Case Reference: 3362909

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 3 July 2025
by M Cryan BA(Hons) DipTP MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 11 September 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/V5570/W/25/3362909
282-284 St Paul's Road, Islington, London N1 2LH
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of
the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as
amended).
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of
Islington.
• The application reference is P2024/3709/PRA.
• The development proposed is a change of use from Commercial, Business and Service (Use
Class E) to Dwellinghouses (Use Class C3).
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of
Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a
change of use from Commercial, Business and Service (Use Class E) to
Dwellinghouses (Use Class C3 at 282-284 St Paul's Road, Islington, London N1
2LH in accordance with the application reference P2024/3709/PRA and the details
submitted with it subject to the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following drawings and documents:
• Location and block plans 2284 E 00 (10 December 2024)
• Existing drawings – floor plans 2284 E 01 (10 December 2024)
• Existing drawings – floor plans 2284 E 02 (10 December 2024)
• Existing drawings – elevations 2284 E 03 (10 December 2024)
• Proposed drawings – elevations 2284 P 05 (10 December 2024)
• Proposed drawings – floor plans 2284 P 01 (10 December 2024)
• Proposed drawings – floor plans 2284 P02 (10 December 2024)
• Proposed drawings – floor plans 2284 P03 (10 December 2024)
• Proposed drawings – plans and elevations 2284 P 04 (10 December
2024)
• Proposed drawings – plans and elevations 2284 P 05 (10 December
2024)
• Analysis of site layout for sunlight and daylight (Morgan Light
Assessors, February 2025).
2) Suitable waste management facilities, including dedicated storage for
residential refuse and recycling, shall be provided prior to the first occupation
of the development hereby approved and shall be maintained as such
thereafter.
3) The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied until facilities for
the secure, covered parking of two bicycles within the development site have
been provided in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be
provided, retained and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
Application for costs
2. An application for costs was made by [APPELLANT] against the Council of the London
Borough of Islington. This is the subject of a separate Decision.
Preliminary Matter
3. While this appeal was being determined, an appeal was allowed in respect of the
refusal of another application for prior approval for a change of use from Class E to
Class C3 at the same site (PINS Ref: APP/V5570/W/24/3357046). There is no
dispute between the main parties that the scheme to which that other appeal
relates is identical (or “materially identical”) to the proposal before me, and the
reason for refusal given by the Council was the same in both cases.
4. That other appeal decision is a material consideration carrying significant weight,
and both main parties were given the opportunity to comment on its implications
for this appeal; I have taken those comments into account in reaching my decision
here.
Background and Main Issue
5. The appeal site is a three-storey mid-terrace building in mixed use; it is not within a
conservation area, though it is very close to the boundary of the Canonbury
Conservation Area. The appeal proposal relates only to the ground floor of the
building - prior approval is sought for the change of use of the unit to two self-
contained studio flats.
6. Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the GPDO permits development consisting of
change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use falling
within Class E to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses). This is subject to
the exclusions and conditions set out in Paragraphs MA.1. and MA.2., which
require a developer to apply to the local planning authority for a determination as
to whether prior approval is required in relation to the matters set out in paragraph
MA.2.(2). These include, at paragraph MA.2.(2)(f) “the provision of adequate
natural light in all habitable rooms of the dwellinghouses”.
7. There is no dispute between the main parties that the proposal would comply with
the other requirements of Class MA.2. The main issue is therefore whether the
proposed development would provide adequate natural light in all habitable rooms
of the dwellinghouses.
Reasons
8. The Council refused to grant prior approval because it considered that insufficient
information had been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed ground floor
flats would receive acceptable levels of natural light. The initial application had
been accompanied by a sunlight and daylight analysis1, which showed that the
units would receive daylight exceeding the recommended minimum levels set out
1 Morgan Light Assessors, October 2024
in the Building Research Establishment’s guidance in Site Layout Planning for
Daylight and Sunlight – A Guide to Good Practice (“the BRE guidance”).
9. The appeal property is on a busy road in a mixed commercial and residential area.
Immediately in front of the building, on what is not an especially wide footway, is a
bus stop and shelter. The Council expressed concern that the bus stop would be
likely to have a particular harmful effect on privacy in the flats. It noted that the
submitted daylight and sunlight analysis did not include an assessment of
measures necessary to protect occupants’ privacy, which it considered would be
likely to reduce daylight and sunlight within the flats.
10. During the appeal, the appellant therefore submitted a further sunlight and daylight
analysis2, which allowed for the application of a privacy film to the front windows to
a height of 1.7m above ground level. This found that with this adaptation the units
would continue to receive daylight above the recommended minimum levels set
out in the BRE guidance.
11. The Council considers that the use of film alone would not provide adequate
privacy, not least because passengers on buses standing at the stop (who would
be in a relatively elevated position) would be able to see into the remaining parts of
the large front windows above the level of the privacy film. Based on my
observations during my site visit, I am not unsympathetic to that view – it seems
likely that most occupiers of the proposed would therefore seek to take other
measures – such as the use of blinds or curtains at the very least – to provide
adequate privacy (and perceived privacy).
