Appeal 6002672

The appeal is dismissed.

Revised drawings have been submitted as part of this appeal which comprise changes to the floor plans including: re-siting the front door of the proposed dwelling from lower ground level to upper ground level to restrict users of the rear roof garden to occupants of the proposed dwelling only; and removing the cycle parking provision from the lower ground floor and restricting use of the proposed cycle store on the upper ground floor for occupants of the new flat.

The Planning appeals: procedural guide1 (the Procedural Guide) is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and it is important that what is considered is essentially what was considered by the Council, and on which interested people’s views were sought. As set out in the Procedural Guide, if an applicant (appellant in this case) thinks that amending their application will overcome the local planning authority’s (LPA) reasons for refusal, they should normally make a new planning application.

With reference to the criteria established in Holborn Studios2 (which refined the “Wheatcroft principle”), I consider there to be a fundamental change between the appeal application and the revised drawings. The proposed changes seek to evolve the scheme to overcome the Council’s reasons for refusal. I also consider that there would be potential procedural unfairness if I accepted them; there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that interested parties and consultees who made comments about the original proposals have been consulted in relation to the revisions or that, in providing me with comments, interested parties have made reference to the revised drawings. For these reasons, I have not accepted the 1 Planning appeals: procedural guide. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026. Last updated 18 February 2026. 2 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 revised drawings and have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans that were considered by the Council. Matters raised by the parties in respect of the revised drawings are therefore not relevant to the appeal.

A Daylight and [name] (Within Development) (DSR) was submitted with the appeal. This new evidence directly relates to part of a reason for refusal and would not result in a substantial change to the proposal. The Council has had the opportunity to comment on the report, therefore I have taken it into account in my assessment of the related main issue.

The main issues are: • whether the development would provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers of the proposed dwelling, with particular regard to privacy, outlook, daylight and sunlight; • whether the proposed development would provide step-free access, with particular regard to the provision for cycle storage; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, including the Barnsbury Conservation Area (BCA).

The site comprises a mid-terrace property with accommodation over five floors. Based on the appellant’s drawings, the property includes a commercial use at ground floor level with a staff area and store at basement level with residential uses above. The site includes a rear garden which backs onto [address]. The proposed dwelling and external amenity areas would be at lower ground level and extend the length of the rear garden.

The proposal includes two areas of amenity space, with the habitable room windows facing onto these areas. Both amenity spaces would be below ground level and substantially enclosed. Therefore, they would afford future occupiers a severely restricted outlook. Further, the proposed rear outrigger extension and existing wall on the site’s southern boundary, by virtue of their height and proximity to the proposed dwelling, would have an overbearing impact to the detriment of future occupants. For these reasons, the proposed development would result in a significant sense of enclosure for future occupiers providing an oppressive living environment.

The proposed rooflights and amenity areas would be overlooked by users of the communal rear garden and from the rear-facing windows of the host building, including those within the proposed outrigger extension. This would provide a lack of privacy for future occupiers.

The rear amenity area would also be vulnerable to overlooking from users of [address]. Although some form of mitigation along the rear boundary could, in principle, be secured by condition, the height of the rear wall and its relationship to both the amenity space and the rear-facing living area window mean that such measures would be likely to further increase the sense of enclosure.

The DSR indicates that the daylight provision data for the proposed flat would exceed the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines3 minimum illuminance recommendations for daylight provision. With respect to sunlight exposure, the DSR confirms that neither of the habitable rooms would achieve the BRE target of 1.5 hours of sunlight on 21 March, with both rooms receiving zero hours. The report’s conclusion that the proposal represents good site-layout design relies on BRE guidance relating to groups of dwellings. In this instance, only a single dwelling is proposed. Accordingly, while adequate daylight levels may be achieved, there would be an unacceptable level sunlight exposure to both habitable rooms.

The appellant referenced the planning permission for the redevelopment of the [name] Estate4 in which a number of dwellings did not meet the daylight and/or sunlight levels. In that case, the Committee Report acknowledged this was the result of various factors and that most homes would benefit from appropriate private amenity provision and good levels of outlook. [name] have considered that application carefully, I have also assessed the scheme before me on its individual merits. It would not alter or outweigh the harm I have found in this case.

