Appeal 6007493

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

Applications for costs were made by the appellant against the Council of the London Borough of Croydon, in respect of both appeals. Those applications are the subject of separate decisions.

In the banner heading above, I have used the descriptions of each proposed development as given on the application forms. As stated in the more detailed description adopted by the Council in both cases, the appeal site is currently in use as two dwellings within Use Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended). Appeal Decisions 6003239 & 6007493

There are two appeals, submitted on different dates, following refusal of two successive planning applications for a similar development. The proposed change of use and internal layout would be the same in both cases, but there would be different arrangements for cycle and refuse/recycling storage. In the Appeal A scheme, cycle storage would be in the back garden. Contrary to the description given on the application form, the application drawings and planning statement for Appeal B confirm that cycle storage would instead be located at the front of the site. In both cases, there would be also refuse storage facilities at the front, although the details differ.

Both proposals were refused for similar reasons relating to the principle of the proposed change of use and the effect on parking. The other reasons for refusal differ in several respects, as a consequence of the different cycle and refuse storage arrangements. I have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the two schemes together where the issues raised are the same.

I undertook an initial site visit in respect of Appeal A on 15 April 2026. However, although I was able to complete a partial inspection of the site and its surroundings from public land, arrangements which had been made for internal access to the site fell through. I therefore returned on 2 June 2026, following the submission and exchange of written representations on Appeal B, at which point I was able to complete the site inspections for both appeals.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed change of use on the supply of small family homes (both appeals), • the effect of parking associated with the proposed change of use on the operation and safety of the highway network (both appeals), • whether satisfactory provision would be available for refuse, recycling and cycle storage (both appeals, with different detailed considerations), • whether statutory biodiversity net gain requirements would be addressed (Appeal A), • whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to outlook and daylight from the ground floor bedrooms (Appeal B), and • the effect on the character and appearance of the area (Appeal B).

Policy DM1.2 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (CLP) states that redevelopment of residential units will be permitted where it does not result in the net loss of three bedroom homes (as originally built) or the loss of homes smaller than 130sqm. That is part of a strategic approach to meeting housing needs which includes, in Policy SP2.7 of the CLP, that the Council will seek to ensure that a choice of Appeal Decisions 6003239 & 6007493 homes is available in the Borough that will address the need for homes of different sizes. Policy SP2.7 includes a strategic target for 30% of all new homes to have three or more bedrooms.

The application forms give a total internal floor area for the existing dwellings of 260sqm. The Council describes each as measuring 130sqm and has treated them as falling within the scope of Policy DM1.2. The Inspector who considered a previous appeal in 20181 and the planning statement for Appeal A both describe the dwellings as being under 130sqm. Although the appellant argues that there would be no loss of family homes, there is no apparent dispute that the existing floorspace is within the scope of Policy DM1.2 and I have considered the appeals on that basis.

The underlying purpose of Policies DM1.2 and SP2.7 is to ensure a choice of homes, of different sizes. A particular need for new homes of three bedrooms or more is identified in the CLP, and it includes a target to increase the supply of new family homes. In support of the relevant reason for refusal, the Council has supplied a recent [name] (AMR), dated February 2025, which reports a significant shortfall against that target since the CLP was adopted. Other monitoring data quoted by the Council indicates a similar shortfall in previous years. There is, therefore, objective evidence of a mismatch between the supply of new housing and evidenced housing mix requirements.

The existing dwellings each provide two main rooms upstairs and downstairs, plus a kitchen and a bathroom, in a typical two bedroom layout. As far as can be determined, they are substantially in their original form. On that basis, there would be no net loss of three bedroom homes as originally built. However, although they do not help to address the demand for three bedroom housing, they do contribute to the existing stock of smaller dwellings and are within the scope of Policy DM1.2.

The supporting text to Policy SP2.7 recognises that well designed smaller two bedroom units can be suitable for smaller families. While the existing accommodation is currently unmodernised and in need of refurbishment, the internal layout is that of a typical two-up, two-down semi-detached house, which could feasibly serve that purpose. The retention of such dwellings, where they are within the threshold imposed in Policy DM1.2, will play some role in maintaining a choice of homes, particularly in the context of a shortfall in provision of larger family dwellings.

