The appellant emphasised that use of the building for community purposes would be restricted to a limited amount of time on two days a week and at other times it would offer employment. However, the inspector deemed that the community use would be significant, conflicting with unitary development plan (UDP) and London Plan policies to retain general industry in employment areas.
In addition, he found that the proposal would fail to accord with a UDP policy requiring proposals for community facilities to be sited in close proximity to adequate public transport routes and integrated into communities near shopping, leisure and other local services.
DCS Number 100-050-875
Inspector Gareth Isaac; Hearing.