Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed22 June 20233300689

20 Fairfield South, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, KT1 2UL

change of use of vacant drinking establishment (Sui Generis) to accommodate a self-contained 4-bedroom dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) with associated parking provision, landscaping/amenity space, refuse/recycling facilities and cycle store

Authority
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Change of use
Inspector
Nicholls H

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • whether the premises could help to meet the demand for employment uses
  • whether the permanent loss of the public house is justified
  • whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers in terms of privacy
  • whether the proposal would make the most efficient use of the site
  • whether the development could be made safe for future occupiers having regard to flood risks

What decided it

The irreversible loss of the public house without authoritative evidence to justify such loss, combined with the inefficient use of the site, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of housing delivery under the tilted balance test.

the adverse impacts from the irreversible loss of the pub without authoritative evidence to justify such and the inefficient use of the site would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefits of housing delivery and economic benefits from conversion works

Framework references: 119, 11

Plan policies cited: CS11, DM17, DM24, HC5, HC6, HC7, H1, D6, DM13, SI2, DM4

Judgments cited: Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [1982]

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.