Appeal 6003144

The appeal is dismissed.

The evidence indicates that the proposal is retrospective and that works undertaken include roof alterations as shown on the submitted plans. My assessment is based on the plans and my observations during my site visit.

The appellant states that the change of use from Class C3 to a Class C4 House in [name] (HMO) is acceptable in principle and that no Article 4 Direction applies. However, the Council has supplied clear documentary evidence demonstrating that a borough-wide Article 4 Direction removing Class C3 to C4 permitted development rights has been in force across the London Borough of Enfield since 22 October 2013. The change of use therefore requires planning permission and the appeal proceeds accordingly.

The Council’s refusal notice cites a wide range of development plan policies. However, Policies D8, T3 and T7 of the London Plan 2021 (the LP); Policies CP25 and CP26 of the [name] 2010 (the CS); and Policies DMD9 and DMD48 of the Enfield Development Management Document 2014 (the DMD) have little relevance to any of the main issues, so I do not refer to them further.

The main issues are: • Whether the internal layout provides suitable means of fire escape; • The effect of the roof alterations on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area; • The effect of the development on highway safety; • Whether adequate refuse storage has been demonstrated; • Whether adequate cycle storage has been demonstrated.

Policy D12 of the LP requires development proposals to achieve the highest standards of fire safety, including suitable and convenient means of escape for all users.

The Council’s Housing Team identifies that the only internal escape route from habitable rooms at ground and first floor level is through the kitchen, which is classed as a high-risk inner room.

The appellant argues that fire safety matters should be dealt with exclusively through Building Regulations or HMO licensing. However, Policy D12 forms part of the development plan and requires the planning process to consider layout and means of escape from the outset. The concern in this case is not the detail of alarms or doors but the geometry of the layout, which channels occupants through a high-risk room to reach the final exit. No alternative fire strategy or revised layout has been submitted to demonstrate how a compliant arrangement could be achieved without substantial reconfiguration.

Therefore, based on the evidence before me, the internal layout results in an unsafe and unsatisfactory means of escape for the occupiers, contrary to Policy D12. There is further conflict with Policies D3, D5 and D6 of the LP, and Policies DMD8 and DMD37 of the DMD, insofar as they require functional layouts that can be entered and exited safely by all users. While the Council refers to additional policies, including LP Policy D4, CS Policy CP30, and DMD Policy DMD6, these add little to the determinative considerations.

The appeal property is an end-of-terrace dwelling occupying a prominent position at the corner of [address] and [address]. The roof has been enlarged through a hip-to-gable conversion and a large flat-roofed rear dormer. Policy DMD13 of the DMD requires roof extensions to be proportionate to the original roof form, set in from the roof edges and designed so as not to appear dominant in public views.

In this case, the development occupies almost the full height and width of the rear roof slope and rises abruptly from the exposed flank elevation with minimal inset from the eaves or ridge. From both street frontages, the combined massing reads as a squared-off continuation of the main building mass rather than as a subordinate addition contained within the roof plane. This results in a noticeably heavier roof profile and creates a top-heavy and unbalanced appearance at odds with the established proportions of the terrace.

While there are other sizeable dormers in the area, the appeal property’s exposed position means the roof alterations are particularly prominent. The form and scale of the structure give it the appearance of an additional flat-roofed storey at the rear rather than a sympathetic roof extension. This disrupts the rhythm and form of the terrace and conflicts with the expectations of Policy DMD13, notwithstanding it is not within a conservation area.

For these reasons, I conclude that the roof alterations cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area, contrary to the design objectives of Policies D3 of the LP, CP30 of the CS, and DMD6, DMD8, DMD13 and DMD37 of the DMD.

The site lies within a [name] (CPZ). Such designations ordinarily indicate that parking demand exceeds on-street capacity. No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this is not the case here.

The drawings show space for two vehicles on the frontage. However, the highway authority confirms that no lawful vehicular crossover exists, and that informal access is taken across a pedestrian dropped kerb located directly at the junction. This reflects my own observations. The Enfield Revised Technical Standards for [name] advises that crossovers should not be permitted within 10 metres of a junction due to visibility and safety concerns. The arrangement relied on in the scheme is therefore in a location where a crossover would ordinarily be refused on highway safety grounds.

