Appeal 6003584

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a type 3 roof extension at [site address] , Tottenham, Haringey, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/1794, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: PR L001 [name] P001 [name] P002 [name] P003 [name] P004 [name] P005 [name] E001 [name] E002 [name] S001 [name]

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The description of the development on the application form refers to a dormer over a rear outrigger. However, the development was amended, and this dormer has since been omitted. Therefore, the description of the development in my decision and banner heading above is taken from the Council’s decision notice which accurately describes the development proposed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the availability of housing stock suitable for family occupation.

The Council’s single reason for refusal cites conflict with the [name] in South Tottenham Supplementary Planning Document, October 2013 (the SPD). The purpose of the SPD is multi-faceted. It responds to examples of extensions in [name] that have adversely affected the area’s character and appearance and therefore provides relatively prescriptive design guidance to prevent similar harm. Alongside this, it emphasises the need for extensions to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and to be appropriately constructed. Together, these objectives underline that achieving a high standard of design is central to the SPD.

However, the SPD also refers to problems of overcrowding in [name], particularly large families residing in small dwellings. Therefore, the SPD’s purpose goes beyond the design matters I have cited above – it also seeks to assist in tackling overcrowding and to provide [name] with habitable accommodation suitable for large families.

No. [site address] (No. 61) contains flatted accommodation, and the substantive evidence before me indicates that it has done so for many years. Paragraph 3.51 of the SPD sets out that the Council will not grant planning permission to extend houses that have been converted to flats unless the property is being converted back into a single family dwelling. That would not be the case here – flatted accommodation would remain within it.

However, the existing plans show that the ground-floor flat at No. 61 is a two-bedroom flat, and the first-floor flat is a one-bedroom flat. As such, No. 61 contains modest flatted accommodation. It is not providing [name] with accommodation suitable for large families. Therefore, in proposing changes to No. 61, the development would not result in the loss of accommodation suitable for large families.

Furthermore, although it would not be served by a dedicated outdoor space, as a result of the development, the upper flat would gain two extra bedrooms, and its internal accommodation would be adequately proportioned and would provide for its occupants a comfortable and functional layout. Consequently, the development would deliver a larger flat, one which would potentially suit a range of families.

For these reasons, although the development would allow the flat to be extended, the specific site circumstances and design mean it would neither contribute to, nor exacerbate, existing overcrowding issues. Furthermore, the accommodation would become more suitable for family occupation, rather than less so.

Therefore, the effect of the development on the availability of housing stock suitable for family occupation would be acceptable.

When taken together with the development’s acceptable detailed design – such as its material composition and fenestration – and its acceptable impact on neighbouring living conditions, the development complies with the SPD overall. Moreover, it is important to note that the SPD does not form part of the development plan. It is a material consideration.

The Council’s reason for refusal cites no conflict with any particular development plan policies. However, given my above findings, the development complies with Policies DM1 and DM12 of Haringey’s Development Management Development Plan Document (the DMDPD) and Policy D6 of the London Plan which are before me. Altogether, amongst other matters and as relevant to this main issue, these Policies seek to ensure that developments are of high quality, are fit for purpose, make a positive contribution to place and have regard to relevant supplementary planning documents.

I have had regard to the Council’s concerns that the proposal would set a precedent for other similar developments. However, my decision is based firmly on the specifics of the case and the particular evidence before me. As such, it does not set any precedent that should be applied more generally to the area. Should other developments be proposed of a similar nature, they would require assessment on their own merits.

My attention has also been drawn to several other developments in the area, including those granted permission by the Council, as well as those at [address] and [address], which were granted at appeal1. I have had regard to the submissions of the appeal parties in relation to the degree to which these are, or are not, comparable to the proposal before me. Importantly, planning decisions rely heavily on case-specific evidence and circumstances. I have come to my own views on this appeal having regard to the evidence before me now, my own experience and the particular circumstances of the case. For these reasons, the cited developments have not had a strong influence on my decision.

A rendition of the scheme has been submitted in evidence which would result in the upper flat becoming a four rather than a three-bedroom property. However, it is clear from the evidence before me that this is not the proposal for my determination and, as a result, the merits of it have no bearing on my decision.

The Council suggested certain conditions to me. I have considered these conditions in the light of the tests for the imposition of conditions set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the content of the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG). Both the Framework and the PPG are clear that planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they would satisfy all six tests for their imposition. Having regard to the Framework and the PPG, and in the interests of clarity or precision, I have made some amendments to the condition suite suggested to me.

I have imposed condition 1 which sets out the necessary standard time limitation. Condition 2 is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the reason of certainty.

The Council’s suggested condition regarding the development’s external materials refers to the likes of a bay window which is not actually proposed. I have replaced 1 Appeal Decision References APP/Y5420/W/17/3174545 and APP/Y5420/W/25/3363233 it with a more simply worded condition which requires the external materials of the extension to match those used in the existing building (condition 3). Coupled with the detail shown on the submitted plans, this will ensure that the character and appearance of the area is preserved.

The permitted development rights afforded by Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 do not apply to flats. Consequently, the Council’s suggestion to remove permitted development rights for certain external alterations is unnecessary, and I have not imposed such a condition.

The Council have also suggested a condition be imposed requiring a demonstration to be made that the property’s foundations can cater for the additional loading of the development. The Council’s reason for the suggested condition refers to Policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan 2017, Policy DM1 of the DMDPD and the SPD.

For a condition to meet the test of being relevant to planning it must relate to planning objectives and be within the scope of the permission. Conditions used to control matters that are subject to other primary legislation and other controlling regimes, such as the Building Regulations, will not meet this test. Furthermore, in order for a condition to meet the test of being necessary, a demonstration must be able to be made to show why the development would need to be refused without it.

Policy SP11 is not before me. Whilst Policy DM1 seeks to ensure high quality design and development standards, it contains no specific content in respect to the structural stability or safety of extensions. Therefore, the cited development plan policies do not support the suggested condition’s imposition.

The SPD emphasises the importance of safe building design in respect of type 3 extensions and, amongst other matters, it sets out that consideration will be given to the use of conditions in respect of foundations. However, equally, the SPD also refers to compliance with the Building Regulations as being the means to ensure a safe and sound construction and sets out that it is a separate regime to planning.

I have no reason to conclude that adherence to the separate provisions of the Building Regulations would be insufficient in this case. The Council’s suggested condition is duplicating the control over building safety which the Building Regulations regime exerts, and no adequate demonstration is before me setting out the particular reasons why the planning process also needs to exert such control. Consequently, I find the Council’s suggested condition to fail the tests of relevance and necessity. Therefore, I have not imposed it.

The development accords with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions above.