Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 December 2023 by M Cryan BA(Hons) DipTP MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 June 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/W/23/3318813 Building 2 at Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich SE10 9HT • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission. • The appeal is made by Greenwich Pier Lease Ltd against the Council of the Royal Borough of Greenwich. • The application reference is 22/2550/F. • The development proposed is the formation of an outdoor raised seating area, construction of a glazed pergola to the roof terrace, installation of 8x rooflights, a glazed roof access hatch, canopies to entrances and associated alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for the formation of an outdoor raised seating area, construction of a glazed pergola to the roof terrace, installation of 8x rooflights, a glazed roof access hatch, canopies to entrances and associated alterations is refused. Procedural Matter 2.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision The Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) on 19 December 2023. The amendments did not have any bearing on the main issues in this appeal, so it was not necessary to seek comments from the main parties on them. Where I have referred to specific paragraphs, the numbering used is that of the December 2023 version. Background and Main Issues 3. The appeal is against the Council’s failure to determine the planning application. The Council’s appeal statement explained that, had it been in a position to do so, it would have refused planning permission for two reasons. These form the basis of the main issues in this appeal, which are the effect of the proposed development on: • The character and appearance of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site, the Greenwich Park Conservation Area, and the setting of nearby Listed Buildings; and • The safe and free movement of pedestrians and cyclists on the Thames Path and Greenwich Pier. Reasons Character and appearance, setting 4. The appeal relates to the easternmost of a group of three modern buildings alongside the River Thames at Greenwich Pier. It is a part one-, part three- https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E5330/W/23/3318813 storey “pavilion” which, though vacant at the time of my site visit, was previously occupied as a restaurant or bar. The eastern part of the building has a steel frame structure, with panoramic glazing wrapping around a double- height bar/dining space; above this is a large roof terrace. Services – kitchens, toilets and so on – are contained in a three-storey part of the western end of the building, which also gives access to the roof terrace from the second floor. 5. The site is within the Greenwich Park Conservation Area (“the GPCA”), and the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site (“the WHS”)1, and close to several listed buildings. I have statutory duties under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (“the Act”) to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess, and under section 72(1) of the Act to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the GPCA. 6.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision The GPCA is described in the Council’s 2010 Conservation Area Appraisal (“the CAA”) as being of exceptional historical, architectural and topographic importance. It has numerous historical associations (including as the birthplace of Tudor kings and queens, and with the Royal Observatory) and grand historic buildings (such as those of the Old Royal Naval College, by John Webb and Christopher Wren), while the topography allows for dramatic vistas from the area (such as from the Royal Observatory at the top of the escarpment within Greenwich Park), and of the area (such as from Island Gardens on the opposite bank of the Thames towards and through the Old Royal Naval College). The significance of the GPCA, insofar as relevant to this appeal, is derived from the combination of these features. The WHS encompasses a wider area than the GPCA, but the same factors as I have identified in respect of the significance of the conservation area are also among the WHS’s attributes of outstanding universal value. 7. The appeal site lies at a prominent location on the riverfront between the Old Royal Naval College and the area around Cutty Sark Gardens, where Greenwich town centre meets the Thames.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision South-east of the site is the “King Charles’ Quarters”, the north-west building of the Royal Naval College2, while to the south-west (just outside the GPCA, though within the separate West Greenwich Conservation Area) is the Cutty Sark3. Both are Grade I listed buildings. 8. The official list entry explains that the King Charles’ Quarters building was begun in 1664, although not completed until around a century and a half later. It is of two and three storeys, and faced in limestone ashlar. Of particular significance to this appeal is its north front, seven bays wide and three storeys high, with Corinthian columns and pilasters, and pediments either side of the central entablature; with the other buildings of the Old Royal Naval College, it presents a grand and impressive formal face to the Thames.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision The scale of the King Charles’ Quarters building, combined with the surrounding public and semi-public open spaces, means that it is both dominant and imposing across a broad area; it is seen and appreciated close-up within its own grounds, from where its finer details can be admired, and in medium-range and longer views 1 Not simply the WHS “buffer zone”, as suggested in the submitted Heritage Statement (Russell Associates Architects, July 2022) 2 List Entry Number: 1211337 3 List Entry Number: 1079013 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision The scale of the King Charles’ Quarters building, combined with the surrounding public and semi-public open spaces, means that it is both dominant and imposing across a broad area; it is seen and appreciated close-up within its own grounds, from where its finer details can be admired, and in medium-range and longer views 1 Not simply the WHS “buffer zone”, as suggested in the submitted Heritage Statement (Russell Associates Architects, July 2022) 2 List Entry Number: 1211337 3 List Entry Number: 1079013 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E5330/W/23/3318813 such as from alongside the appeal building, and from across the River Thames, from where its scale and role within an ensemble comes more into play. 9. The Cutty Sark is an 1869 tea clipper, once the fastest ship in the world, and now maintained in a dry dock as a museum, visitor centre and memorial to the days of sail. Its masts are glimpsed above the buildings of Greenwich town centre when approaching from the south, and rise above the riverside treeline when seen from the north, so that it is also a prominent and distinctive landmark. Close-up, in the area around Cutty Sark Gardens, the paintwork of the ship’s hull and the intricacy of the rigging make for a distinctive and visually arresting feature of the townscape and riverscape. 