Chase Lodge Hospital, Page Street, Mill Hill (rear pergola, Grade II listed)

Decision

dismissed, 2 October 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young

Authority

Barnet (London)

Appeal reference

6011855

Application reference

26/1250/RCU

Procedure

written representations

Development

Retention of a pergola at the rear 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 behind a Grade II listed villa used as a private hospital in Mill Hill. The inspector found harm to the building's significance through its setting, gave that harm considerable importance and weight, and held that comfort for patients and visitors is a private benefit, not a public one. Dismissed.

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). "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 ¶10). The degree of harm is not graded.
• Public benefits: HE6(4) FAIL. "such advantages are inherently private in nature and do not amount to public benefits in the heritage context" (DL ¶11).
• Temporary permission. "the temporary nature of the development attracts only limited weight and does not affect my overall conclusion on the proposal" (DL ¶12).
• Conflict. "The development therefore conflicts with Framework Policy HE6" (DL ¶13).

Planning balance

HE6(4): harm against public benefits, run on its own terms before the development plan conclusion. The letter attributes the weighing to "Policy HE5" (DL ¶10); the weighing is in HE6(4), and the conclusion at DL ¶13 cites HE6. The slip is incidental.

What made the difference

The benefits were all to users of a private facility, and part of the structure only sheltered plant and lockers. A three-year limit did not help because the harm would last the whole period.

Transferable points

• Comfort and convenience for users of a private healthcare facility are private benefits and do not count in the HE6(4) balance (DL ¶11).
• A temporary permission does not reduce heritage harm while the structure stands; it attracted only limited weight (DL ¶12).
• A structure that does not touch listed fabric can still harm significance through the loss of open space in the setting (DL ¶10).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Early 19th century suburban villa listed in 1983, in private healthcare use for about 20 years (DL 7)
• Pergola does not touch the listed fabric; harm is through the setting and the legibility of the rear elevation (DL 9-10)
• Three-year temporary period gave only limited weight because the harm would persist throughout (DL 12)
• Rear pergola partly covers plant, air-conditioning units and lockers (DL 11)
• Sister appeal 6011852 (front pergola) dismissed by the same inspector on the same day in a separate letter (DL 4)
• Parties not consulted on the August 2026 Framework - "any considerations that are material to this decision have not fundamentally changed" (DL 5)

Related decisions

• PINS-6011852

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.