Planning application · Croydon
21/01208/FUL.
34A, 34B And Rear Of 34 Arkwright Road South Croydon CR2 0LL
Full / Other Planning at 34A, 34B And Rear Of 34 Arkwright Road South Croydon CR2 0LL, received 9 Mar 2021 — refused on 9 May 2022 by committee.
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationCroydon profile →
Refused
Outcome
9 May 2022
61 wks
Decision time
53 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
70
Documents
70 linked
228
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Dismissed appeal
Record from the Croydon planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Demolition of 2 dwellings and erection of a 3/4 storey building comprising 19 flats with associated car parking, cycle and refuse storage and landscaping. Alterations to existing vehicular access/road.
Reference
21/01208/FUL
Type
Full planning permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
None recorded
Case officer
Postcode
CR2 0LL
Ward
Council
Received
9 Mar 2021
Target date
8 Jun 2021
Decision date
9 May 2022
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
21/01208/FUL
Type
Full planning permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
None recorded
Case officer
Postcode
CR2 0LL
Ward
Council
Received
9 Mar 2021
Target date
8 Jun 2021
Decision date
9 May 2022
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
Documents open on the Croydon portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 9 May 2022, determined by the planning committee — 61 weeks from submission (53 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
9 Mar 2021
Application received
8 Jun 2021
Statutory target date
9 May 2022
Committee decision: Refused
Appeal
Appeal decided · Dismissed appeal
9 Mar 2021
Application received
8 Jun 2021
Statutory target date
9 May 2022
Committee decision: Refused
Show all 4 rows
Appeal
Appeal decided · Dismissed appeal
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
Reasons
Character and appearance
7. The appeal site is situated within a residential area predominantly
characterised by detached dwellings. It is a backland site accessed by a private
drive taken off Arkwright Road. The site encompasses land to the rear of No 34
Arkwright Road in addition to plots currently occupied by the detached
two-storey dwellings at Nos 34A and 34B Arkwright Road. Rear gardens serving
neighbouring dwellings on Arkwright Road, Ridge Langley and Courtlands Close
surround the site.
8. There are a mix of architectural styles in the area. However, buildings are
mainly traditional in design, more often have pitched roofs and are generally no
greater than two-storey in scale. Regular gaps are provided between individual
dwellings. During my site visit, I saw the recently erected building containing
flats at No 34 Arkwright Road. Although larger than some of the surrounding
dwellings, it is mainly two-storeys and also of a traditional form.
9. Large rear gardens are a common feature of the area although relatively
shallow rear garden depths serve the existing dwellings at Nos 34A and 34B
and the dwellings which back onto the site at Ridge Langley. Even so, the
prevailing scale and massing of buildings together with the spacing between
them gives general consistency to the area’s built form and provides for an
attractive suburban character.
10. The Framework and the development plan encourage the efficient use of land.
Policy DM10 (Design and character) of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) (CLP)
accords with this objective insofar as amongst other things it seeks to achieve
minimum heights of three-storeys. However, local and national policies
including DM10 are clear that making the best use of land is also subject to the
design of proposals respecting their surrounding context.
11. The footprint, width and three to four storey scale of the development,
together with its flat roofed profile would combine to form a building of
substantial bulk and mass. Combined with the large window and balcony
apertures along with the contrasting mix of materials, including copper
coloured cladding to upper levels, the proposal would have an imposing
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
contemporary appearance which would be significantly at odds with the
overriding domestic scale and traditional vernacular of the site’s suburban
surroundings.
12. I acknowledge that the site’s backland position would reduce the perception of
the development in public views from surrounding streets. However, I do not
consider that a lack of public visibility obviates the needs to achieve good
design. Indeed, paragraph 126 of the Framework states that the creation of
high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and
development process should achieve.
13. The building would be visible from some of the rear gardens and windows
serving the properties which surround the site. Notably, and despite the scale
of the building being much larger than neighbouring built form, the depth of its
rear amenity space would only be comparable to the shallow gardens of the
single dwellings on Ridge Langley that back on to the site. As a result, and
even accounting for the relative levels and boundary screening in place, the
design and scale of the building would be likely to appear particularly
incongruous and out of keeping with its immediate context when seen from the
rear of these neighbouring properties.
14. The appellant suggests that the density of the development would be
comparable to the recent developments at Nos 34 and 54 Arkwright Road.
Whether or not this be the case, this does not overcome my specific design
concerns.
