The Islington pub appeal over the former John Salt premises in Upper Street has succeeded, permitting a restricted range of Class E commercial uses at the basement, ground and first-floor levels. Inspector M Cryan allowed appeal 6006605 on 22nd October 2026, overturning Islington Council’s refusal.
The decision concerns 131 to 132 Upper Street, vacant since November 2022. It permits specified town centre uses subject to detailed conditions, including restrictions on operating hours. The Inspector did not grant unrestricted permission for everything within Class E, and a separate application for the appellant’s appeal costs was refused.
The Islington pub appeal matters because the Inspector accepted that the former premises should be assessed against pub-protection policies, yet found sufficient evidence to justify their change of use. That distinction is crucial: disputing whether a former bar counts as a public house did not defeat the policy, but the site’s trading history and marketing helped justify an exception. I would read this as a fact-specific exception, not a relaxation of pub-protection policy.
Why the Islington pub appeal involved pub-protection policy
The appellant, Sager House (Islington) Ltd, argued that the former John Salt was a bar or restaurant rather than a traditional public house and questioned whether a lawful pub use existed to be protected. Previous use-class certificate litigation had not determined that precise question definitively.
An earlier 2025 lawful development certificate appeal had, however, found that use of the premises was more like a bar or pub than an ordinary restaurant. The latest Inspector treated the proposal as a loss of pub-type floorspace for the purpose of applying the adopted planning policies.
Islington’s local policy R11 and London Plan policy HC7 seek to protect public houses with economic, social, cultural or heritage value. The Inspector was satisfied that a bar can fall within the ordinary meaning and relevant local definition of a public house, even without traditional architecture or a long history of serving one local community.
The Islington pub appeal therefore did not create a rule that modern bars are exempt from pub protection. Whether those policies apply depends on the nature of the former activity, their wording and the particular evidence. The site lies in Angel town centre and the cultural quarter, where the night-time economy matters.
Nearly four years vacant and no pub operator offers
The John Salt closed in November 2022. The property was marketed for a range of retail, leisure and pub uses from November 2023, including exposure on property portals, approaches to hospitality operators and contact with specialist agents.
Three offers reportedly came from a restaurant operator, a clothing retailer and a chocolatier, all above the advertised asking terms. No pub or bar operator came forward. The council questioned gaps in the documentary marketing evidence and whether enough separate valuation evidence had been provided.
The Inspector accepted that the submissions did not tick every example listed in supporting guidance, but the policy did not prescribe an exhaustive paperwork checklist. Offers above the asking price suggested that the marketing terms were not obviously unreasonable.
The current owner acquired the building after it closed, and the former operator had already tried to improve viability. It was unclear what more the new owner could realistically do to re-establish a pub operation when the premises had been empty for an extended period.
The building had been stripped back internally and was not fit for immediate occupation as a pub without a refit. This produced limited conflict with a particular local policy criterion, but the wider marketing and viability evidence indicated no realistic prospect of renewed public house use in the foreseeable future.
Why Class E permission was allowed despite policy conflict
The Inspector found no significant evidence that the former John Salt had an exceptional community or heritage role. Although the previous drinking establishment contributed to the local economy and cultural life, its loss would not materially undermine the area’s wider night-time economy on the evidence submitted.
Upper Street contains other pubs and bars along with retail, restaurants and leisure activities. Returning a prominent vacant frontage to productive occupation would attract footfall, support employment and enhance town centre vitality, which national planning policy gives substantial weight.
That positive economic case outweighed the limited conflict with Islington’s pub-protection policy. The Inspector did not treat every pub closure as acceptable, and contrasted the site with a separate Essex Road appeal where vacancy and marketing evidence were materially weaker.
For the Islington pub appeal, the planning balance was therefore site-specific. A general desire to replace an operating pub with shops would not necessarily reach the same outcome. A robust history of genuine vacancy and marketing, the realistic prospect of a new occupier and the cultural context were important.
The proposed development required no exterior alterations. The Inspector concluded that the Upper Street North Conservation Area and the setting of neighbouring Grade II listed 133 Upper Street would be preserved.
Class E permission is limited and hours are controlled
The permission does not allow every Class E activity. A condition confines the premises to Class E(a) shops, E(b) food and drink consumption on the premises, E(c) certain services, E(d) indoor sport and recreation, and E(g)(i) office uses. Other Class E uses are excluded.
That narrower list reflected the Inspector’s reliance on the likely economic and social benefits of genuine town centre uses. He considered the council’s proposed restriction to shops and cafés unnecessarily narrow, but accepted that a complete absence of conditions would not safeguard the justification for the permission.
Operating hours are limited to 8am to midnight Sunday to Wednesday, 8am to 1am the following day on Thursdays and 8am to 3am the following day on Fridays and Saturdays. The Inspector viewed these as proportionate given the property’s previous late-night operation and proximity to residents.
In the Islington pub appeal, the council proposed additional sound-insulation and noise-verification conditions, but the Inspector did not find them necessary on the evidence. The Islington pub appeal should not be represented as unregulated commercial use: the actual schedule of conditions governs what may operate.
Appeal allowed but the costs application was refused
The appellant also applied for a full award of costs against Islington Council. The separate costs decision rejected that claim, finding no unreasonable behaviour causing unnecessary or wasted expense.
The Inspector considered that the council was entitled to assess the premises against pub-protection policy and to test the strength of the marketing evidence. Although he ultimately allowed the change of use, the competing assessments involved legitimate planning judgement.
The council had substantiated its concern about the loss of pub floorspace. Differences over conditions and a drafting mistake in proposed wording were not enough to justify costs. A successful planning appeal does not automatically mean that a council must pay the appellant’s expenses.
The Planning Inspectorate record identifies both appeal decisions. Our change of use guide explains how use classes and planning permission interact. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments