# 512 High Road, Tottenham

- **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Cryan
- **Authority:** Haringey (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008944
- **Application reference:** HGY/2025/3167
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Mansard extension and conversion of upper-floor 3-bed maisonette to three 1-bed flats
- **Homes:** 2
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6, HE7, S4(1), L2(1)(d)(i), DP3(1)
- **Development plan policies:** Haringey Strategic Policies 2017 SP11, Development Management DPD 2017 DM1, DM9, DM12, London Plan 2021 D6, HC1
- **Main issues:** conservation area and non-designated heritage asset
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, mansard, airspace-l2, non-determination

## Summary
A mansard on a locally listed early-19th-century building in the Bruce Grove Conservation Area, turning a maisonette into three flats. It was dismissed on a non-determination appeal. The inspector found moderate harm to the CA, through the loss of the building's authenticity as a non-designated heritage asset. A net gain of two flats did not outweigh it. L2's airspace support failed its own street-scene limb (L2(1)(d)(i)), so under S4 the benefits were substantially outweighed.

## Issues and findings
- **NDHA harm feeding CA harm.** "While Policy HE7 ... says that harm to the significance of an NDHA 'should be weighed against the benefits ... and a balanced judgement made', here the harm would undermine the positive contribution the appeal property makes to the significance of the BGCA as a designated heritage asset" (DL ¶13).
- **Design.** "the building taking on a disproportionately tall and narrow appearance ... The dormers would be set forward of the mansard roof slope which would give them a bulky and dominant appearance" (DL ¶10).
- **HE6.** The harm was moderate, "though Policy HE6 ... recognises that any harm will be a matter of considerable importance and weight". The net gain of two dwellings, "even a modest uplift in housing supply is an appreciable public benefit", did not outweigh it (DL ¶13-14).
- **L2 airspace.** L2(1)(d) gives substantial weight to using airspace, but "Policy L2 goes on to say (at paragraph 1.d.i.) that such development should be consistent with the overall street scene" (DL ¶18-19).

## Planning balance
This was the S4 balance: "Taken together, I find the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶20).

## What made the difference
The rarity of mansards in this CA, and the building's prominence at a junction. Where a CA appraisal restricts mansards, the Framework's airspace support cannot override it. This decision is a near twin of PINS-6011521 (Westminster).

## Transferable points
- Harm to a locally listed building that contributes to a CA is weighed as CA harm under HE6, not just under the NDHA balance in HE7 (DL ¶13).
- L2(1)(d)(i) is an internal limit on airspace support: no street-scene consistency, no substantial weight (DL ¶18-19).
- A net gain of two flats is an "appreciable" benefit but does not outweigh moderate CA harm (DL ¶14).

## Policy findings
- **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** moderate less-than-substantial harm to Bruce Grove CA; net gain of two flats does not outweigh (DL 13-14)
- **HE7: harm.** loss of original roof form and authenticity of locally listed building; disproportionately tall and narrow (DL 10-13)
- **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** airspace development not consistent with the street scene (DL 18-19)
- **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 20)

## Key facts
- CA appraisal says mansards are acceptable only if original or established and behind a parapet; only a handful exist in the CA (DL 8-9)
- Prominent site opposite the Bruce Grove junction and visible from trains (DL 11)
- Non-determination appeal; the letter does not say whether the parties were consulted on the new Framework (DL 2-3)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008944
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b86e0098-0fa6-4690-bef3-efa85372c0c1

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008944.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.