Appeal 6005644

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant's planning application form states that works have started but have yet to be completed. This accords with my observations on site. I also observed differences within both dwellings between what has been built and the submitted existing plans. Firstly, I saw that there was a doorway connecting the two properties. With regard to the 2-bedroom dwelling, I saw there was no wall between the kitchen/dining room (KD) and living room (LR) on the ground floor, neither bedroom 1 nor 2 contained built-in storage, there was a soil stack1 in bedroom 2, and a shower room in place of a bathroom within the loft located to the rear. With regard to the 5-bedroom dwelling, I saw that there were two en-suite bathrooms within the loft associated with the two rooms to the rear of the property, which resulted in the smaller of the two rooms having no natural light. Notwithstanding the difference, I have determined the appeal based on the proposed plans that have been submitted.

The Council have drawn my attention to an enforcement case with regard to the conversion of the single-family dwelling into two dwelling houses2. Any enforcement process is a separate matter and falls outside the scope of my assessment, which must focus on the planning merits of the appeal proposal.

Enfield’s New Local Plan 2019-2041 (NLP) is currently at Regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. Whilst not formally adopted, the NLP is at a stage in accordance with Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) whereby it is a material consideration and capable of carrying weight in the determination of this appeal. However, it could still be subject to change and, as such, I give emerging Policies limited weight.

The Council do not set out in its decision notice which room(s) within the 2-bedroom dwelling would result in sub-standard accommodation. However, the officer's report does state that the KD would be subject to poor outlook and daylight and sunlight, 1 As described by the appellant 2 ENF/25/0247 and that none of the rooms would meet the minimum ceiling height. Without anything to the contrary and based on the evidence before me, I have no reason to take a different view.

The Council has measured the floor-to-ceiling height from a previously approved two-storey side extension3 section drawing, to be approximately 2.45m on the ground floor, approximately 2.23m on the first floor and approximately 2.4m within the loft. These contradict the appellant's measurements4 and without confirmation that the Council has visited the appeal site to measure the floor-to-ceiling height, I am not persuaded that its measurements in relation to the 2-bedroomed dwelling are accurate. I have therefore taken those measurements cited by the appellant.

With regard to the 5-bedroom unit, I have little evidence before me from either main party to demonstrate floor-to-ceiling heights. Notwithstanding this, I am mindful that from my observations, this dwelling is likely to be the original unit and that the floor-to-ceiling heights within the ground and first floors would have likely existed prior to any extension or conversion. Therefore, without anything to the contrary from the Council and based on the evidence, I have assessed the appeal based on the floor-to-ceiling heights in the loft area.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposed 2-bedroom dwelling would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to daylight and sunlight, outlook, floor-to-ceiling height and private amenity space; • whether the occupants of the 5-bedroom dwelling would have adequate living conditions with particular regard to floor-to-ceiling height and privacy; and, • the effect of using the front forecourt of the 2-bedroom dwelling as a primary outdoor amenity area on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property (No 4) comprises a large semi-detached property with accommodation over three floors and is located on the corner of [address] and [name]. Its flank elevation is at an angle to its immediate neighbour No 2 and has windows to each floor which face, amongst other things, the flank elevation of No 2.

Whilst located close to the junction with [address] and [address] Roundabout, No 4 is situated within a predominantly residential area. Properties are set back from the pavement by their associated front gardens, most of which are utilised largely for parking. The majority of properties also have low boundaries set between the adjoining property and the pavement, the general height and design of which result in a level of openness and visual permeability.

The front forecourt of No 4 is currently open and has one vehicle crossover point with a brick wall to the front and side boundaries separating it from the pavement and the adjoining neighbours. 3 Ref 21/03531/HOU 4 2-bedroom dwelling Living conditions – 2-bedroom dwelling

The Council contend that a KD is a habitable room, and without anything to the contrary from the appellant, I have no reason to disagree.

The appellant contends that all rooms receive an adequate level of light and outlook. I have no substantive evidence from either party to quantify the impact with regard to light levels within the KD. At the time of my site visit (early afternoon) the sky was overcast with cloud cover and rain was forecast.

I saw that the KD and the LR were currently open, and together they formed one long and fairly narrow room. There was also a relatively small and obscure glazed window within the area shown as the KD, and a clear glazed window to the LR.

At the time of my site visit, the LR window was covered with sheeting, and this together with the obscurely glazed window, resulted in the singular space being dark with the main form of lighting provided via a number of spotlights in the ceiling.

