- Decision
- dismissed, 24 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: F P Tinsley
- Authority
- Islington (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6005590
- Application reference
- P2024/0895
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Conversion of the southern portion of a basement to residential units with a courtyard-level entrance (amended from three units to two)
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing Delivery Test
- 69%
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4
- Development plan policies
- London Plan 2021 D5, D6, D7, SI2, SI4, SI5, SI7, SI12, SI13, G4, G5, G6, Islington Strategic and Development Management Policies 2023 PLAN1, H1, H2, H4, S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, S9, S10, G4, G5, Islington Urban Design Guide 2017, Inclusive Design in Islington SPD 2015
- Main issues
- living conditions; inclusive design and step-free access; sustainability information
Summary
Conversion of basement storage at Highbury Grove Court, Islington, into two flats reached only by steps from a private courtyard. The inspector found only limited living-conditions and information shortfalls, but the lack of step-free access conflicted with explicit accessibility standards in the development plan. Housing (substantial weight) and an affordable contribution (significant) were held not to be the "clear justification" DP3(3) requires (DL ¶46), so the policy directed refusal. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties consulted on the revised Framework and the 2024 and 2025 HDT results (DL ¶3).
- Living conditions: limited harm, no conflict (DL ¶10-11).
- Proportionate information (DM1, DM2, DM3, DM7, PM13). "I have not been provided with substantive evidence demonstrating how the Council's information requirements in respect of energy performance are justified in the context of a development of the scale proposed" (DL ¶30). The sustainability conflict carries "only limited weight" (DL ¶32).
- Step-free access. "I attach significant weight to the failure to provide step-free access in the overall planning balance" (DL ¶27).
- DP3(3): FAIL. "Accordingly, there is a clear conflict with the explicit design standards referred to in Policy DP3(3) of the Framework" (DL ¶45). "Notwithstanding that I attach substantial weight to housing delivery and significant weight to the affordable housing contribution, collectively these benefits do not amount to the clear justification required by Policy DP3(3) to depart from explicit accessibility standards in the development plan" (DL ¶46).
- Wording. The letter slips into "clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶47), the HE4(2) heritage phrase, for the DP3(3) test. Incidental: ¶46 applies the DP3(3) words.
Planning balance
S4 within a settlement, with S4(2)(c) set out (DL ¶35). The benefits side (housing, affordable contribution) was weighed against the conflict as the "clear justification" question (DL ¶46), and DP3(3) "indicates that planning permission should be refused" (DL ¶47). The letter does not separately state the S4 "substantially outweighed" conclusion (the test is set out at DL ¶35).
What made the difference
The development plan's explicit, inclusive-design requirement for step-free access, and no evidence that it could not be achieved. That made the case a DP3(3) "explicit design standards" conflict (DL ¶45), which the benefits could not justify.
Transferable points
- DP3(3) "explicit design standards" (DL ¶44) covers accessibility standards in the development plan, not only character and appearance (DL ¶45).
- Clear justification was tested by weighing the benefits against the conflict: substantial housing weight plus significant affordable weight was not enough (DL ¶46).
- DM1, DM2, DM3, DM7 and PM13 cut the weight of information-only shortfalls for a small scheme (DL ¶30-32).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3(3) | fail | significant | no step-free access; conflict with explicit design standards (London Plan D5/D7, SDMP H4); housing (substantial) and affordable contribution (significant) do not amount to clear justification (DL 43-47) |
| S4(2)(c) | fail | set out at DL 35 as the should-be-refused circumstance; DP3(3) then directs refusal (DL 47) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | two homes against HDT 69% and 252 of 775 delivered in 2024/25; scale of the benefit modest (DL 37-39) |
| HO8 | benefit | significant | off-site affordable housing contribution secured by UU (DL 34, 40) |
| DM7 | neutral | limited | with DM1, DM2, DM3 and PM13, information requirements must be proportionate; sustainability information shortfalls given only limited weight (DL 30-32, 42) |
| PSED | neutral | legibility and safety concerns for protected groups given significant weight in principle but not shown to cause disadvantage; limited weight (DL 22-25) |
Key facts
- Parties consulted on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework and the 2024 and 2025 HDT results (DL 3)
- HDT 2025 is 69% (1,609 of 2,325 homes), shortfall 716 (DL 37)
- Access by steps from a secure private courtyard; no evidence step-free access could not be achieved (DL 20, 43)
- Proposal not infill, so the London Plan D7 infill flexibility does not apply (DL 18)
- Living conditions (dual aspect, railway noise) only limited harm, no policy conflict (DL 10-11)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.