15. I conclude that the development would result in significant harm to the
character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with the
design and local character requirements in Policies D3 (Optimising site capacity
through the design-led approach) and D4 (Delivering good design) of the
London Plan (2021) (LP 2021), Policies SP4 (Urban Design and Local Character)
and DM10 (Design and character) of the CLP and the Framework.
Housing mix
16. The Framework seeks to create mixed and balanced communities and states
amongst other things that the size, type and tenure of housing needed for
different groups should be reflected in planning policies.
17. Policy SP2 (Homes) of the CLP confirms amongst other things that the
borough’s need for homes of different sizes for both market and affordable
housing will be achieved by setting a preferred unit mix on individual sites
through the CLP’s detailed policies for sites of ten or more homes.
18. The appellant suggests that as Policy SP2 refers to a ‘preferred unit mix’ this
implies there is a degree of flexibility on the housing mix required. However,
Policy DM1 of the CLP provides the detail for such sites and confirms that to
enable housing choice for sustainable communities it ‘requires’, and not for
example that it would ‘prefer’, a minimum provision of homes designed with 3
or more bedrooms on sites of 10 or more dwellings. The required minimum
percentages are set out in Table 4.1 of the CLP. In suburban areas such as
where the appeal site is located with a low (Public Transport Accessibility Level
(PTAL) rating of 0, 1a, 1b, 2 or 3, the minimum percentage of three bedroom
or larger units required is 70%.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3
19. The supporting text to Policy DM1 confirms that the policy applies to both
market and affordable housing. It also sets out that the policy recognises that
more central locations with higher density development will not be so
compatible for accommodating larger units. This explains why a higher
proportion of family sized homes are expected in suburban lower density areas.
20. Only 58% of the proposed housing mix would be 3-bed units meaning the
proposal would not meet the minimum requirements of the development plan.
21. The appellant contends that the shortfall in 3-bed units substantially relates to
the affordable housing element of the scheme and that if additional 3-bed
affordable units had been provided this would have impacted negatively on the
viability of the scheme. I acknowledge that the viability of the scheme was
independently assessed during the planning application process and is not a
matter disputed between the main parties. From what I have seen, I find no
reason to conclude differently in terms of the viability conclusions.
22. Notwithstanding the above, this does not explain why a higher proportion of
3-bed market dwellings could not have been provided in order to ensure the
minimum policy requirement would be achieved. Moreover, Policy DM1.1 a)
and b) set out the specific exceptions to the requirements to meet the
minimum provision for homes designed with 3 or more bedrooms, neither of
which have been demonstrated in the evidence before me.
23. I conclude, the proposal would not deliver a suitable mix of housing having
regard to the specified minimum requirements in Policy DM1. In that regard, it
would also conflict with the requirements in the Framework to address the
specific needs of groups as assessed and reflected in planning policies.
Living conditions of occupiers of Nos 78 and 80 Ridge Langley
24. The two-storey detached dwellings at Nos 78 and 80 Ridge Langley have rear
elevations and gardens which back on to the appeal site. The neighbouring rear
facing windows include windows serving main habitable rooms. I also saw
during my site visit that due to the shallow depth of the neighbouring rear
gardens, they are well used including in close proximity to the shared boundary
with the appeal site. The levels on the appeal site drop towards the boundary
with these neighbouring properties. Mature planting of a substantial height sits
within the appeal site along the boundary with No 80. However, the fencing
and planting next to the shared boundary with No 78 is generally lower in
height.
25. The main parties have indicated that the development would achieve the
minimum separation distances of 18 – 21 metres (m) referred to in the Mayor
of London’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2016) (SPG). They
have also confirmed that the proposal would achieve a distance of 10m from
the boundary with the rear boundaries with Nos 78 and 80 at its closest point.
The main parties consider that this would be sufficient to ensure that there
would be no direct overlooking of private outdoor space within 10m
perpendicular to the rear elevation of these neighbouring dwellings as required
by Policy DM10.6c of the CLP.
26. However, the evidence before me including that from third-parties indicates
that any compliance with these distances would at some points be marginal.
The minimum distances in the SPG are guidance and compliance with them
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4
does not guarantee that suitable levels of privacy would be achieved in all
instances regardless of the form of development or its site-specific context.
