®Planning appeal decision
Edith Summerskill House, Clem Atlee Court, London, SW6 7TW
Planning appeal 3277137 at Edith Summerskill House, Clem Atlee Court, London, SW6 7TW (London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham) was allowed on 4 April 2022 by Inspector Griffiths P, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Townscape and the Character and Appearance of the Area (Design).
the erection of a 20 storey tower (plus plant) with single storey basement and ground floor mezzanine, for residential use, ancillary community use at ground floor level, hard and soft landscaping, and associated works
- Appeal type
- other · Called In Planning Application
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Griffiths P
- Postcode
- SW6 7TW
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Townscape and the Character and Appearance of the Area (Design)
- The Effect on the Setting and thereby the Significance of Heritage Assets
- Living Conditions
- Local Services/Infrastructure
What decided it
The substantial public benefits of delivering 133 affordable homes in an exceptionally well-designed building clearly outweighed the less than substantial heritage harm identified.
The less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the Church of St Thomas of Canterbury and the Central Fulham Conservation Area, afforded great weight, was very clearly outweighed by the public benefits of 133 units of affordable housing delivered in a well-designed building, afforded significant weight, resulting in a balance favourable to the proposal.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Local Plan Policy DC2Local Plan Policy DC3Local Plan Policy DC8Local Plan Policy HO1Local Plan Policy HO3Local Plan Policy HO5London Plan Policy GG2London Plan Policy GG4London Plan Policy D2London Plan Policy D3London Plan Policy D4London Plan Policy D6London Plan Policy D9London Plan Policy D12London Plan Policy HC1London Plan Policy H1London Plan Policy H4London Plan Policy H8London Plan Policy S4
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 56Paragraph 57Paragraph 60Paragraph 119Paragraph 120Paragraph 126Paragraph 130Paragraph 195Paragraph 197Paragraph 202
- Judgments
- R (London Borough of Hillingdon) v Mayor of London [2021] EWHC 3387 (Admin); Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes Ltd [2017] 1 W.L.R. 1865; Trusthouse Forte Hotels Ltd v SSE (1986) 53 P&CR 250; R (on the application of Mount Cook Land Ltd) v Westminster CC [2003] EWCA Civ 136; Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
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 Hammersmith and Fulham
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2022
- Dismissed13 July 20266008335Land To Rear Of 120 Goldhawk Road, London, W12 8HD
- Allowed27 April 20263375615Grove House, 27 Hammersmith Grove, Hammersmith And Fulham, London, W6 0NE
- Dismissed28 August 202533630365 Stowe Road, London, W12 8BQ
- Allowed24 July 2025335933942 Stevenage Road, London, SW6 6HA
- Dismissed19 June 20253362552Palace Pharmacy, 331 Fulham Palace Road, London, SW6 6TE
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.