Appeal Dismissed Against Refusal of Permission 590 Purpose Built Student Accommodation

02 March, 2026

An inspector has dismissed an appeal against the decision of the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s planning committee to refuse planning permission for a 590-room purpose-built student accommodation scheme comprising two buildings of 13 and 17 storeys on design and heritage grounds. The decision to refuse permission was made against officer recommendation and despite the tilted balance applying.

Appeal Dismissed Against Refusal of Permission 590 Purpose Built Student Accommodation

02 March, 2026

An inspector has dismissed an appeal against the decision of the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s planning committee to refuse planning permission for a 590-room purpose-built student accommodation scheme comprising two buildings of 13 and 17 storeys on design and heritage grounds. The decision to refuse permission was made against officer recommendation and despite the tilted balance applying.

On design, the Inspector agreed with the Council that "the scale and massing of Building B would appear uncomfortably out of place, to the detriment of views from the east along Creek Road, and the site's wider townscape context" (para 18). From the north, "the bulk and mass of the proposed north elevation would be dominating, and starkly at odds with the more open and spacious character of this part of Deptford Creek" (para 20).

On heritage, less than substantial harm was found to three of the country's most significant heritage assets: the Grade I listed National Maritime Museum (including the Queen's House designed by Inigo Jones, the first example of Palladian architecture in England), the Greenwich Park Conservation Area and Registered Park & Garden, and the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site.

This decision provides a good example of the well-known mantra that pre-existing harm does not justify further harm. The Inspector rejected arguments that the scheme would mitigate the existing impact of Union Wharf, stating that she “cannot agree that it would not achieve a better relationship with the existing built context or betterment of the historic environment around Greenwich” (para 48) and that she did “not recognise the positive redeeming or mitigating effect of the appeal scheme on Union Wharf tower” (para 56).

Crucially, the Inspector found that "the design evolution appears to reflect incremental height reductions until objections subsided but not to the point where there would be no interference or harm to the setting of the NMM. This casts doubt over whether there is clear and convincing justification for the harm" (para 53). In this, she agreed with the Council’s case that a genuinely design-led approach requires meaningful exploration of alternatives to avoid or minimise heritage harm rather than, as put well in live evidence, engaging in a quest for as large a building as possible.

The decision can be read here.

Charles Merrett acted for the Royal Borough of Greenwich, instructed by Anne Gerzon.