®Planning appeal decision
1 Wellington Mews , London, N7 8SQ
Planning appeal 3269829 at 1 Wellington Mews , London, N7 8SQ (London Borough of Islington) was dismissed on 25 October 2021 by Inspector Wharton T, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether sufficient precise and unambiguous evidence has been provided to demonstrate that each flat has been in a separate lawful Class C3 residential use since 1935 and that none has been ancillary or incidental to HMP Pentonville.
Certificate of Lawful Development for use as self-contained residential units (Class C3 dwellinghouses) for 28 flats
- Authority
- London Borough of Islington
- Appeal type
- ldc · Lawful Development Certificate
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Change of use
- Inspector
- Wharton T
- Postcode
- N7 8SQ
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether sufficient precise and unambiguous evidence has been provided to demonstrate that each flat has been in a separate lawful Class C3 residential use since 1935 and that none has been ancillary or incidental to HMP Pentonville
- Whether sufficient precise and unambiguous evidence has been provided to demonstrate that any flat could have achieved lawfulness by virtue of a change of use from Class C2A to Class C3 for a continuous period of 4 years
What decided it
The flats were built in 1935 as prison officer accommodation outside the main prison walls but within its curtilage, with occupation tied to prison employment, controlled vehicular access via the prison gates, and management controls typical of ancillary prison service housing, and the appellant failed to provide sufficiently precise and unambiguous evidence to demonstrate they had ever been in independent Class C3 use or had acquired immunity from enforcement action.
What the Inspector cited
- Judgments
- Burdle v Secretary of State for the Environment [1972] 3 All e.R.240,244; Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment: QBD 1982; Cottrell v SSE and Tonbridge and Malling BC [1982] JPL 443; Thurrock BC v SSETR & Holding (CA)[2002]; Panton and Farmer v SSETR & Vale Horse DC [1999]; Ocado vs London Borough of Islington dated 7 June 2021
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 appliedThe 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
More decisions in London Borough of Islington
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2021
- Allowed22 October 20266006605131 - 132 Upper Street, London, N1 1QP
- Allowed16 October 2026600593030 Sekforde Street, London, EC1R 0HH
- Allowed24 September 20266005904Upper Flat, 23 Ronalds Road, London, N5 1XF
- Dismissed24 September 202660055902 Highbury Grove Court, Highbury Grove, London, N5 2NG
- Notice upheld23 September 20263364241First and Second Floors, 72 Prebend Street, Islington, London, N1 8PR
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.