Construction of a first and second floor side extension and associated demolition works, external repair works, replacement of existing rear lower ground floor door, landscaping works to increase lower ground floor rear patio, construction of new access stairs and installation of metal balustrades, and other associated works

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 August 2026 by L J O'Brien BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010332 25 Gloucester Circus, Greenwich, SE10 8RY • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Edward and Andrine Edward Ruthven and Andrine Alver against the decision of Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref is 25/0325/HD. • The development proposed is construction of a first and second floor side extension and associated demolition works, external repair works, replacement of existing rear lower ground floor door, landscaping works to increase lower ground floor rear patio, construction of new access stairs and installation of metal balustrades, and other associated works. Appeal B Ref: 6011050 25 Gloucester Circus, Greenwich, SE10 8RY • The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant listed building consent. • The appeal is made by Edward and Andrine Edward Ruthven and Andrine Alver against the decision of Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application Ref is 25/0326/L. • The works proposed are construction of a first and second floor side extension and associated demolition works, external repair works, replacement of existing rear lower ground floor door, landscaping works to increase lower ground floor rear patio, construction of new access st airs and installation of metal balustrades, and other associated works. Appeal A Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal B Decision 2. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 3. Both appeals relate to 25 Gloucester Circus which forms part of a Grade II listed building, 21-42, Gloucester Circus, SE101, situated within the West Greenwich Conservation Area (CA). The descriptions of development/works are the same for both proposals and the issues within the appeals are similar. As such I have dealt with them within the same Decision Letter. I have, however, set out two separate formal Decisions in the interests of clarity. 1 National Heritage List for England Number: 1078981 Appeal Decision 6010332 and 6011050 2 4. The proposals subject to these appeals were recommended for approval by the Council’s officers. I have had due regard to the Officer’s Report in my consideration of these appeals. However, following consideration by the Planning Committee, Members resolved not to accept the officer recommendations and refused planning permission. Though the Council’s reasons for refusal are fairly narrow in their focus on one element of the proposals, due to the status of the property and its location, I am required by sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. In order to discharge my duty as the decision maker I have considered the proposals in their entirety. 5. I note that planning permission and listed building consent were granted by the Council in June 2026 for the following development/works “alteration to rear lower ground floor openings for installation of door, landscaping works to increase lower ground floor rear patio, construction of new access stairs and installation of metal balustrades, demolition of ancillary store, external repair works, and other associated works.”2 Though the information before me in this respect is limited, the grant of planning permission and listed building consent at the appeal property is a relevant part of the planning history and a material consideration in the determination of the appeals. I have addressed this matter under ‘Other Matters’ below. 6. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated in August 2026, during the consideration of these appeals. The parties have been given the opportunity to consider whether the Framework 2026 has relevance to these appeals and to provide comments on this matter. However, no comments were received. I consider that none of the parties to the appeal have been prejudiced as a result of the above and I have considered the new Framework in my determination of the appeals. Main Issue 7. The main issue in these appeals is whether the proposals would preserve the listed building or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses and, linked to that, whether the proposals would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. Reasons Special interest and significance 8. The appeal property, 25 Gloucester Circus, is a three-storey, plus basement, mid- terraced property. The property forms part of 21-42 Gloucester Circus SE10, a Grade II listed3, circa 1800, symmetrical crescent. To the front of the property, across the road, is a formally laid out garden enclosed by iron railings. The property also benefits from a private rear garden area. 9. The official list entry states that the crescent, particularly the central block, was partially rebuilt in facsimile following war damage. The listed building, considered in 2 References 26/1362/HD and 26/1363/L. 3 National Heritage List for England Number: 1078981 Appeal Decision 6010332 and 6011050 3 its entirety, is an attractive terrace which benefits from a great degree of uniformity and symmetry, both in terms of its materials and its design. The front elevation of the building is visually broken up by recessed sections which largely appear to house the front doors belonging to the individual properties. 