Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Notice varied and upheld29 October 20253365198

65-69 Amhurst Park, London, N16 5DL

Planning appeal 3365198 at 65-69 Amhurst Park, London, N16 5DL (London Borough of Hackney) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 29 October 2025 by Inspector Pleasant L, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether as a matter of fact and degree there was a material change in the use of 69 Amhurst Park, and the land to the rear of 65 and 67 Amhurst Park to a school.

Without planning permission, the material change of use of 69 Amhurst Park, and the land to the rear of 65 and 67 Amhurst Park, to a school, the laying of hardstanding to the land to the rear of 65-69 Amhurst Park, the erection of one front and two rear outbuildings, a fire escape staircase and a rear roof extension at 69 Amhurst Park

Appeal type
enforcement · Enforcement Notice
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
community-institutional · Change of use
Inspector
Pleasant L
Postcode
N16 5DL

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • whether as a matter of fact and degree there was a material change in the use of 69 Amhurst Park, and the land to the rear of 65 and 67 Amhurst Park to a school
  • whether the development is acceptable in principle having regard to local and national planning policy, including site availability and educational need
  • the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, having particular regard to noise, disturbance, including light pollution and privacy
  • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area
  • whether the development is in an accessible location and makes suitable provision for sustainable modes of transport
  • whether the development makes suitable provision for waste/recycling management and storage
  • whether the development incorporates measures to mitigate the impact on biodiversity
  • whether the requirements are excessive to achieve the purpose(s) of the notice
  • whether the compliance period of six months is reasonable and proportionate

What decided it

The substantial and unmitigable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents from noise and disturbance caused by the intensive use of the school playground and fire escape staircase.

The substantial harm to neighbours' living conditions and significant harm to character and appearance outweighed the benefits of uninterrupted education for 120 Charedi children and their best interests, so the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits and the appeal was dismissed.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
Policy H8Policy LP24Policy LP2Policy D14Policy LP1Policy LP8Policy LP42Policy LP41Policy LP43Policy LP45Policy T2Policy T3Policy T4Policy LP57Policy LP47Policy S3Policy PP4
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 198Paragraph 11
Judgments
Burdle v Secretary of State for the Environment [1972] 3 All ER 240; Bowring v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 1115; Murfitt v Secretary of State for the Environment and East Cambridgeshire DC (1980) 40 P.& C.R.254; [1989] J.P.L.598; Kestrel Hydro v Secretary of State & Spelthorne BC [2016] EWCA Civ 784; Somak Travel v SSE & Brent LBC [1987] JPL 630

How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.

See how each was applied

The decision letter

Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

781 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision
An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in London Borough of Hackney

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025

  1. Dismissed1 October 20266010033
    259 Wick Road, Hackney, London, E9 5DG
  2. Notice upheld23 September 20263368635
    Flat 6, Brooks Lodge, 194A Hoxton Street, London, N1 5HU
  3. Notice varied and upheld18 September 20263360724
    2B Woodberry Down, Hackney, London, N4 2TG
  4. Allowed17 August 20266010972
    101 Dalston Lane, London, E8 1NH
  5. Allowed11 August 20266010297
    Flat A 141 Amhurst Road, London, E8 2AW

The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.