Appeal 6005419

Appeal A: The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused for alterations to roof and loft area to create habitable floor level including additional bedroom and ancillary space.

Appeal B: The appeal is dismissed and listed building consent is refused for alterations to roof and loft area to create habitable floor level including additional bedroom and ancillary space.

The appeals were made on the basis of non-determination of the applications within the prescribed period. The applications were validated on 8 October 2025 with target decision dates of 3 December 2025. The appeals were submitted on 6 February 2026. These were subsequently validated by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) on 26 February 2026 (6004978) and 3 March 2026 (6005419). The Council issued decision notices on 20 February 2026, refusing both applications.

The appeals had not been validated and formally ‘accepted’ by PINS on the date of the decision notices being issued. Therefore, the Council as Local Planning Authority still had jurisdiction over both applications. However, the date of both decisions was still outwith the target dates, and no extensions agreed upon in Appeal Decisions 6004978 and 6005419 writing have been submitted. The appellants were therefore entitled to submit appeals on the basis of non-determination when they did. Consequently, I have determined the appeals on this basis, having regard to the Council’s decision notices and delegated reports in forming the main issue.

Following submission of the applications and prior to submission of the appeals, the Council adopted the City Plan Partial Review / City Plan 2019-2040 on 21 January 2026 (the City Plan 2026). The decision notices and delegated reports submitted by the Council as its ‘statement of case’ for the appeals, cite relevant policies from the City Plan 2026 which it is declared the scheme would conflict with. The appellants have had the opportunity to comment on these policies as part of the appeals process1. Consequently, I am satisfied that no prejudice would arise from me taking these policies into account in my determination of the appeals, and have proceeded on this basis.

The submitted plans illustrate ‘pre-existing’ and ‘proposed’ floor plans of the appeal property (fourth floor flat); and ‘pre-existing’ and ‘proposed’ elevations and sections of No [site address] (No 70), including the fourth floor flat. In examining the plans and supporting information, and viewing the fourth floor flat and No 70 on site, there are several inconsistencies in the information presented.

The main discrepancy concerns differences between the proposed floorplans and elevations, when compared to the proposed section B-B1. The proposed loft plan and rear elevation show two dormer projections with windows opening on to a narrow terrace behind the parapet; and the front roof pitch setback from the parapet. These are not illustrated on proposed section B-B1. The supporting information to the applications and the statement of case for both appeals do not provide clarity on this matter, with them not explicitly referencing dormers as part of the proposal, but citing the presence of a setback in relation to the proposed front and rear roof pitches.

In addition, when comparing the submitted plans with the fourth floor flat and No 70 on site, I am not convinced that the existing position, size and/or glazing pattern of some of the windows have been accurately represented. Indeed, those on the proposed front elevation appear as being altered. Also, at a very basic level, the proposed elevations are incorrectly labelled; no external roof plans (pre-existing and proposed) have been provided; and the rooflights shown on the proposed loft plan are not represented on the proposed front elevation.

Taken together, these inconsistencies and inaccuracies give rise to serious doubt as to the detail of the scheme being proposed, and the precision of the plans as a whole. To avoid doubt about what is proposed and allow a robust assessment of any consequent effects, it is imperative that drawings and details are accurate and unambiguous. These deficiencies are highly undesirable in general terms, but even more so given the terrace’s [name] listed status and location within a conservation area.

However, I note that the Council in its delegated reports assessed the scheme on the basis of the inclusion of the dormers and setbacks, which the appellants have not raised any issues with as part of the appeals process. Having regard to the 1 As part of the opportunity to submit final comments. Appeal Decisions 6004978 and 6005419 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals2, I have assessed the proposal and its effects on the same basis as the Council, using the submitted floor plans and elevations3.

The appeals relate to a listed building located within a conservation area. I have had regard to the relevant statutory duties set out in sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

The two appeals concern the same scheme under different, complementary legislation. I have dealt with both appeals together in my reasoning.

The main issue is: whether the proposed development and works would i) preserve the [name] listed building, known as [address] SW1, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and ii) preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Pimlico Conservation Area.

The fourth floor flat is the top floor flat within No [site address] , a large, mid-terraced townhouse, which forms part of the [name] listed building, [address] SW14 (Nos 53-74).

The terrace of Nos 53-74 is stated to date from the mid-19th century, being laid out as part of the Pimlico development initiated in 1835 by [name] for the [name]. Constructed of brick with a stucco front, it forms an integral component of the planned layout of [address].

