77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 February 2026 by S Burch BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 February 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/W/25/3376217 77 Portland Road, South Norwood, Croydon, London SE25 4UN • 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 Ehsan Shams against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. • The application Ref is 25/00064/FUL. • The development proposed is for the continued use of basement level as self-contained flat (Use Class C3) in a modified form, associated single-storey rear/side infill extension following demolition of existing structures, Associated amenity, cycle parking and waste storage spaces, and Associated alterations including landscaping and excavation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. For reasons of precision, I have taken the description of development used in the heading above from the Council’s decision notice. This is also used in the appellant’s statement of case. I have removed the reference to the development being part retrospective, as this is not a form of development. 3.

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision It was evident from my site visit, and from the evidence before me, that the basement is already in use as a self-contained flat. 4. The emerging revised Croydon Local Plan 2024 has been submitted for examination and the examination in public commenced at the beginning of September 2025. The Council contend that the policies carry limited weight, which would not outweigh current adopted policies. I see no reason to disagree with this. 5. There appears to be some dispute between the main parties as to the lawful use of the basement. Within the context of an appeal made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) it is not within my remit to formally determine the lawful use of the property. It is open to the appellant to apply to have that matter determined under section 191 of the Act, and any such application would be unaffected by my determination of this appeal. I have considered any evidence relating to the existing use of the property so far as is material to this appeal. Main Issues 6. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with regard to parking provision; https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3376217 • the effect of the development on the availability of employment space locally, having regard to local development plan policies; • whether the development would provide acceptable refuse storage facilities; and • whether the development would provide acceptable cycle storage facilities. Reasons Highway safety 7. The site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) score of 4, meaning it has good access to public transport. The surrounding highways are subject to controlled parking. During my mid-morning site visit there was evidence of moderate parking stress, with few parking spaces available. I am aware that this represents a snapshot in time but given the residential nature of the area, I have no reason to believe that what I saw is not representative. It is also likely that there would be an increased parking demand in the evenings and at weekends when more people are at home. 8. The appellant outlines how the scheme would be car-free development. This would be in accordance with Policy T6 of the London Plan 2021 (LP), which states that car free development should be the starting point for development in places that are well connected by public transport.

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision To ensure the development is car free, a mechanism to ensure future occupants cannot obtain on-street parking permits is necessary. Without such a mechanism, occupiers may still utilise private cars for day-to-day transport requirements for those journeys that are not possible or practical on public transport and therefore try to obtain an on-street parking permit to park the car. 9. A planning obligation to ensure car free development would therefore meet Paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Paragraph 2 Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations, in that it would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, would be directly related to the development and would be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 10. A unilateral undertaking was submitted at appeal stage. The Council has reviewed this agreement and raise concerns that the need for monitoring fees associated with such an agreement is not mentioned. Such fees would be set at £1500 for the lifetime of the development. The appellant disputes the need for the monitoring fees, and the amount requested. 11.

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Paragraph 2A of Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations outlines how Paragraph 2 does not apply in relation to a planning obligation which requires a sum to be paid to Council in respect of the cost of monitoring in relation to the delivery of planning obligations in the authority’s area, provided the sum to be paid fairly and reasonably relates in scale and kind to the development; and the sum to be paid to the authority does not exceed the authority’s estimate of its cost of monitoring the development over the lifetime of the planning obligations which relate to that development. 12. I consider it reasonable that the Council would, on occasion, need to monitor the agreement’s effectiveness and ensure it is being enforced. Without monitoring, the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3376217 planning obligation may not be effective. Additionally, the sum would be for the lifetime of development, which could be for a substantial amount of time. There is little evidence before me to demonstrate that the cost of monitoring the agreement would be any less than the sum put forward by the Council. There is also no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the monitoring fee would be the same for a major application. 13. Overall, I consider that the monitoring fee would be necessary to ensure that the unilateral undertaking is effective. Based on the information before me, I consider that the cost of monitoring would meet the requirements set out in Paragraph 2A. 14. The appellant contends that the scheme would result in a likely decrease in vehicle movements compared with the commercial use. However, the commercial use at ground floor is still operational. In any case, any car parking associated with customers visiting the shop would likely be brief, whereas car parking associated with a residential property would be on a longer-term basis.