10. As is commonplace across the terrace, the property at No. 25 is set back from the road behind a front light-well enclosed by black iron railings. The property is connected to the neighbouring property at No 26 by a recessed section containing the symmetrical front doors of those properties. Though the plans before me indicate that this section spans across the lower ground floor and ground floor, due to the topography of the site, it presents visually as single storey and the parties have referred to it as such, I shall refer to it in the same terms in the interests of clarity throughout. The front doors have fan lights above and are accessed via shallow steps with railings from the pavement. The linked single storey sections, which have a clear gap above, are a distinctive architectural feature of the listed terrace and provide articulation and interest to the terrace considered as a whole. 11. The rear of the listed building retains the consistency and symmetry which characterises the front elevation. Though the design, in terms of the level of detail, is more simple than the front, a number of the properties within the building, including those at Nos 25 and 26, have a rounded rear elevation which projects beyond the flat rear walls of the neighbouring properties. These properties serve to bookend sections of the terrace, adding visual relief and interest and giving the rear of the terrace a strong, distinctive composition. 12. It is important to note that though the listing description itself does not make specific detailed reference to the internal attributes of the listed building as a whole or to the appeal property which forms part of it, this is not a reflection on the significance of those elements of the building. The listing description is broad and is for identification purposes, particularly those descriptions dating from the period within which this property was listed, and is not a statement of significance. Whilst I note too that the listing description was not updated at a later date, as was the case with some other descriptions of this period, this should also not be considered as a statement regarding the merit of those aspects of the building which are not referenced. 13. Having regard to the above, I find that the significance of the building as a heritage asset insofar as it relates to these appeals derives, in part, from the architectural and historic interest of the building which retains a number of historic features and historic fabric. The symmetry and consistency of the materials and the articulation of the building, along with the single storey linked front sections and rounded rear elevations are particularly notable for their positive contribution in this regard. 14. The site is also located within the West Greenwich Conservation Area (CA). The West Greenwich Conservation Area Appraisal, 2013 (CAA) sets out that, amongst other things, West Greenwich is significant for the quality of its townscape and the diversity of its architecture. The green space at Gloucester Circus, a semi-circular private garden enclosed with iron railings, is considered within the CAA to contribute positively to the overall composition of the CA. As a listed building which demonstrates the quality of the CA’s townscape and architecture, the appeal property contributes positively to the significance of the CA. Appeal Decision 6010332 and 6011050 4 15. The appeal site is also within the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site Buffer Zone. The World Heritage Site has eight key attributes which convey Outstanding Universal Value (OUV); architecture, masterplan of buildings and designed landscapes, the grand axis, the royal observatory, town centre and St Alfege Church, royal patronage, relationship with the River Thames and silhouettes. Though the appeal property is an example of notable architecture, due to its location within the buffer zone but outside of the core WHS, its relatively small scale and the limitations of the contribution it makes to the key attributes when considered as a whole, I consider that the contribution it makes to the OUV of the WHS is negligible. Effects of the proposals 16. Policy HE5(2) of the Framework confirms that assessments of the potential effects of development proposals on the significance of heritage assets should identify whether they would be likely to: a. Have a positive effect; or b. Have no effect; or c. Result in harm (which includes substantial harm), the degree of which should be identified; or d. Cause the total loss of significance. 17. The proposals which are the subject of these appeals are reasonably extensive and, amongst other aspects which I will return to later, include the construction of a first and second floor side extension and associated demolition works along with associated additional works to the property. 18. The extension would partially fill in the gap above the existing single storey link with the property at No. 26, extending the full depth of this element of the building. As set out above, the single storey section of the appeal property is a distinctive architectural feature which is a positive factor in the contribution made by the appeal property to the significance of the heritage asset. 19. The single storey link breaks up the bulk and massing of the building and provides visual relief and interest. In filling the distinctive double gap on one side, the proposed extension would erode the symmetry between the appeal property and the neighbouring dwelling. The proposed extension would notably reduce the degree of visible sky above the single storey element thus increasing the perceived bulk of the building considered as a whole. The articulation, rhythm and proportions of the appeal property and its neighbour and the relationship between the properties would be harmfully altered. In my view, the proposed extension would modify the appearance of the building in such a way that its architectural interest would be unacceptably eroded and the contribution made by the appeal property to the significance of the asset would be diminished. 