27. The proposed building would sit closer to the rear elevation windows and
gardens serving the dwellings at Nos 78 and 80 than the dwellings it would
replace. From what I experienced on site, and even accounting for the angles
incorporated into the proposed rear elevation, the proliferation of windows and
balconies to the upper floors of the development at the distances proposed
would be likely to have a very conspicuous presence in views from the rear
garden and windows serving these neighbouring properties. In the event that
the development could not be effectively screened in perpetuity, this would
result in a perception of being very overlooked for occupiers of Nos 78 and 80.
This would be particularly so when compared with the established good levels
of privacy that occupiers of these neighbouring dwellings have been previously
accustomed to.
28. I acknowledge that there is tree planting to a considerable height within the
appeal site to the boundary with No 80. However, it has not been
demonstrated that the trees are of a lifespan that means they could be
retained at this height for the lifetime of the development. Furthermore, the
appellant’s Arboricultural Impact and Method Statement along with the
Arboricultural Strategy Plan provided indicate that some of the tree planting
close to this boundary would be removed and this would have the potential to
open up gaps in the existing screen planting.
29. The appellant suggests that new planting would be provided and that this
would also assist in screening views between No 78. However, given the extent
to which views are currently available between this neighbouring property and
that any new planting would need to be substantial and would take time to
establish, I am not persuaded that acceptable levels of privacy could be
achieved from first occupation of the development.
30. I conclude, the development has the potential to have a detrimental effect on
the living conditions of occupiers of Nos 78 and 80 Ridge Langley with
particular regard to privacy. In that regard, the proposal would conflict with the
requirements to ensure that the amenity of the occupiers of adjoining buildings
are protected in Policy DM10 of the CLP. For the same reasons, the proposals
would also be contrary to the requirements at Paragraph 130 of the Framework
for developments to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing
and future users.
Other Matters
31. I have been provided with a completed legal agreement setting out amongst
other things developer contributions including in respect of affordable housing
in the event that planning permission were to be granted. The Council’s
Committee report suggests that the conflict with the housing mix requirements
of the development plan and the overlooking impacts are matters which when
weighed against the benefits of the scheme, such as the provision of affordable
housing, did not warrant refusal.
32. However, I am not persuaded that the living conditions of neighbouring
occupiers or the housing mix requirements of the development plan are
matters which can be compromised upon in this instance. In any case, taken
together with the harm identified to the character and appearance of the area
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5
and the overall conflict with the development plan, this is not overcome
through the provision of the legal agreement.
Conclusion
33. In accordance with the requirements of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act (2004), the appeal must be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
34. I have found that the proposal would have a significantly harmful effect on the
character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, the housing mix proposed
would conflict with the minimum requirements of the development plan and
there is the potential that the proposal would also be detrimental to the privacy
of neighbouring occupiers. In these respects, the proposal would conflict with
the development plan taken as a whole and the sustainable objectives of the
Framework. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision
should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.
35. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be
dismissed.
M Russell
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6
1
Reasons
Character and appearance
7. The appeal site is situated within a residential area predominantly
characterised by detached dwellings. It is a backland site accessed by a private
drive taken off Arkwright Road. The site encompasses land to the rear of No 34
Arkwright Road in addition to plots currently occupied by the detached
two-storey dwellings at Nos 34A and 34B Arkwright Road. Rear gardens serving
neighbouring dwellings on Arkwright Road, Ridge Langley and Courtlands Close
surround the site.
8. There are a mix of architectural styles in the area. However, buildings are
mainly traditional in design, more often have pitched roofs and are generally no
greater than two-storey in scale. Regular gaps are provided between individual
dwellings. During my site visit, I saw the recently erected building containing
flats at No 34 Arkwright Road. Although larger than some of the surrounding
dwellings, it is mainly two-storeys and also of a traditional form.
9. Large rear gardens are a common feature of the area although relatively
shallow rear garden depths serve the existing dwellings at Nos 34A and 34B
and the dwellings which back onto the site at Ridge Langley. Even so, the
prevailing scale and massing of buildings together with the spacing between
them gives general consistency to the area’s built form and provides for an
attractive suburban character.
10. The Framework and the development plan encourage the efficient use of land.
Policy DM10 (Design and character) of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) (CLP)
accords with this objective insofar as amongst other things it seeks to achieve
minimum heights of three-storeys. However, local and national policies
including DM10 are clear that making the best use of land is also subject to the
design of proposals respecting their surrounding context.
