# 87-89 Golders Green Road (The Promenade), Golders Green - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Samuel Watson - **Authority:** Barnet (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6004393 - **Application reference:** 25/4770/LBC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective and proposed kitchen extract ducting, fridge and air-conditioning condensers on rear flat roof of Grade II listed parade (planning 6004392 and LBC 6004393) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 CDH01, CDH08, London Plan 2021 HC1 - **Main issues:** listed building, conservation area - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, retrospective, listed-building, alternative-scheme-not-explored, plant-equipment, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient ## Summary Linked planning and listed building consent appeals for kitchen extract ducting and condensers, partly already installed, on the rear roof of a Grade II listed Golders Green parade. The Inspector found "a modest degree of harm" and gave it considerable importance and weight under HE6(3). The public benefits of a charity café got only moderate weight because a less harmful alternative had not been ruled out. Both appeals dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage harm: HE6(3).** The plant was an "incongruously modern feature" visible from the service road and the public route through the building (DL ¶12). The rear is not mentioned in the list entry, but "the lack of reference does not mean that the rear is afforded any less protection" (DL ¶14). "I find that a modest degree of harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets would occur. Although modest, the Framework is clear that considerable importance and weight should be given to any harm to a designated asset. Paragraph HE6(4) of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits" (DL ¶15). - **Public benefits: HE6(4).** The charity café provides social and economic benefits. The Inspector accepted it could not operate as now without the plant, but "it has not been demonstrated that the business would be entirely unable to operate … without the works" and "there is a potential for an alternative scheme that retains the identified public benefits while also not harming the historic environment" (DL ¶¶17–18). The benefits were given moderate weight and did not outweigh the harm (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance HE6(4) harm against public benefits, with the harm at "considerable importance and weight". The statutory s16(2), s66(1) and s72(1) duties were applied. ## What made the difference The unexplored alternative. Securing the long-term use of the listed building is named in HE6(4) as an important public benefit, but it was discounted because the appellant had not shown that the harm was necessary to achieve it. ## Transferable points - Under the 2026 Framework, harm can be graded on a free scale ("modest") rather than "less than substantial", and HE6(3) still gives it considerable importance and weight (DL ¶15). - HE6(4) public benefits, including a listed building's continued use, are discounted when a less harmful alternative that keeps the benefits has not been explored (DL ¶¶17–19). - Rear and service elevations contribute to significance even when the list entry does not mention them (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "a modest degree of harm" to listed building and Golders Green CA; rear service elevation still contributes to significance even though list entry is silent on it (DL 12-15) - **HE6(4): fail (moderate weight).** public benefits (charity mental-health café, long-term use of listed building) given moderate weight; an alternative less harmful scheme not shown to be unavailable (DL 16-19) ## Key facts - Plant visible from Accommodation Road and the public route through the archway and along the elevated path - Café run by a mental-health charity; plant needed to keep food cold and café cool - Nearby units not obviously served by similar plant; alternatives not explored ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/392b9aea-1fb3-44fd-8294-16ef9bdeab3f - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004393 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004393.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.