- Decision
- dismissed, 2 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young
- Authority
- Barnet (London)
- Appeal reference
- 6011852
- Application reference
- 26/1249/RCU
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Retention of a pergola at the front of a Grade II listed villa in private healthcare use, for a temporary period of three years (retrospective)
- Site context
- inside settlement, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), HE6(3)
- Development plan policies
- Barnet Local Plan 2025 CDH01, CDH08, London Plan 2021 HC1
- Main issues
- listed building significance and setting
Summary
Retention for three years of a modern pergola in front of a Grade II listed villa used as a private hospital in Mill Hill. The inspector found that it competes with the balanced principal elevation and harms the building's significance through its setting. The benefits were private to users of the facility. Dismissed, as was the sister appeal for the rear pergola (PINS-6011855).
Issues and findings
- Transition. "Whilst the format has altered, any considerations that are material to this decision have not fundamentally changed" (DL ¶5).
- Harm: HE6(3). "it disrupts the balanced composition and refined late Georgian proportions that underpin the building's special interest" (DL ¶10). "I therefore find that the proposal would result in harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset, to which I attach considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶11).
- Public benefits: HE6(4) FAIL. "such advantages are inherently private in nature and do not amount to public benefits in the heritage context" (DL ¶12).
- Conflict. "The development therefore conflicts with Framework Policy HE6" (DL ¶14).
Planning balance
HE6(4): harm against public benefits, run before the development plan conclusion. The letter attributes the weighing to "Policy HE5" (DL ¶11); the weighing is in HE6(4), and the conclusion at DL ¶14 cites HE6. The slip is incidental.
What made the difference
A conspicuous modern structure on the principal elevation of a listed villa, with no benefit to anyone but the facility's users.
Transferable points
- Size and prominence that "compete with, rather than defer to, the host building" harm significance even with no effect on fabric (DL ¶10–11).
- Private benefits to users of a private healthcare facility do not count as public benefits under HE6(4) (DL ¶12).
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 | overtly modern, visually intrusive pergola by the reception entrance competes with the symmetrical principal elevation and takes open space from the setting; "considerable importance and weight"; degree of harm not graded (DL 9-11) |
| HE6(4) | fail | letter says "In accordance with Policy HE5 of the Framework" for the public-benefits weighing; benefits to patients and visitors are private and carry little weight; conflict with HE6 (DL 11-14) |
Key facts
- Early 19th century suburban villa listed in 1983, in private healthcare use for about 20 years; largely unaltered symmetrical principal elevation (DL 7-8)
- Pergola stands in front of the right-hand wing by the reception; it does not touch the listed fabric (DL 9, 11)
- Three-year temporary period gave only limited weight because the harm would persist throughout (DL 13)
- Sister appeal 6011855 (rear pergola) dismissed by the same inspector on the same day in a separate letter (DL 4)
- Parties not consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 5)
Related decisions
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.