11. The footprint, width and three to four storey scale of the development,
together with its flat roofed profile would combine to form a building of
substantial bulk and mass. Combined with the large window and balcony
apertures along with the contrasting mix of materials, including copper
coloured cladding to upper levels, the proposal would have an imposing
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
contemporary appearance which would be significantly at odds with the
overriding domestic scale and traditional vernacular of the site’s suburban
surroundings.
12. I acknowledge that the site’s backland position would reduce the perception of
the development in public views from surrounding streets. However, I do not
consider that a lack of public visibility obviates the needs to achieve good
design. Indeed, paragraph 126 of the Framework states that the creation of
high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and
development process should achieve.
13. The building would be visible from some of the rear gardens and windows
serving the properties which surround the site. Notably, and despite the scale
of the building being much larger than neighbouring built form, the depth of its
rear amenity space would only be comparable to the shallow gardens of the
single dwellings on Ridge Langley that back on to the site. As a result, and
even accounting for the relative levels and boundary screening in place, the
design and scale of the building would be likely to appear particularly
incongruous and out of keeping with its immediate context when seen from the
rear of these neighbouring properties.
14. The appellant suggests that the density of the development would be
comparable to the recent developments at Nos 34 and 54 Arkwright Road.
Whether or not this be the case, this does not overcome my specific design
concerns.
15. I conclude that the development would result in significant harm to the
character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with the
design and local character requirements in Policies D3 (Optimising site capacity
through the design-led approach) and D4 (Delivering good design) of the
London Plan (2021) (LP 2021), Policies SP4 (Urban Design and Local Character)
and DM10 (Design and character) of the CLP and the Framework.
Housing mix
16. The Framework seeks to create mixed and balanced communities and states
amongst other things that the size, type and tenure of housing needed for
different groups should be reflected in planning policies.
17. Policy SP2 (Homes) of the CLP confirms amongst other things that the
borough’s need for homes of different sizes for both market and affordable
housing will be achieved by setting a preferred unit mix on individual sites
through the CLP’s detailed policies for sites of ten or more homes.
18. The appellant suggests that as Policy SP2 refers to a ‘preferred unit mix’ this
implies there is a degree of flexibility on the housing mix required. However,
Policy DM1 of the CLP provides the detail for such sites and confirms that to
enable housing choice for sustainable communities it ‘requires’, and not for
example that it would ‘prefer’, a minimum provision of homes designed with 3
or more bedrooms on sites of 10 or more dwellings. The required minimum
percentages are set out in Table 4.1 of the CLP. In suburban areas such as
where the appeal site is located with a low (Public Transport Accessibility Level
(PTAL) rating of 0, 1a, 1b, 2 or 3, the minimum percentage of three bedroom
or larger units required is 70%.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3
19. The supporting text to Policy DM1 confirms that the policy applies to both
market and affordable housing. It also sets out that the policy recognises that
more central locations with higher density development will not be so
compatible for accommodating larger units. This explains why a higher
proportion of family sized homes are expected in suburban lower density areas.
20. Only 58% of the proposed housing mix would be 3-bed units meaning the
proposal would not meet the minimum requirements of the development plan.
21. The appellant contends that the shortfall in 3-bed units substantially relates to
the affordable housing element of the scheme and that if additional 3-bed
affordable units had been provided this would have impacted negatively on the
viability of the scheme. I acknowledge that the viability of the scheme was
independently assessed during the planning application process and is not a
matter disputed between the main parties. From what I have seen, I find no
reason to conclude differently in terms of the viability conclusions.
22. Notwithstanding the above, this does not explain why a higher proportion of
3-bed market dwellings could not have been provided in order to ensure the
minimum policy requirement would be achieved. Moreover, Policy DM1.1 a)
and b) set out the specific exceptions to the requirements to meet the
minimum provision for homes designed with 3 or more bedrooms, neither of
which have been demonstrated in the evidence before me.
23. I conclude, the proposal would not deliver a suitable mix of housing having
regard to the specified minimum requirements in Policy DM1. In that regard, it
would also conflict with the requirements in the Framework to address the
specific needs of groups as assessed and reflected in planning policies.
Living conditions of occupiers of Nos 78 and 80 Ridge Langley
24. The two-storey detached dwellings at Nos 78 and 80 Ridge Langley have rear
elevations and gardens which back on to the appeal site. The neighbouring rear
facing windows include windows serving main habitable rooms. I also saw
during my site visit that due to the shallow depth of the neighbouring rear
gardens, they are well used including in close proximity to the shared boundary
with the appeal site. The levels on the appeal site drop towards the boundary
with these neighbouring properties. Mature planting of a substantial height sits
within the appeal site along the boundary with No 80. However, the fencing
and planting next to the shared boundary with No 78 is generally lower in
height.