The previous appeal was determined several years ago, at a point when the CLP had only recently been adopted. The AMR evidence presented with this appeal is much more recent and there is no indication that similar evidence was adduced in

That is a material change in circumstances, which increases the weight which should be given to the conflict with Policies DM1.2 and SP2.7. While London Plan Policy H9 recognises the role of HMOs in meeting local and strategic housing needs, that does not imply that this use should inevitably take priority over other evidenced housing needs.

There is no clear indication in the 2018 appeal decision that the different proposed use for flats at that time was a factor in the Inspector’s reasoning. However, he did find that the conflict with Policy DM1.2 was outweighed by other considerations in 1 Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/W/18/3200734 Appeal Decisions 6003239 & 6007493 the evidence before him. In particular, he referred to concerns which had been expressed about noise and safety aspects of the adjacent commercial uses.

Those adjacent sites include vehicle repair uses, which it can reasonably be assumed cause some noise and disturbance during working hours. However, there is no objective evidence before me that those activities are inherently prejudicial to safe or healthy occupation of the dwellings in their current form. There is a continuous row of terraced houses on the other side of [address], so residential uses do currently co-exist with the commercial uses. There is also a playground almost directly opposite the site, indicating that families with children are present and catered for within the surrounding area.

In any case, a residential use is still proposed, the occupiers of which would be similarly affected by any noise and disturbance. Families come in many forms and, while the neighbouring uses may well impact on the desirability of the dwellings, they do not to my mind render them entirely unsuitable for retention as small family dwellings.

Based on the evidence before me with these appeals, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed change of use would have a harmful effect on the supply of small family homes. That would conflict with Policy DM1.2 and with the strategic aims of Policy SP2.7. The other material considerations, including the relationship with adjacent commercial uses and the contribution to the supply of HMO uses, do not outweigh that conflict, taking account of all the relevant circumstances of this particular case.

In the London Plan, Policy T4 requires amongst other things that the cumulative impact of development on the road network should be taken into account and that development should not increase road danger. Policy T6 takes a restrictive approach to car parking, with maximum standards being set for residential use. In the CLP, Policy DM30 cross-references the parking standards in the London Plan but also includes a requirement that new development reduces the impact of parking on areas of existing on-street parking stress. Policy DM29 requires amongst other things that development must not have a detrimental impact on highway safety or a severe impact on local transport networks.

There is no existing off-street parking within the site, and none would be available for the proposed HMO use. Parking is unrestricted along [address], but at the time of both my site visits there were very few spaces available on that road or in most of the surrounding streets. While that is only a snapshot in time, much of the surrounding housing is terraced and lacks private driveways, indicating that residents are reliant on street parking. As such, even in the absence of an objective parking stress survey, there are clear indications that the existing on-street parking is under pressure.

Even if there is a generally lower level of car ownership among HMO occupiers, that does not reliably confirm that the particular occupiers in this case would not own a car. In the event that all eight occupiers did have their own car, pressure for parking could be materially greater than for the two households which could occupy the existing dwellings. It could also be higher than that associated with the permitted, but unimplemented, proposal for conversion of the building to four small Appeal Decisions 6003239 & 6007493 flats2. While the number of adult residents may be very slightly less than the potential occupancy of those proposed flats, each resident of an HMO is more likely to have their own individual patterns of comings and goings, with less opportunity for shared trips, than occupiers of flats living as a single household.

Despite the low PTAL score of 2, there are options for travel by other means, including two bus routes within easy walking distance. There is a parade of shops just around the corner, and [name] town centre is not far away. It is not, therefore, inevitable that each occupier would need to travel by car. Nevertheless, that cannot be guaranteed, and it is probable that there would some limited additional demand for parking in [address], due to the proposed number of occupiers and their more independent patterns of movement.

On-street parking already appears to affect localised highway capacity to some extent, since parking along both sides of the street limits the easy flow of traffic. There was also some evidence of pavement parking at the time of both my site visits, which can impact accessibility for pedestrians. However, those conditions are the status quo and there is no very clear evidence that a small further increase in parking pressure would cause any specific highway safety concerns. Nor would it have a severe effect on network capacity. There would in all probability be some increased inconvenience for existing residents living nearby, but it would be at a limited and localised level.

