- Decision
- dismissed, 14 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: A J Boughton
- Authority
- Enfield (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6008667
- Application reference
- 26/00547/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of a house and erection of two detached houses to the frontage plus a rear block of five flats over semi-basement parking
- Homes
- 7
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- L2(1)(d)(iii), DP3
- Development plan policies
- Enfield DMD 2014 DMD5, DMD6, DMD8, DMD47, DMD81, DMD83, Enfield Core Strategy CP30, London Plan D3, Hadley Wood Neighbourhood Plan 2022-2039 HW11, HW12
- Main issues
- character and appearance; pedestrian access; waste
Summary
The scheme replaced a large suburban house with two frontage houses and a five-flat rear block, and was dismissed. The appellant relied on new L2(1)(d) (substantial weight for additional homes within existing plots). The Inspector held that the proposal failed the curtilage limb, L2(1)(d)(iii), because it more than doubled the footprint and harmed character. Substantial weight was therefore "not available", and the neighbourhood plan's cap on flat conversions was decisive.
Issues and findings
- L2(1)(d) substantial weight: withheld. The Inspector quoted (iii): development in residential curtilages should "not occupy more than twice the footprint of all existing buildings on the site … unless additional development can be accommodated without harm to the overall character of the area". "The proposal would more than double the existing footprint and would not be the 'sensitive redevelopment' stipulated in the Framework because there would be significant harm to the residential character of the area … the 'substantial weight' indicated by these provisions is not available" (DL ¶13).
- Character: FAIL. The rear block "would unacceptably dominate the surrounding area behind the frontage buildings" next to the Green Belt (DL ¶10). HWNP HW11's 20%-per-200m cap would be breached, at 28.5%: "a significant in-principle conflict … to which significant weight should be attached" (DL ¶11).
- Access and waste: FAIL. There was no defined pedestrian route, and residents would carry bins at least 50 m uphill (DL ¶¶16–17).
Planning balance
s38(6). The proposal conflicted with the development plan as a whole. L2's substantial weight was not engaged, so nothing on the other side outweighed the conflict (DL ¶¶14, 18).
What made the difference
The footprint-doubling and character-harm limbs of L2(1)(d)(iii) worked as a gateway. Failing them removed the "substantial weight" the appellant had relied on. A made neighbourhood plan with numeric clustering limits carried significant weight, and a neighbouring scheme permitted before the plan was made set no precedent.
Transferable points
- L2(1)(d)(iii) is read as a condition for L2's substantial weight: exceeding twice the existing footprint with harm to character means the weight is "not available" (DL ¶13).
- "Sensitive redevelopment" in L2(1)(d) is not met where there is significant character harm (DL ¶13).
- Neighbourhood-plan numeric limits on flat conversions retain significant weight after August 2026 (DL ¶11).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| L2(1)(d)(iii) | fail | "The proposal would more than double the existing footprint and would not be the 'sensitive redevelopment' stipulated" — substantial weight "not available" (DL 13) | |
| L2(1)(d) | fail | significant harm to residential character means the scheme is not "sensitive redevelopment" (DL 13) | |
| Hadley Wood NP HW11 | conflict | significant | flats replacing family homes would exceed 20% of properties in any 200 m (2/7 = 28.5%) (DL 11) |
| Enfield DMD83 | conflict | taller rear block dominates area next to Green Belt golf course (DL 10) | |
| TR4 | fail | no defined pedestrian route to rear block; bins carried 50 m+ uphill — decided under DMD47, DMD8 (DL 16-17) |
Key facts
- Large suburban plot backing onto Hadley Wood Golf Course (Metropolitan Green Belt)
- Neighbouring No 22 flats permitted 2018 before NP made; No 26 appeal APP/Q5300/W/24/3345524 dismissed
- Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework; appellant relied on L2
- Possible bat roost; ecology survey absence noted but not decided (DL 5)
Related decisions
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.