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Whilst I accept that in isolation one additional car parking on the highway may have a negligible effect on parking demand in the area, should developments such as the appeal proposal be allowed, incrementally alongside other similar proposals, they could collectively substantially increase parking demand and stress in the area, thereby harming highway safety. I am not satisfied that a planning condition preventing residents from apply for parking permits would meet the tests set out in the Framework. 15. To conclude, I am not satisfied that the submitted unilateral undertaking would be effective, due to the lack of monitoring fee. The ineffectiveness of this agreement would mean there is no mechanism to prevent occupiers from applying for residents parking permits. This would result in an increased demand for parking and increased parking stress in the area. This would increase the likelihood of residents and visitors parking close to road junctions and may also reduce the number of places that pedestrians can cross the road with good intervisibility between pedestrians and road users, thereby increasing the likelihood of collisions.

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision I am not satisfied that existing parking restrictions in the area would entirely prevent this. This would harm highway safety. The scheme would therefore be contrary to Policy DM30 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (CLP) and Policy T6 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other things, these polices seek to promote sustainable methods of transport and ensure that car parking does not compromise highway safety. Employment space 16. A 1987 planning application granted planning permission for the use of the ground floor at the appeal property as a hot food takeaway, and the basement for storage. Based on the information before me, I consider it likely that the basement’s use was for storage, ancillary to the main hot food takeaway use. The hot food takeaway would fall under a sui generis use class, which was previously an A5 use class. On my site visit, the ground floor unit was in use as a shop. 17. The Council outline how under Policy SP3 of the CLP the site is situated within a Tier 4 location. In these locations, the Council seek to protect industrial and warehousing activities.

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision The policy outlines how in order to demonstrate that there is no demand for a scheme comprised solely of Class B1b, B1c, B2 and B8 uses in ‘Tiers 2, 3 and 4’ locations, evidence to demonstrate that a marketing exercise has been undertaken for a minimum of 18 months will need to be submitted. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision The policy outlines how in order to demonstrate that there is no demand for a scheme comprised solely of Class B1b, B1c, B2 and B8 uses in ‘Tiers 2, 3 and 4’ locations, evidence to demonstrate that a marketing exercise has been undertaken for a minimum of 18 months will need to be submitted. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3376217 18. However, based on the evidence before me, I do not consider that the basement is, or has been, comprised solely of a former Class B1b, B1C, B2 or B8 use. I consider that any storage use has been ancillary to the main use at ground floor level, which was previously a takeaway, and is now a shop. Additionally, the Council set out in its statement of case that it considers the storage space to supplement and complement the retail use at ground floor. 19. The Council contend that the loss of the basement storage area would prevent a business expanding and adapting. However, I have not been directed to any policy which seeks to retain storage ancillary to a commercial use or preserve the borough’s retail vitality and viability. Whilst the appellant’s description of development in their application form did refer to a B8 use of the basement, they have clarified in their statement of case that the basement is in fact not in B8 use and instead has the benefit of a Class E commercial use. Additionally, it appears that the Council amended this description of development in their decision notice, removing the reference to a B8 use. 20.

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Overall, for the reasons set out above, the scheme would have an acceptable effect on the availability of employment space locally. I find no conflict with Policy SP3 of the CLP or Policy E2 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to support the provision of, and where appropriate, protection of a range of former B use class business spaces. Refuse storage 21. The Council accept that there is space for the bins to be stored on site. Its concerns relate to the collection of the bins. Whilst Addison Place is partly adopted, the evidence outlines how given its narrow width, the size of the refuse vehicles, and potential obstructions along Addison Place, refuse vehicles do not enter it for waste collections. 22. Bagged collections take place in the area, and the Council’s Waste Team have advised that this would be acceptable in this case. Concerns are however raised regarding the distance occupiers would have to travel to place refuse bags on Portland Road. The appellant however suggests that occupiers could place refuse bags at the end of Addison Place, for collection. 23.