20. Though, as the extended section of the building would be recessed behind the front and rear elevations of the property, the proposed extension would retain the staggered appearance of the building to some degree this would not be sufficient to mitigate the harm I have identified above. 21. Furthermore, the white cill band beneath the first-floor windows of the front elevation serves to unify the building. The band continues, though at a slightly different level, along the flat roofed top of the single storey section of the building creating cohesion between these elements. The plans before me indicate that the band above the single storey section would be removed and the sense of continuity across the front elevation would be diminished. Appeal Decision 6010332 and 6011050 5 22. I accept that the property has been altered over time and note that a number of other properties within the listed terrace do not benefit from the single storey link and that the proposal would result in the property at No. 25 reflecting the appearance of such properties. The evidence before me indicates that many of these schemes were permitted some time ago and pre-date current Council records. Of particular note in respect of these appeals is the approval of a second- floor side extension, amongst other things, at No 29 Gloucester Circus in 2025. However, though I do not have the specific details before me, this application appears to relate to a second-floor extension indicating that the gap between the property and its neighbour had already been lost at first-floor level. The circumstances at this property were, therefore, notably different to the appeals before me. In any event, the existence of other examples is not, in and of itself, a sufficient reason to justify the grant of planning permission or listed building consent. Particularly in circumstances where harm has been identified. 23. I also acknowledge the view that the proposals would increase the coherence of the terrace, as No. 25 would be more reflective of other properties where similar previous works have been completed. However, the evidence before me indicates that the articulation of the building and the inclusion of breaks in the massing of the terrace was a factor in the original design of the building; creating interest within an overarching sense of uniformity. To my mind, the proposals, in somewhat replicating previous changes, would represent a further dilution of the building’s original form and I do not consider that any perceived increase in visual continuity would be such that it would represent a positive consideration which would mitigate the harm I have identified. 24. Moreover, to my mind, the previous changes to the designated heritage asset, when considering the appeal property in isolation and also in the context of the listed terrace, further cement the vital importance of the remaining historic features. In my view, the previous alterations increase the sensitivity of the building to further change. Were the proposed extension to go ahead, the changes to the building would be such that the historical and architectural significance of the asset would be markedly weakened. 25. Internally, at first-floor level the extension would comprise a new en-suite shower room with a new door from the bedroom to provide access and a new dressing room accessed via a pocket door in the new shower room. A number of partition walls, which are said to be non-original, would be removed and the bathroom fixtures and fittings would be removed and replaced. A door to the existing store would be removed and blocked up to facilitate the use of the store room as an en- suite WC serving the second first-floor bedroom. A number of additional works are also proposed across this level of the property including general repairs and redecoration, the opening up of an existing fireplace and the repair of another. 26. At second-floor level the extension would consist of a further en-suite shower room and a new internal door to provide access from the bedroom along with a second bathroom accessed via the new larger landing area which would flow from the existing landing area. Similarly to the works at first-floor level, other development/works is proposed which include removing and blocking-up a door from the front bedroom into the store room, removing partition walls and existing bathroom fixtures and fittings, repairing fireplaces and general redecoration. Appeal Decision 6010332 and 6011050 6 27. Additionally, in order to facilitate the proposed extension, large landing windows at both first and second floor would be removed and infilled. The removal and blocking up of the large first-floor landing window, and, because it has been concealed within a portioned off bathroom area, to a much lesser extent the second-floor landing window would cause a degree of harm to the historic features of the listed building. Though the outlook from the windows is limited, the large window at first-floor level forms a focal point when ascending the stairs and allows light to enter the landing and stair area. I consider that the loss of the windows would be an undesirable consequence of the proposed scheme. 28. In addition to the aforementioned elements of the proposals a number of other developments/works are proposed across the lower floors of the building. This, amongst other things, includes further repair and redecoration. At ground floor level the existing kitchen would be removed, a door to the store room would be blocked and a partition wall would be removed, the opening between the hallway and lobby area would be enlarged with a new arch and fireplaces would be repaired. 