Town Planner Pro
Free trial
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed24 June 20213244984

Land Adjacent To 20 Bury Street, London, EC3A 5AX

Planning appeal 3244984 at Land Adjacent To 20 Bury Street, London, EC3A 5AX (City of London Council) was dismissed on 24 June 2021 by Inspector Nicholson D, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: The effect of the proposals on the significance of designated heritage assets.

Demolition of existing building and structures and construction of a building to a height of 305.3m AOD for a mixed-use visitor attraction, including viewing areas [2,597sq.m GEA], an education/community facility [567sq.m GEA] (Sui Generis) and restaurant/bar use (Class A3/A4) [1,535sq.m GEA]; together with a retail unit at ground floor (Class A1); a new two- storey pavilion building [1,093sq.m GEA] (Sui Generis) comprising the principal visitor attraction entrance with retail at ground floor level (Class A1/A3) [11sq.m GEA] and a public roof garden; provision of ancillary cycle parking, servicing and plant and alterations to the public realm. [Total Scheme Area: 17,441sq.m GEA]. Summary of Recommendation: that the appeal should be dismissed. 1

Authority
City of London Council
Appeal type
major · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
leisure-sport · Other Major Developments
Inspector
Nicholson D
Postcode
EC3A 5AX

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • The effect of the proposals on the significance of designated heritage assets

What decided it

The less than substantial harm to the Outstanding Universal Value of the Tower of London World Heritage Site and other heritage assets was not outweighed by the proposal's public benefits.

the very considerable and significant weight given to heritage harm (to the ToL WHS, other heritage assets, and poor design) outweighed the moderate weight given collectively to the economic, tourism and educational benefits, so the balance was struck firmly against the scheme

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
Policy D4 Criterion DPolicy D8Policy D9 Criterion C1)a)iPolicy D9 Criterion C1)c)Policy D9 Criterion C1)d)Policy D9 Criterion C1)e)Policy HC1Policy HC2Policy HC3Policy HC4.CPolicy SI2 Criterion APolicy SI2 Criterion FPolicy SI 7Policy CS7.3Policy CS10Policy DM10.1Policy CS12Policy DM12.1 Criterion 1 and 5Policy CS13.1 and 2Policy CS13Policy SD4Policy D9 Criterion C2f)Policy S3Policy E10Policy HC5Policy HC6Policy CS7.1
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 48Paragraph 56Paragraph 57Paragraph 126Paragraph 130Paragraph 132Paragraph 133Paragraph 134Paragraph 200Paragraph 202
Judgments
Barnwell v East Northamptonshire District Council [2014] EWCA Civ 137; Bedford BC v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 2847 (Admin); Jones v Mordue [2015] EWCA Civ 1243; [2016] 1 WLR 2682; R (J Hall & Company Limited) v City of Bradford Metropolitan DC and Co-Operative Group Ltd [2019]; R (Shimbles) v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2018] EWHC195 (Admin); R (Palmer) v Herefordshire Council [2016] EWCA Civ 1061; R (Forge Field) v. Sevenoaks DC [2014] EWHC 1895 (Admin); City and Country Bramshill v. Secretary of State [2021] EWCA Civ 320; Starbones Ltd v SoS HCLG & Ors [2020] EWHC 526; East Northamptonshire District Council and others v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another [2014] EWCACiv 137; Nottingham County Council and Broxtowe Borough Council v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Rjb Mining (UK) Limited [1999] P.L.C.R. 340

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.

Appeals plan, £15 a month

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

At least 810 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 City of London Council

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2021

  1. Dismissed30 June 20223281630
    Custom House, 20 Lower Thames Street, London, EC3R 6EE
  2. Dismissed4 August 20266006579
    73 Aldgate High Street, London, EC3N 1BD
  3. Dismissed21 January 20263364494
    102 Cheapside, London, EC2V 6DT
  4. Dismissed21 January 20263364492
    102 Cheapside, London, EC2V 6DT
  5. Allowed24 December 20253373952
    90 Liverpool Street, London, EC2M 2AT

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.