The appellant, at my request, uncovered the window to the front in the LR. This resulted in an immediate increase in daylight through the clear glazing; however, this improvement was largely confined to the area closest to the window, and the KD remained significantly darker.

Submitted plans show that the KD would be a separate room, separated from the LR by a wall, with a door. Whilst the KD would retain the window which overlooks the flank elevation of No 2, the Council describes it as being north-facing with a separation of approximately 0.9 metres between it and No 2. The wall between the two rooms would nevertheless significantly reduce the amount of daylight and sunlight which is currently transmitted into the KD.

The only natural light into the KD would be from a relatively small and currently obscured window, barring any light which would shine through an open doorway. From the evidence before me and observations on site, I am not satisfied that the KD would achieve adequate levels of daylight or sunlight to ensure adequate living conditions for future occupants.

I have, however, considered the appellant's suggestion during my site visit that the window in the KD could be clear-glazed. Whilst a clear glazed window may increase light levels in the KD, it would nevertheless remain relatively small within a north-facing wall. From the evidence before me, and without anything to the contrary, I am not persuaded that otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of a condition.

There would be little to no outlook from the KD with an obscurely glazed window. Even if the window were clear-glazed, given its positioning within the room, together with its orientation, any outlook would be restricted due to the proximity of the flank elevation of No 2. In my mind, therefore, it would not provide future occupants with a good outlook

There are differences between the floor-to-ceiling heights set out in the National Described Spacing standards (NDSS) and those of Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and the Mayor of London, London Plan Guidance – [name] (2023) (LPG), with the NDSS citing national minimum standards which are lower than those in the London Plan.

Supporting text alongside London Plan Policy D6, however, sets out that to address the impacts of the urban heat island effect, a minimum ceiling height of 2.5m for at least 75% of the gross internal area (GIA) is required so that new housing is of adequate quality, especially in terms of, amongst other matters, ventilation and cooling.

Whilst there are differences in measurements, I am mindful that the NDSS is national and not London-specific. Given that the appeal site is in London and for reasons cited in its supporting text, I consider that the standards within the London Plan are relevant in this instance.

The Design and [name] (D&A) states that the ground and first floors cumulatively have a floor area of 68m2 which is equal to or above 2.50m in height, and that this equates to 97% of the GIA. However, it also states that the floor-to-ceiling heights within the ground and first floors are 2.5m before floor coverings, and that the floor-to-ceiling height in the loft area is above 1.5m high rising to a flat ceiling height of 2.35m. The appellant clearly states that these figures are before floor coverings. I saw that there were no floor coverings within the habitable rooms during my site visit, and that the floor on the ground floor was uneven in places. Therefore, even if the ground and first floors currently measure 2.5m for over 75% of the GIA, these figures would likely be reduced with the installation of floor coverings.

I have nothing before me to quantify such shortfalls and, from the evidence before me, rooms with fitted floor coverings would be below 2.5m. The rooms would therefore likely feel cramped and claustrophobic resulting in the need for the windows of the upper floors to remain open, especially in the summer to combat the stuffiness affecting the sleep of future intended occupiers.

There is no dispute that the amenity space associated with the 2-bedroom dwelling would be to the front elevation. The submitted Landscape Plan shows that there would be a 0.9m wall to the front with planters filled with shrubs, roses and flowers behind. The wall and planters would separate it5 from the pavement and the front area of the 5-bedroom dwelling.

I have found above that while the appeal site is bound by [address] and [name], it directly overlooks [address] and [address] Roundabout. These were busy at the time of my site visit (early afternoon), with a fairly constant flow of traffic coming from [name] (the Station) towards the roundabout and very slow-moving and sometimes stationary traffic heading towards the Station.

From the evidence before me and observations on site, the rear amenity space provides the main private amenity space for the existing occupants of the appeal premises and the immediate neighbours. The use of the front for the sole amenity 5 The front amenity space space for future occupants would therefore be contrary to the majority of dwellings within the immediate vicinity, all of which have private amenity spaces to the rear.

Moreover, while I acknowledge that the submitted Landscape Plan indicates screening to the front and side, I cannot be certain that these, together with the landscaping proposed, would screen views into the front amenity area. I have nevertheless considered whether the imposition of a condition which requires further details of landscaping to be submitted could make otherwise unacceptable development acceptable. In this case, even if the landscaping could screen the front and side, given the position of the planters there would likely be clear views into the front from the opposing side from people on the pavement. I am therefore not persuaded that the area would be genuinely private or that the space would be of sufficient quality, and that a condition would make otherwise unacceptable development acceptable.

