- Decision
- dismissed, 29 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: D Cleary
- Authority
- Kingston upon Thames (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6009988
- Application reference
- 25/02055/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition and a four-storey building with a replacement commercial unit and 7 flats
- Homes
- 7
- Site context
- inside settlement, PDL
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4, L2(1)(d)(ii), P3
- Development plan policies
- Kingston Core Strategy 2012 DM10, London Plan 2021 D3, D6, T6, Residential Design SPD 2013
- Main issues
- neighbours' daylight; future occupiers' external space; parking
Summary
A four-storey block of seven flats over a commercial unit in New Malden, built right up to the boundary beside a neighbour's ground-floor bedroom window. The daylight loss to that window (93.7% VSC) was so severe that it substantially outweighed substantial weight to seven homes under S4. The car-free undertaking was also defective. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Daylight. "W15 would experience a 93.7% reduction in VSC, and a 100% loss under the NSL test" (DL ¶7). "The magnitude of this loss goes well beyond minor urban friction and represents a profound deterioration in living conditions." (DL ¶24). It conflicts with "the Framework’s decision-making policies (L2 and P3), which seek to ensure acceptable living standards in terms of daylight and sunlight" (DL ¶24).
- Parking. The unilateral undertaking's monitoring fee was blank: "Without a specified amount, the undertaking is incomplete and the obligation cannot be enforced." (DL ¶21).
- Housing. The seven flats "would contribute to addressing this shortfall, a matter to which I attach substantial weight" (DL ¶23).
Planning balance
S4(1): "the adverse effects substantially outweigh the benefits when assessed against national decision-making policies as a whole. The proposal therefore fails the test in Policy S4." (DL ¶26).
What made the difference
The loss of almost all daylight to the only bedroom of a one-bedroom flat, with no evidence that this massing was the only feasible redevelopment.
Transferable points
- Severe daylight loss to a single habitable window can alone substantially outweigh substantial housing weight under S4 (DL ¶24-26).
- L2 and P3 are the Framework hooks for neighbours' daylight (DL ¶24).
- A car-free undertaking with an undefined monitoring fee is unenforceable (DL ¶21).
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)(ii) | fail | ground-floor bedroom window W15 at 52-54 Burlington Road loses 93.7% VSC and 100% NSL; sole window to the only bedroom of a one-bed flat (DL 4-12, 24) | |
| P3 | fail | cited with L2 on acceptable daylight standards (DL 24) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | seven flats where no five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 23, 25) |
| TR2 | harm | mapped; car-free UU incomplete (monitoring fee undefined and unpaid), so on-street parking pressure in CPZ not controlled; London Plan T6 conflict (DL 19-22) | |
| S4 | fail | severe amenity harm substantially outweighs benefits (DL 23-26) |
Key facts
- Amenity space shortfall against the SPD accepted as not harmful (play space counted as communal) (DL 13-18)
- Mirror-image test and No 50 precedent not persuasive (DL 9-10)
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.