Appeal 6003581

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was submitted retrospectively for development that had already been carried out. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The Council’s refusal notice cites a wide range of development plan policies. However, Policies D11 of the London Plan 2021 (the LP) and DMD8 and DMD78 of the Enfield Development Management Document 2014 (the DMD) have little relevance to the main issues in this appeal and I do not refer to them further.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal is inappropriate development on [name] (MOL) and its effect on MOL openness; • the effect on the significance of the [name] listed Church of [name] and locally listed heritage assets, including [site address] Cemetery and [site address] , through development within their settings; • the effect on trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO); • the effect on the living conditions of nearby residents and neighbouring land users with particular regard to noise and odour; • the effect on the vitality and viability of the Enfield Highway Local Centre, having regard to the town-centre first approach and sequential policies; • whether the scheme secures [name] (BNG) or is otherwise exempt from the requirement. • if the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

The appeal site lies within MOL. LP Policy G3 affords MOL the same status and level of protection as Green Belt and confirms that MOL should be protected from inappropriate development in accordance with the national Green Belt policy tests. While the Council cites other local Green Belt and open space policies, it is the national policy tests, applied via Policy G3, that are determinative.

The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) explains that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Paragraph 154 sets out the limited categories of development that are not inappropriate, and because Policy G3 imports those tests for MOL, they apply here insofar as they are relevant to the development before me.

Paragraph 154(b) concerns the re-use of buildings of permanent and substantial construction. Although the former toilet block is permanent and substantially built, its re-use does not form part of the appeal development. The scheme instead comprises a new canopy, extensive concrete surfacing, and the stationing of a catering van. Accordingly, the 154(b) exception is not engaged.

Under paragraph 154(c), the extension or alteration of a building is not inappropriate provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. As the canopy is fixed to the side wall of the toilet block it could, in principle, fall within this category. However, the toilet block is a modest structure, and the canopy is a sizeable addition, supported on timber framing and incorporating roll-down plastic panels which give it an enclosed character. Its depth, scale and enclosed form amount to a disproportionate addition relative to the original building. The exception at 154(c) therefore does not apply.

The only other potentially relevant exception is paragraph 154(h), which includes engineering operations and material changes of use, provided they preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. As the site is MOL, it is the effect on openness that is determinative here, which has both spatial and visual aspects. The raised concrete slab is visually prominent and permanent. Together with the stationed catering van, associated signage and lighting, it creates a noticeably more built-up and urban appearance. The cumulative effect materially reduces both spatial and visual openness. The retention of trees and boundary railings does not offset the loss of undeveloped foreground. The scheme therefore does not meet the 154(h) exception.

Although the December 2024 Framework introduced the concept of ‘grey belt’, the glossary defines ‘grey belt’ as land in the Green Belt. The appeal site is not in Green Belt so this provision does not apply, and the appellant has not relied on it.

For these reasons, the scheme does not fall within any of the relevant exceptions and therefore constitutes inappropriate development in MOL, which is, by definition, harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

As set out above, the works also affect openness. In spatial terms, the slab and canopy occupy most of the frontage, extending well beyond the footprint of the original building. In visual terms, the slab, canopy, van and associated paraphernalia form an assertive and urbanised frontage, replacing an undeveloped soft threshold. There is a clear loss of openness in both senses.

Accordingly, in addition to harm arising by reason of inappropriateness, the development also causes separate harm to openness.

The site lies within the setting of the [name] listed Church of [name] and within the locally listed [site address] , with the locally listed [site address] Cemetery immediately adjacent. Policy CP31 of the [name] 2010 (CS) and DMD Policy 44 require development to conserve or enhance the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets, including their settings. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special regard to be given to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed church.

Insofar as it is relevant to this appeal, the Church of [name] derives part of its significance as a 19th-century parish church, experienced in the context of the adjacent cemetery and open areas of parkland. The development introduces permanent built structures and commercial activity in a location that formerly provided a soft, green transitional space. This erodes the visual approach to the church and diminishes the contribution the open setting makes to its significance. The resulting harm can be classed as less-than-substantial and lies at the lower end of that spectrum.

[site address] derives significance from its open parkland character, mature trees, and the positive contribution these make to the local townscape. The concrete slab, canopy and van introduce a hard, commercialised edge at the [site address] frontage, eroding the clarity of transition from street to open green space that forms a key part of the park’s significance.

[site address] Cemetery derives significance from its quiet, contemplative character and historic relationship with the church and park. The development introduces activity and built form at the cemetery’s edge, diluting the calm and verdant quality that contributes to its significance.

Under paragraph 215 of the Framework, the less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. [name] set out the public benefits later in the decision, I do not find them of a scale or nature capable of outweighing the great weight that must be given to conserving the listed church’s significance.

Under paragraph 216 of the Framework, a balanced judgement is required for non-designated heritage assets. The harm to the significance of [site address] and [site address] Cemetery would be moderate, but affects a key element of their significance. The modest benefits associated with the scheme do not outweigh this harm.

The development therefore conflicts with CS Policy CP31 and DMD Policy 44, and with the Framework’s policies on conserving or enhancing the historic environment.

