Town Planner Pro
Free trial
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed12 June 20243331598

White Swan, 22 The Village, Charlton, SE7 8UD

Planning appeal 3331598 at White Swan, 22 The Village, Charlton, SE7 8UD (Royal Borough of Greenwich) was dismissed on 12 June 2024 by Inspector Savage K, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the proposal would result in the loss of a valued community facility in the public house.

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
Postcode
SE7 8UD

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.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
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 PoliciesPolicy DH3 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed PoliciesPolicy DH(h) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed PoliciesPolicy DH(j) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed PoliciesPolicy D6 of the London Plan (March 2021)Policy H5 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed PoliciesPolicy D14 of the London PlanPolicy E(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed PoliciesPolicy DH(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 11Paragraph 208Paragraph 209
Judgments
Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL 1982 P37]

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 applied

The 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.

Appeals plan, £15 a month

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

332 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision
An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in Royal Borough of Greenwich

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024

  1. Dismissed30 September 20266007470
    44 Ceres Road, London, SE18 1HP
  2. Dismissed14 July 20263375007
    Powis Street, Outside no.37 Shaba Hair and Cosmetics, , London, SE18 6HZ
  3. Unknown14 July 20263374853
    Outside No. 37 Shaba Hair & Cosmetics, Powis Street, London, SE18 6HZ
  4. Dismissed6 July 20263376767
    2-4 Court Yard, Eltham, SE9 5PZ
  5. Allowed19 June 20266000585
    278, Halfway Street, Sidcup, Greenwich, DA15 8DT

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.