®Planning appeal decision
Aylesham Centre , Rye Lane, London, SE15 5EW
for the demolition of existing buildings and phased redevelopment to provide a replacement supermarket and associated service yard and car parking (Use Class E(a)), flexible retail, leisure (including drinking establishment), and commercial accommodation (Use Class E/Sui Generis), dwellings (Use Class C3), landscaping and associated works
- Authority
- London Borough of Southwark
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- retail · Major retail and services
- Inspector
- Shrigley M
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether or not the height, scale and mass of the proposed development would result in harm, and the level of any harm, to the local townscape having regard to the special character and appearance of the Rye Lane Peckham Conservation Area
- The acceptability of retail floorspace loss in terms of the impact to the vitality and viability of the town centre
- The adequacy of affordable housing provision inclusive of any social rented and intermediate home local needs
- The overall planning balance having regard to related planning policy, any harm, or benefits
What decided it
The less than substantial harm to the Rye Lane Peckham Conservation Area and to designated and non-designated heritage assets was not outweighed by the scheme's public benefits.
The substantial collective public benefits (housing delivery, affordable housing, economic, environmental and townscape betterments) did not outweigh the less than substantial harm to designated and non-designated heritage assets and the local townscape, so the balance tipped against granting permission.
Framework references: 8, 11, 36, 61, 212
Plan policies cited: Policy NSP74, London Plan Policy D1, London Plan Policy D4, London Plan Policy D9, London Plan Policy HC1, SP Policy P13, SP Policy P17, SP Policy P20, SP Policy P21, Area Vision AV.14, London Plan Policy SD6, London Plan Policy SD7, London Plan Policy SD8, London Plan Policy SD9, SP Policy P35, SP Policy P32, SP Policy P33, SP Policy P1, SP Policy IP3, London Plan Policy GG4, London Plan Policy H4, London Plan Policy H5, London Plan Policy H6, London Plan Policy H7, London Plan Policy E9, SP Policy P37
Judgments cited: Schneck v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2022]; Baker v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008]; R (Harris) v London Borough of Haringey [2010]
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.