35 Whitehorse Road, CROYDON, CR0 2JG

35 Whitehorse Road, CROYDON, CR0 2JG — London Borough of Croydon — Costs Decision Site visit made on 4 August 2025 by C Housden BSc(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 August 2025 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/W/25/3366551 35 Ye Olde Clocktower Public House, Whitehorse Road, Croydon CR0 2JG • The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by Mr H Nadir of Xyma 1 Ltd for a full award of costs against the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for erection of a part 3, part 4 storey building with a replacement public house on the ground floor and 17 HMO rooms with kitchens and en-suites. Proposed 3 bedroom flat with cycle and bin store. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. However, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 3.

35 Whitehorse Road, CROYDON, CR0 2JG — London Borough of Croydon — Costs Decision The submission made by the applicant relates to their view that the Council “misdirected itself”1 in relation to the first and third reason for refusal. In relation to the second reason for refusal, the applicant asserts that this was a matter that could have been dealt with by a condition. Overall, it is the applicants view that the Council has prevented a development that should clearly have gone ahead, which constitutes as unreasonable behaviour as described by the planning practice guidance. 4. The first reason for refusal of the planning application relates to both the first and second main issue of my decision letter. In relation to the first main issue, the terrace serving the proposed flat would fall short of the required 6m2. This was a position agreed between the applicant and the Council. 5. The Council have exercised reasonable planning judgement and substantiated in its statement of case that, in its view, the provision of communal space does not offset the shortfall of private amenity space. 6.

35 Whitehorse Road, CROYDON, CR0 2JG — London Borough of Croydon — Costs Decision In relation to the second main issue, the Council have also substantiated this refusal reason using reasonable planning judgement in its officer report and statement of case, including addressing the applicant’s suggestion that a condition could have been used. As such, the first reason for refusal was well founded, and 1 Applicant’s Application for Costs page 1. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

35 Whitehorse Road, CROYDON, CR0 2JG — London Borough of Croydon — Costs Decision In relation to the second main issue, the Council have also substantiated this refusal reason using reasonable planning judgement in its officer report and statement of case, including addressing the applicant’s suggestion that a condition could have been used. As such, the first reason for refusal was well founded, and 1 Applicant’s Application for Costs page 1. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

35 Whitehorse Road, CROYDON, CR0 2JG — London Borough of Croydon — Costs Decision Costs Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3366551 has not caused unreasonable behaviour that resulted in unnecessary expense at the appeal. 7. In relation to the second reason for refusal, the Council clearly considered whether a condition could be used to secure an alternative acceptable cycle storage scheme in its officer report. This position is further substantiated in its statement of case by setting out that there is insufficient detail contained within the planning application to be confident that an acceptable scheme could be secured by a condition. As such, the second reason for refusal was well founded, and therefore has not led to unreasonable behaviour that resulted in unnecessary expense at the appeal. 8. The third reason for refusal relates to a lack of planning obligation securing contributions towards sustainable transport measures and removing future occupiers from being able to apply for parking permits. A signed planning obligation has not been provided by the applicant and therefore the Council’s third refusal reason was well founded and has not resulted in any wasted expense at the appeal stage.

35 Whitehorse Road, CROYDON, CR0 2JG — London Borough of Croydon — Costs Decision I also have no procedural evidence before me that shows the Council has demonstrated a lack of co-operation with the applicant on this matter. 9. I have found that the Council’s refusal of planning permission was well founded with its reasons for refusal substantiated. Therefore, the Council has not prevented or delayed a development which clearly should have been permitted. I do not consider the Council has acted unreasonably in refusing planning permission. Conclusion 10. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as defined in the PPG, has not been demonstrated. Accordingly, the application for costs is refused.

35 Whitehorse Road, CROYDON, CR0 2JG — London Borough of Croydon — C Housden INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2