®Planning appeal decision
The London Pavilion, 1 Piccadilly, LONDON, W1J 0DA
the installation of a rooftop building management unit and alterations to shopfronts to the London Pavilion and the Trocadero
- Authority
- City of Westminster Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- advertisement · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Searson C
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Encapsulating the statutory tests for these linked appeals, the main issue is the effects of the proposal on visual amenity, and in particular on designated heritage assets, including:
- whether the significance of the Grade II listed London Pavilion would be preserved
- whether the significance of other nearby listed buildings, as derived from their setting, would be preserved
- whether the character or appearance of the Soho Conservation Area and other adjacent conservation areas would be preserved
What decided it
The heritage and other benefits of the scheme, including CA enhancement and shopfront improvements, were found to outweigh the low-level, lower-end 'less than substantial' harm identified to the special architectural interest of the Grade II listed London Pavilion.
the heritage benefits (CA enhancement and shopfront improvements) together with small economic and social benefits, all attracting great weight, outweighed the lower end of less than substantial harm to the listed London Pavilion, so the balance tipped in favour of granting all three consents
Framework references: 56
Plan policies cited: London Plan Policy HC1, Westminster City Plan Policy 2, Westminster City Plan Policy 38, Westminster City Plan Policy 39, Westminster City Plan Policy 40, Westminster City Plan Policy 43
Judgments cited: Safe Rottingdean Limited v. Brighton and Hove City Council [2019] EWHC 2632 (admin); Pugh v Secretary of State [2015] EWHC 3; Barnwell Manor Wind Energy v East Northamptonshire DC [2014] EWCA Civ 137; Palmer vs Herefordshire CC [2016] EWCA Civ 101; Jones v Mordue [2015] EWCA civ 1243; Bedford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2847 (Admin); City & Country Bramshill Ltd v SSHCLG [2021] EWCA Civ 320; Juden v Tower Hamlets LBC [2021] EWHC 1368; London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin)
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.