absence of a mechanism to secure the scheme as car free, the proposal would have an adverse impact on on-street parking and the highways network. It would be contrary to the relevant parts of policies T4 and T6 of the LP and the relevant parts of policies SP8, DM29 and DM30 of the CLP, which collectively seek to maintain the safe and efficient use of streets by encouraging car free development.

The proposal includes a cycle store in the rear garden area. The rear garden is landlocked, meaning that bicycles would be taken through the flat via the patio doors in bedroom 1. Whilst such an arrangement could be inconvenient for future occupants, it would nevertheless be feasible to move bicycles between the street and the garden area in this fashion. Therefore, useable cycle storage would be provided as part of the proposal.

I find that that the proposal would provide adequate cycle storage, in accordance with Policy T5 of the LP and the relevant parts of policies DM29 and DM30 of the CLP, notwithstanding my conclusion that the proposal conflicts with the parts of policies DM29 and DM30 that deal with on-street parking and the highways network. Together these policies require developments to provide appropriate levels of cycle parking which is fit for purpose, secure and well located.

The proposal would make efficient use of a vacant retail unit in an accessible location. It would contribute to housing delivery by providing a small dwelling. It would provide economic benefits during the construction phase and from future residents using local businesses.

None of these factors is sufficient to outweigh the harm to character and appearance, living conditions and on-street parking and the highways network which I have identified.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.