29. At lower ground floor level the spaces within the lobby/corridor area would be reconfigured; a partition wall would be removed and a number of new partition walls and doors would be added to divide the spaces to form a new utility area, a store and a WC. A new kitchen would be installed in place of the existing utility room and a new doorway would be added to provide access to the reconfigured store room. Additionally, a new cupboard would be added within the stair lobby and an existing window aperture would be extended to allow for a new patio door to be added in the rear reception room to provide access outside. 30. Further works are proposed externally at the rear of the property. The small storage room addition, which is said to be non-original, would be demolished thus facilitating better, unimpeded, access to the garden area. Landscaping work to the garden would occur. More fundamentally, the existing rear lightwell would be excavated and lowered to a level consistent with the floor level of the lower ground floor. The lightwell would also be significantly enlarged and new, matching, metal railings would be installed to provide additional safety measures. 31. Several aspects of the proposals, when considered in their entirety would lead to alterations which would result in some loss of historic fabric. Though I accept that the loss of historic fabric did not form part of the Council’s eventual reasons for refusal, it is set out within the Council Officer’s Report that the proposals would indeed result in such losses and “less than substantial harm” to the asset was identified. In order to facilitate the proposed extension, the proposal would lead to the removal of the roof to the existing single storey section of the building as well as the loss of some sections of the wall abutting the proposed extension. The proposed alterations to the rear lightwell would also require the removal of sections of the walls. Additional doors and the enlargement of other existing apertures also form part of the proposals. These alterations would undoubtedly result in a loss of historic fabric. This would be limited in extent and would largely be from areas which possess a lesser degree of internal features of interest. 32. Other elements of the proposals are referenced within the evidence before me. However, the submitted information is limited in terms of its specific detail. It is important to note that it is imperative that proposals are accompanied by accurate and unambiguous drawings and specifications of sufficient detail to illustrate and/or Appeal Decision 6010332 and 6011050 7 describe the proposed works in order to avoid any uncertainty over the extent of what is proposed, and to allow a robust assessment of any consequent effects. 33. In this instance, the evidence before me does not clearly set out the details of some parts of the scheme such as the alterations to the fireplace in the proposed kitchen to accommodate the extraction unit. Damp investigations/works to the property are also proposed. Though I accept the importance of such works in ensuring the longevity of the property, limited information in respect of what precisely these investigations/works would entail has been provided. References are also made to the need to repair or replace a number of windows and doors along with their surrounds. The details in respect of precisely which windows are considered to require works and what those works would entail are brief and the proposals appear to be somewhat open-ended. Additionally, I note that re-wiring and re-plumbing is considered necessary and that other services would be installed or replaced, such as the boiler and those associated with additional bathrooms/kitchens when their location has been amended. However, the evidence before me indicates that the details provided within the service plans are in draft or indicative. 34. The lack of drawings and detailed specifications for these detailed elements of the proposals cast doubt over the individual design, subsequent appearances and works involved in their construction. As such, the specific details before me are not sufficient to enable a robust judgement to be reached regarding the potential effect of these elements of the proposals on the heritage asset, as enhancements or otherwise. Consequently, I cannot be certain that they would preserve the listed building and not cause harm to its significance. This is highly undesirable in general terms, but especially given that the property is part of a Grade II listed building located in a Conservation Area, where substantial weight is given to the conservation of these designated heritage assets. 35. I note that the Council Officer’s Report indicated that conditions could be attached requiring further details to be approved. However, the scale of the alterations and the works required are unclear and unqualified and I cannot be certain that conditions would be an effective mechanism for making the proposal acceptable and ensuring that it would not cause harm. Without evidence to the contrary I must take a precautionary approach in the interests of preserving the listed building and ensuring that any conditions imposed would meet the tests set out by the Framework. Consequently, such conditions would not be suitable. 36. Despite my findings set out above, I note the appellant’s view that the proposals have been designed in a considered way with the aim of achieving a balance between creating the desired level and quality of accommodation and respecting the heritage value of the property. With this in mind, I acknowledge that the evidence before me indicates that materials and finishes would be designed to match and integrate well with those currently in place. 