I conclude that the 2-bedroom dwelling would fail to provide adequate living conditions for future occupants with regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight, floor-to-ceiling height and private amenity space. Consequently, it would conflict with Policies D3, D5 and D6 of the London Plan, Core Policy 4 of the Enfield Plan, [name] 2010-2025 ([name]) and Policies DMD8 and DMD9 of the Improving Enfield Development Management Document 2014 (DMD). These collectively seek to ensure, amongst other matters, that new development delivers good design, understanding the existing character and context, and ensures private outdoor space.

There would also be conflict with the Mayor of London Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance 2016 (SPG) and the LPG, insofar as they seek to ensure a balance is struck between the potential of conversions to address housing need and the residential quality. There would also be conflict with the Framework which seeks, amongst other matters, to ensure a high standard of amenity for future users.

The Council also contend that the proposed development would be contrary to Core Policy 2 of the [name]; however, this relates to housing supply and locations for new homes. Given that the main issue relates to living conditions, this policy is not applicable in this instance.

DMD5 relates to residential conversions and, from my reading of the policy, it relates to the conversion of existing units into self-contained flats and houses of multiple occupation. Given the proposed development relates to a dwelling house spread over three floors this policy, in my mind, is not applicable. Living conditions – 5-bedroom dwelling

Policy D6 criterion F 8) of the London Plan states that the minimum floor-to-ceiling height must be 2.5m for at least 75% of the GIA of each dwelling.

I acknowledge that the appellant contends that the proposal provides adequately sized living accommodation for both units, and that the majority of the proposed bedrooms would be compliant with the technical space standards. However, I have nothing before me to confirm floor-to-ceiling heights in the loft area.

I have taken into consideration that the previously approved planning application granted permission for, amongst other matters, an extension to the roof on both sides to form gable ends with rear dormer windows and front rooflights. However, I saw that the two rooms to the front had sloping ceilings and that both rooms had wardrobes and drawers positioned against the taller internal wall, which left little space between them and the opposite wall. Whilst these two rooms are being used as habitable accommodation, given the discrepancies on the existing plans and what I saw on site, I have little before me to demonstrate that the accommodation approved6 contained habitable accommodation. Therefore, from the evidence before me and without anything to the contrary, I am not persuaded that the floor-to-ceiling heights would provide occupants with adequate accommodation.

The use of the previously approved side extension as a separate dwelling would result in No 4 becoming a semi-detached dwelling. The Council contend that the use of the front forecourt for the 2-bedroom dwelling would give rise to harmful overlooking of the ground floor front habitable room windows of the retained 5- bedroom dwelling.

I have found above that there would likely be views into the proposed amenity space of the 2-bedroom unit. Given this, there would also likely be views out from the front amenity space. I saw that the majority of nearby semi-detached properties had low boundaries between each pair and that whilst it was unlikely that the front amenity space was the primary amenity area, occupants of one house could easily have views into the attached house's ground-floor habitable rooms.

The appellant’s Landscape Plan omits to show the location of the windows, and the floor plan and front elevation omit to show the boundary wall between the 2-bedroom and 5-bedroom dwelling. I saw that the front room closest to the 2-bedroom unit was a media/playroom, with one window directly overlooking the forecourt. Submitted plans also show that on the opposite side of its main entrance, there is a living room and a large kitchen to the rear. Therefore, even if the front amenity space was used frequently by future occupants of the 2-bedroom dwelling, it is unlikely, given the siting of the main habitable rooms, that its use would significantly harm the privacy of the occupants of the 5-bedroom dwelling.

I conclude that whilst I have found that there would be no impact to the privacy of the occupants of the 5-bedroom dwelling through the use of the front amenity area of the 2-bedroom dwelling, it would fail to provide adequate living conditions for its occupants with regard to floor-to-ceiling height. Consequently, it would conflict with Policies D3, D5 and D6 of the London Plan and Policy DMD8 of the DMD, which collectively seek to ensure development has adequate floor-to-ceiling height to combat the urban heat island effect.

There would also be conflict with the Mayor of London Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance 2016 (SPG) and the LPG insofar as they seek to ensure minimum floor-to-ceiling heights. There would also be conflict with the Framework which seeks, amongst other matters, to ensure a high standard of amenity for future users.

