- Decision
- dismissed, 28 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Ann Veevers
- Authority
- Lambeth (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6006162
- Application reference
- 25/02449/LB
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Listed building consent for five-storey front extension to post-war semi, "reinstating" the lost Victorian half of a pair with Grade II listed No 24
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE4(2), HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4)
- Development plan policies
- Lambeth Local Plan 2021 Q20, Q22
- Main issues
- listed building setting; conservation area
Summary
A post-war semi in Stockwell Park Conservation Area was to be extended into a five-storey Victorian-style villa to "reinstate" the bombed half of the pair with Grade II listed No 24. The Inspector found the hybrid of pastiche front and retained 1950s rear discordant. It harmed No 24's setting and the conservation area "towards the lower end of harm". The public benefits included airspace use, a heat pump and party-wall insulation for the listed building, but they carried only moderate weight and did not outweigh the harm. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Baseline: HE9(2). The Inspector cited HE9.2, "not all elements of a conservation area will necessarily contribute". The post-war pair was found neutral, not negative, because it illustrates "how parts of London were affected by bombing during World War II and the post-war reconstruction effort" (DL ¶¶18–19).
- Harm. "the retention of the existing property would jar with the elegant and generally uncluttered rear elevation of No 24 … the cumulative effect of the proposal would be discordant and unsympathetic" (DL ¶24). "The aim to replicate the long gone former 19th century villa would not compensate the adverse impact" (DL ¶26).
- Grading without "less than substantial". "Mindful of advice in Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) which directs that the extent of harm within each category of harm should be clearly articulated … I deduce the harmful effects in this case would be towards the lower end of harm. Nevertheless, any harm is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶32).
- HE4(2) and HE6(1) quoted in full, including "irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss" (DL ¶31).
- Benefits: HE6(4). The Inspector acknowledged the Framework objectives "to re-use buildings, to create additional floorspace using airspace, to optimise flexible, energy efficient homes … making effective use of land … These factors would represent benefits to the public at large. However, the proposal would remain as a single dwelling … tempered by the absence of detailed information in relation to the energy efficiency measures … not convinced that the only way of securing the public benefits … would be via the appeal proposal … moderate weight" (DL ¶34). Better insulation to the listed party wall was a moderate heritage benefit. Structural and noise claims were unevidenced and neutral (DL ¶35).
- Clear and convincing. "clear and convincing justification has not been provided" (DL ¶36).
Planning balance
HE6(3)/(4). Considerable importance and weight to lower-end harm, not outweighed by moderate public benefits (DL ¶37).
What made the difference
The scheme tried to mimic a Victorian villa at the front while keeping the 1950s house behind. The result was incoherent, eroded the spaciousness around No 24, and left No 28 stranded and recessed.
Transferable points
- Harm is being graded on a free scale ("lower end of harm") with the PPG as the anchor, in place of "less than substantial" (DL ¶32).
- L2-type benefits (airspace, effective use of land) and HE6(4) energy-efficiency benefits are recognised, but get only moderate weight for a single dwelling without detailed evidence (DL ¶34).
- The benefits must be shown to need this particular scheme: "not convinced that the only way of securing the public benefits" (DL ¶34).
- A post-war infill can make a neutral, not negative, contribution to a conservation area as evidence of wartime history (DL ¶19).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE9(2) | neutral | post-war pair No 26/28 has a neutral effect (not negative) on CA; shows wartime bomb damage and reconstruction (DL 18-19) | |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | "towards the lower end of harm" to setting of No 24 and to Stockwell Park CA; pastiche front plus retained 1950s rear discordant; unbalances pair with No 28 (DL 22-30, 32) |
| HE4(2) | fail | no "clear and convincing justification"; not shown necessary to secure No 24's use or conservation (DL 31, 36) | |
| HE6(4) | fail | moderate | construction economy, better housing stock, reuse, airspace/effective use of land, heat pump and thermal performance = moderate (single dwelling, energy details thin, not the only way); party-wall insulation to No 24 moderate heritage benefit (DL 33-35) |
Key facts
- Floor area more than doubled; five storeys including lower ground and attic
- Linked planning application refused and not appealed
- Comparable Groveway schemes (Nos 34, 41) distinguished
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.