®Planning appeal decision
44 Cleveland Street, LONDON, W1T 4JT
- Authority
- London Borough of Camden
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Other Major Developments
- Inspector
- Thomas G
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposed development would provide a suitable housing mix, including affordable housing, having regard to national and local planning policies
- Whether the proposed development would have a harmful impact on the significance of heritage assets or their setting
- Whether the proposed development would provide an energy efficient development thereby responding positively to climate change
What decided it
Applying the tilted balance because of the absence of a five-year housing land supply, the substantial public benefits of the scheme (housing delivery, affordable housing, economic, heritage and design benefits) were found to clearly and significantly outweigh the identified less-than-substantial heritage harm and other moderate adverse impacts.
The significant and substantial social, economic, heritage-restoration and archaeological benefits of the scheme outweighed the less-than-substantial heritage harm and the moderate adverse impacts relating to housing mix and energy efficiency, so the tilted balance favoured granting permission.
Framework references: 62, 134, 11, 199, 200, 202
Plan policies cited: CLP Policy H4, CLP Policy H6, CLP Policy H7, CLP Policy C6, CLP Policy D1, CLP Policy D2, CLP Policy CC1, CLP Policy CC2, CLP Policy CC4, CLP Policy C1, London Plan Policy H5, London Plan Policy H10
Judgments cited: Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL 1982 P37
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.