Appeal 3330449

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref P2023/1658/FUL for the proposed refurbishment of [address] building facade including removal of existing windows and installation of enlarged openings and associated new windows/doors, creation of enlarged lightwell and enclosure, landscaping and associated works at [site address] , London [postcode] granted on 4 August 2023 by the Council of the London Borough of Islington, is varied by deleting conditions Nos 4 and 5.

An application for costs was made by Patel Taylor Investments Limited against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Islington. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Since the Council determined the planning application, it has adopted the Islington Local Plan Strategic and Development Management Policies 2023 (the SDMP). I have therefore assessed the appeal against the SDMP.

The appeal site comprises a three-storey building in a busy commercial area which is in a designated Town Centre. The ground floor is in use as retail and there is office space on the upper floors.

Planning permission was granted for external alterations to the rear elevation of the building. Condition 4 and Condition 5 remove permitted development rights, restricting the use of the building and preventing any future changes of use to residential without the granting of planning permission.

The main issue is: • whether Condition 4 and Condition 5 are necessary, relevant to the development permitted and reasonable in all other respects.

The Planning Practice Guidance advises that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights or changes of use may not pass the test of reasonableness or necessity. In addition, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so.

I have not been presented with any sufficient evidence that leads me to conclude that the approved changes to the rear elevation of the building will ultimately result in a loss of the office and retail floorspace provision within the building. The restriction of permitted development rights is therefore not necessary to secure compliance with Policies B3 and R3 of the SDMP, which seek to protect existing floorspace and maintain and enhance retail provision in town centres.

Regardless of the planning history, since the development relates to external changes to the building, conditions restricting the use of the building and future changes of use are not relevant to the development permitted. [name] am unable to identify any clear justification for the removal of permitted development rights in this case, Conditions 4 and 5 are unreasonable.

The Council’s suggested alteration to the wording of Condition 5 would not change my findings. The wording change to ‘upgraded and improved existing floorspace’ would not relate to the development permitted as notwithstanding the comments in the documents supporting the planning application, the development does not relate to the floorspace.

When considering a previous appeal1 at the site, an Inspector removed permitted development rights restricting future changes of use. I am not party to the evidence before that Inspector, and I have not been provided with the full details of the case. Nevertheless, the description of development in the previous appeal includes internal works and is therefore different to the planning permission before me.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that Condition 4 and Condition 5 are unnecessary, irrelevant to the development permitted and unreasonable in all other respects.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.