- Decision
- approved, 25 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: T Gilbert-Wooldridge (appointed person under s293I TCPA)
- Authority
- Kensington and Chelsea (London)
- Appeal reference
- CROWN/2026/0000003
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Works to take down Grenfell Tower to ground level (s293D Crown development application of national importance; s73A retrospective as works began under Part 19 Class Q PD)
- Site context
- inside settlement, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- DM3, DP3, HE4, HE5
- Development plan policies
- RBKC Local Plan 2024 CD1, CD3, CD4, CD5, CD15, GB6, GB7, GB8, GB11, GB12, GB14, GB16, PLV3, TR5, TR6, London Plan 2021 D4, HC1, G6, G7, T4, T7, D14, SI1, SI12, SI13
- Main issues
- character and appearance; heritage setting; trees and biodiversity; highways; air quality and noise; flooding
Summary
MHCLG applied directly to the Planning Inspectorate, under the Crown development "national importance" route (TCPA s293D), for the works to take down Grenfell Tower. The works had begun in September 2025 under emergency Crown permitted development rights, which lapse after 12 months. A person appointed by the Secretary of State granted permission on 25 August 2026, with a single plans condition, under the August 2026 NPPF. It is an early example of how the new Framework's codes (DP3, HE4/HE5, N2, N3, TR6, P3, F7) are cited in a decision by an appointed person.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "An updated version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 17 August 2026. The changes to relevant sections of the NPPF were not substantive for this particular case, so it has not been necessary to conduct additional consultation" (SoR ¶9). The decision lists the "most relevant chapters from the August 2026 version" (SoR ¶18).
- Character and appearance (DP3): harm outweighed. "there will be significant townscape and visual effects in the area immediately around the tower" (SoR ¶25), but "the tower is structurally unsound and its taking down is already well advanced under permitted development rights. Moreover, its removal would facilitate the delivery of a memorial on the site. Therefore, these factors outweigh the effects" (SoR ¶26).
- Heritage (HE4/HE5): no harm. Removing the tower from the setting of listed buildings and six conservation areas caused no harm to significance (SoR ¶36-37). "The development would also follow NPPF Policies HE4 and HE5" (SoR ¶39).
- Biodiversity (N2/N3). The statutory BNG condition applies to a Crown permission. The appointed person, not the council, is the "planning authority" for the gain plan under Sch 7A para 12(1)(d)(i) (SoR ¶42-45).
- Highways, pollution, flooding. All acceptable, citing TR6, P3 and F7 (SoR ¶48, ¶52, ¶53).
Planning balance
This was a plan-led s38(6) decision: "there would be accordance with the development plan, with no material considerations (including consideration of the NPPF) to indicate that planning permission should be refused" (SoR ¶56). The only harm, the townscape and visual effect, was balanced within the main issue and not in a separate tilted or heritage balance.
What made the difference
The building was structurally unsound, the works were well under way lawfully, and the PD rights were about to expire. Permission was close to inevitable, so the Framework mattered little.
Transferable points
- Appointed persons under the new Crown development route apply the 2026 Framework directly. Where changes are "not substantive" for the issues, they need not re-consult (SoR ¶9).
- Significant townscape harm from removing a landmark can be outweighed by safety, by the progress of lawful works and by the enabling of a future beneficial use (SoR ¶26).
- On a Crown development permission, the appointed person may be the "planning authority" for the biodiversity gain plan (SoR ¶44).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3 | harm | significant townscape and visual effects close to the tower, outweighed by structural unsoundness, advanced PD works and enabling a memorial (SoR 25-26) | |
| HE5 | neutral | no harm to setting of Grade II 1-2 Whitchurch Road, Church of St Clement, the Freston Road cluster or six conservation areas (SoR 36-39) | |
| N2 | accord | statutory 10% BNG condition applies; -13.90% on site; appointed person is the planning authority for the gain plan (SoR 42-46) | |
| N3 | accord | all extant trees retained with protection (SoR 40, 46) | |
| TR6 | accord | about 10 lorries and 17 vans a day under the Traffic Management and Logistics Plan (SoR 47-48) | |
| P3 | accord | dust, noise and vibration mitigated and monitored (SoR 49-52) | |
| F7 | accord | Flood Zone 1 but a critical drainage area; existing attenuation unaffected (SoR 53) |
Key facts
- First Crown development application found decided under the s293D "national importance" route after 17 Aug 2026; written representations; site visit 12 Aug 2026
- Works began Sept 2025 under Part 19 Class Q (Crown emergency) PD, which expires 23 Sept 2026, so permission was needed to finish
- Appointed person held the 17 Aug 2026 NPPF changes "not substantive for this particular case" and did not re-consult (SoR 9)
- Single condition (approved plans and documents), since the works had started
Sources
- find-crown-development.planninginspectorate.gov.uk
- find-crown-development.planninginspectorate.gov.uk
- gov.uk
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.