25. The main parties have indicated that the development would achieve the
minimum separation distances of 18 – 21 metres (m) referred to in the Mayor
of London’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (2016) (SPG). They
have also confirmed that the proposal would achieve a distance of 10m from
the boundary with the rear boundaries with Nos 78 and 80 at its closest point.
The main parties consider that this would be sufficient to ensure that there
would be no direct overlooking of private outdoor space within 10m
perpendicular to the rear elevation of these neighbouring dwellings as required
by Policy DM10.6c of the CLP.
26. However, the evidence before me including that from third-parties indicates
that any compliance with these distances would at some points be marginal.
The minimum distances in the SPG are guidance and compliance with them
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4
does not guarantee that suitable levels of privacy would be achieved in all
instances regardless of the form of development or its site-specific context.
27. The proposed building would sit closer to the rear elevation windows and
gardens serving the dwellings at Nos 78 and 80 than the dwellings it would
replace. From what I experienced on site, and even accounting for the angles
incorporated into the proposed rear elevation, the proliferation of windows and
balconies to the upper floors of the development at the distances proposed
would be likely to have a very conspicuous presence in views from the rear
garden and windows serving these neighbouring properties. In the event that
the development could not be effectively screened in perpetuity, this would
result in a perception of being very overlooked for occupiers of Nos 78 and 80.
This would be particularly so when compared with the established good levels
of privacy that occupiers of these neighbouring dwellings have been previously
accustomed to.
28. I acknowledge that there is tree planting to a considerable height within the
appeal site to the boundary with No 80. However, it has not been
demonstrated that the trees are of a lifespan that means they could be
retained at this height for the lifetime of the development. Furthermore, the
appellant’s Arboricultural Impact and Method Statement along with the
Arboricultural Strategy Plan provided indicate that some of the tree planting
close to this boundary would be removed and this would have the potential to
open up gaps in the existing screen planting.
29. The appellant suggests that new planting would be provided and that this
would also assist in screening views between No 78. However, given the extent
to which views are currently available between this neighbouring property and
that any new planting would need to be substantial and would take time to
establish, I am not persuaded that acceptable levels of privacy could be
achieved from first occupation of the development.
30. I conclude, the development has the potential to have a detrimental effect on
the living conditions of occupiers of Nos 78 and 80 Ridge Langley with
particular regard to privacy. In that regard, the proposal would conflict with the
requirements to ensure that the amenity of the occupiers of adjoining buildings
are protected in Policy DM10 of the CLP. For the same reasons, the proposals
would also be contrary to the requirements at Paragraph 130 of the Framework
for developments to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing
and future users.
Other Matters
31. I have been provided with a completed legal agreement setting out amongst
other things developer contributions including in respect of affordable housing
in the event that planning permission were to be granted. The Council’s
Committee report suggests that the conflict with the housing mix requirements
of the development plan and the overlooking impacts are matters which when
weighed against the benefits of the scheme, such as the provision of affordable
housing, did not warrant refusal.
32. However, I am not persuaded that the living conditions of neighbouring
occupiers or the housing mix requirements of the development plan are
matters which can be compromised upon in this instance. In any case, taken
together with the harm identified to the character and appearance of the area
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5
and the overall conflict with the development plan, this is not overcome
through the provision of the legal agreement.
Conclusion
33. In accordance with the requirements of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act (2004), the appeal must be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
34. I have found that the proposal would have a significantly harmful effect on the
character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, the housing mix proposed
would conflict with the minimum requirements of the development plan and
there is the potential that the proposal would also be detrimental to the privacy
of neighbouring occupiers. In these respects, the proposal would conflict with
the development plan taken as a whole and the sustainable objectives of the
Framework. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision
should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.
35. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be
dismissed.
M Russell
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6
Policies cited
Framework 126Framework 130
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal decided
Outcome: Dismissed appeal
Appeal decided
Outcome: Dismissed appeal
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
228
In support
0
Total comments
230
Objections
228
In support
0
Total comments
230
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
No agent recorded
Applied without an agent, or agent not recorded.
Case officer (report to committee)
Determined at committee
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
No agent recorded
Applied without an agent, or agent not recorded.
Case officer (report to committee)
Show all 4 rows
Determined at committee
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.