# 5 More London Place, Southwark (restaurant pergola and awning)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Catcheside
- **Authority:** Southwark (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6001859
- **Application reference:** 25/AP/1051
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Extension of outdoor seating area with pergola structure, glazed side screens, planters and retractable awning to a restaurant
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4
- **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D4, HC1, Southwark Plan 2022 P13, P14, P19, P20, P21
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, setting of conservation area and Grade I Tower Bridge
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, heritage-no-harm, conservation-area-setting, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, tier-2

## Summary
A restaurant on More London Place, Southwark, sought a larger outdoor seating area enclosed by a 2.8 m pergola, glazed screens, planters and an awning. The inspector found no harm to the settings of the Tooley Street Conservation Area or Grade I Tower Bridge, but held that the structure would be incongruous in the cohesive contemporary frontage. That conflict with DP3(1) lacked clear justification, so the S4(2) trigger applied and the modest benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The parties were invited to comment on the revised Framework, and I have taken account of the comments received" (DL ¶2).
- **Heritage settings: NO HARM.** "there would be no harm caused to the significance of these designated heritage assets as a result of this proposal within their settings" (DL ¶14).
- **Design, DP3(1): CONFLICT.** "the development would have an incongruous appearance, and it would be harmfully conspicuous in views from the walkway" (DL ¶16). "It follows that there would be conflict with Policy DP3(1) of the Framework, which expects proposals to respond to their context, and to integrate with and enhance their surroundings" (DL ¶17).
- **Benefits.** TC2 substantial weight is "relevant here" (DL ¶22), but "the social and economic benefits that would arise from the proposed development would be modest, and this limits the weight that they carry in this case" (DL ¶23).
- **DP3(3) / S4(2)(c): FAIL.** "In my judgement, the scheme lacks clear justification and its benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶24). The letter cites "Policy S4(2)(a)(c)", a slip for S4(2)(c).

## Planning balance
S4 (inside a settlement). The design harm was routed through DP3(3) and the S4(2) trigger, then set against modest leisure and economic benefits. Conclusion framed plan-led: conflict with the development plan as a whole and no material consideration indicating otherwise (DL ¶25).

## What made the difference
The size and permanence of the enclosure against a sleek, cohesive frontage where alfresco seating is otherwise loose, low furniture. The heritage objection fell away because the structure sits in line with an existing advertisement screen and keeps the central views to Tower Bridge. A lighter, lower structure aligned with the tall ground-floor windows might have passed.

## Transferable points
- A DP3(1) conflict, found to lack clear justification, engages S4(2)(c) and makes the benefits substantially outweighed. This is the full DP3(3) route in a short letter (DL ¶17, ¶24).
- TC2's substantial weight to town-centre vitality does not attach in full to modest benefits from a single premises (DL ¶22–23).
- Setting harm depends on whether the scheme interrupts the views through which the setting is experienced (DL ¶14).

## Policy findings
- **HE6: neutral.** site outside but in setting of Tooley Street CA and of Grade I Tower Bridge; no harm to significance, views from busiest central walkway kept (DL 11, 13-14, 19)
- **DP3(1): conflict.** 2.8 m solid pergola and tall planters conceal the ground-floor frontage, openings at odds with tall windows, awning sits awkwardly under the overhang; incongruous and longstanding (DL 15-17)
- **DP3(3): fail.** explicit step - "the scheme lacks clear justification" (DL 24)
- **TC2: benefit.** TC2 substantial weight to town-centre vitality said to be relevant, but the social and economic benefits are "modest", which limits their weight (DL 22-23)
- **S4(2)(c): fail.** letter says "S4(2)(a)(c)"; DP3(1) conflict without clear justification routed through the S4(2) trigger (DL 24)
- **S4: fail.** inside settlement; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 21, 24)

## Key facts
- Pedestrian walkway between Tooley Street and the Thames, flanked by large contemporary buildings
- Proposed structure 2.8 m high with solid frame and tall planters along most of the frontage; replaces a smaller existing pergola
- Loose low furniture of neighbouring cafes treated as the characteristic alfresco form
- Council's approval at 5A More London Place not comparable (open space on Tooley Street, mixed context) (DL 18)
- Mayor of London's support for alfresco dining noted (DL 22)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6001859
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/abb6613f-ecfc-4cfd-95e0-a9c0a1302459

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6001859.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.