I conclude that parking associated with the proposed change of use is likely to have a minor adverse effect on the operation of the highway network, at a localised level, which would primarily result in some additional inconvenience for local residents. That would be contrary to the requirement in Policy DM30 of the CLP that development should reduce the impact of car parking in areas of existing on-street parking stress. However, taking into account the generally restrictive approach to car parking for new development in the development plan as a whole, together with the lack of any specific evidence of harm to highway safety or severe harm to network capacity, that conflict should be given only limited weight.

Policies DM29 and DM30 in the CLP require that development promotes measures to increase the use of cycling, including by providing cycle parking spaces in accordance with standards in the London Plan. Policy DM30 also requires that cycle parking is designed so that it is secure and can also be used for parking for mobility scooters and motorcycles. In the London Plan, Policy T5 sets out cycle storage requirements in Table 10.2. For dwellings within [name] C3/C4, cycle parking is required at a rate of one space per one person/one bedroom dwelling. Although the proposed larger HMO would be a sui generis use, that is the most relevant standard and there is no dispute that a minimum of eight cycle parking spaces is required.

Policy T5 also requires that cycle parking should be fit for purpose, secure and well-located. Similar principles are articulated in guidance on the design of cycle parking, in Chapter 8 of the [name] (LCDS). For residential cycle parking, the LCDS advises that cycle parking facilities should be fully accessible, for parking all types of cycles and that the layout should avoid obstacles such as stairs, narrow doorways and tight corners. Recommended cycle 2 Planning application ref 18/05119/FUL Appeal Decisions 6003239 & 6007493 parking space requirements are given, based on multiple Sheffield stands in a parallel arrangement, which require a minimum of 1m centres, to accommodate cycles and allow for adequate manoeuvring space.

Policy DM13 of the CLP requires that refuse and recycling facilities are not visually intrusive, provide adequate space and are laid out so as to be easily accessible for use by occupiers and waste collectors.

The Council did not raise any concerns about the refuse/recycling storage arrangements proposed in Appeal A and it is not alleged that there would be any shortfall in the number of proposed cycle spaces. In fact, there would be a slight over-provision. The reason for refusal relates to the location of cycle storage in the rear garden, which was described as unsuitable in terms of its accessibility.

The proposed cycle storage could only be accessed through the building. Based on the proposed plans, cycles would have to be brought through the front door and hallway, around the foot of the staircase and turn a corner to reach the rear garden by the back door. That route would be through a communal area, but it would be awkward and convoluted, due to the position of the staircase and back door.

Neither the slight widening of the hallway indicated on the proposed plan, nor the provision of a power-assisted opening would adequately mitigate the awkward route and number of obstacles to be negotiated. Even if doorway widths of 900mm can be achieved, that is significantly below the 1.2m width advocated in the LCDS. As such, the proposed cycle parking would not be well located as described in that guidance, and that is likely to discourage future occupiers from using cycling as a regular mode of transport. The relative security of cycle parking at the rear would not outweigh the level of inconvenience arising from the proposed layout.

I conclude that the proposed layout in Appeal A would not make satisfactory provision for cycle storage. That would conflict with Policies DM29 and DM30 of the CLP, and with relevant requirements in the LCDS, as summarised above.

Relocation of the proposed cycle store to the front garden, as proposed in Appeal B, would avoid the need to bring cycles through the building. However, it would mean that the limited front garden area would have to accommodate both refuse/recycling facilities and cycle storage.

The proposed site plan indicates parking for ten cycles on the site frontage. However, no dimensions are given, and the design and specification of the cycle store are not detailed. Although the front garden would extend across the frontage of both existing dwellings, the distance between the dwellings and the street is quite limited. The appellant describes the cycle storage as being low-lying, implying that all ten cycles would be stored at ground level, without vertical stacking. From observation, and in the absence of any dimensions, it is implausible that the number of spaces shown on the plans could be provided without compromising the recommended separation distances in the LCDS, particularly having regard to the policy requirement to accommodate non-standard cycles, mobility scooters or motorcycles. Appeal Decisions 6003239 & 6007493

On that basis, in the absence of technical evidence to the contrary, the front garden does not appear capable of accommodating cycle parking meeting the full requirements in the development plan and relevant guidance. Even if further details of the layout and design were to be secured by condition, the evidence before me is not persuasive that suitable provision could be made.

