®Planning appeal decision
1 Battersea Bridge Road, London, SW11 3BZ
comprehensive redevelopment of the site to include demolition of existing building and erection of a part 10 storey, part 28 storey building (plus ground floor and basement levels) comprising residential use (Class C3), office use (Class E), community use (Class F2), and a restaurant (Class E), with associated car parking, cycle parking, public realm, landscaping and other associated works
- Authority
- London Borough of Wandsworth
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Gilbert J
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
- the effect of the proposal on the significance of heritage assets
- whether the proposal would make appropriate provision for infrastructure
- the overall planning balance, having regard to the development plan and any proposed benefits
What decided it
The very substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area caused by the proposal's excessive height and scale outweighed the substantial housing and other benefits.
The substantial benefits of market and affordable housing delivery, together with other significant and moderate benefits, were outweighed by the very substantial harm to character and appearance and the (albeit outweighed in the separate heritage balance) less than substantial heritage harm, so the overall planning balance tipped against the proposal.
Framework references: 58, 59, 125, 130, 131, 135, 139, 212, 213, 215, 216
Plan policies cited: London Plan Policy D9, London Plan Policy D9 Part A, London Plan Policy D9 Part B, London Plan Policy D9 Part C, London Plan Policy D9 Part D, London Plan Policy HC1, London Plan Policy H1, London Plan Policy H4, London Plan Policy H5, London Plan Policy H6, London Plan Policy D7, London Plan Policy E1, London Plan Policy E3, London Plan Policy SI 2, London Plan Policy G5, London Plan Policy S4, London Plan Policy T2, London Plan Policy T4, London Plan Policy T9, WLP Policy LP3, WLP Policy LP4, WLP Policy LP10, WLP Policy LP17, WLP Policy LP18, WLP Policy LP19, WLP Policy LP33, WLP Policy LP35, WLP Policy LP38, WLP Policy LP49, WLP Policy LP50, WLP Policy LP52, WLP Policy LP59, WLP Policy LP62, WLP Policy PM9, WLP Policy SDS1, WLPPR Policy LP23
Judgments cited: London Borough of Hillingdon, R (on the application of) v Mayor of London [2021] EWHC 3387 (Admin); Newcastle upon Tyne City Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2022] EWHC 2752 (Admin); R (on the application of Khodari) v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council (2017) EWCA Civ 333; Rainbird v The Council of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2018] EWHC 657 (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.