Although having undergone external and internal change, the terrace presents a formal, highly ordered and aesthetically pleasing frontage to the Square, with the rear elevation being more utilitarian in form and appearance. The listed building description confirms that the roofs of the properties within the terrace are not visible. Even so, the evidence indicates that the majority have maintained their historic configuration in the form of a double pitch ‘butterfly’ or ‘M’ shape.

From the evidence before me, the special interest and significance of the listed building mainly stem from its historic and architectural interests as a fine example of mid-19th century domestic architecture of Classical design. These interests support the asset’s group value and the contribution Nos 53-74 makes to the high-quality, balanced composition of [address].

In so far as it relates to the appeals, important contributors in the above respects are the configuration and materials of the terrace’s surviving historic roofscape; extant historic fabric; the architectural hierarchy of the floors and rooms/spaces within them; and the legibility of the building’s historic internal planform. 2 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026. Updated 18 May 2026. Section 16: It is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the LPA and by interested parties at the application stage. 3 Plan Nos: 427-01-A030(1)-6 and 427-01-A023 (1)-7. 4 National Heritage List for England, [name]: 1211499. Appeal Decisions 6004978 and 6005419

The fourth floor flat, as part of the listed terrace, is also located within the Pimlico Conservation Area (the PCA). The PCA’s distinctive character and appearance are mainly a result of the urban plan designed by Cubitt for the [name] in the mid-19th century, comprising wide streets, grand squares and terraces, and formal green spaces. The consciously designed spatial hierarchy of the streets, buildings and intervening spaces remain legible today and the area imparts a strong sense of place.

The historic integrity and architectural quality of Nos 53-74, including No 70 and the fourth floor flat as part of the listed building, contribute positively to the character and appearance of the PCA as a whole and thereby to its significance as a designated heritage asset.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out, when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to state that, significance can be harmed or lost through the asset’s alteration or destruction or from development within its setting, and that this should have clear and convincing justification.

The proposed development and works involve the removal of the existing roof structure; its replacement with a roof structure of a different design and the creation of a habitable floor at loft level; and alterations to the layout of the fourth floor.

The loss of the existing roof structure would remove an unauthorised alteration5 which the appellants concede and with which I concur, is ‘discordant’ and ‘visually harmful’. Additionally, the replacement roof structure would be set back from the front and rear parapets; be contained between the chimney stacks; and be constructed of traditional materials.

However, the replacement would be larger than the existing roof structure6, and would maintain a central flat roof arrangement. This would be at odds with the distinctive historic configuration of the listed building’s roofscape, weakening its architectural integrity and coherence.

Although the existing roof structure clearly includes modern fabric, some sections of timber appear to be of some age. With no substantive evidence to the contrary, the creation of a habitable space within the loft would lead to the irreversible loss of historic fabric beyond that already removed as part of the unauthorised changes, and the further erosion of this key element of the asset’s heritage merit.

The appellants submit that the ‘historic roof pitch to the front elevation would be ‘reinstated’. However, the evidence does not satisfactorily demonstrate if this would be the case. The rear pitch of the roof would incorporate two dormer projections with windows opening on to a narrow terrace behind the parapet. By virtue of their substantial size and discordant position, they would dominate the rear roof pitch and appear wholly out of keeping with the roof’s historic configuration. Whilst there may be other roof extensions and/or dormer projections to other properties along Nos 53-74, none have been presented as being of a comparable form and design to that before me, and do not justify the proposal. 5 Which the Council states is part of an active enforcement investigation Ref: 23/78419/P. 6 Raised approximately 450mm. Appeal Decisions 6004978 and 6005419

Internally, the proposal would result in a reordering of the fourth floor’s layout, creating a more open-plan arrangement to provide ‘improved legibility and function’. From my observations on site, some partitions and features appear to be modern, and therefore of negligible historic and architectural value. Even so, it is reasonable to conclude that, historically, this floor within No 70 would have been secondary in form and function to the lower floors, with a compartmentalised planform. Whilst the proposed arrangement would, as advanced by the appellants, maintain a ‘front to rear hierarchy’, I am not convinced that it would maintain a characteristic vertical hierarchy or upper floor planform generally found in a building of this age and style.

The proposed changes and identified harmful effects would not be perceptible in views from adjacent public routes and spaces at the front of the terrace. However, they would be discernible in views towards its rear elevation from both public and private streets and buildings. Even if this was not the case, it would not be a factor in the proposal’s favour, as listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent historic and architectural interests, irrespective of whether or not public views of the building, or parts of it, can be gained.

