®Planning appeal decision
Medical Centre, 58 Roman Way, London, N7 8XF
Planning appeal 3274174 at Medical Centre, 58 Roman Way, London, N7 8XF (London Borough of Islington) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 27 September 2022 by Inspector O'Brien L, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Appeal A: the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Demolition of existing building and erection of a four storey building comprising E1 commercial use at part ground floor, and 8no. self- contained C3 residential units (5no. 2b/4p and 3no. 1b/2p flats) at ground and upper floors. Associated separate access, refuse and cycle storage
- Authority
- London Borough of Islington
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- O'Brien L
- Postcode
- N7 8XF
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Appeal A: the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
- Appeal A: the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to outlook, light and privacy
- Appeal B: the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
- Appeal B: the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to outlook, light and privacy
- Appeal B: whether or not the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to outlook
- Appeal B: the effect of the proposal on the mix of housing stock in the area
What decided it
Appeal A succeeded because the limited residual harm to neighbours' living conditions was outweighed by the scheme's housing, economic and affordable housing benefits, whereas Appeal B failed because its significant harm to character and appearance, combined with harm to neighbours, future occupiers and housing mix, was not outweighed by the same benefits.
Appeal A: moderate-weight benefits (housing delivery, economic growth, affordable housing and carbon contributions) outweighed the limited harm to neighbouring living conditions; Appeal B: the same categories of benefit were insufficient to outweigh the significant harm to character and appearance plus harm to living conditions of neighbours, future occupiers and housing mix.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy CS8Policy CS9Policy DM2.1Policy D6Policy DM3.4Policy D3.1Policy CS12Policy CS10Policy DM8.4Policy DM8.5Policy DM6.5Policy DM7.4Policy H2
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 2022
- 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.