- Decision
- dismissed, 14 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: A J Boughton
- Authority
- Enfield (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6008803
- Application reference
- 26/0548/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of a large vacant house and erection of 4 detached houses with double garages on a c.0.4ha plot backing onto Green Belt golf course
- Homes
- 4
- Site context
- inside settlement, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- N2, Habitats Regs 2017 (EPS), L2(1)(d)(iii)
- Development plan policies
- Enfield DMD 2014 DMD5, DMD7, DMD8, DMD45, DMD81, DMD83, Enfield Core Strategy 2010 CP30, London Plan D3, Hadley Wood Neighbourhood Plan 2022-2039 HW12
- Main issues
- character and appearance; pedestrian access; protected species
Summary
Four detached houses replacing one large house on an acre plot in Hadley Wood. The inspector applied the new L2(1)(d) curtilage policy positively. Although the scheme more than doubles the existing footprint, it met the "without harm to the overall character" exception in L2(1)(d)(iii). The local garden-land policy DMD7 got little weight as inconsistent with the Framework. The appeal was dismissed anyway because there was no ecological survey of a long-neglected plot and a vacant house that might host bats. The inspector raised this issue of their own motion.
Issues and findings
- L2 — substantial weight. The Framework "is directed at easing approval for housing within settlements including development of residential curtilages" and requires "substantial weight … to the benefits" (DL ¶9).
- Local garden-land policy. "Policy DMD7 … appears to be inconsistent with the positively framed approach now taken in the Framework and therefore attracts little weight" (DL ¶9).
- L2(1)(d)(iii) twice-footprint. "The proposal would more than double the existing footprint but the existing plot is very large and the proposed buildings and their spacing would not be substantially different to that found nearby" (DL ¶10). The development achieves "the fine balance … between allowing additional development … and the protection of established character. This aligns with the current Framework guidance" (DL ¶11).
- Protected species: FAIL. With no PEA or bat survey, "A grant of permission subject to a condition requiring such assessment and surveys … would therefore be unsafe" (DL ¶14).
Planning balance
None run. The scheme accorded with the plan on character and access, but the ecology evidence gap "directs that the appeal cannot succeed" (DL ¶15).
What made the difference
Ecology. On the planning merits the new L2(1)(d) policy carried the scheme past the council's garden-subdivision objection. A preliminary ecological appraisal and bat survey would very likely have won the appeal.
Transferable points
- Local garden-land policies can be given little weight where they are inconsistent with L2(1)(d)'s "positively framed approach" (DL ¶9).
- Exceeding the L2(1)(d)(iii) twice-footprint / 50% curtilage thresholds is not fatal if the "without harm to the overall character" exception is met (DL ¶10).
- Protected-species surveys cannot be left to condition where there is a reasonable likelihood of European protected species, even if the council agrees they can (DL ¶3, 14).
- Companion decision, same site, same inspector, same day: PINS-6008667 (2 houses plus a rear block of 5 flats). That one failed L2(1)(d)(iii): it more than doubled the footprint and was "not the 'sensitive redevelopment' stipulated", so the substantial weight was withheld. Together the pair show that the twice-footprint exception depends on the form. Four detached houses in character passed; a taller flatted rear block did not.
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) | benefit | substantial | "Paragraph L2 (1) requires substantial weight to be given to the benefits of a development proposal which … creat(es) additional homes … within existing plots" (DL 9) |
| L2(1)(d)(iii) | pass | more than doubles existing footprint, but "unless … without harm to the overall character" limb met — plot very large, spacing similar to neighbours, rear pair does not dominate Green Belt (DL 10-11) | |
| DMD7 (Enfield garden land) | conflict | limited | "appears to be inconsistent with the positively framed approach now taken in the Framework and therefore attracts little weight" (DL 9) |
| TR4 | pass | code mapped by harvester — shared-surface drive for rear houses acceptable with layout conditions (DL 12) | |
| N2 | fail | code mapped by harvester — no PEA or bat surveys for neglected, "nature-invaded" plot and vacant house; conditioning surveys "unsafe" given Habitats Regs 2017 duties; inspector raised it as a main issue of their own motion (DL 3, 13-15) |
Key facts
- Plot close to one acre (4,000 sqm); house vacant since March 2024 (DL 3 fn)
- Nearby flatted redevelopment at No.22 (pre-HWNP) and dismissed appeal for flats at No.26 (DL 6)
- Council itself suggested ecology by condition; the inspector disagreed (DL 3, 14)
- Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 2)
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.