42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 October 2025 by A Owen MA BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th October 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/W/25/3365522 42 Kenley Lane, Kenley CR8 5DD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Paul Ginger against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. • The application Ref is 24/02015/FUL. • The development proposed is demolition of existing outbuildings and construction of a 3 bedroom 2 storey dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Since the time of the Council’s decision, additional information on ecology has been provided. The Council have stated that this addresses their concerns on this matter and therefore they do not wish to defend the third reason for refusal. I have no reason to consider otherwise. 3. With the appeal, amended plans (nos. 1893/6 Rev F and 1893/9 Rev E) were provided to show the location and appearance of bin and cycle storage.

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision The details shown are minor in nature and although interested parties may not have had the opportunity to see these drawings, I do not consider they would be prejudiced by this. I have therefore accepted the plans. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: i) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area with respect to trees; ii) whether the development would secure Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG); iii) the effect of the development on highway safety; and iv) whether there is a need to provide contributions towards local transport infrastructure. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal site comprises part of the rear garden of No 42 and fronts onto Hermitage Road. Due to the topography the garden falls significantly to the rear, and Hermitage Road itself falls to the north. As well as its topography, the area is https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3365522 also characterised by large detached dwellings in spacious plots with mature trees and landscaping throughout. Indeed, there are a number of mature trees on the appeal site, and in the adjoining gardens which overhang the site, which contribute to this character. Of particular relevance in this case is a protected Ash tree and a Yew in the garden of No 44, identified as T1 and T2 respectively in the appellant’s Arboricultural Appraisal and Impact Assessment (AAIA); and a protected Yew on the appeal site, identified as T3. 6. T3 would be positioned directly in front of the north elevation of the proposed dwelling. It is a bushy evergreen tree with a fairly low canopy. Though I note reference in some documents to this tree being removed, the appellant has confirmed there is no intention to remove this tree, but rather it is proposed to crown lift it to a height of 3.5m to provide additional access and clearance. However, even with its crown lifted, the canopy would be directly outside and above the patio doors serving a study in the proposed house.

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision There would be another window on the rear elevation of the building providing light into this room and, due to its position to the north, the tree would not inhibit direct sunlight to the study. Nonetheless, due to its size and position, I consider the Yew would result in a gloomy outlook from this room. Moreover, even with its crown lifted, its canopy would cover most of the garden of the proposed dwelling. Indeed, in combination with the canopy of T4 which is another Yew in the garden of No 40, almost all of the garden on this side of the site serving the new dwelling would be overshadowed. 7. Likewise, although the canopy of the T1 Ash tree is quite high and would, particularly in winter, allow some light to pass through it, it would nonetheless provide a degree of overshadowing, particularly in combination with the T2 Yew tree next to it. As both trees would be to the south of the proposed dwelling, they would obscure direct sunlight as well as general daylight. Together, they would obscure light to the small front facing bathroom window, the window to bedroom 1 and the ground floor window serving the lounge, which would be the only full size window serving the whole of the ground floor. 8.

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision The trees would also overshadow most of the garden in this part of the site. Indeed, along with the overshadowed garden area to the north side of the house, this would leave the dwelling with very little outdoor amenity space that would not be underneath tree canopies. Whilst the local area is very verdant and so most properties will undoubtedly experience some overshadowing from trees, none have gardens as small as this or with such a high proportion of tree coverage. 9. For these reasons, it is likely that there would be future pressure from the occupiers of the proposed dwelling to prune or remove these trees. This would be difficult for the Council to resist. Such works would diminish the valuable contribution the trees make to the character and appearance of the area. I accept that T2 is not subject of a TPO. Nonetheless it makes an important contribution to the verdant character of the area in combination with the other trees. 10. I turn now to the roots of these trees. The AAIA calculates that the dwelling would encroach into the root protection area (RPA) of the protected Ash tree by around 5%.

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision The RPA is shown as asymmetrical to take account of Hermitage Road, but the total area of the RPA is broadly in line with BS5337:2012 which advises on the area of the RPA in relation to the size of the trunk. An encroachment of the size indicated would be unlikely to result in damage to the vitality of this tree. A 3m https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision The RPA is shown as asymmetrical to take account of Hermitage Road, but the total area of the RPA is broadly in line with BS5337:2012 which advises on the area of the RPA in relation to the size of the trunk. An encroachment of the size indicated would be unlikely to result in damage to the vitality of this tree. A 3m https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3365522 long excavation trench in the area where the foundations of the dwelling would be, found three substantial roots, all 30mm thick or more. On that basis it is reasonable to estimate that within the proposed 12m length of excavation that the development would necessitate, 12 roots may be affected. Whilst 12m would represent nearly 20% of the tree’s perimeter, it would not, in this case, represent a significant proportion of the tree’s total root network which is the common method used to assess tolerance. 11. An even smaller proportion of the RPA of T2 would be affected. Therefore, as above, it is considered that that the vitality of the tree would not be harmed. 12. The RPA of T3 is also calculated as being asymmetrical as it is positioned adjacent to a below ground level garage. Even with the modified RPA, the AAIA suggests the development would only encroach into the RPA of this tree by a little over 4%. As with T1 and T2 I do not consider that this proportion of root loss would be harmful to this tree’s vitality. 13. I note the Council suggest no amount of root loss should be tolerated unless suitable justification is provided.