37. I also recognise that a number of the works which would be carried out as part of the proposals would improve the appearance and condition of the building. These elements of the proposals include general repair work and redecoration amongst other things. The removal of non-original partition walls and the reinstatement of larger bedrooms would represent an improvement to the overall flow and layout of the building. The removal of the non-original external storage room would also represent an improvement to the property. Other works, such as repairs to the exterior surfaces and to internal fireplaces and joinery would also be beneficial. I Appeal Decision 6010332 and 6011050 8 accept that the proposed side extension plays a key role in facilitating the other, favourable, works as it provides the internal spaces within which to relocate the existing bathroom areas. I will return to consider these matters as potential benefits of the scheme further below. 38. Nevertheless, I have identified that the proposals would unacceptably erode an architectural feature which contributes positively to the significance of the heritage asset, would result in the loss of some historic fabric and, in the absence of specific and accurate details, I cannot be certain that the proposals would not cause further harm to the heritage asset. Considering the proposals holistically, for the reasons set out above, I find that they would unacceptably diminish the architectural and historic interest of the appeal property and thus the listed building, thereby undermining the significance of the designated heritage asset. The proposals would therefore fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the Grade II listed building. 39. When considered in the wider context, though elements of the proposals would, overall, be of a modest scale in terms of their impact on the CA, the proposed side extension would be visible and notable from a number of vantage points within the CA and would compromise the architectural and historic interest of the terrace. The proposals would cause harm to a listed building which contributes positively to the significance of the CA. It follows that the scheme before me would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA as a whole and would cause harm to its significance. 40. The appeal site is also within the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site Buffer Zone. However, due to the relatively localised effects of the proposals and the limited contribution made by the appeal building to the OUV of the WHS due to its scale and the distance from the core WHS, I consider that the proposals would not have an adverse effect on the significance of the WHS. 41. In finding harm to the significance of heritage assets, Policy HE5(2c) of the Framework requires the degree of harm to be identified. In making this assessment I recognise that it is the effect on the assets’ significance rather than the scale of the development which should be considered. Given the nature of the proposed changes, 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. I am satisfied this assessment accurately reflects the effects on the heritage assets caused by the proposal. 42. The approach set out in the Framework4 is that where a proposal(s) would cause harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset or assets, as in this case, the effect on the asset(s) and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal(s). Public benefits and heritage balance 43. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the proposals would lead to economic, social and environmental benefits. Amongst other things, these would stem from engaging local professionals, trades and suppliers and from improvements to the local housing stock. The proposals would enhance the property to create a home which the appellant believes would be more suitable for modern living and would retain the 4 Policy HE6(4) Appeal Decision 6010332 and 6011050 9 use of the property as a single residential unit. Notwithstanding this, there is no substantive evidence before me which demonstrates that the proposed development and works are necessary to secure the ongoing use of the heritage asset as a home. 44. I accept that the scheme has a number of other potential benefits; particularly with regard to elements of the building which would be enhanced to better reveal their significance. The enhancements are largely set out within the preceding paragraphs but include repair work and redecoration along with the removal of non-original structures and partitions to reinstate a layout which would better represent the original form of the property. Nevertheless, in my view, whilst the evidence before me is clear that some of the proposed enhancements would only be possible following the construction of the proposed extension, a number of the improvements, particularly the repairs and redecoration, could be made through alternative schemes which would not cause the degree of harm I have outlined above. 45. Whilst a number of the benefits outlined above would be private, they would also be such that they could be considered to be of broader benefit to the public. Overall, the associated benefits are limited by the scale of the proposals and must be considered in that context. As the proposals relate to an individual property, I consider them to be of a relatively small scale. For this reason, and due to the other limitations and considerations I have set out above, I find that the weight to be afforded to the benefits of the scheme is limited. 