®Planning appeal decision
Greenwich Quay, Clarence Road, London, SE8 3EY
Planning appeal 3371383 at Greenwich Quay, Clarence Road, London, SE8 3EY (Royal Borough of Greenwich) was dismissed on 26 February 2026 by Inspector Porter H, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local and wider townscape.
‘demolition of existing structures and construction of a building comprising student accommodation (Sui Generis), commercial floorspace (Use Class E), together with associated landscaping, public realm improvements, access works, cycle parking, refuse/recycling stores and associated works’
- Authority
- Royal Borough of Greenwich
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Other Major Developments
- Inspector
- Porter H
- Postcode
- SE8 3EY
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local and wider townscape
- The effect of the proposed development on the significance of relevant designated heritage assets, through development within their settings, and, whether any harm to their significance would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal
What decided it
The harm to the significance of multiple designated heritage assets provided a strong reason for refusal under Framework paragraph 11(d)(i), outweighing the tilted balance and the scheme's public benefits.
The significant public benefits of the scheme (PBSA including affordable rooms, economic benefits, public realm and biodiversity improvements) were outweighed by the harm to townscape character and to the significance of designated heritage assets, such that the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy DH1Policy DH2Policy DH3Policy DH4Policy DH(h)Policy DH(i)Policy D3Policy D4Policy D9Policy HC1Policy HC2
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 8Paragraph 11Paragraph 13Paragraph 139Paragraph 212Paragraph 215
- Judgments
- Bramshill Judgement; Regina (Save Stonehenge WHS Ltd) v SoS for Transport Judgment; Safe Rottingdean Ltd v Brighton and Hove CC
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 Royal Borough of Greenwich
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2026
- Dismissed30 September 2026600747044 Ceres Road, London, SE18 1HP
- Dismissed14 July 20263375007Powis Street, Outside no.37 Shaba Hair and Cosmetics, , London, SE18 6HZ
- Unknown14 July 20263374853Outside No. 37 Shaba Hair & Cosmetics, Powis Street, London, SE18 6HZ
- Dismissed6 July 202633767672-4 Court Yard, Eltham, SE9 5PZ
- Allowed19 June 20266000585278, 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.