The appellant’s Highway Safety Impact Assessment pro-forma is inconsistent with both the submitted plans and the application form, with the latter indicating that no existing or proposed parking is provided. As the drawings clearly depict two forecourt spaces, I have assessed the development as shown. On that basis, the proposal relies on an access and parking arrangement that cannot operate safely or lawfully. Even if I were to accept that a small HMO would be likely to generate low car ownership consistent with C3 occupation, this would not overcome the absence of a safe means of vehicular access or prevent parking displacement within the CPZ.

The highway authority indicates that a car-free scheme might be acceptable in principle, subject to enclosing the frontage and securing a legal agreement to remove occupants’ eligibility for parking permits within the CPZ. However, no such mechanism is before me. As the frontage cannot lawfully or safely function as a vehicular access as shown, the development provides no acceptable off-street parking. Any parking demand generated would therefore fall onto nearby streets within the CPZ, with no means of preventing increased parking pressure or further informal attempts to access the frontage, thereby perpetuating the safety risks identified.

I therefore conclude that the development gives rise to an unacceptable highway safety risk. This is contrary to Policies T2, T4, and T6 of the LP, CP24 of the CS, and DMD45, DMD46 and DMD47 of the DMD, insofar as they relate to parking and highway safety.

The drawings show refuse bins positioned behind the forecourt parking spaces. However, the Council’s Commercial Waste Services have advised that standard wheelie bins would be insufficient for the HMO and that a communal waste container is required. Given the constrained frontage, it is unclear whether such a container could be accommodated in a manner providing convenient access alongside the forecourt parking.

The appellant suggests that the matter could be dealt with by condition. While an adequate arrangement could potentially be achieved if the frontage was enclosed and the forecourt parking removed, that is not the scheme before me. In these circumstances, I cannot be satisfied that an appropriate refuse solution could be secured by condition without undermining what is shown on the submitted plans.

Accordingly, the proposal fails to demonstrate that adequate refuse storage could be provided to serve the development. It therefore conflicts with Policies CP22 of the CS and DMD57 of the DMD, which seek appropriate waste storage and servicing arrangements.

The development requires four secure and accessible cycle parking spaces within the site. Although the drawings indicatively show five cycle parking spaces within the rear garden, they are uncovered and do not therefore constitute secure storage. Concerns are also raised regarding the limited width of the side passage, which would provide the only access route to the cycle storage. These concerns have not been addressed.

Although the appellant suggests that details could be secured by condition, the suitability of the side passage for convenient access remains uncertain. Without clear evidence that both the storage and its access could be accommodated satisfactorily, I cannot be confident that the requirement for secure and accessible cycle parking could be achieved.

In the absence of demonstrated provision for secure cycle storage, occupants would be discouraged from cycling and more likely to rely on private cars or other motorised transport.

Accordingly, the proposal fails to demonstrate the provision of adequate cycle storage, contrary to the sustainable travel and cycling promotion objectives of Policies T2 and T4 of the LP, CP24 of the CS, and DMD47 of the DMD. While the Council refers to additional policies, including LP Policy T6 and [name] DMD45 and DMD46, they add little to this main issue.

The officer’s report indicates that the site lies within the zone of influence of the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which is a European Designated Site afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). Residential development within this zone, including HMOs, is likely to increase recreational pressure on the SAC, potentially affecting its ecological integrity. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other substantive reasons, it is not necessary for me to undertake an Appropriate Assessment or consider this matter further.

The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, and the officer’s report indicates that the shortfall is substantial. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged.

The development would contribute to housing choice and make efficient use of existing housing stock in a reasonably accessible location. These are benefits that align with the Framework’s objectives of boosting the supply of housing, making effective use of land and directing development to sustainable locations. However, given the modest scale of the proposal and the absence of evidence that it would meet a specific identified housing need or provide affordable accommodation, I afford these benefits only limited weight.

Set against these limited benefits are several significant harms. The internal layout would result in an unsafe means of fire escape, contrary to the Framework’s expectation that development should create safe and inclusive living environments. The absence of a safe and lawful vehicular access to the frontage, and the likely continuation of unsafe informal forecourt use, gives rise to an unacceptable highway safety risk, contrary to the Framework’s requirement for safe and suitable access for all users. The hip-to-gable and rear dormer alterations significantly harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the Framework’s requirement that development should be visually attractive, sympathetic to local character and secure high-quality design. In addition, the failure to demonstrate adequate refuse and cycle storage undermines the ability of the development to function well over its lifetime and conflicts with the Framework’s focus on sustainable transport choices, particularly the prioritisation of non-motorised modes such as cycling.

Even in the context of the housing supply shortfall, the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the Framework when read as a whole. The material considerations, including housing supply, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.