Appeal 6004803

The appeal is dismissed.

It is common ground between the main parties that the development subject to the appeal has already commenced. At my visit, the unit appeared to be in operation as a nail and beauty salon. Although the building I observed contained a 4-pane glazed frontage as shown on the submitted plans, it also contained an external shutter box and guide rails indicating the presence of an external roller shutter, which is not shown on those plans. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the appeal, I have determined the proposal based on the submitted plans on which the Council made its decision, rather than the condition of the site at the time of my visit.

The main issues are: • whether the development would be suitably located having regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers, with particular regard to noise, disturbance and privacy; and • whether the development would have an acceptable effect on parking and highway safety.

The appellant contends that the proposal should not be treated as a town centre retail unit, emphasising its small scale and localised, service-based nature. [name] acknowledge that position and the distinction drawn, I note that the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) defines main town centre uses broadly to include retail, leisure and other service-based uses that attract visiting members of the public, such as restaurants, health and fitness facilities and similar activities. In this context, the proposed nail and beauty salon, expressly proposed as falling within Use Class E, operates as a street-fronting service use and shares the key characteristics of those uses identified in the Framework’s definition. It is therefore appropriate to regard the proposal as a main town centre use for the purposes of the Framework and the development plan.

Policy DMD 25 of the Development Management Document (DMD) [name] 2014 (the DMD) predates the introduction of Use Class E. However, insofar as it seeks to safeguard and manage the vitality and viability of town centres through the spatial distribution of retail and related uses, its underlying objectives remain applicable to the current Class E proposal.

In these terms, part 1.b. of the policy seeks to direct such proposals to the Borough’s defined centres. For proposals elsewhere, such as the appeal proposal, part 1.a.iii of the policy requires a sequential test to demonstrate that no suitable sites are available within or on the edge of defined centres.

I have had regard to the appellant’s submissions, as well as the flexibility inherent in Class E and national policy support for small businesses. However, these considerations do not displace the clear locational strategy set out within Policy DMD 25, which seeks to direct main town centre uses to designated centres in the first instance.

Whilst the level of supporting evidence may reasonably be proportionate to the scale of the proposal, the policy nevertheless requires proposals to demonstrate that a sequentially preferable site is not available. In this case, even on a proportionate basis, no information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal could not be accommodated in a sequentially preferable location. As such, the appellant’s reliance on the modest scale and localised nature of the proposal does not address, nor overcome, the policy requirement to demonstrate that a sequentially preferable site is not available.

In respect of this issue, the Council’s decision notice also refers to conflict with [name] 26 and DMD 29. However, DMD 29 relates to existing shop units and is not applicable in this case, notwithstanding the retrospective nature of the proposal. Similarly, DMD 26 concerns development within Enfield Town, which is not relevant given the site location. Whilst there is therefore no conflict with these policies, this is a neutral matter that attracts no positive weight in favour of the proposal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the development would conflict with the spatial strategy of the development plan and would not be suitably located. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy DMD 25 of the DMD, Policy E9 of the London Plan March 2021 (the LP) and the relevant provisions of the Framework, which collectively seek to support the vitality and viability of town centres through the appropriate distribution of town centre uses.

The appeal site occupies a visually prominent position fronting [address]. The frontage is defined by the rear boundaries of properties on [address], comprising a series of modest garage structures and boundary treatments that are clearly ancillary in function and appearance. The opposite side of the street is formed by terraced residential properties, reinforcing the domestic character of the locality.

[address] lies immediately to the north and accommodates some small-scale commercial and mixed uses. However, this is experienced as a discrete and contained environment accessed via a narrow lane, and is visually and functionally distinct from the [address] frontage. Its presence does not materially alter the prevailing character of this stretch of [address], which remains non-commercial in its street-facing appearance.

The proposal introduces a glazed, commercial frontage to a building that presently reads as an ancillary garage structure. Although modest in scale and displaying no explicit advertisement features, this treatment represents a clear visual departure from the established pattern of development along the frontage. The transparency of the glazing, together with the commercial expression of the frontage, introduces an active and outward-facing character that is at odds with the prevailing backland and subordinate appearance of the neighbouring structures.

Taking these elements together, I find that the proposal would disrupt the established rhythm and character of the [address] frontage, introducing a commercial form of development that fails to respond positively to its surroundings. As such, it would fail to reflect or reinforce the area’s prevailing residential character.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy D3 of the LP and Policy DMD 37 of the DMD, and the relevant provisions of the Framework, which collectively seek to secure high-quality, contextually responsive development that reinforces local character.

The introduction of commercial activity into a predominantly residential environment has the potential to harm the living conditions of nearby occupiers through the effects of noise and disturbance. However, the mere presence of commercial activity does not, in itself, equate to unacceptable harm.

In this case, the proposed use is of modest scale and would typically involve appointment-based visits and limited customer turnover. There is no compelling evidence before me to indicate that the use would generate significant noise, large numbers of visitors, or activity of a nature that would materially disturb neighbouring residents or harm their privacy. As such, the evidence suggests that the scale and nature of the use would be compatible with its surroundings in terms of its day-to-day operation.

I note the concerns of the Council and interested parties regarding the potential for future intensification or variation in the nature of the use. However, I must determine the proposal based on the evidence before me rather than speculative scenarios. In any event, I am satisfied that such risks could be appropriately controlled by the imposition of planning conditions, including restricting hours of operation and limitations on the specific use within Class E. Such measures would ensure that the use would remain of a scale and character consistent with the surrounding residential environment.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers. In respect of this issue, the development would therefore accord with Policy D3 of the LP, Policy DMD 37 of the DMD, and the relevant provisions of the Framework, which collectively seek to ensure that development secures a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

[address] has on-street parking that appears, from the evidence before me and my observations, to be reasonably well-used. The introduction of an independent commercial use has the potential to generate additional movements over and above the previous ancillary use of the building.

[name] do not dispute the general observations regarding existing parking pressure and the nature of the street, there is no compelling evidence before me that the additional activity arising from the proposal would materially worsen existing parking conditions or result in unsafe conditions on the highway, particularly given its modest scale and operational characteristics. No convincing evidence has been provided to demonstrate that it would lead to obstruction, delay, or conflict between highway users to a degree that would compromise safety or lead to harm in planning terms.

In assessing this issue, I am mindful that the Framework indicates that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or where the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. In the absence of clear evidence demonstrating such effects, I am not persuaded that the proposal would meet that high threshold.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not result in a harmful effect on parking conditions or highway safety. The development would therefore accord with Policies T4, T5 and T6 of the LP, Policy DMD 45 of the DMD, and the relevant provisions of the Framework, which together seek to ensure that development provides safe and suitable access and does not give rise to severe transport impacts.

Parties both supporting and opposing the proposal have referred to the potential for the development to set a precedent. However, I have determined this appeal based on the specific considerations of the scheme before me. The potential for this proposal to act as a precedent, or the existence of other examples cited by the parties, does not alter my previous findings.

I have also had regard to the benefits put forward by the appellant. These include support for a small local business, the provision of a local service, a modest level of employment and the efficient use of an existing building. These are positive considerations that align with the general objectives of the development plan and the Framework.

I have not identified harm in terms of the proposal’s effects on living conditions, parking or highway safety. However, rather than benefits, these are neutral considerations that do not weigh in favour of the proposal. Whilst the previously cited benefits do carry some weight, this is limited by the modest scale of the development. Consequently, in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the relevant provisions of the Framework, they do not overcome the harm arising through conflict with the development plan, which must remain the starting-point for decision-taking.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations to indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.