®Planning appeal decision
Edith Summerskill House, Clem Atlee Court, London, SW6 7TW
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
- Authority
- London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
- Appeal type
- other · Called In Planning Application
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Griffiths P
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.
Framework references: 11, 56, 57, 60, 119, 120, 126, 130, 195, 197, 202
Plan policies cited: Local Plan Policy DC2, Local Plan Policy DC3, Local Plan Policy DC8, Local Plan Policy HO1, Local Plan Policy HO3, Local Plan Policy HO5, London Plan Policy GG2, London Plan Policy GG4, London Plan Policy D2, London Plan Policy D3, London Plan Policy D4, London Plan Policy D6, London Plan Policy D9, London Plan Policy D12, London Plan Policy HC1, London Plan Policy H1, London Plan Policy H4, London Plan Policy H8, London Plan Policy S4
Judgments cited: 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
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.