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Based on the information before me, it would appear that the distance occupiers would have to travel to place their waste at the edge of the highway on Addison Road would be appropriate. The Council contend that the narrow access way in Addison Place is often blocked with parked cars. However, on my site visit vehicles were parked directly to the rear of the units along Portland Road, and there were none parked in the narrow access way along Addison Place. Nonetheless, I accept that this represents a snapshot in time only, and there may be occasions when vehicles are parked along the access way. 24. Even if an average sized car was parked in the access way, I consider that it is of sufficient width to accommodate the movement of a person to travel past the car to place a bag of rubbish on the highway for collection. There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that there would be issues associated with this arrangement. 25. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I consider that the scheme would provide acceptable refuse storage facilities. The scheme would be in accordance https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3376217 with Policy DM13 of the CLP and Policies D3 and D6 of the LP in this regard. Collectively, amongst other things, these polices seek to ensure that development is of high-quality design and makes adequate provision for refuse and recycling facilities. Cycle storage 26. The Council advise that the cycle storage would appear to be sufficient for one bicycle. Its concerns relate to the ability for occupiers to manoeuvre a bicycle to and from the store along Addison Place. 27. However, even if an average sized car was parked in the access way, I consider that the access way is of sufficient width to accommodate the movement of most bicycles, alongside the parked car. Whilst it is possible that a larger van or lorry may park in the access way on occasion, it is reasonable to assume that there would be a common understanding between users of the road with regard to its use and accessibility, and users would park in a sensible and considerate manner. 28.

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Whilst I accept that if a car is parked in the narrow access way, transporting a bicycle past the car may be somewhat inconvenient, any inconvenience would be short lived and would not be so severe so as to discourage occupiers from cycling. I also do not consider that the cobbled nature of Addison Place would be a significant issue when transporting a bicycle along it. Overall, I do not consider that the arrangement would be so impractical so as to warrant a refusal of the scheme. 29. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I consider that the scheme would provide adequate and acceptable cycle storage. The scheme would be in accordance with Polices DM29 and DM30 of the CLP and Policy T5 of the LP. Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure that development facilitates and encourages cycling. Other Matters 30. The appeal site is within the South Norwood Conservation Area (CA). The statutory duty set out in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a CA.

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision The proposed extension would be modest in depth and scale and would be in accordance with Council guidance. The change of use would not be readily apparent from the street scene along Portland Road, given its location in the basement. It is therefore my view that the scheme would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The Council similarly conclude this. 31. The appellant has drawn my attention to approved applications at 71 and 73 Portland Road, which permitted residential development. However, these were approved prior to the adoption of the CLP and LP. Additionally, I do not know the exact circumstances under which they were granted permission. Reference to these properties therefore does not alter my conclusions with regard to highway safety. 32. The appellant suggests that permitted development rights under Class MA would allow for the change of use of the premises. However, I have little evidence to support this claim. I am therefore unable to conclude that this offers a realistic or https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/L5240/W/25/3376217 probable prospect and consequently it does not represent a legitimate fallback position. It is open to the appellant to apply to have the matter determined under Sections 191 or 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Any such determination would be unaffected by the outcome of this appeal. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis of what is proposed and its consequent effects. 33. The scheme would be acceptable with regards to the standard of accommodation, its impact on neighbouring amenity, the character and appearance of the area and flood risk. It may also ensure fire safety and meet climate change and sustainability requirements, as set out in the CLP and LP, and meet the 10% biodiversity net gain requirement. These are however neutral factors and would not weigh in favour of, nor against, the appeal. The schemes compliance with various planning policies is also a neutral consideration. 34. The property may be in a state of disrepair and require renovations. However, there is nothing before me to demonstrate why such works would be dependent on planning permission being granted.

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision Whilst the basement may have been in use as a residential property for a number of years, the evidence demonstrates that this does not benefit from planning permission. Planning balance 35. The Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes. The proposal would make efficient use of land, utilising a small site and previously developed land to provide one additional property in an accessible location. This would contribute to Croydon and London’s housing targets, as set out in the LP. Given the small scale of the development, I afford these benefits limited weight in favour of the appeal. However, the benefits of the proposed development do not outweigh the harm in respect of highway safety, to which I attach significant weight. Conclusion 36. The scheme would have an acceptable effect on the availability of employment space locally. It would also provide adequate refuse and cycle storage facilities. However, in the absence of an effective mechanism to prevent occupiers from applying for a parking permit, it would result in additional parking demand and stress in the area, thereby harming highway safety. 37.

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — Appeal Decision The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.

77 Portland Road, LONDON, SE25 4UN — London Borough of Croydon — S Burch INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6