Aspects of the scheme may be ‘reversible’. However, once implemented, it is more than likely that the alterations would not be undone. Even if I were to accept that the alterations would be reversed in the future, the identified harms would endure while they were in place. Importantly, the further loss of historic fabric as part of the proposal would be permanent and irreversible.

With regard to the PCA, given the key contribution that Nos 53-74, including No 70 and the fourth floor flat as part of it, make to the positive characteristics of the PCA, and mindful of the visibility of the changes to the rear roof pitch from public and private viewpoints, it is reasonable to conclude that the listed building’s incremental and harmful alteration due to the proposal, would also weaken the character and appearance of the PCA as a whole, albeit modestly.

Drawing the above together, the proposed development and works would lead to the loss and/or erosion of key features and/or positive characteristics which contribute to the special interest of the listed building and the PCA. They would not preserve the [name] listed building, known as [address] SW1, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the PCA. As such, the significance of these designated heritage assets would be harmed.

In finding harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, the magnitude of that harm is required to be identified. Given the nature and extent of the proposed development and works, I find that the harm to the listed building would be a low level of less than substantial, and the harm to the PCA as a whole would be a very low level of less than substantial. Nonetheless, these harms carry considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits7 of the proposal, which includes, where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use. 7 Planning Practice Guidance: Paragraph: 020 [name]: 18a-[phone]. Appeal Decisions 6004978 and 6005419

Short-term economic benefits would be generated by the construction phase. Social benefits would be gained in respect of the area’s housing stock. Environmental benefits would also be realised through the improved thermal performance and energy efficiency of the property. Given the scale of the proposal, the extent of these benefits that would ‘flow’ to the ‘public at large’ would be very modest but, nevertheless, carry weight in the appeals’ favour.

The appellants advance that heritage/public benefits would also accrue from the removal of the existing ‘unlawful’ and ‘harmful’ roof structure and its replacement as proposed; as well as through the provision of more flexible living arrangements.

However, Paragraph 209 of the Framework is clear that where there is evidence of deliberate damage to a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision. Additionally, I have found that the proposed replacement roof structure would not conserve the listed building and the PCA in a manner appropriate to their significance. Moreover, any improvements in terms of internal space and circulation would primarily be of private benefit to the appellants and any future occupier(s) of the property. Therefore, these outcomes of the proposal cannot be considered heritage/public benefits in the balance.

There is no compelling evidence advanced which demonstrates that the only way of realising some or all of the identified public benefits would be via the scheme as proposed. Indeed, I note that listed building consent was granted for ‘Removal of flat infill roof and reinstatement of inner roof pitches including new roof coverings’ in

Furthermore, whilst the proposal may support the residential use of this part of the listed building, there is nothing before me which verifies that the development and works are necessary to secure its ongoing residential use, or that its occupation as a dwelling would be at risk if the appeals were to fail and the proposal, as submitted, was not implemented.

In all of the above respects, clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets. Overall, the weight I ascribe to the public benefits which would accrue from the proposal, is not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I attach to the harm I have found.

The proposed development and works would not preserve the [name] listed building, known as [address] SW1, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the PCA. There would be harm to the significance of these designated heritage assets, which would not be outweighed by the public benefits generated by the scheme.

The scheme would conflict with the requirements set out in sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act, and the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. It would not comply with Policies 42, 44 and 45 of the City Plan 2026, in so far as they require development and works to incorporate exemplary standards of high quality sustainable and inclusive urban design and architecture; preserve the special interest of listed buildings and preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Westminster’s conservation areas; and be sensitively designed and respect the character of the existing and 8 Application Ref: 25/06631/LBC. Removal of flat infill roof and reinstatement of inner roof pitches including new roof coverings granted conditional listed building consent on the 12 November 2025. Appeal Decisions 6004978 and 6005419 adjoining buildings. It would also conflict with Policy PIM 3 of the Pimlico Neighbourhood Plan which seeks that upward extensions preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and its townscape.

My attention has been drawn to other alterations/extensions to the roofscape of the listed building and [address] which, the appellants submit, vary considerably in design, massing, and quality of execution9. Whilst reference is made to them being ‘permitted’10, this is not corroborated in the evidence. Even if they benefit from planning permission and/or listed building consent, I do not know the policy context against which they were considered or the facts and circumstances that led to their approval. Therefore, I cannot make any meaningful comparisons between them and the scheme before me. They carry very little weight and do not alter my conclusions on the main issue.

Appeal A: The proposed development would conflict with the development plan. There are no material considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, Appeal A should be dismissed and planning permission refused.

Appeal B: For the reasons given above, Appeal B should be dismissed and listed building consent refused.