Case Reference: 3357046

Costs Decision
Site visit made on 20 May 2025
by K Lancaster BA (hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 6 June 2025
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/V5570/W/24/3357046
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 Mr Asher for a full award of costs against the Council of the London
Borough of Islington.
• The appeal was against the 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) (GPDO) for the change of use from a ground-floor commercial shop class
E to 2 studio flats class C3.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. However, the
Planning Practice Guidance (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.
3. The applicant states that the Council has acted unreasonably by refusing to grant
prior approval on the basis of privacy considerations which fall outside of the
matters to be assessed when considering whether to grant prior approval. In
addition, the applicant alleges that the Council have failed to substantiate their
reasons for refusal by providing evidence or factual analysis.
4. In response the Council states that their duty extends to ensuring the overall quality
of living conditions for future residents, which includes privacy. They state that the
use of typical privacy measures such as obscure glazing or shutters can
significantly reduce the amount of natural light entering a room.
5. The Council do not dispute the findings of the Daylight and Sunlight report insofar
as they relate to the existing windows. As outlined above they raised concerns over
the impact of any likely privacy measures, which may or may not be installed by
future occupiers. The Council considers that the proximity of the windows to the
footpath and bus stop means that future occupiers would need to adopt the
property to ensure visual privacy and in accordance with BRE Guidelines these
measures can be taken into consideration.
6. However, as set out in my decision letter, I have found that the proposed dwellings
would be provided with adequate natural light to the habitable rooms. The
installation of privacy measures would not necessarily result in a harmful reduction
in natural light, there is little by way of evidence before me that it would result
Condition MA.2(f) not being met. Furthermore, the PPPG clearly sets out that the
statutory requirements relating to prior approval are much less prescriptive than
those relating to planning applications. This is deliberate, as prior approval is a
light-touch process which applies where the principle of the development has
already been established.
7. Nonetheless, I find that it is not unreasonable for the Council to exercise their
planning judgement on this matter. The Council has provided with the Officer
Report and Appeal Statement reasons to support their conclusions. Therefore,
unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not
occurred and an award of costs is not warranted.
K Lancaster
INSPECTOR


Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 20 May 2025
by K Lancaster BA (hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 6 June 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/V5570/W/24/3357046
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 Ref is P2024/2970/PRA.
• The development proposed is the change of use from a ground-floor commercial shop class E to 2
studio flats 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 the change of
use from a ground-floor commercial shop Class E to 2 studio flats Class C3 at
282-284 St. Pauls Road, Islington, London N1 2LH in accordance with the
application P2024/2970/PRA and the details submitted with it subject to the
following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
drawing nos:
• P01REV A
2) The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until
suitable waste management including dedicated residential refuse/recycling
enclosure(s)/facilities shall be provided and shall be maintained as such
thereafter.
3) The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until the
facilities for the secure, covered parking of two bicycles within the
development site has been provided in accordance with a scheme to be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Thereafter the said approved facilities shall be provided, retained and
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Applications for costs
2. An application for costs was made by Mr Asher against the London Borough of
Islington and is the subject of a separate decision.
Background and Main Issue
3. Class MA of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) permits
a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use falling
within Class E (commercial, business and service) to a use falling within Class C3
(dwellinghouses).
4. Development under Class MA is permitted subject to, amongst other aspects, an
application to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior
approval is required in relation to the conditions set out in Paragraph MA.2.
5. Prior approval was refused by the Council on the grounds that insufficient
information has been submitted to show that the proposed ground floor units would
receive acceptable levels of natural light, specifically that the daylight/sunlight
assessment does not include the necessary measures to the front shopfront
windows to protect privacy and reduce noise.
6. It is not disputed that the proposed development would meet all other conditions of
Class MA.2. Therefore, the main issue is whether the proposed development
would be permitted by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the GPDO with
particular regard to the provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of
the proposed dwellinghouses.
Reasons
7. The appeal site comprises a three-storey, mid-terrace property situated on St
Paul’s Road. The surrounding area is mixed in character with both commercial and
residential uses present. St Paul’s Road is a busy road, there is a bus stop
immediately to the front of the appeal site.
8. Prior approval is being sought for the change of use of the ground floor to provide
two self-contained, studio flats. They would each measure 37.1m² and be dual
aspect.
9. Paragraph MA.2(f) of the GPDO requires the provision of adequate natural light to
habitable rooms. The GPDO sets out a specific definition of habitable rooms which
states that “‘habitable rooms’ means any rooms used or intended to be used for
sleeping or living which are not solely used for cooking purposes, but does not
include bath or toilet facilities, service rooms, corridors, laundry rooms, hallways or
utility rooms”.
10. The original application was supported by a report titled ‘Analysis of Site Layout for
Sunlight and Daylight’1 which states that the daylight and sunlight in all rooms
within the proposed flats would be better than the BRE Guidelines2 and on this
basis the requirement for adequate natural light is met. The report is based on the
‘Proposed Plans’ which show two large existing windows serving each of the
proposed studio flats located within the front elevation of the building, as well as
further windows to the rear elevation.
11. The Council did not dispute the findings of this report. However, they raised
concerns in relation to the need for privacy measures as the proposal relates to a
1 Prepared by Morgan Light Assessors (dated October 2024)
2 BRE Site Layout and Planning for Daylight and Sunlight, a Guide to Good Practice (published in 2022)
ground floor commercial premises and would have large windows facing directly
onto the street. Whilst the evidence before me indicates that these would provide
adequate daylight if unobscured, due to the position, size and proximity of the
windows to the street and in particular the bus stop which is immediately to the
front, the future occupiers are likely to need to install blinds or other such
measures to achieve adequate levels of privacy. There appears to have been no
allowances made for any such measures in the above report.
12. Nonetheless, I am only required to consider whether or not there would be
sufficient natural light provided to the habitable rooms. The habitable rooms, as
per the definition within the GPDO, would be served by generous windows
allowing adequate natural light to enter. It would be for any future occupier to
determine the level of privacy measures needed and I have not been any
presented with any compelling evidence to demonstrate that any such measures
would result in a harmful reduction in natural light entering the proposed dwellings.
I am therefore satisfied that adequate natural light would be provided to all
habitable rooms in the proposed dwelling.
Conditions
13. Paragraph W(13) of the GPDO allows for the grant of prior approval
unconditionally or subject to conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of
the prior approval. The Council has suggested five conditions should prior
approval be granted.
14. As paragraph MA.2(5) of the GPDO stipulates that the development shall be
complete within a period of 3 years, a condition is not required in this regard. The
provisions at Paragraph W(12) require that development must be carried out in
accordance with the approved details. I have attached a condition setting out the
approved plans/drawings in the interest of clarity and certainty.
15. Conditions relating to cycle storage and refuse, and recycling facilities are
necessary to ensure responsible waste practices are adhered to, to ensure the
highway is not unduly compromised and to ensure adequate cycle parking is
provided. I have amended the suggested wording for clarity.
16. The Council has also highlighted Policy T3 of the Islington Local Plan Strategic
and Development Management Policies, adopted September 2023 which sets out
that all new development should be car free. A condition is therefore suggested
that would prevent occupiers of the proposed development from securing
residential parking permits. However, the GPDO does not require regard to be had
to the development plan. There is also limited evidence before me to suggest that
such a condition is necessary. Therefore, based on the information before me, I do
not consider the condition to be reasonable or necessary.
Conclusion
17. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed and prior approval is
granted.
K Lancaster
INSPECTOR