10. Both King Charles’ Quarters and the Cutty Sark are emblematic of the maritime heritage of the nation, and of Greenwich more specifically. They are prominent and special assets even when considered among the rich variety of other features to be found along and close to the Thames riverside within the town. It is from these factors that their significance, insofar as it relates to this appeal, is derived. 11.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision The appeal building and the similar pavilion at the western end of Greenwich Pier are of the same part one-storey, part three-storey form which emphasises curved rather than square corners. Both have their tallest part towards the centre of the pier, then step down in height to the roof terrace towards the pier edge. Both use the same steel frame, expansive glazing, and metal and timber cladding palette of materials. They are not exactly the same in size or shape, though these are broadly similar. The much smaller kiosk building at the centre of the pier, from where boat tickets are sold, uses the same materials and broad design cues as the two larger pavilions. 12. The two pavilions and ticket office building are low-rise, discreet in form and materials (albeit that these are not from the prevalent local and traditional materials described in the CAA), and (for the most part) subtle in colour and finish. The three buildings to all intents and purposes form an integrated composition. The appeal property is described by the appellant as being “of limited architectural quality” and “in poor condition”.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision However, while it would no doubt benefit from the care and maintenance work which are inevitably necessary after a period of vacancy, as well as a degree of internal refitting, none of the evidence before me or my observations on my site visit indicates that it is detrimental to the area. It is a neat, orderly and unobtrusive building, which makes no less than a neutral contribution to the character and appearance of the GPCA, and to the setting of the nearby listed buildings. 13. There are several elements to the proposed development, but of particular significance in this appeal are the proposal to erect a glazed pergola on the existing roof terrace, to add fabric canopies above customer entrance doors, and to provide a new outdoor seating area on a raised platform wrapped around the north-eastern corner of the building. 14. The proposed pergola structure above the roof terrace would add bulk to the building, leading to the loss of the stepped down form and a weakening, or removal, of the visual balance between the appeal building and the eastern pavilion.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision These effects would not be alleviated by the pergola being glazed; glass may be transparent but it is not invisible, and it would still catch and reflect light, interrupting views and drawing attention to the altered form of the building. There would also be a steel structure to support the glazing which, https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision These effects would not be alleviated by the pergola being glazed; glass may be transparent but it is not invisible, and it would still catch and reflect light, interrupting views and drawing attention to the altered form of the building. There would also be a steel structure to support the glazing which, https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E5330/W/23/3318813 although described as “minimal” by the appellant, would be a permanent and visually intrusive addition, also causing considerable harm to the appearance of the host building and to the Greenwich Pier group. 15. The pergola structure and glazing would be prominent in medium-range views towards the King Charles’ Quarters building from Greenwich Pier, and west towards the Cutty Sark from the Thames Path in front of the Old Royal Naval College. They would also be an intrusive and jarring addition to long range views towards both from the north bank of the Thames at Island Gardens, and indeed from boats on the river. The additions would thereby be harmful to the setting of both listed buildings. 16. Five fabric canopies, described as “a plain colour with a scalloped border design” would be fitted above the customer entrance doors. On what is an unashamedly modern and simply-styled building, these would be an incongruous feature; by comparison, the one building within the Greenwich Pier group with a covered shelter, the riverboat ticket office, has a high steel- framed canopy roof which is of a form and materials matching the buildings.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision I acknowledge that fabric canopies and awnings may be reasonably common nearby within Greenwich town centre, though the ones I saw while walking through the area were on what I took to be Georgian, Victorian or early 20th century buildings, where they are more in keeping with the overall character of the building. 17. The proposed ground floor seating area would be towards the north-east corner of the building, in an area which I understand has previously been used for outdoor seating, though not on a raised platform. It would wrap round part of the northern (facing the River Thames) and eastern sides of the building, and would be constructed of wood composite decking with dark grey metal railings and balustrades. It would be limited in height, with the main deck structure rising from ground level approximately halfway to the bottom of the ground floor windows (though of course the railings and balustrade would be taller), and of a form and materials in keeping with the modern stylings of the host building. I do not consider that this element of the scheme would be harmful to the character or appearance of the building or the wider area. 18.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision The appellants referred to existing timber pergola structures and parasols on the roof terrace of the western pavilion building. The Council states that these are not unauthorised, though I agree with the appellant that the slightly odd form of words the Council used does not make it clear whether the pergolas and parasols have been (or could be) the subject of enforcement action. However, I was able to see (what I must assume were) these during my site visit, and they did not strike me as being especially thoughtful or sympathetic additions to that building. The pergolas also appear to be considerably smaller in height and extent than those proposed here; accordingly, they do not carry significant weight in favour of the appeal scheme. 19. The appellant also drew my attention to a grant of planning permission for external pergola structures with retractable roofs and walls at Enderby House4. I was provided with plans and elevations of that scheme, though it lies some 1.1km or so east of the appeal site, and I was not able to view it during my site visit.