- Decision
- dismissed, 28 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: L J O'Brien
- Authority
- Greenwich (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6011050
- Application reference
- 25/0326/L
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Listed building consent for a first and second floor side extension over the single-storey link, internal reconfiguration, enlarged rear lightwell and other works to a house in a Grade II crescent (appeal B; planning appeal A is 6010332)
- 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
- Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 DH1, DH3, DH(h), DH(i), London Plan 2021 D3, HC1, Royal Greenwich Urban Design Guide SPD 2023
- Main issues
- special interest of Grade II crescent; West Greenwich Conservation Area
Summary
A two-storey side extension filling the gap above the single-storey entrance link between two houses in Gloucester Circus, a symmetrical c.1800 Grade II crescent in West Greenwich, plus extensive internal works. The inspector found moderate harm to the listed building and low harm to the conservation area. The repair and layout benefits were limited and largely achievable without the extension. Details of several works were too vague to assess. Both appeals dismissed, upholding the Committee's overturn of the officer recommendation.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties invited to comment: "However, no comments were received." (DL ¶6).
- Effect. The extension "would modify the appearance of the building in such a way that its architectural interest would be unacceptably eroded" (DL ¶19). Earlier infills elsewhere in the crescent did not help: "In my view, the previous alterations increase the sensitivity of the building to further change." (DL ¶24).
- Insufficient detail. For damp works, window repairs and services: "Without evidence to the contrary I must take a precautionary approach in the interests of preserving the listed building" (DL ¶35).
- Degree (HE5(2)(c)). "I find that the scheme would result in a moderate level of harm to the significance of the listed building and a low level of harm to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶41).
- Benefits. Repairs "could be made through alternative schemes which would not cause the degree of harm I have outlined above" (DL ¶44). "I find that the weight to be afforded to the benefits of the scheme is limited" (DL ¶45).
- HE4(2). "Clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets." (DL ¶47).
- Fallback. A June 2026 consent for the other works has a real prospect, but "were the approved scheme to be implemented I consider that it would cause markedly less harm to the heritage assets than the proposals" (DL ¶54), so its weight is minimal.
Planning balance
HE6(4): limited benefits against moderate (LB) and low (CA) harm, each of considerable importance and weight (DL ¶46-47).
What made the difference
The single-storey links between pairs of houses are a designed feature of the crescent's rhythm. Filling one side broke the pair's symmetry, and the benefits could largely be had from the already-consented scheme.
Transferable points
- Previous harmful alterations to a terrace can increase, not reduce, the importance of surviving features (DL ¶24).
- Where drawings and specifications are vague, the inspector cannot find no harm and conditions are not a safe substitute (DL ¶32-35).
- Benefits achievable through a less harmful consented scheme carry little weight, and a less harmful fallback carries minimal weight (DL ¶44, ¶54).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE5(2)(c) | harm | degree identified - moderate harm to the listed building, low harm to West Greenwich CA; negligible contribution to WHS OUV, no WHS harm (DL 15-16, 40-41) | |
| HE6(1) | harm | substantial | substantial weight to conservation (DL 34, 46) |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | infilling above the single-storey link erodes symmetry, rhythm and cill band; loss of landing windows and some historic fabric; details of other works too vague to assess (DL 18-35, 38-39, 46) |
| HE6(4) | fail | limited | economic, housing-stock and repair benefits limited; repairs achievable by less harmful schemes; not needed to keep residential use (DL 43-47) |
| HE4(2) | fail | no clear and convincing justification (DL 47) |
Key facts
- Planning Committee overturned the officer recommendation to approve (DL 4)
- June 2026 permission and LBC (26/1362/HD, 26/1363/L) for the works without the side extension - real prospect but far less harmful, so minimal fallback weight (DL 5, 54)
- Similar extension at No 29 (2025) distinguished; earlier losses of the gap elsewhere increase sensitivity (DL 22-24)
- Joint letter with planning appeal A 6010332 (not written up); both dismissed
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.