Greenwich bar appeal wins as pub protection fails to block Class E uses

The Greenwich bar appeal has succeeded, with an Inspector granting two alternative permissions for the former Belushi’s Bar to become a convenience store or café. The building had once been a pub, but the planning question was what it had most recently become.

Inspector B Astley-Serougi found that the latest use of the ground and lower ground floors on Greenwich High Road was a drinking establishment with expanded food provision. That finding meant the particular policies protecting public houses did not determine the outcome.

The combined decision, issued on 1st October 2026, allowed appeal 6012344 for a Class E(a) convenience store and appeal 6012348 for a Class E(b) café. Both followed refusals by the Royal Borough of Greenwich. The Planning Inspectorate records the store appeal and the café appeal separately.

Why the Greenwich bar appeal turned on the latest use

The premises at the centre of the Greenwich bar appeal are in a detached, two-to-three-storey building close to Greenwich Station. Historically it operated as the Prince of Orange public house. More recently, the ground and lower ground floors were occupied by Belushi’s Bar, while the upper floors had also provided private accommodation.

The decision records that the bar use ceased around May 2026. Its earlier pub history was relevant, but it did not settle how the latest operation should be classified for these appeals.

Greenwich accepted that food was prepared and served on site. However, the council considered the range limited and argued that food was not the premises’ principal attraction or function.

The Inspector took a different view of its significance. The food provision was, in the Inspector’s words, “greater than ancillary bar snacks”. On the balance of probabilities, the last use was therefore a drinking establishment with expanded food provision.

That is the central point in the Greenwich bar appeal. The finding concerned the actual character of the operation, supported by the evidence and previous appeal decisions. It was not simply a consequence of changing the business name from the Prince of Orange to Belushi’s.

Public houses, bars and Class E are different questions

In England, public houses, wine bars and drinking establishments are listed at article 3(6)(p) of the Use Classes Order, following the 2020 Use Classes amendments. Drinking establishments with expanded food provision are separately listed at article 3(6)(q). Both sit outside the ordinary use classes as sui generis uses.

A public house is a form of drinking establishment, but those descriptions do not make every bar a public house for every policy purpose. Here, the Inspector noted that the Order did not define the relevant terms and that London Plan Policy HC7 did not define a public house. Classification required planning judgment.

Expanded food provision also does not automatically make a premises a restaurant or café. In this case, food went beyond ancillary snacks, but the Inspector still classified the latest use as a drinking establishment.

The permitted alternatives fall within Use Class E. Class E(a) covers displaying or selling goods, other than hot food, principally to visiting members of the public. Class E(b) covers selling food and drink principally to visiting members of the public where consumption is mostly on the premises.

Those distinctions explain the convenience-store and café applications. The Greenwich bar appeal granted planning permission for the changes from the former sui generis use. It did not establish a general permitted development right for bars to become shops or cafés.

Our guide to Class AA and expanded food provision explains the separate permitted development context. Any proposed change needs its own assessment of the existing use, permissions and conditions.

Why the pub protection policies did not decide these appeals

London Plan Policy HC7 protects public houses with heritage, economic, social or cultural value, or a contribution to wider policy objectives. It requires authoritative marketing evidence where proposals would lose qualifying pubs, demonstrating no realistic prospect of continued pub use in the foreseeable future.

Greenwich Local Plan Policy EA(b) supports retaining pubs with a community role. Where continued pub use is said to be unviable, it requires evidence of reasonable attempts to market the site actively as a pub for at least two years.

The Inspector found that these policies referred specifically to public houses. Given the finding about the latest use, they were “not wholly determinative for this appeal”.

We should be careful about taking that further. The Greenwich bar appeal does not say that pub protection policies can never affect a bar, or that food service removes protection. It applies a particular factual finding to particular policy wording.

A differently worded policy, or evidence showing that a premises remains a public house despite its branding and menu, could produce a different result.