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision However policy DM28 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) (‘CLP’) states it will not permit development that results in the avoidable loss or excessive pruning of trees. In my view the amount of damage to the roots of the trees would not be excessive or would be likely to result in their loss. 14. Nonetheless, I consider there would be future pressure to substantially prune or remove the trees including the protected ones, which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. In this respect the development would conflict with policy DM28 which sets out that development which could result in the future loss or excessive pruning of preserved trees, or trees that make a contribution to the character of the area, should not be permitted. It would also be contrary to London Plan (2021) policy G7 which also aims to ensure existing trees of value are retained. BNG 15. The appellant’s Biodiversity Net Gain Design Stage Report (‘BNG report’) calculates that the proposal would be likely to result in a loss of biodiversity of around 9% in habitat units and about 48% in hedgerow units. It recommends therefore that BNG creation is made off-site or credits purchased. 16.

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision The proposals would allow for some space for planting such as along the south boundary and, as the appellant’s own the host dwelling, some habitat may be able to be provided here too. However without further details of that, and given the losses identified in the BNG report, I could not be confident that this would provide the required 10% gain in BNG, or indeed if any gain could be provided. If off-site BNG would need to be created or credits bought, as recommended by the BNG report and reiterated in their comments on the appeal, a planning obligation would be necessary to give sufficient surety. There is no such obligation before me. As such I cannot conclude that the proposal would accord with CLP policy DM27 and London Plan policy G6 which both seek to enhance biodiversity. Highway safety 17. There is currently a garage on the appeal site with an area of hardstanding in front of it which leads onto Hermitage Road. The Council suggest the garage is too https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3365522 small to be useable, being below the Council’s minimum required size for a garage. Although it may be physically possible to park a car in the garage, I would consider it an unattractive proposition as it would provide very little room to enter and exit the vehicle. 18. The drawings show the hardstanding area in front of the garage measures 5.4m x 2.95m. This would be large enough for a car to park on, and would provide greater scope than the garage for people to enter and exit a car. It is perpendicular to the road and is adjacent to a similar area in front of the adjoining garage serving No 40. There is no reason to consider that were a car parked on the hardstanding at the appeal site, it would obstruct the neighbours use of their garage or hardstanding area. I have been provided with a land registry entry which states that the occupiers of both No 40 and 42 are entitled to a free and full right of way over the whole hardstanding area. However legal covenants such as this are not planning considerations. 19.

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Nevertheless, even if parking is not possible in the garage or on the hardstanding area, I saw at my site visit that there is considerable capacity for on-street parking on Hermitage Road without disrupting the free flow of traffic. The houses on Hermitage Road near the site all had off-street parking and, due to the substantial frontages of those houses, there are significant lengths of road uninterrupted by dropped kerbs. The Kenly Intensification Zone Transport Study also shows substantial on-street capacity on Hermitage Road. The Council suggest the development would generate a need for two parking spaces and in this case those could be accommodated on-street. 20. I recognise that No 42 has far more room for parking at its front than at its rear and so undoubtedly uses the Kenley Lane access to a far greater degree than the one onto Hermitage Road. Nonetheless, there is no reason why the current occupiers of No 42 could not use this access, with the legal and physical restrictions that may affect that. The use of this access by the single dwelling proposed, with those same legal and physical restrictions, would therefore not necessarily result in an intensification of the use of this access.

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Although it is acknowledged that visibility to the right, when exiting the driveway, is poor, the lack of intensification of the use of the access means the proposal would not result in any greater risk to highway safety. 21. Overall, the development would not result in any greater harm to highway safety. It would therefore comply with CLP policies DM29 and DM30 and London Plan policy T4 which seek to ensure that highway safety is not compromised. It would also not conflict with the parking standards set out in London Plan policies T6 and T6.1 which are maximums. I have no reason to consider there would be any conflict with London Plan policy T5, which requires appropriate cycle parking is provided, given the provision indicated on the amended plans. Transport infrastructure 22. The site is within the wider Study Area of the Kenley Intensification Zone Transport Study. This study essentially considers the existing transport infrastructure in Kenley, the likely housing growth to 2037, and the likely improvements to that infrastructure that will need to be made to accommodate that growth. The Council state that the development would necessitate a contribution of £2000 towards those improvements.

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision However I have no evidence https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision However I have no evidence https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3365522 before me to justify this figure, or that it is reasonable in scale and kind to the development. Therefore I cannot conclude it is necessary to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms. Therefore despite the absence of a mechanism to secure this contribution, there is no reason to consider that the development would conflict with CLP policies SP8 or DM29 insofar as they seek to promote sustainable modes of transport and improve transport infrastructure, or London Plan policies T4 and T9 which also seek to secure infrastructure improvements through planning obligations. Other Matters 23. There are a number of interested parties who raise objections on issues in addition to those explored above. However as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons I need not consider these matters further as they could not have any determinative effect on my decision. Conclusion 24. The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other considerations that indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.

42 Kenley Lane, Kenley, Surrey, CR8 5DD — London Borough of Croydon — A Owen INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5