Three lime trees at the site frontage (T1–T3) are protected under TPO 426 (2025). They make a strong positive contribution to the character of [site address] and the transition into the park. The Council’s Tree Officer raises concerns regarding construction within the root protection areas (RPAs), the concrete slab’s impermeability and toxicity risks, and long-term management pressure from seating beneath the crowns.

The appellant contends that the slab was cast above ground level, that openings were left around trunks and branches, and that no harm has occurred. However, the floor section shows a 150 mm reinforced concrete slab over subsoil with only a root-barrier membrane. The slab is ground-bearing and impermeable, and the cut-outs around the base of the trunks are tight. This arrangement is likely to impede water percolation, restrict root respiration and lead to root damage from compaction. Additionally, the canopy roof spans beneath the crowns and a tight cut-out for the tree trunk provides little space for growth and movement, creating potential for abrasion points. Seating located directly under the lime trees is also likely to generate future maintenance pressure due to inevitable branch growth and sap or leaf drop, which would reduce the amenity value of the trees and conflict with the TPO’s purpose. No arboricultural impact assessment, RPA plan or BS5837-compliant methodology has been provided to demonstrate that harm has been avoided or can be mitigated.

Without evidenced compliance with BS5837 or an equivalent methodology ensuring tree protection, I cannot be satisfied that unacceptable harm to the health of the trees has not occurred or will not occur. The development is therefore contrary to LP Policy G7, CS Policy CP30, and [name] 37 and 80. Together, these require the protection and integration of high value trees into design and construction wherever possible. The Council also refers to LP Policy G6, but that policy is primarily concerned with biodiversity so it adds little to this main issue.

The site is located within a public park and adjacent to a church and cemetery, with residential properties nearby on [site address] and [address]. Trading hours extend to midnight Monday-Saturday. In such a sensitive context, activities associated with late-evening trading, such as customer congregation, cooking and any mechanical equipment operation, have clear potential to result in noise and odour impacts.

The appellant asserts that cooking is small-scale, odour is limited, most customers arrive on foot, and there have been no reports of nuisance. However, no technical evidence has been provided to demonstrate that noise and odour can be adequately controlled. In the absence of proportionate assessments and equipment specifications, it is not possible to frame enforceable or precise conditions to mitigate impacts. Attempting to resolve such fundamental uncertainties post-permission would not be appropriate.

Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that living conditions of nearby occupiers or the experience of users of adjacent land would be safeguarded with respect to noise and odour. Thus, the development conflicts with [name] D13 and D14, CS Policy CP32, and DMD Policy 68, which seek to safeguard living conditions and require development proposals to clearly demonstrate how noise and other nuisances will be mitigated. The Council also refers to CS Policy CP30 and DMD Policy 37, but these are mainly concerned with design and add little to this

Food and drink uses are main town-centre uses and are subject to a clear town-centre first sequential approach under [name] SD6 and SD7, [name] CP17 and CP18, and [name] 25 and 32. The appeal site lies outside the designated Enfield Highway Local Centre.

As a main town-centre use outside a designated centre, the development required a proportionate sequential assessment to demonstrate that there are no suitable sites within the local centre. None has been submitted. General assertions regarding vitality or variety and positive customer feedback do not meet the requirement for an evidence-based justification for the site.

The development therefore conflicts with the above policies which together seek to maintain the vitality and viability of the Enfield Highway Local Centre.

The statutory [name] requiring at least 10% net gain applies to planning permissions unless a specific exemption applies.

The appellant claims an exemption on the basis that the catering van is under 25 m2. However, the relevant measure is the habitat area lost or modified, not just the footprint of the structure on it. The evidence before me indicates approximately 78 m2 of soft or vegetated ground has been replaced with hardstanding. No baseline biodiversity metric or proposal for uplift has been provided.

While trees have been retained, this does not of itself demonstrate no net loss of habitat value or secure the required 10% uplift. Moreover, I have already identified likely harm to the longevity of the protected trees.

I therefore conclude that the development fails to comply with the statutory BNG requirement and conflicts with the biodiversity objectives of LP Policy G6 and CS Policy CP36. As the development is under the size threshold of DMD Policy 79, I find no conflict with that particular policy.

The appellant refers to modest economic benefits, including some job creation and support for small business. They also highlight increased local consumer choice, stating that the catering van provides a specialist food offer not otherwise available in the area. Reference is made to a perceived increase in vibrancy at the park, and the popularity with nearby workers and residents. A letter of support has been submitted confirming these points. The appellant further notes the retention of the trees and railings, the former site vacancy, and the opportunity for informal seating and social interaction. These are public benefits which attract some positive weight.

I have found that the scheme constitutes inappropriate development on MOL. It also results in harm to openness. This carries substantial weight.

I have found less-than-substantial harm to the setting of the [name] listed church, which is not outweighed by any public benefits. This carries great weight. I have also found harm to the significance of the locally listed park and cemetery.

Additionally, I have identified harm to protected trees, insufficient evidence that noise and odour effects would be acceptable, non-compliance with the town-centre first approach, and a failure to secure BNG. These harms carry further weight against the scheme.

[name] have had regard to the other considerations in favour of the scheme, they are modest in scale, and even taken together, do not clearly outweigh the totality of harm identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

Given the above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.