- Decision
- dismissed, 8 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: L Gardner
- Authority
- Redbridge (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6009871
- Application reference
- 0583/26
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Retrospective change of use from storage (Class B) to retail (Class E(a)), about 23 m2 (motorbike hire)
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- TC3(1), TC3(4), S4(2)
- Development plan policies
- Redbridge Local Plan 2018 LP9, LP10, London Plan 2021 SD7
- Main issues
- vitality of local centres; sequential test
Summary
A 23 m² storage unit on an Ilford residential street, converted to retail without permission. The appeal was dismissed because no sequential test was done. The inspector applied S4, and held that failure of TC3, which says such proposals "should be refused", is an S4(2) circumstance in which modest benefits are substantially outweighed. The small size of the unit was no answer.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The parties were consulted; "I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework" (DL ¶2).
- Sequential test: FAIL. "I have not been provided with any substantive evidence to suggest that there are no other suitable town or local centre sites available" (DL ¶8). "the size of the unit alone does not eradicate the potential for the development to have a material impact on the retail function of nearby local and town centres" (DL ¶10).
- Not an isolated shop. The site is "within the same local walking catchment as Ilford Lane Local Centre … The development therefore does not comprise an isolated shop. Instead, it potentially competes and detracts from the existing uses" (DL ¶12).
- S4 with TC3. "the development is at odds with Policy TC3 of the Framework which is clear that where a development proposal fails to satisfy the sequential test, it should be refused" (DL ¶21). "the benefits of approving the development are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, arising in part from the failure to comply with Policy TC3 of the Framework" (DL ¶22).
Planning balance
S4. Benefits: efficient use of the building and a small business with jobs, modest. Adverse: harm to local-centre vitality and failure of TC3 (a "should be refused" policy). Result: substantially outweighed.
What made the difference
No sequential assessment at all. Even for a tiny unit below the impact threshold, TC3(1) applies to any out-of-centre main town centre use that needs permission, and TC3(4) makes failure a refusal reason. A short sequential assessment of Ilford Lane vacancies might have changed the result.
Transferable points
- There is no size threshold for the sequential test. TC3 applies to a 23 m² out-of-centre retail unit (DL ¶8-10).
- Failing the sequential test engages TC3(4) ("should be refused"), which S4(2) treats as a circumstance in which benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed (DL ¶19-22).
- A shop within walking distance of a centre is not an "isolated shop" meeting day-to-day needs; it competes with the centre (DL ¶11-12).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| TC3(1) | fail | out-of-centre main town centre use (220 m from a key parade, 550 m from the local centre); no sequential assessment submitted (DL 5-8) | |
| TC3(4) | fail | failing the sequential test "should be refused"; feeds S4(2) (DL 19, 21) | |
| TC3(5) | not-engaged | not argued; urban site, and the small-scale rural exemption does not apply | |
| S4(2) | fail | modest benefits substantially outweighed, "arising in part from the failure to comply with Policy TC3" (DL 18-22) | |
| LP9, LP10 (Redbridge LP) / SD7 (London Plan) | conflict | potentially dilutes nearby local centres; not an "isolated shop" because it is within the walking catchment of Ilford Lane (DL 11-14) |
Key facts
- 23 m2 unit on a residential street, about 220 m from a key retail parade and 550 m from Ilford Lane Local Centre
- Below the local impact-assessment threshold
- Use already running (motorbike hire), treated as retrospective
- Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework
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.