The Council also contend that the proposed development would be contrary to Core Policy 4 of the [name]; however, it relates to, amongst other matters, new housing, and Policy DMD9 of the DMD, which relates to amenity space. Given that 6 21/03531/HOU the loft accommodation relates to an existing dwelling and is internal space, these policies are not applicable in this instance.

The Council also contend that the proposed development would be contrary to Core Policy 2 of the [name]; however, this relates to housing supply and locations for new homes. Given that the main issue relates to living conditions, this policy is not applicable in this instance.

Moreover, Policy DMD5 relates to residential conversions and, from my reading of the policy, it relates to the conversion of existing units into self-contained flats and houses of multiple occupation. Given that the proposed development relates to a dwelling house spread over three floors, this policy, in my mind, is not applicable.

I saw that the general height and design of boundaries to the front of properties within the immediate area are low, which results in a level of openness and visual permeability. Even if the 0.9m high wall was taller than its immediate neighbours, it would still remain low and retain a level of openness. Consequently, the front boundary would safeguard the prevailing character and appearance of the area.

However, notwithstanding this, given that the front area of the 2-bedroom dwelling would be the only amenity space for future occupants, they would have little to no choice but to use it if wanting to sit and enjoy the outside of their home, dry their washing outside, or for children to play. Whilst the majority of nearby properties have both front and rear gardens, it is more than likely, given my observations, that they use the rear garden for their primary amenity space for such activities. Therefore, the use of the front area would appear at odds with the prevailing character and incongruent with the pattern of the front forecourts.

[name] have found that the formal boundary to the front would not appear uncharacteristic of the surrounding area, I have found, for the above reasons, that its use as a primary amenity area would appear discordant with the prevailing character. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan, Policy CP30 of the [name], and Policy DMD37 of the DMD insofar as they seek to ensure development has special regard to its context. There would also be conflict with the Framework, which seeks, amongst other matters, for development to be sympathetic to local character.

The Council does not dispute that it cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. The proposal would therefore provide one 2-bedroom dwelling, which would contribute towards the Borough’s overall housing stock and towards the Borough’s housing targets. It would also accord with the Government's aims of boosting the housing supply.

The proposal would therefore help address a recognised shortfall which is of significant benefit. There would also be benefits to the local economy following occupation in bringing a small number of additional residents to the area. I afford moderate weight to these benefits.

Nevertheless, I have identified that it would conflict with the policies designed to ensure development provides adequate living conditions for future occupants with regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight, floor-to-ceiling height and private amenity space and ensure development has special regard to its context. These policies are consistent with the aims of the Framework in terms of development, provide occupants with acceptable living standards and are sympathetic to local character. This alignment increases the weight given to the policy conflict. Accordingly, the conflict with these policies results in the development conflicting with the development plan when taken as a whole.

Paragraph 11d) of the Framework requires that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, developments should be granted unless7 any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

This applies to applications involving the provision of housing in situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. As the Council are unable to demonstrate sufficient supply, it follows that paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged.

In terms of the proposed development, the starting point is that permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

In this case, the adverse impacts of the proposal with regard to the long-term harm that would be caused to the living conditions of the occupants and the character and appearance of the area would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. This includes having particular regard to key policies outlined in paragraphs 135 and 139.

The proposal, therefore, does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development given by paragraph 11 of the Framework.

The applicant in the D&A refers to a nearby property which they contend had planning permission granted on 25 April 2025 for a similar scheme8. I acknowledge that this planning permission relates to the subdivision of the site and the existing building to form 2 single-family dwellings and a two-storey side extension, however, I have not been provided with the circumstances relating to this case. As such, I cannot be certain that the circumstances are directly comparable to the proposals before me which I have assessed on their own merits.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 outlines that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The proposed development would result in a small increase in the Council’s overall housing numbers which would boost the housing supply. It would also bring a 7 Paragraph 11d) ii. 8 24/04329/FUL number of benefits to the local economy, namely in its subsequent occupation. When combined with the Council being unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, collectively these matters weigh significantly in favour of the proposed development.

However, the adverse impact of the proposed development in terms of the long-term harm that would be caused to the living conditions of occupants and upon the character and appearance of the area would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. This attracts greater significant weight that outweighs the benefits associated with the proposed development.

The proposed development would therefore conflict with the development plan, and there are no other identified considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.