®Planning appeal decision
Land at 178B Royal College Street and Arches 73, 74 and 75 Randolph Street, London, NW1 0SP
Planning appeal 3316906 at Land at 178B Royal College Street and Arches 73, 74 and 75 Randolph Street, London, NW1 0SP (London Borough of Camden) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 3 May 2024 by Inspector McGlone A, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: the effect of the proposal from deliveries and collections on pedestrian and highway safety in Randolph Street.
the change of use of café/restaurant (Class Use E) at 178A Royal Collage Street and storage facilities (Class Use B8) at arches 73,74 and 75 and amalgamation of 178A Royal College Street with Arches 74 and 75 and part of Arch 73 to create commercial kitchen and delivery centre with ancillary offices (Sui Generis). External alterations to shopfront of 178A Royal College Street and provision of plant and machinery to the rear of the Arches 73, 74 and 75 in association with the new use
- Authority
- London Borough of Camden
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- employment-industrial · Change of use
- Inspector
- McGlone A
- Postcode
- NW1 0SP
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the proposal from deliveries and collections on pedestrian and highway safety in Randolph Street
- the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents in Rousden Street, Randolph Street, and Camden Road, with regards to noise from vehicular deliveries and collections
- whether the proposal makes adequate provision in respect of bats, and local employment, skills, and training
What decided it
The Operational Management Plan and s106 controls were found ineffective in practice to prevent unsafe rider behaviour and noise harm, so the identified highway safety and residential amenity harms remained unacceptable and outweighed the benefits.
The substantial weight given to unacceptable harm to highway safety and neighbouring residents' living conditions outweighed the moderate positive weight for economic benefits and limited positive weight for bringing vacant arches back into use, resulting in dismissal.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy A1Policy A4Policy T1Policy T4Policy T4 (The London Plan)Policy C5Policy C6Policy T2Policy T3Policy A3Policy E1Policy E2Policy G1Policy DM1
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 108Paragraph 114Paragraph 115Paragraph 85
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 Camden
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024
- Dismissed29 September 20266008940Basement Flat, 226 Finchley Road, London, NW3 6DH
- Notice upheld17 September 20263376816Flat 1, Mexborough, Pratt Street, London, NW1 0BL
- Notice varied and upheld17 September 20263372650107 West End Lane, London, NW6 4SY
- Notice upheld17 September 202633612563 Collard Place, Lonon, NW1 8DU
- Notice varied and upheld16 September 20263356264Flat A, 190 Fordwych Road, London, NW2 3NX
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.