1. home and garden

Appeal statement - Land rear of 110 The Glade, Croydon, CR0 7QE
INTRODUCTION:
This statement has been produced to accompany the case for the appellant in respect of
the refusal of a planning application by London Borough of Croydon. The application
reference number in question is 14/04979/P and was for the following proposal:
"Demolition of existing building and construction of a 1-bedroom detached bungalow".
The Council's reason for refusal is as follows:
"The proposal would constitute a cramped and unsatisfactory form of backland development
out of keeping with the character of the locality with unsatisfactory access and parking
arrangements & inadequate private amenity space for future occupiers and would therefore
conflict with policies UD2, UD3, UD8, H2 and H5 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary
Development Plan (The Croydon Plan 2006) Saved Policies 2013; Policies 7.4 & 7.6 of the
London Plan 2011; and Policy SP4.1 of the Croydon Local Plan: Strategic Policies 2013".
It is considered that the decision reached by the Council is incorrect, and this document
outlines why this appeal should be allowed.
STATEMENT OF CASE:
The London Borough of Croydon has refused the aforementioned planning application and
the solitary reason for refusal covers a number of issues. Each of the points raised will be
addressed in turn.
Cramped and unsatisfactory form of backland development:
Policy H2 of the Croydon Plan states that “The Council will permit housing development
within the existing built up area provided this does not conflict with its aim of respecting the
character of residential areas and there is no loss of other protected uses”.
Policy H5 of the Croydon Plan relates specifically to backland and back garden
development. It states that “Residential development on back garden and backland sites will
only be permitted where it respects the character and protects the amenity of adjoining
residential areas”.
The two above mentioned policies identify three reasons why such a development would be
unacceptable. These are, 1) failing to respect the character of the area, 2) impact on
neighbouring amenity and, 3) loss of protected uses.
In addition to the above, the London Plan Housing policy 3A.3 seeks to maximise the
potential of sites - seeking to ensure that development proposals achieve the maximum
intensity of use compatible with local context.
The Planning Officer's report acknowledges in section 3.3 that the application site is “former
garden land which was originally part of the curtilage of 110 The Glade, but has since been
fenced off from the property”. The Officer’s report describes the existing structure as “...a
blockwork structure with an open roof…”.
1
It is poignant to note that the proposed building would not be significantly larger in scale
than the existing structure, which is clearly in a state of disrepair and has no roof. The
photograph below shows the structure currently in situ.
Figure 1 – Existing Building on site
The proposed building would certainly be an aesthetic improvement on the existing. It is
noted that the Council has not refused the application on grounds of amenity impact. Given
that the use of the land is already residential, the concern must surround the character of
the area.
The surrounding area is largely residential and the properties generally have considerable
gardens. As described earlier, the Case Officer’s report accepts that the application site is
no longer part of 110 The Glade, thus meaning that the characteristic of properties having
large gardens is a moot point in this instance as 110 The Glade has already lost some of it’s
rear garden. In any event, many of the properties in the immediate vicinity do not have large
gardens - such as the properties on Aldersmead Avenue and some on The Glade. In
2
addition, the use of the land as residential is very much in keeping with the prevailing
character of the surrounding area.
It is not considered that the building would be particularly prominent in the streetscene. The
photograph below demonstrates that this is the case. It is therefore not considered that the
proposal would have a significant impact on the local streetscene.
Figure 2 – Existing Street Scene with 2 storey dwellings
The Council states that such development could set a precedent in the area, although it is
not believed that this is the case. The site location plan (drawing 1 of 6) shows the
uniqueness of the application site - none of the immediate surrounding properties have an
alleyway to the side which would permit an accessible development of this nature.
The use of the word ‘cramped’ to describe this development is rather curious given that the
dwelling would be in excess of 10% bigger than the minimum standards set out in the
London Plan. The Case Officer acknowledges that the room sizes and overall floor space
meets the Mayor’s standards and states that the development “...would be acceptable in
this respect”.
Unsatisfactory access and parking arrangements:
It is noted that the property falls within an area of poor public transport accessibility, scoring
a rating of 1 on the PTAL scale. It is, however, noted that there is a bus stop within three
minutes walking distance, as well as being served by a nearby tram stop.
The London Plan sets out maximum standards for parking provision and for a development
of this nature. There also seems to be a lack of certainty from the Case Officer as to what
the relevant standard is. In paragraph 5.12 it reads “The maximum residential parking
3
standard for this development would be less than 1” whilst in the following paragraph this is
contradicted with “The maximum standard for this development would be 2 spaces”. The
site is not within a controlled parking zone, and the low PTAL rating means that the
development is considered to be likely to attract people who are car dependent. With this in
mind, the provision of 1 space means that the likely car parking generated would not be a
burden on the on-street parking. Indeed, this is a view shared by the Case Officer who
asserts in paragraph 5.14 that “The proposal would not result in any significant increases in
the level of traffic that would affect the surrounding local highway network and there are no
other highway or traffic objections to this scheme”. It is also accepted that the provision of 1
parking space is acceptable.
Inadequate private amenity space:
It is acknowledged that the garden provided would be smaller than those on the surrounding
properties, although it is noted that the property is located within close proximity of a
number of green spaces including Ashburton Playing Fields, Glade Wood, Long Lane Wood
to name but a few. All of the aforementioned mean that the property would not be
considered as an area of open space deficiency as per the guidance set out by Greenspace
Information for Greater London (GIGL). The screenshot below demonstrates the proximity
of the application site to a number of green spaces.
Figure 3 – Proximity of the site to surrounding accessible public open green spaces
4
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, I refer back to the NPPF which states that application should be refused
where there is demonstrable harm.
In this instance, we have an application which would replace an eyesore of a building with
no roof with a quality dwelling which would, as acknowledged by the Planning Officer, have
no harm on neighbouring amenity. The aesthetic of the streetscene would be improved with
a building which would be only slightly larger, and significantly more attractive to look at,
than the existing building.
The proposal would provide an additional dwelling towards the Council’s housing target as
set out by the Mayor. It is worth noting that these targets are minimums and should be
exceeded as much as possible, and would add to the mix and type of properties in the
immediate area, helping to provide a mixed and vibrant community.
The above case, along with much of the Case Officer’s report, demonstrates that the
application is wholly acceptable and compliant with local, regional and national policy, and
as such, we would urge you to consider this appeal favourably.
5