- Decision
- dismissed, 29 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: E Catcheside
- Authority
- Southwark (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6003226
- Application reference
- 25/AP/1749
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Retrospective listed building consent for internal alterations to an upper-floor flat in a Grade II Georgian terrace (widened openings with sliding doors, blocked doorway, removal of two chimney breasts)
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2)
- Development plan policies
- London Plan 2021 HC1, Southwark Plan 2022 P19, Southwark Historic Environment Heritage SPD 2021
- Main issues
- special interest of Grade II listed terrace
Summary
Retrospective listed building consent for opening up the rooms of an upper-floor flat in a Grade II late-18th-century terrace in Kennington, including removing the last two chimney breasts and most of the spine wall. The inspector found that the works had eroded the cellular plan form and caused a high degree of harm to the listed building's significance. The claimed structural and energy benefits were unevidenced, and the layout gains were private. 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 ¶6).
- Effect. The new and extended openings, and the loss of the historic doorways, "have significantly eroded the traditional cellular plan form of the building" (DL ¶17). Because the building was not shown to be unsound, "the works have not been carried out in a way that has sought to avoid or minimise harm" (DL ¶19).
- Degree of harm (HE5(2)(c)). "In my judgement and utilising the terminology of the 2026 version of the Framework, the works have resulted in harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset. Given the cumulative effect of the appeal scheme works, the degree of that harm would be high." (DL ¶22).
- HE6(1)/(3) and HE4(2). Substantial weight to conservation; the harm "is a matter of considerable importance and weight in my decision." (DL ¶24).
- Public benefits, HE6(4): FAIL. "Any works that were necessary to preserve the building would amount to heritage and public benefits." (DL ¶26), but none were shown to be necessary. On energy: "It is feasible that the works could have improved the energy efficiency of the building, which would amount to an important public benefit." (DL ¶27), yet "any energy efficiency improvements that have occurred do not provide clear and convincing justification for the harm that has been caused" (DL ¶27). The layout, light and circulation gains are "private rather than public benefits" (DL ¶28).
- Conservation area. "Because no external alterations have occurred as part of the appeal works, the character and appearance of the CA is preserved." (DL ¶23).
Planning balance
HE6(4): "the public benefits in this case are not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight that I ascribe to the heritage harm I have identified" (DL ¶29).
What made the difference
The absence of any record of the flat before the works, and of any structural or energy evidence. Energy efficiency was accepted in principle as "an important public benefit", but it could not be credited without figures showing the gains and how they were achieved, or without showing that a less harmful route was unavailable.
Transferable points
- The inspector expressly replaced the appellant's "less-than-substantial" label with the 2026 method: identify harm, then grade its degree (here, high) (DL ¶22).
- Energy efficiency is an important HE6(4) public benefit, but only if evidenced, and it does not justify harm if less harmful ways of achieving it exist (DL ¶27).
- Works necessary to preserve a building can be public and heritage benefits; the claim fails without evidence of prior disrepair or structural need (DL ¶26).
- Previous internal alterations do not lessen the importance of the surviving plan-form elements (DL ¶11-12, 18, 21).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6(1) | harm | substantial | substantial weight to conservation; harm to significance of Grade II terrace (loss of cellular plan form, spine wall and last chimney breasts); degree of harm graded high (DL 17-18, 22, 24) |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | harm a matter of considerable importance and weight (DL 24, 29) |
| HE4(2) | fail | no clear and convincing justification; structural necessity and energy gains unevidenced; less harmful alternatives possible (DL 19, 24, 26-27) | |
| HE6(4) | fail | claimed investment/stability benefit unevidenced; energy efficiency would be an important public benefit but not demonstrated; layout gains private (DL 26-29) | |
| HE9 | pass | no external alterations so Kennington Park Road CA preserved (DL 23) |
Key facts
- Works already carried out; no photographs, method statements or condition records of the flat before the works (DL 3, 20, 26)
- Removed spine wall and chimney breasts replaced by prominent beams; no evidence building was structurally unsound beforehand (DL 19)
- Appellant argued harm was less-than-substantial and minor; inspector reframed in 2026 terminology and graded the harm high (DL 22)
- External door and Juliet balcony shown on plans are subject of separate appeals and not considered (DL 4)
Sources
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.