Appeal 6006471

The appeal is dismissed.

As part of the appeal submissions, the appellant has provided amended plans to rectify details highlighted in the planning officer’s report pertaining to room heights. A small number of other minor alterations are visible on the plans although these would not materially alter the appearance or scale of the proposed development. Consequently, I have accepted the amended plans and have taken them into account in the determination of this appeal.

My attention has been drawn to the emerging Croydon Local Plan although it has not been explained to me what the implications of the draft policies might be for this appeal. Neither is it clear what stage of preparation it has reached nor the extent to which there are unresolved objections. I have therefore only had regard to the adopted development plan in considering the appeal proposal.

The main issues are: a) whether the proposed development meets the definition of a self-build dwelling and therefore the requirements of the [name] (BNG) exemption; and b) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a vacant and overgrown plot of land located to the rear of [address] and fronting onto [address], a cul-de-sac. It has been partially excavated.

The statutory framework for BNG sets out several exempt types of development, including self-build dwellings, as defined in Section 1(A1) of the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. This makes it clear that the new dwelling must be occupied by the person or persons responsible for carrying out or commissioning the building.

The appeal has not been accompanied by a planning obligation that would secure the dwellings for this purpose and, consequently, the BNG exemption would not be secured with any degree of certainty. A condition to secure the dwelling as self-build would fail to satisfy the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The scheme would therefore be liable to provide BNG.

The submitted Design and [name] outlines some biodiversity measures such as bat boxes and planting. However, the details regarding these are limited. The appeal has not been accompanied by the minimum information set out in Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (DMPO). In the absence of a completed BNG metric calculation tool showing robust calculation of the pre-development biodiversity value of onsite habitat, and the other statutory minimum information requirements, the mandatory BNG requirements would not be met.

As a result, I cannot determine the pre-development biodiversity value of the site. In the event that planning permission was granted, a biodiversity gain condition would be imposed. The successful discharge of such a condition would be predicated upon the development demonstrating it can achieve a 10% increase in the site’s biodiversity value, relative to its pre-development value. Given the deficient information before me, it is not possible to establish the existing biodiversity value and, therefore, what the baseline biodiversity value is. Neither is it possible to establish what the relative 10% increase in biodiversity over the existing baseline value would be. For these reasons I do not see how the mandatory BNG requirements would be met based on the evidence before me.

There is no evidence provided to demonstrate that the appellant is listed on the self-build register and, despite the intention of the appellant as outlined in the application form, I cannot be satisfied that the proposal would be secured as a self-build. Consequently, I do not find that the proposal constitutes a valid exemption from the mandatory BNG.

In summary, I cannot be satisfied that the proposal meets the definition of a self-build dwelling that would qualify as an exemption from the mandatory BNG, and it has not been demonstrated how the mandatory BNG would be met.

The appellant has submitted a BNG exemption statement purporting two further reasons why the proposed development is exempt from delivering BNG requirements. Firstly, as the appellant has not provided baseline information setting out what the existing biodiversity value of the site is, it is not possible to confirm whether or not the proposal would result in a decrease in biodiversity below the baseline. The site is overgrown and it is not sufficiently clear from the evidence provided what the existing on-site habitats may be comprised of. Secondly, the appellant goes on to suggest the proposed development would be de minimis as it would impact less than twenty-five square metres of on-site habitat and less than five metres of linear habitat. The footprint of development as calculated by the appellant appears to omit parts of the building and the hardstanding areas proposed for parking and refuse storage to the front of the site. Therefore, I cannot be certain that the proposed development would impact less than twenty-five metres of on-site habitat. As stated above, without baseline information being provided, I cannot determine whether there is any existing linear habitat on site. For these reasons, the proposed development is not considered to meet the requirements for exemption from mandatory BNG.

The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the Framework, which advocates that developments provide for biodiversity net gains, seeking their integration as part of their design. It would also conflict with the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the DMPO.

The appeal site is situated within an area that is predominantly residential with other noteworthy uses nearby, including allotments on the opposite side of [address] and a school on [address]. Properties fronting [address] in the vicinity of the appeal site are typically detached two-storey dwellings within generous plots. [address], properties are two-storey but these dwellings are set in narrower and shallower plots.

In comparison with other plots along [address], the width of the appeal site is more narrow. There is a similar level of spacing in between the proposed dwelling and [address]. Given the gap between the appeal proposal and the rear of No 164, there would be sufficient space between the proposed dwelling and the buildings either side of the plot to ensure the proposal would appear appropriate in its context and not dominate the streetscene. The staggered building line would further suitably assimilate into the character and appearance of the streetscene.

The height of the proposed dwelling would stand marginally higher than the adjacent property, [address]. Given the context, the spacing between the dwellings and the similarity of architectural style, this limited height difference would not appear substantial when viewed from the street and would not result in an over-dominant appearance that would harm the character and appearance of the streetscene.

The rear dormer would be obscured by the main roof pitch and would not be visible from the front of the proposed dwelling. Furthermore, due to the visually enclosed nature of the appeal site and the surrounding pattern of development, the rear dormer would have minimal visibility from other vantage points and would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

For these reasons the proposed development would not detract from the character and appearance of the area and would therefore comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) which, amongst others things, seek to achieve high quality development, whose design and character is appropriate to the character and appearance within which it is located.

I have had regard to the additional matters raised in the third party representations including the planning history to the site, amenity, parking/highways, drawings, covenants and refuse waste. However, none of the matters raised warrant a review of the conclusions I have drawn.

The appellant has drawn my attention to potential benefits associated with the scheme, including use of solar panels, nesting boxes and insect bricks. I agree these are positive aspects of the design, however, the wildlife-related features are separate to the mandatory BNG condition and, as a whole, such matters of detail do not outweigh the material considerations against which I find harm.

I note that the appellant has raised concerns with the conduct of the Council, however, this is a matter that would be dealt with through the Council’s complaints procedure and is not a matter for this appeal.

I find there is no conflict between the proposed development and the development plan. However, the matters concerning BNG are significant material considerations and the harm arising from these justify a decision that is not in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.