- Decision
- allowed, 29 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Lynne Evans
- Authority
- Croydon (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6010710
- Application reference
- 26/00643/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use from a dwellinghouse (C3) to a six-person HMO (C4) in an Article 4 area
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- TR6(4), TR3
- Development plan policies
- Croydon Local Plan 2018 SP2, DM1.2, DM29, DM30, SP8, London Plan 2021 D12, T4, T5, T6
- Main issues
- loss of a three-bedroom house; parking and highway safety; fire safety
Summary
Change of use of an extended semi-detached house in Thornton Heath to a six-person HMO. The house was originally three-bedroom, so the proposal technically conflicts with DM1.2, but it is now a 5 to 6-bedroom, 213 m2 house, so refusal would not keep a family home. Without a parking survey there was some conflict with DM30, but the small scale, on-site spaces and nearby buses meant no unacceptable safety impact, and TR6(4) indicated no refusal on highway grounds. Allowed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The inspector sought views on the revised Framework and took them into account (DL ¶5).
- Loss of family home: limited CONFLICT. "refusing planning permission for the proposal before me would not result in the retention of a 3 bedroom property" (DL ¶12).
- Parking. "No parking survey has been provided and so there is no information before me to indicate whether the appeal property is situated in an area of parking stress" (DL ¶20). But "given the small scale of the proposal and its siting in a residential road with on-street parking available, it is unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact on highway operation and safety" (DL ¶21).
- TR6(4). "While there would be some conflict with Policy DM30 of the Local Plan, Policy TR6 4. of the Framework indicates that the proposal should not be refused on highway grounds" (DL ¶23).
Planning balance
Plan-led: conflicts with DM1 and DM30 "would be outweighed by specific materials considerations" (DL ¶31). No S4 step.
What made the difference
The house's actual size and the small scale of the use. TR6(4) sets a high bar for refusing on highway grounds, and a missing parking survey did not meet it.
Transferable points
- TR6(4) (refuse only where the impact on highway safety is unacceptable, or residual cumulative impacts are severe) can outweigh a local parking-policy conflict for a small HMO (DL ¶23).
- A policy protecting 3-bedroom houses "as originally built" carries little weight where the house has already been enlarged beyond a family home (DL ¶10, ¶12).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| LP DM1.2 (local) | conflict | limited | house originally had 3 bedrooms but is now extended to 213 m2 and 5-6 bedrooms, so refusal would not keep a 3-bedroom home; limited harm (DL 8-12) |
| TR6(4) | pass | no parking survey (some conflict with DM30 a), but small scale, on-street spaces in side streets, 2 driveway spaces and 8 cycle spaces; no severe or unacceptable impact, so the proposal "should not be refused on highway grounds" (DL 15-23) | |
| TR3 | pass | TR3(1)(c) highway safety; shops on Green Lane and a frequent bus to West Croydon noted despite PTAL 2 (DL 22-23) | |
| DM6 | pass | fire safety addressed by condition (London Plan D12) (DL 25-27) |
Key facts
- Internal layout at the site visit did not match the plans, so treated as proposed rather than retrospective (DL 2)
- PTAL 2 but convenience shops and a frequent bus nearby (DL 22)
- Conditions cap occupancy at six and require parking, cycle and refuse details (Schedule 3, 5)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.