Several refuse/recycling bins are also shown in the front garden, which appears to be a typical arrangement. The officer report indicates that the number of required bins would be the same as for a single household, implying that the bins could be accommodated in the space between one of the existing dwellings and the street, as they are elsewhere. Alternatively, a smaller number of larger bins may be suitable, as suggested by the Council’s Transportation Team. Either way, subject to clarification of the front boundary treatment, it appears that a layout could be devised and secured by condition, to allow for convenient use and collection of refuse and recycling. However, given the essential nature of proper refuse and recycling facilities to support public health, that layout would have to be clarified before the number of usable cycle parking spaces could be determined.

Based on the evidence before me, I conclude that satisfactory provision could be made available for refuse and recycling, but the cycle storage would not meet the required standards. As such, the revised proposal in Appeal B would also conflict with the relevant development plan policies and guidance outlined above.

Taking into account the potential for cycling to mitigate demand for on-street parking, and the constraints on parking described above, the conflict with development plan policies designed to encourage and support cycling weighs significantly against both appeal proposals.

In both cases, the de minimis exemption was claimed from the statutory requirement for biodiversity net gain (BNG). More specifically, it was claimed that the proposal would impact less than 25sqm of onsite habitat, as no extension work is proposed. However, the Appeal A proposal includes two new buildings at the rear, namely an outbuilding for storage and the proposed cycle store. The proposed site plan also shows that there would be significant paved areas between those new buildings and the existing dwellings, with only a modest amount of soft landscaping.

At the time of my site visit, the rear garden was very overgrown and not completely accessible. However, it was clear that it contains several shrubs and a variety of lower lying weeds and other vegetation. There are also a few sizable trees in one of the plots. On that basis, there is existing garden habitat which is relevant to BNG requirements. The plans are not dimensioned, and the [name] alludes to around 11sqm (sic) or more of existing habitat being lost. However, the Council’s Statement of Case clarifies that in their view the loss of habitat area would exceed 25sqm, in which case it would not benefit from the de minimis exemption from BNG.

Since the proposed elevations of the outbuilding do not include an overhanging roof, there is no clear basis for deducting any part of the footprint of that building. Based on the details on the proposed plans, and my observations of the current extent and condition of the rear garden, despite the lack of a precise figure, it appears clear that the total area occupied by the outbuilding, cycle shed and Appeal Decisions 6003239 & 6007493 paving, would exceed the 25sqm (e.g. 5m by 5m) upper threshold for the de minimis exemption.

Since an exemption has been claimed, the application does not include the baseline information which is required to determine whether or not statutory BNG requirements are met. Therefore, although the details of BNG would be determined by condition, there would be a deficit in the required baseline information to conclude whether those details achieved the required level of net gain. That would be the case whether or not the outbuilding had a green roof, since that measure would still need to be compared with the baseline position.

I therefore conclude that, based on the evidence available with the application, it has not been adequately demonstrated that statutory biodiversity net gain requirements would be addressed within the Appeal A proposal.

There was no similar reason for refusal in relation to Appeal B, as the Council accepted that the de minimis exemption did apply to that revised proposal. That conclusion has not been challenged by any relevant party, and it has not been necessary for me to consider the point further.

The existing front ground floor windows are a reasonable size and would not be altered. The proposed cycle storage in the front garden would be visible in the outlook from those windows, but on the presumption that the cycle store would be low-lying, as described, it would project only a limited amount above the window cill. That would not materially obstruct sunlight or daylight through the window opening as a whole.

For the reasons previously given, the number of cycles stored may in fact be less than is implied on the plans, so as to provide for usable facilities. The detailed relationship between any modified cycle storage and the adjacent windows could be secured by condition. Those details would also be available to future occupiers of the ground floor rooms, who could take a view on whether the presence of cycle storage within the immediate outlook from those rooms was tolerable.