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision However, while there may be some similarities between the design of the supporting structures and glazing in the two cases, the substantial distance 4 LPA Ref: 21/0878/F https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision However, while there may be some similarities between the design of the supporting structures and glazing in the two cases, the substantial distance 4 LPA Ref: 21/0878/F https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E5330/W/23/3318813 between the sites means that there are obvious and significant differences in their surroundings; not least, Enderby House lies outside the GPCA, and therefore has a completely different visual relationship (if any) with the King Charles’ Quarters building and the Cutty Sark. Again, that development does not weigh significantly in favour of this appeal scheme. 20. Drawing the above together, because of the impact of the pergola and canopies I find that the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host building. It would not preserve the setting of the Grade I listed buildings, King Charles’ Quarters and Cutty Sark. In so doing, it would also fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the GPCA. The significance of the designated heritage assets would be harmed, contrary to the requirements of sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act. 21. The Framework requires great weight be given to the conservation of heritage assets when considering the impact of a proposal. In this case, I consider the degree of harm would be less than substantial when considered in the context of the scale and significance of the assets as a whole.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision In such circumstances, any harm should be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal. 22. The proposed development would bring an empty building back into use. This may well be considered a public benefit in itself, along with the employment opportunities which would be created by reuse of the building. However, none of the evidence before me suggests that the proposed development is essential to facilitate this, rather that it is a matter of operational preference. The suggestion that the provision of outdoor seating is necessary “to optimise the building” is not justified by the evidence before me, while the suggestion that because such seating may be used by people waiting for (or recently disembarked from) a riverboat it would thereby be a public service seems to me a somewhat tenuous attempt to re-dress a commercial ambition. In giving considerable importance and weight to the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, I find that this would not be outweighed by the public benefits arising from the proposal. 23.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies DH1, DH3, DH(h) and DH(i) of the 2014 Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy (“the LPCS”), and with Policies D3, HC1 and HC2 of the London Plan 2021. Together, and among other things, these policies seek to ensure that development is well-designed and detailed, and that heritage assets including the Maritime Greenwich WHS, conservation areas and listed buildings (including their settings) are protected and enhanced. For the same reasons I find conflict with the provisions of the Framework in respect of good design and protecting the historic environment. Thames Path and Greenwich Pier 24. The Thames Path passes immediately to the south of the appeal site. The evidence before me is that, as a connecting route between some of Greenwich’s many visitor attractions, it is often very busy with pedestrians and cyclists, though on the damp and overcast December day I visited it was not. The proposed external seating area would be on private land, rather than publicly-maintained areas of the path, so that while part of the open area of the pier would be given over to seating, the path itself would not be obstructed by the development.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Indeed, based on what I saw on my site visit it seems that the narrow “dog leg” in the Thames Path between the appeal site and the Bellot Memorial to its south-west is far more likely to be the limiting factor as https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Indeed, based on what I saw on my site visit it seems that the narrow “dog leg” in the Thames Path between the appeal site and the Bellot Memorial to its south-west is far more likely to be the limiting factor as https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E5330/W/23/3318813 far as pedestrian and cyclist capacity in the immediate vicinity is concerned; this bottleneck would not be further constrained by the appeal proposal. 25. I understand that the area of the pier between the appeal building and the river is used as a waiting area for passengers boarding riverboats. Sufficient space would be left around the raised seating area to ensure that this would be able to continue without unacceptable obstruction. The proposed seating area would be at the far end of the pier from the central riverboat ticket booth, so would not interfere with its operation. 26. Taking these points together, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not present an unacceptable obstacle or other impediment to pedestrians or cyclists. There would be no harm to the safe and free movement of pedestrians and cyclists on the Thames Path and Greenwich Pier, and in this respect therefore no conflict with either Policy IM(b) of the LPCS, or with Policies T2 and T5 of the London Plan 2021. Together, and among other things, these policies seek to protect and enhance footpaths and cycleways, and to facilitate people making trips by walking and cycling.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision For the same reason, there would be no conflict with the provisions of the Framework which seek to promote sustainable transport. Other Matters 27. I note the appellant’s comments relating to the Council’s handling of the planning application. It appears in particular that in a period of six days between initially responding to the internal consultation request and submitting final comments, the Conservation Officer’s stance shifted from recommending approval to raising a set of detailed and comprehensive objections to the scheme. While I recognise that this has been frustrating for the appellant it is not a matter for me to address here, my role being to determine the appeal on the basis of all the evidence put before me as I have done. Planning Balance and Conclusion 28. The proposed development would not be harmful to the safe and free movement of pedestrians or cyclists. However, it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, and to designated heritage assets. 29. As such, the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no other considerations, including the Framework, that outweigh this conflict.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — Appeal Decision For the reasons set out above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Building 2 At Greenwich Pier, Cutty Sark Gardens, Greenwich, London, SE10 9HT — Royal Borough of Greenwich — M Cryan Inspector https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6