To conclude, the proposed dwelling would provide a restricted outlook, and poor levels of sunlight exposure and privacy for occupants. For these reasons the development would not provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers of the proposed dwelling, with particular regard to privacy, outlook, daylight and sunlight. This conflicts with Policy D6 of the London Plan (LP) and Policies H4 and H5 of the [name] and Development Management Policies (SDMP) insofar as they require developments to be of high quality design with good levels of amenity and private outdoor space.

The development also conflicts with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seeks to ensure that developments create places which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The proposed dwelling would be accessed via a set of stairs from ground floor level. Within the dwelling, level access is proposed throughout. Due to the constraints of the site and existing building there are limited opportunities to improve the accessibility of the site for the proposed dwelling. As the proposal is for a basement flat it is not unusual for access to be via steps. For these reasons, the overall access, whilst not step-free, is acceptable.

The proposal includes cycle parking for two bicycles at the rear of the property. Due to the lack of step-free access, the cycle parking would not be readily or easily accessible. This would result in the occupants being less likely to use the cycle parking provision, potentially resulting in less use of a sustainable form of transport.

In conclusion, the proposed development would not provide step-free access, with particular regard to the provision for cycle storage. This conflicts with Policy D5 of the LP which seeks to ensure accessible and inclusive design and Policy T2 of the 3 Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: a guide to good practice. [name], [name], [name], [name] and [name], June 2022. 4 Application ref. P2025/1765/[name] insofar as it requires new development to be designed to incentivise cycling.

The site is located within the BCA which is described as containing some of the best examples of late-Georgian/early-Victorian residential developments in London, including some of the finest sequences of squares and terraces. The significance of the BCA, insofar as it relates to this appeal, is derived from the traditional appearance and layout of its buildings, including the shopping frontage on [address] identified as providing local services and contributing to the character of the area.

The proposed dwelling would be situated in the rear garden of the host property. Consequently, it would not be visible from the front of the site. Owing to its largely below-ground construction, the built form would be only minimally perceptible from outside the site and would not appear as a prominent feature within the BCA. While the roof garden and associated glazed balustrades would be apparent, their presence would not give rise to adverse visual effects on the site or its wider setting. Nor would the development compromise the openness of the rear of the site. Accordingly, the development would not harm the significance of the BCA.

The parties have referred to an appeal decision5 at the site for a new dwelling in the rear garden of the property. In that case, the Inspector considered the dwelling to be a sizeable new building in the rear garden that would seriously compromise the prevailing open character and distinctive spaciousness of this part of the BCA. The proposed dwelling is materially different from the previous proposal and is not directly comparable with the appeal scheme.

Having regard to the statutory duty as set out in S72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. For the reasons given above, the proposed development would not harm, and would thereby preserve, the special character and appearance of the BCA.

In conclusion, the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, including the BCA. It would comply with the requirements of Policy PLAN1 of the SDMP insofar as it seeks to ensure high quality development which makes a positive contribution to local character. It would also comply with Policies DH1 and DH2 of the SDMP and Section 16 of the Framework in terms of ensuring that developments conserve or enhance conservation areas and their significance. The Council has also referred to Policies D3 and D4 of the LP. These policies seek to optimise site capacity and deliver good design through a design led approach and design tools rather than site or area specific design considerations and hence I find no conflict with these policies in respect to this main issue.

Whilst not a reason for refusal, the Council has referred to the absence of a unilateral undertaking for the provision of affordable housing, carbon offsetting and 5 Appeal ref. APP/V5570/W/17/3169887 car/permit free development. An unsigned, draft unilateral undertaking has been submitted by the appellant. [name] am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I have not pursued this matter with the parties.

In its statement of case, the Council introduced an additional policy (Policy H2 of the SDMP) and raised new issues beyond those in the reasons for refusal. The new issues reference the internal size of the proposed extended dwelling and the absence of step-free access to and within it, and the cumulative impact of the proposed outrigger and the proposed dwelling. The Procedural Guide states that the LPA’s statement of case should not normally introduce additional policies or raise new issues beyond those in the reasons for refusal. No justification has been provided for the inclusion of the additional policy or new issues. Accordingly, I have considered the appeal based on the policies and reasons included in the decision notice.

For the above reasons, the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations before me that indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.