While future occupiers are likely to spend a high proportion of their time in their rooms, given the nature of the HMO use, there would also be some communal kitchen space and a substantial rear garden. The cycle store would benefit the occupiers of the ground floor rooms, as well as the other tenants, who would be known to them. No harm has been alleged to other aspects of living conditions for future occupiers, such as privacy, noise or disturbance.

I conclude that, while there would be some level of visual intrusion within the outlook from the front windows, the Appeal B proposal would overall provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers. It would provide adequately comfortable and functional accommodation, meeting the likely needs of residents of the proposed HMO use, and there is no conflict with applicable design requirements in CLP Policy SP2 or London Plan Policy D6.

Residential front gardens along [address] are generally small and functional in appearance. There is some soft planting, but most are hard surfaced, with a variety of low fences and walls. Since refuse and recycling bins are Appeal Decisions 6003239 & 6007493 generally stored at the front, multiple bins in front of each dwelling is already a feature of the streetscape. The appeal site frontage follows that pattern, being paved, with bins in the front garden behind a low picket fence, as well as some rather overgrown vegetation.

The commercial frontage to either side includes parked cars, stacked tyres and an open sided storage compound in a prominent forward position. There are metal security fences along the front boundary of both adjacent premises and a high blockwork wall along one side boundary of the appeal site.

In the Appeal B proposal, the site frontage would be almost entirely occupied by the proposed refuse/recycling and cycle storage facilities. However, those facilities would all be fairly low lying. There is space within this double residential frontage to accommodate some level of cycle storage, in addition to refuse and recycling bins, without it becoming excessively cluttered. Subject to securing a suitable layout and boundary treatment, by condition, these features would not be particularly inconsistent with way domestic frontages are used along the street. Nor would the storage structures be excessively large, prominent or intrusive, particularly in the context of the larger, more prominent commercial storage uses and boundary treatments on the adjacent sites.

I therefore conclude that there would be no harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area as a result of the Appeal B proposal. There would be no conflict with London Plan Policy D3 or Policies DM10, SP1.1, SP4.1 and SP4.2 of the CLP, which collectively require that development is designed to respond positively to existing local context and character, including with regard to visible uses within site frontages.

Currently, one of the two existing dwellings is vacant and there is reference in the appellant’s evidence to the vacancy being protracted. Both dwellings are in need of modernisation and refurbishment. The proposed change of use would therefore make more effective use of a previously developed and currently underutilised site. The proposed HMO would be in a location where occupiers would benefit from convenient access to a range of services and facilities. However, the same could be said for future occupiers of the two existing dwellings, so any locational advantages weigh only very slightly in favour.

A form of housing would still be provided on the site, which would have a role in catering for those seeking lower cost housing of this nature. The HMO could accommodate a slightly larger number of occupiers than the existing dwellings. However, they would be living communally with shared facilities, and not as eight separate households, which would limit the net contribution to the supply of housing. The AMR provided by the Council includes evidence of a housing land supply slightly exceeding five years and no contrary evidence of any relevant shortfall in housing land supply or delivery has been presented.

Even if all relevant standards for the accommodation and facilities within an HMO are met, that is a neutral factor which does not add weight in favour of the proposals. Similarly, the lack of alleged harm to living conditions for neighbouring occupiers and the absence of harm to the character and appearance of the area, do not weigh in favour. Appeal Decisions 6003239 & 6007493

I have concluded that harm would arise from both proposals, primarily from the loss of small family dwellings and inadequate cycle storage facilities. There would also be some localised harm to the operation of the highway, which carries limited weight. Those adverse consequences are common to both appeals, although the detailed concerns about cycle storage differ. In the case of Appeal A, there would also be a deficiency in evidence to demonstrate that mandatory BNG would be secured.

In both cases, the adverse impacts of the proposed development would bring it into conflict with the development plan as a whole. Even when considered collectively the benefits of the development are relatively modest and do not outweigh the conflict with the development plan. Consequently, both appeals should be dismissed.

I have noted that a variety of additional issues were raised by interested parties and consultees, but as I am dismissing both appeals for other reasons, there is no need for me to consider those points further.

For the reasons given above the appeals should be dismissed.