46. Conversely, on the other side of the balance, I have found that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and cause harm to the significance of the listed building. Policy HE6(1) of the Framework advises that substantial weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets. Additionally, Policy HE6(3) states that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight. 47. In my view, though I accept that the scheme would have a number of benefits, I find that the weight I attach to the combined public benefits of the scheme is not sufficient to outweigh the weight I attach to the harm to the heritage assets and their significance. Clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets. 48. The scheme would therefore conflict with the requirements set out in sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act. The proposals would also be contrary to Policy DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies, adopted July 2014 (LP). In addition to other matters this policy requires all developments to be of a high quality design and provide a positive relationship between the proposed and existing urban context by taking account of a number of factors including the architecture of surrounding buildings, established layout and spatial character, the scale, height, bulk and massing of the adjacent townscape and architectural and historical features and their settings. 49. The proposals would also fail to accord with LP Policy DH3, DH(h) and DH(i) which specifically relate to heritage assets. These policies state that The Royal Borough will protect and enhance the heritage assets and settings of Greenwich, preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Areas and apply a Appeal Decision 6010332 and 6011050 10 presumption in favour of the preservation of statutory listed buildings and their settings. 50. Additionally, there would be conflict with Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan, March 2021 (the London Plan) which, taken together and amongst other things promote a design-led approach within which developments respond to the existing character of a place by identifying the special and valued features and characteristics that are unique to the locality and respect, enhance and utilise the heritage assets and architectural features that contribute towards the local character. The London Plan is clear that development proposals affecting heritage assets should conserve their significance. 51. Added to this, the proposals would be contrary to the aims and guidance set out within the Royal Borough of Greenwich Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, adopted October 2023 (SPD) which sets out that the gaps between buildings can contribute to the character of the streetscape, particularly in conservation areas and states that side extensions must be designed so as to avoid a terracing effect, or the loss of the open character between properties. The SPD also reiterates that development should understand the heritage context and sensitively respond to, enhance and avoid harm to the significance of heritage assets. The SPD goes on to state that any extension to listed buildings, locally listed buildings or in conservation areas that results in the unacceptable loss of original fabric which is central to the special character and appearance of the building or area will be refused. 52. Furthermore, the proposal would fail to conform with the Framework’s expectation that substantial weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets which are considered an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. Other Matters 53. I acknowledge that the appellant is concerned with the Council’s approach during the application process and the delays which they feel were experienced. I also recognise the appellant’s frustration that the Council’s Planning Officer recommended approval of the application, whereas Members of the Planning Committee subsequently resolved to refuse planning permission. However, the Committee was not bound by the officer’s recommendation and was entitled, as the decision-maker, to reach a different conclusion on the planning merits of the proposal. Concerns around the Council’s approach to assessing the scheme fall beyond the scope of my remit as the Inspector determining these appeals and should be explored through the Council’s own processes or by an alternative appropriate mechanism. 54. I return now to the planning permission and listed building consent which were granted by the Council in June 2026 for a scheme which includes a number of the elements which form the proposals before me5. On the basis of the evidence before me, I consider that there is a ‘real prospect’ that the approved scheme would be implemented if the appeals before me were to be dismissed. However, it is apparent that the June 2026 permissions exclude the side extension which forms part of the 5 References 26/1362/HD and 26/1363/L. Appeal Decision 6010332 and 6011050 11 appeals before me. As such, were the approved scheme to be implemented I consider that it would cause markedly less harm to the heritage assets than the proposals which form the basis of these appeals. As such, the weight to be ascribed to the “fallback” position is minimal. 55. I have given careful regard to all of the above considerations. However, none are sufficient, individually or cumulatively, to dissuade me from the conclusions I have reached in respect of the main issue. 56. I am mindful that a number of other issues have been raised, including the potential effect of the proposals on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties; however, as these appeals are to be dismissed for other reasons and the other concerns expressed do not have a direct bearing on the main issue, it is not necessary for these to be explored further as part of these appeals. Conclusion 57. For the reasons set out above the appeals are dismissed. L J O'Brien INSPECTOR