®Planning appeal decision
White Swan, 22 The Village, Charlton, SE7 8UD
change of use of the existing public house providing a commercial unit (Class E) at ground floor and 7 no. residential (Class C3) units at upper levels through the introduction of two additional floors at roof level and a part-two/part- single storey extension to the rear
- Authority
- Royal Borough of Greenwich
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Change of use
- Inspector
- Savage K
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposal would result in the loss of a valued community facility in the public house
- The effect of the proposal on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset in the public house and the character and appearance of the Charlton Village Conservation Area
- Whether the proposal would provide a suitable standard of accommodation for future occupants
- The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, with respect to privacy, sense of enclosure and light
What decided it
The unjustified loss of a valued community facility combined with less-than-substantial harm to the non-designated heritage asset and conservation area, which the Framework directs must be given great weight and provides a clear reason for refusal under paragraph 208, outweighed the public benefits of housing delivery in a location with insufficient five-year supply.
The less-than-substantial harm to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset and conservation area, to which great weight must be given under the Framework, was not outweighed by the public benefits of housing delivery and economic benefits; the heritage harm provided a clear reason for refusal under paragraph 208 that displaced the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and the broader totality of harm from loss of community facility, heritage harm, neighbours' living conditions, and accommodation shortcomings was not outweighed by the identified benefits.
Framework references: 11, 208, 209
Plan policies cited: Policy HC7 of the London Plan (March 2021), Policy EA(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (July 2014), Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021), Policy HC1 of the London Plan (March 2021), Policy DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies, Policy DH3 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies, Policy DH(h) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies, Policy DH(j) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies, Policy D6 of the London Plan (March 2021), Policy H5 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies, Policy D14 of the London Plan, Policy E(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies, Policy DH(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies
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.