102 Elmside, CROYDON, CR0 9DW

102 Elmside, CROYDON, CR0 9DW — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 28 June 2021 by R E Jones BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 July 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/W/20/3256701 102 Elmside, Field Way, Croydon CR0 9DW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs N Akinleye against the decision of London Borough of Croydon. • The application Ref 20/01202/FUL, dated 12 March 2020, was refused by notice dated 11 June 2020. • The development proposed is conversion of 3 bedroom dwelling into HMO to accommodate 5 people. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: (i) the effect of the proposal on the supply of small family housing within the Borough; and (ii) whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future residents with particular reference to internal living space. Reasons Family Homes 3. The appeal site comprises a modest mid-terrace dwelling located on a large residential estate. The submitted drawings show the property to have three bedrooms and an internal floor area of around 96m2.

102 Elmside, CROYDON, CR0 9DW — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision It was evident during my site visit that work had partially begun to convert the property to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) that reflects the submitted drawings. 4. Policy DM1.2 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (Local Plan) states that the Council will permit the redevelopment of residential units where it does not result in the net loss of 3 bedroom homes (as originally built) or the loss of homes smaller than 130m2. 5. The Council put in place an Article 4 directive in 2020 which restricts permitted changes of use from residential dwellings (Class C31) to a small HMO (Class C42) in relation to all dwelling houses within the Borough. The Council’s implementation of this restriction suggests that it seeks to maintain a healthy stock of Class C3 housing and to carefully control any future changes that relate to HMO accommodation. 1 Class C3 (Dwellinghouses) of The Town and County Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) 2 Class C4 (Houses in Multiple Occupation) of The Town and County Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

102 Elmside, CROYDON, CR0 9DW — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/20/3256701 6. The appeal proposal provides accommodation across four bedrooms (3 x 1 person bedroom and 1 x 2 person bedroom) for up to 5 inhabitants and would be deemed a residential use that falls under Class C4. It has a scale and layout that would be typical of a shared household and would likely be occupied by unrelated individuals, in contrast to the existing dwelling (Class C3), which has a layout of a typical family home. 7. The proposed HMO would provide more bedroom space at the property, and the appellant contends that this offers a greater contribution towards the local housing supply than the current dwelling. Whilst there would be a modest numerical increase in bedrooms, the proposal would however, result in the loss of a family home, while being within the floorspace limit which Policy DM1.2 seeks to retain. Accordingly, the proposal would undermine the supply of 3-bedroom dwellings in the locality. 8. I recognise the general need for a mix of housing tenures, whilst acknowledging, in the case of the proposal, the net gain of one HMO unit.

102 Elmside, CROYDON, CR0 9DW — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Yet, I have not been presented with any compelling evidence to demonstrate that the proposal justifies the loss of a unit of family accommodation. In addition, there is no information accompanying the appeal to indicate there is a current shortage of HMOs in the Borough and that the proposal would assist in addressing any prevailing under-supply of this type of accommodation. 9. The appellant contends that there are limited benefits in retaining the existing property as a residential house, but there is no detailed explanation why this would be the case. The Council on the other hand have felt the need to protect Class C3 dwellings being permitted to HMOs, which to my mind suggests this particular tenure is important and beneficial to the Borough. Accordingly, in the absence of any persuasive disbenefits, I have given limited weight to the appellant’s contention. 10. Therefore, the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the supply of family housing within the Borough. It would fail to accord with Policy DM1.2 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 and Policy 3.14 of the London Plan (consolidated alterations since 2011) (London Plan).

102 Elmside, CROYDON, CR0 9DW — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision These require, amongst other things the protection of 3 bedroom homes from redevelopment and the maintenance and enhancement of the condition and quality of London’s existing homes. Living Conditions 11. The Council’s ‘Houses in Multiple Occupation Standards’ (HMO Standards) provides guidance on the minimum internal space for bedrooms within HMO properties. One person bedrooms with en-suite facilities are required to be a minimum of 12.5m2, while the corresponding dimension for 2 person bedrooms would be 17.5m2. All of the proposed bedrooms exceed those minimum standards and therefore comply with the guidance. Additionally, it was evident from my inspection of the property that the rooms showed no obvious suggestion of any spatial restrictions that would limit their functionality. 12. Notwithstanding the above, the Council’s officers report carried out an assessment of the proposed rooms which excluded the floor area of the en-suite facilities. Based on this, Bedrooms 1 and 4 would fall marginally below the minimum floor area.

102 Elmside, CROYDON, CR0 9DW — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision The shortfall in both instances would be less than 0.5m2, and even if I was to use this alternative approach to the HMO Standards, to assess minimum floorspace requirements, the deficit in space https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

102 Elmside, CROYDON, CR0 9DW — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision The shortfall in both instances would be less than 0.5m2, and even if I was to use this alternative approach to the HMO Standards, to assess minimum floorspace requirements, the deficit in space https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

102 Elmside, CROYDON, CR0 9DW — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/20/3256701 would be negligible. Accordingly, I do not consider that the bedroom sizes would result in an unacceptable living environment for future occupiers. 13. Therefore, the proposed development would provide adequate living conditions for future residents with particular reference to internal living space. It would accord with Policies DM10.4 and DM10.6 of the Local Plan insofar as providing functional space and protecting amenity. It would also comply with Policies 3.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan in terms of the quality of internal spaces. Finally, the proposal complies with the minimum floorspace requirements of the HMO Standards. Other Matter 14. Although not indicated as a reason in the Council’s refusal notice, the officer’s report states that the proposal would exacerbate parking issues on the road. During my site visit I noted that there were a small number of vacant resident parking bays adjacent to the appeal dwelling, in addition, there are unrestricted areas along nearby roads in which cars could park.

102 Elmside, CROYDON, CR0 9DW — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Based on this and without any evidence to demonstrate parking stress or related problems in the area, the potential small increase in parking demand as a result of the proposal, would unlikely harm existing parking conditions in the locality. Conclusion 15. I have found that the proposed development as it relates to the effect on living conditions of future occupiers would be acceptable. However, this lack of harm does not outweigh my concerns in relation to the diminution in the supply of small family housing and the resultant conflict with the development plan. Therefore, for this reason, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

102 Elmside, CROYDON, CR0 9DW — London Borough of Croydon — R E Jones INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3