73 St. Saviours Road, CROYDON, CR0 2XF

73 St. Saviours Road, CROYDON, CR0 2XF — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 March 2023 by A James BSc (Hons) MA MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th May 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/W/22/3300152 73 St. Saviour’s Road, Croydon CR0 2XF • 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 Ms L Thomas against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. • The application Ref 21/04886/FUL, dated 13 September 2021, was refused by notice dated 27 January 2022. • The development proposed is conversion of dwellinghouse into 2 self-contained dwellings with associated amenity, cycle parking and waste storage spaces. Erection of single-storey rear/side extension (following demolition of existing addition) and alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The planning application was amended following submission. I have used the description given on the appeal form and decision notice in the banner heading above, as it reflects the amended proposal. 3.

73 St. Saviours Road, CROYDON, CR0 2XF — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Following determination of this planning application, the Council’s Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) has been revoked and is no longer a material consideration. Both parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the SPD revocation and I have taken comments received into account. 4. The Council raise no objections to the single-storey extension, which is proposed to the rear of the existing outrigger. Following my site visit, I have no reason to disagree with this finding. Main Issues 5. The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposed single-storey rear/side infill extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of 75 Saviour’s Road (No 75), with particular regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight, and (ii) the effect of the proposed development on parking in the area, having regard to development plan policies, which seek to reduce car usage and promote sustainable modes of transport; highway safety; and, the living conditions of local residents. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

73 St. Saviours Road, CROYDON, CR0 2XF — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/22/3300152 Reasons Living conditions 6. The appeal property is a 2 storey, end of terrace dwelling, which has a 2 storey rear outrigger. There is a small lean to extension off the rear of the principal part of the dwelling and another off the rear of the outrigger. 7. The proposed extension would be sited adjacent to the shared boundary with No 75, which only has a narrow gap between the side of its outrigger and boundary. Although the proposed extension would have a sloping roof, its flank wall immediately adjacent to the boundary would exceed the height of the existing fence. Given the siting, height and depth of the proposed extension, it would appear particularly oppressive from the ground floor windows on No 75’s outrigger, which would directly face the extension at a very close distance. The proposed development would also appear oppressive from the rear facing, ground floor window on the principal part of No 75, that lies in close proximity to the boundary. Consequently, the proposal would cause an unacceptable loss of outlook and lead to an increased sense of enclosure that would harm the living conditions of occupants of No 75. 8.

73 St. Saviours Road, CROYDON, CR0 2XF — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Even if the boundary fence could be increased under permitted development, the proposed extension would exceed the height of 2 metres and my findings in respect to harm regarding enclosure and outlook would remain. 9. The existing built form and boundary fence already limit daylight and sunlight to the ground floor windows in question on No 75. Given that the existing boundary fence and outrigger on the host property are sited to the south of No 75, sunlight to these ground floor windows is already restricted and the proposal would not significantly worsen the situation. However, given the height and siting of the proposed extension directly on the boundary and in close proximity to the neighbour’s ground floor windows, the proposal would result in a reduction in daylight, which would be unduly harmful to the living conditions of No 75. There is no compelling evidence before me to reach a contrary conclusion on this matter. 10. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would be unduly harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of No 75 with particular regard to outlook and daylight.

73 St. Saviours Road, CROYDON, CR0 2XF — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision The proposal would conflict with Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (CLP) and Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan 2021 (LP). These policies amongst other matters require that development proposals enhance well-being; protect the amenity of neighbouring residents; and, deliver appropriate outlook. The proposed development would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which requires that developments provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Parking 11. The appeal site is located within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). At the time of my site visit (late morning), there were plenty of car parking spaces available. However, I appreciate that this is only a snapshot in time and at other times, the parking demand may be greater. Although the site has a ‘very poor’ Public Transport Accessibility Level rating of 1a, it is acknowledged by both main parties that the site is located within an area where walking, cycling https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

73 St. Saviours Road, CROYDON, CR0 2XF — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/22/3300152 and public transport are viable ways to complete daily tasks. Given the provision of cycle parking on site and the other sustainable modes of transport available in the locality, future occupants would have alternatives to using a private motor vehicle. 12. Policy T6.1 of the LP requires that a maximum of 0.75 car parking spaces are provided per new dwelling. Policy DM30 of the CLP is clear that there should be no provision for higher levels of car parking in areas of low PTAL. No off street parking is proposed for the development and the proposal would therefore comply with these policies. 13. The creation of an additional household is likely to result in more adults residing in the property and more visitors. However, the proposed development would not increase the overall number of bedrooms within the building. The proposal would at most, result in a small increase in parking demand, which would have a negligible impact on on-street parking in the locality. There is no clear evidence before me to indicate that the CPZ is at capacity and could not accommodate this small increase.

73 St. Saviours Road, CROYDON, CR0 2XF — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Consequently, the proposal would not result in an increase in on-street parking demand that would result in annoyance or inconvenience for neighbouring residents. 14. The creation of an additional unit would have a minor impact on traffic movements on the local highway network and would not be harmful to highway safety. There is no detailed information before me to indicate that there are current issues with highway safety at or near the site. Furthermore, the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would not be severe. I therefore find no conflict with paragraph 111 of the Framework. 15. Paragraph 57 of the Framework requires that planning obligations meet 3 tests, including that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Given that I have found no conflict with the development plan in respect to this issue, I do not find that a planning obligation is necessary or would meet the relevant tests. 16. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on parking in the area and would therefore comply with Policies DM16, DM30 and SP8 of the CLP and Policies T2, T3, T4, T6 and T6.1 of the LP.

73 St. Saviours Road, CROYDON, CR0 2XF — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision These policies amongst other matters seek to promote car free development; require that new residential developments do not exceed maximum parking standards; and, promote active travel and the use of public transport. The proposal would also comply with the Framework, which seeks to promote walking, cycling and public transport use and requires that developments do not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety Other Matters 17. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the Council does not have a 5 year deliverable supply of housing and therefore the presumption in favour of development as set out in paragraph 11d of the Framework does not apply. 18. Based on the limited evidence before me and in the absence of a prior approval consent, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed development could be dealt with under the prior approval process and that this represents a probable fallback position. I therefore give this limited weight. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

73 St. Saviours Road, CROYDON, CR0 2XF — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/22/3300152 19. I note that no objections were received to this application. However, this does not alter my overall findings. Conclusion 20. Whilst I find no harm with regard to the second main issue, the harm that would arise with regard to the living conditions of occupants of No 75 is determinative. For the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan as a whole, the Framework and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

73 St. Saviours Road, CROYDON, CR0 2XF — London Borough of Croydon — A James INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4