This appeal decision concerns a partially constructed hotel in the area north of City Road, near Old Street Station in Hackney. Like much of this part of London, the appeal site is on a narrow street, with buildings built close to property boundaries and the public highway. The appeal related to an application to construct additional floorspace above the consented roof level. The key issue in the appeal was the impact on the daylight and sunlight of the proposal on neighbouring occupiers.
This decision demonstrates how difficult it can be to obtain planning permission for sites near to buildings which are “bad neighbours” in daylight and sunlight terms. Where existing buildings are located close to site boundaries, in a dense location, have recessed windows, and windows under balconies or behind balconies, existing low daylight and sunlight levels for existing occupiers mean small numerical reductions can have a significant impact in percentage terms. This can make it difficult for proposals of equivalent height and density to gain planning permission due to the percentage reduction in key daylight and sunlight tests. In this case the Inspector’s assessment was that due to existing low levels, even a slight reduction to the baseline would have a disproportionate impact on the living conditions of occupiers.
The appeal decision recognised the “dense urban location” of the appeal site and its “close relationship to neighbouring buildings on all sides”. The appeal decision reported on a daylight and sunlight report using the consented development as the baseline. In relation to one neighbour, 18-28 Westland Place, the appeal notes the limited daylight received by some existing windows, set within recessed balconies, noting the proposal would have “a profound effect on the already limited daylight afforded to these windows”. In relation to Chocolate Studios, another neighbouring residential building, the appeal decision found that although there were no specific vertical sky component conflicts, the slight reduction to the existing low baseline would have a disproportionate impact on occupiers. Going on to consider the no sky line test, the inspector found that even though many windows have limited daylight in the baseline scenario, the proposal would reduce that further still.
The daylight and sunlight report considered in the appeal was prepared under the previous version of the BRE Guidance, the main daylight and sunlight guidance document. The third edition of the BRE Guidance published in July 2022 recommends a flexible approach to its numerical guidelines, as natural lighting is one of many factors in design. The Guidance goes on to suggest that a developer or local planning authority may wish to use different target values, such as a historic city centre or area with modern high rise buildings, where “a higher degree of obstruction may be unavoidable if new developments are to match the height and proportions of existing buildings”. It remains to be seen how much this policy, and proposed amendments to the NPPF giving significant weight to the benefits of delivering as much housing as possible on brownfield land, is carried through into decisions to apply the standards more flexibly where proposals are in locations where it is difficult to meet the absolute standards, and particularly where proposals are for housing, rather than a hotel in this case.
