Case 3277134

108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon, CR2 6PG

London Borough of Croydon — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
13 October 2021
Authority
London Borough of Croydon
Inspector
Wilde J
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Unknown
Development type
Change of use
Appellant
We Know Business Ltd
Agent
PD Planning UK Ltd
LPA reference
21/01155/GPDO
ONS LPA code
E09000008
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Child
Start date
16 June 2021

Summary AI

The inspector dismissed both appeals, citing the appeal property's use as a tyre sales and fitting enterprise rather than just a shop, and the lack of suitable onsite storage provision for cycles.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 by John Wilde CEng MICE

108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon, CR2 6PG — London Borough of Croydon — by John Wilde CEng MICE an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 October 2021

Page 1 · Chunk 1 108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon CR2 6PG

108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon, CR2 6PG — London Borough of Croydon — 108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon CR2 6PG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the Town and country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr G Stern against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. • The application Ref 20/05399/GPDO, dated 17 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 11 December 2020. • The development proposed is the conversion of Class A1 (shop) to Class C3 (residential) to provide four flats.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon CR2 6PG

108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon, CR2 6PG — London Borough of Croydon — 108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon CR2 6PG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the Town and country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr G Stern against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. • The application Ref 21/01155/GPDO, dated 5 March 2021, was refused by notice dated 30 April 2021. • The development proposed is the conversion of Class A1 (shop) to Class C3 (residential) to provide four flats.

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended)

108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon, CR2 6PG — London Borough of Croydon — Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 4 Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended)

108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon, CR2 6PG — London Borough of Croydon — Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 5 Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended)

108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon, CR2 6PG — London Borough of Croydon — Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended) Appeal Decisions APP/L5240/W/21/3266287 (GPDO). Class M has subsequently been replaced by class MA following the introduction of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020, which made amendments to the Use Classes Order including moving various categories, including shops, into a new Use Class E. 5. However, under the section entitled Conditions at MA.2(3) it is made clear that an application for prior approval for development under Class MA may not be made before 1 August 2021. As the applications and decisions by the Council were made before this date I will consider the appeals under Class M rather than the updated Class MA, with a shop being the previous Use Class of A1. Main Issues (Appeals A and B) 6. The main issues in both appeals are whether or not the proposed development would:- a) Be in accordance with Schedule 2, part 3, Class M paragraphs M.1 (a)(i) and (ii) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended). b) Provide suitable onsite storage provision for cycles. Reasons 7. The two applications are for exactly the same change of use and consequently my reasoning will relate to both appeals unless I mention a specific appeal. 8.

Page 2 · Chunk 6 Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended)

108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon, CR2 6PG — London Borough of Croydon — Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended) The appeal property is an end of terrace commercial unit situated at the corner of Selsdon Road and Junction Road. The unit has a relatively short frontage onto Selsdon Road with a longer frontage containing three garage style doors facing Junction Road. Whether or not the proposed development would be in accordance with Schedule 2, part 3, Class M paragraphs M.1 (a)(i) and (ii) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended). 9. Class M of the GPDO allows the change of use of a building falling within, amongst others, Class A1 (shops), to a Class C3 dwelling house. The appeal property has most recently been used as tyre sales and fitting enterprise which the appellant considers to be Use Class A1, and I note that a 2017 Council Enforcement Officer’s report stated the use of the premises as an A1 shop and the fitting bays as ancillary use to this. 10. However, whilst there is certainly an element of retail in such a business, that retail element cannot be divorced from the fitting element, as it can only be on the very rarest of occasions, if at all, that members of the public purchase tyres to fit themselves or have fitted elsewhere.

Page 2 · Chunk 7 Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended)

108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon, CR2 6PG — London Borough of Croydon — Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended) I cannot therefore agree that the fitting element is ancillary to the retail element, it is a part and parcel of the whole process. Furthermore, the fitting element requires specialist equipment that is not commensurate with a retail operation, being more akin to an industrial process. The fitting process also requires skilled labour that is not required in a standard retail operation. I also note that the area designated as ‘shop’ on drawing 990-A100 is a relatively small area compared to the rest of the ground floor area, which is used for the fitting element. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 2 · Chunk 8 Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended)

108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon, CR2 6PG — London Borough of Croydon — Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended) I cannot therefore agree that the fitting element is ancillary to the retail element, it is a part and parcel of the whole process. Furthermore, the fitting element requires specialist equipment that is not commensurate with a retail operation, being more akin to an industrial process. The fitting process also requires skilled labour that is not required in a standard retail operation. I also note that the area designated as ‘shop’ on drawing 990-A100 is a relatively small area compared to the rest of the ground floor area, which is used for the fitting element. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 3 · Chunk 9 Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended)

108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon, CR2 6PG — London Borough of Croydon — Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended) Appeal Decisions APP/L5240/W/21/3266287 11. For these reasons I cannot accept that the business enterprise that has taken place at the premises is wholly retail. It follows that, as it is not Use Class A1, the change of use does not fall under the provisions of Class M of the GPDO. 12. In respect of Appeal B my attention has been drawn to an article from an un- named publication that discusses the Use Class of, amongst other things, tyre fitting. The article mentions various examples of case law although none of these have been put before me. I do note however that the article finishes with the sentence however, the physical characteristics of most modern fitting establishments would suggest that an industrial aspect is dominant. 13. This is in line with my findings above and I can see nothing else in the article that would lead me to a different conclusion. Cycle parking 14. The Council also have concerns regarding the lack of cycle parking within the proposed developments, and M.2-(1) of the GPDO makes clear that prior approval of the determining authority will be required as to a number of criteria including the transport and highways impacts of the development.

Page 3 · Chunk 10 Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended)

108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon, CR2 6PG — London Borough of Croydon — Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended) However, this section of the GPDO also stipulates that these criteria only come into play where the development proposed is development under Class M(a) and I have found this not to be the case. Conclusion 15. For the above reasons, and notwithstanding the conclusion of the Council’s Enforcement Officer in respect of this matter, I conclude that both of the appeals should be dismissed.

Page 3 · Chunk 11 John Wilde

108 Selsdon Road, South Croydon, CR2 6PG — London Borough of Croydon — John Wilde INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Character and appearance
Against appellant
¶10

The inspector found that the fitting element was not ancillary to the retail element, but a part of the whole process, and that the area designated as 'shop' was relatively small compared to the rest of the ground floor area used for the fitting element.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶11

The inspector found that the business enterprise was not wholly retail, and therefore the change of use did not fall under the provisions of Class M of the GPDO.

Parking
Against appellant
¶14

The inspector found that the proposed development did not require prior approval for cycle parking, as the appeal property did not meet the criteria for development under Class M(a) of the GPDO.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
M.1(a)(i) and (ii) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended)
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 3 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 13 October 2021 under the Open Government Licence.