The night-time economy still needed protecting

The classification finding did not remove the need to consider the loss of a drinking establishment. London Plan Policy HC6, supporting the night-time economy, remained relevant. Greenwich is identified as an NT3 area, of more than local significance to that economy.

The Inspector recognised the premises’ history, describing its likely night-time role as a “modest contribution”. Nevertheless, there were numerous drinking establishments nearby and limited evidence that losing this one would unacceptably harm the town centre’s night-time economy or vitality.

The store would not be an entertainment or hospitality venue, and would be unlikely to generate substantial night-time employment. However, its proposed late-evening hours and position by the station could serve commuters, visitors and residents.

The café would close earlier than a drinking establishment. Even so, its evening operation could diversify the range of activities, consistent with London Plan HC6(B)(3), which supports extending the operating hours of daytime facilities, including cafés.

The national Framework also has a policy numbered HC6, but it concerns community facilities and public service infrastructure. These are two different policies in two different documents.

In the Greenwich bar appeal, the Inspector applied national Policy HC6(1)(c): sufficient alternative drinking establishments existed locally, so the loss would not diminish access to key community facilities. That separate conclusion helped both proposals succeed.

Later marketing evidence was left out

The Greenwich bar appeal also carries a procedural warning. The Inspector declined to consider an updated operational letter, an Ascent Real Estate marketing report, a Christie & Co marketing letter and an independent rental valuation by May & Company Real Estate Advisors Limited.

These documents dated from May and June 2026. The Inspector determined the appeals using the evidence that had been before the council, because considering the later material could prejudice interested parties.

The Greenwich bar appeal decision explains that an appeal should not be used to evolve the scheme, warning that the later material could “procedurally prejudice interested parties”. Revised applications were the appropriate route for advancing proposals in those circumstances.

That does not mean all additional appeal evidence is inadmissible. It means applicants cannot assume that a later operational or viability case will be accepted without examining fairness and whether it advances the proposal. We would address material evidence as early as possible in the planning appeal strategy.

Conditions control hours, servicing and extraction

The Inspector reviewed the council’s suggested conditions against Policy DM6 of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, amending their wording for clarity and compliance with the condition tests.

Both permissions granted in the Greenwich bar appeal require the use to begin within three years and comply with the approved plans. The convenience store may operate from 7am to 11pm every day, including Sundays and bank holidays. The café’s hours are 6.30am to 8pm on the same basis.

Before either use starts, Greenwich must approve an updated Delivery and Servicing Plan. Transport for London’s concerns about waste-collection hours justified that requirement for residential amenity and highway safety.

Refuse and recycling storage already appeared on the drawings. Rather than demand another set of details, the conditions require those facilities to be provided before commencement and retained and maintained afterwards.

For the café, details of any new or materially altered extraction or ventilation equipment must be approved before installation. That protects neighbours and the historic surroundings, while avoiding an unconditional requirement for replacement equipment where none is proposed.

No additional cycle-parking condition was imposed in either Greenwich bar appeal. Its necessity had not been “adequately demonstrated”, the Inspector said, taking account of the former use and nearby public transport, including Greenwich Station. This is a site-specific application of the conditions tests, not an exemption from cycle-parking requirements for station-side developments.

Historic surroundings were considered separately

The site is within the West Greenwich Conservation Area and the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site buffer zone. Greenwich Station and Queen Elizabeth’s Almshouses are nearby Grade II listed buildings, and the former Prince of Orange is locally listed.

Given the limited external alterations, the Inspector found the proposals would preserve the listed buildings’ settings and the conservation area’s character and appearance. No harm was identified to the World Heritage Site’s significance or Outstanding Universal Value, or to the locally listed building.

For owners and applicants, the Greenwich bar appeal shows why we start with evidence of the actual use rather than the sign above the door. For councils and communities, it also shows that community-facility, night-time economy and heritage considerations remain important even where a pub-specific policy is not determinative.