12. However, in line with the requirements of the relevant part of the GPDO, in
determining this appeal I am required only to consider whether the habitable
rooms would receive adequate natural light. The flats would have large windows to
their street frontage and, notwithstanding that these introduce what might
reasonably be considered shortcomings in respect of privacy, the evidence before
me is that the habitable rooms in the proposed development would receive
adequate natural light.
Other Matter
13. I have had regard to comments made by an interested party relating to the
potential impact of the loss of the Class E premises on the commercial nature of
the area, and to the quality of work already carried out at the site on behalf of the
appellant. However, those comments address matters which fall outside the scope
of Part 3, Class MA of the GPDO, and they have not therefore had a significant
bearing on my decision.
Conditions
14. Class MA and paragraph W.2 of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO set out standard
conditions which apply to all approvals. These include, at Paragraph MA.2.(5), the
requirement that development must be completed within a period of 3 years
starting with the prior approval date, so I have not imposed the “start date”
condition suggested by the Council.
15. A condition identifying the approved plans and other supporting information (1) us
necessary for the avoidance of doubt. Conditions relating to the storage of refuse
2 Morgan Light Assessors, February 2025
and recycling (2) and bicycles (3) are necessary to ensure that adequate provision
is made in these respects, and to ensure that the development does not
compromise highway safety.
16. I have not imposed the suggested condition relating to car-free development.
Although the Council’s officer report referred to Policy T3 of the 2019 Islington
Local Plan, the GPDO does not require regard to be had to the policies of the
development plan in this case. While that provision may well support the use of
sustainable methods of transport, no specific evidence was put forward to
demonstrate that such a condition would be necessary.
Conclusion
17. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and
prior approval granted.
M Cryan
Inspector


Costs Decision
Site visit made on 3 July 2025
by M Cryan BA(Hons) DipTP MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 11 September 2025
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/V5570/W/25/3362909
282-284 St Paul's Road, Islington, London N1 2LH
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and
Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by [APPELLANT] for a full award of costs against the Council of the London
Borough of Islington.
• The appeal was against the refusal of approval Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended)
(GPDO) for a change of use from Commercial, Business and Service (Use Class E) to
Dwellinghouses (Use Class C3).
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Procedural Matter
2. During June 2025, while the appeal to which this decision relates was being
determined, another appeal in respect of an application for prior approval for a
change of use from Class E to Class C3 at the same site was allowed (PINS Ref:
APP/V5570/W/24/3357046). That other appeal decision, and its associated costs
decision, are material considerations carrying significant weight here. Both main
parties were given the opportunity to comment on their implications in respect of
this case, and I have taken those comments into account in reaching my decision.
Reasons
3. Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. However, the
Planning Practice Guidance (“the PPG”) advises that costs may be awarded
against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party
applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
4. Paragraph 049 of the PPG gives examples of behaviour which may give rise to a
substantive award of costs against a local planning authority. These include
“preventing or delaying development which should clearly be permitted, having
regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other
material considerations”, a “failure to produce evidence to substantiate each reason
for refusal on appeal”, “acting contrary to, or not following, well-established case
law”, and “persisting in objections to a scheme or elements of a scheme which the
Secretary of State or an Inspector has previously indicated to be acceptable” 1.
5. The applicant considers that the Council’s behaviour has fallen broadly within the
scope of those examples; specifically they argue that the Council refused to grant
1 Paragraph: 049 Reference ID: 16-049-20140306 – the applicant’s claim gave a different paragraph reference, and used a form of
words for the final example which is not found in the current PPG.
prior approval contrary to submitted evidence, that it introduced “speculative and
irrelevant” considerations, and that it “[failed] to assess the proposal as submitted”.
6. In determining the costs claim relating to the June 2025 appeal, my colleague
found that it was not unreasonable for the Council to have exercised its planning
judgement in respect of daylight and sunlight, and its related concerns about
privacy. None of the evidence which has subsequently been put before me leads
me to a different conclusion on that fundamental point in this case.
7. As I have explained in my main decision, the appeal scheme included the proposed
included the installation of privacy film on the front windows of the two flats. The
sunlight and daylight analysis originally submitted by the applicant did not take the
effect of that film into account. A revised analysis submitted during the appeal
showed that the film would not have a significant effect on sunlight and daylight
within the proposed flats. However, in my view the Council assessed the proposal
as submitted.
8. The Council’s decision to refuse prior approval was issued in February 2025, in line
with the statutory timetable for determining prior approval applications and long
before the June 2025 appeal decision was issued. The Council’s comments on the
June 2025 decision did not dispute its relevance to this case, and on my reading do
not appear to be an attempt to unreasonably persist with objections in the face of
that appeal decision.
Conclusion
9. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted
expense, as described in the PPG, has not occurred, and an award of costs is not
warranted.
M Cryan
Inspector