- Decision
- dismissed, 17 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: L J O'Brien
- Authority
- Westminster (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6005051
- Application reference
- 25/05033/LBC
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Retrospective timber serving hatch on mews flank wall of Grade II listed building (LBC 6005051 and planning APP/X5990/W/26/3377217)
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(3), HE6(4), TR6(4)
- Development plan policies
- Westminster City Plan 2019-2040 (rev. Jan 2026) Policies 28, 29, 42, 44, 45, 48
- Main issues
- listed building and conservation area; highway safety
Summary
A retrospective cake-shop serving hatch on the mews flank of a Grade II listed Bayswater terrace. It harmed the listed building and the conservation area, partly by bringing commercial activity into a quiet mews, and customers would wait in a carriageway with no footway. Both appeals were dismissed. The parties had been consulted on the 2026 Framework, but the heritage reasoning uses the 2024 vocabulary throughout.
Issues and findings
- Heritage. "the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets is at the lower end of less than substantial. Notwithstanding this, the identified harm is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶24). The balance: "The Framework indicates that great weight should be given to the conservation of such heritage assets. Consequently, the public benefits … do not outweigh the harm" (DL ¶27). "Great weight" is the 2024 ¶212 wording; HE6(1) says "substantial weight".
- Activity as heritage harm. "The encroachment of commercial activity into the mews compromises the more peaceful, residential character … In raising the status of Brooks Mews North, the scheme would have a detrimental effect on the hierarchy of the streets" (DL ¶18).
- Reversibility was "a neutral consideration" (DL ¶19).
- Highway safety: FAIL. "even a single pedestrian waiting to collect an order would be likely to stand within the road itself" (DL ¶35).
Planning balance
HE6(4) heritage balance plus s16, s66 and s72. The benefits (a small business and footfall) did not outweigh the harm.
What made the difference
The bulk and colour of the hatch compared with the flush panel it replaced, and the commercial activity it brings into a mews valued in the conservation area audit for its quiet.
Transferable points
- Even after consulting on the 2026 Framework, some Inspectors keep "less than substantial" and "great weight" language (DL ¶¶24, 27).
- Commercial activity, not just built form, can harm a conservation area where the hierarchy of streets and spaces is part of its significance (DL ¶18).
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(3) | harm | considerable | "at the lower end of less than substantial"; hatch bulky, contrasting colour, brings commercial activity into quiet mews and erodes street hierarchy (DL 16-24) |
| HE6(4) | fail | small-business economic benefit and footfall do not outweigh; letter says "great weight" to conservation (2024 wording) (DL 26-27) | |
| TR6(4) | fail | Framework not cited on highways; customers would wait in narrow mews carriageway with no footway (DL 30-38) |
Key facts
- Replaced a smaller flush panel; hatch doors open outward onto the mews
- Pre-order and slot system did not overcome risk; no enforceable control
- Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 8)
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.