Sekforde Street vaults beneath a Grade II listed Clerkenwell terrace have received a split appeal decision, with consent granted for new floors and timber doors but refused for a reversible waterproof lining. Inspector Beverley Wilders issued the decision on 16th October 2026 for the basement vaults at 30 Sekforde Street in Islington.
The appellants wanted to improve former coal-storage vaults that suffer from damp. Islington Council refused listed building consent for the works. On appeal, the Inspector accepted the levelling and partial tiling of the floors, new flooring in the lightwell and replacement brace-and-ledge doors, subject to conditions.
I think the Sekforde Street vaults decision is useful because it shows that reversibility does not automatically make work acceptable in a listed building. The crucial questions were what the lining would conceal, whether the source of moisture was understood and whether the proposed system would preserve the historic fabric rather than merely hide a continuing problem.
Why the Sekforde Street vaults received a split decision
The appeal decision concerns two brick vaults below the pavement in front of a house forming part of the listed terrace at 26A to 33 Sekforde Street. The buildings date from about 1835 and sit within the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area.
The vaults were formerly used to store coal. Chutes in their arched roofs allowed coal to be delivered from pavement level, and at least one metal chute cap survives above. Their brick construction, form and physical relationship with the terrace all contribute to the building’s special architectural and historic interest.
The application description referred to a fully reversible lining to the existing brick vaults. The plans also showed floor levelling and tiling, York stone in the external lightwell and new timber doors. The Inspector treated those elements separately because the permitted works could be carried out without the rejected lining.
That severability produced the split outcome. Listed building consent was granted for the floor, lightwell and door works, while the proposed wall and ceiling lining was dismissed.
Damp evidence did not identify a clear source
A building survey recorded extensive damp, eroded pointing, rough earth floors and the potential for rainwater to enter from the lightwell. A later surveyor’s note warned of downward water seepage and recommended traditional repairs, including repointing and removing vegetation.
The Inspector saw damp bricks and vegetation during a dry summer visit, although there was no standing water. The evidence did not establish whether moisture came through the pavement, the surviving chutes, the open entrance, the earth floors or several sources acting together.
That uncertainty mattered to the Sekforde Street vaults. The waterproofing proposal would have fixed a membrane to the inside before covering it with lime-based plaster. Yet the plans did not include the channel drain, sump and electric pump mentioned in supporting information, so the drainage solution had not been properly assessed.
The Inspector said the lining would “completely mask the historic brickwork and chutes”. She could not be sure that it would do more than cover the dampness, potentially allowing deterioration to continue unseen.
Reversible work can still harm listed fabric
The appellants argued that the membrane system could be installed without damaging the bricks and removed later. That was not enough. Listed building consent considers the effect of works on the building’s special interest while they remain in place, not simply whether they can eventually be undone.
For the Sekforde Street vaults, covering the brickwork and coal chutes would prevent people from reading the historic form and function of the spaces. It would therefore reduce their contribution to the listed terrace even if the physical fixing caused little direct damage.
The decision also distinguishes between managing a symptom and conserving fabric. If the moisture source remains unresolved, an internal lining can make a room look dry without proving that the wall behind it is safe. The Inspector declined to leave the investigation to a condition because its outcome could materially change the appropriate works.
I would not read this as a general rejection of reversible systems. It is a site-specific finding based on visible historic fabric, uncertain water ingress and incomplete drainage details. A properly evidenced proposal that retained legibility and addressed the actual moisture path could be judged differently.
Floor and door works passed the heritage test
The accepted parts of the scheme were more limited. The Inspector found that levelling and partially tiling the vault floors, laying new flooring in the lightwell and installing traditional timber doors would preserve the listed building’s significance if suitable materials and detailing were used.
Conditions require new work and finishes to match the adjacent fabric in method, colour, texture and profile. Floor levels cannot exceed the prevailing height within each vault, and the finish must be flagstone or brick arranged to allow natural drainage through the surface and edges.
Those controls respond directly to Islington’s concern that lowering or altering the floors could damage the vaults. They also show why the Sekforde Street vaults were not treated as one indivisible package. The acceptable details could proceed without committing the building to the harmful lining.
No separate harm was found to the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area because the works are small, below ground and largely internal. The decisive heritage effect was on the listed terrace and the legibility of its surviving coal vaults.
What the vault appeal means in practice
This appeal is a reminder that the phrase “fully reversible” is evidence, not a conclusion. A heritage assessment should explain what remains visible, how moisture and ventilation will behave, what physical fixings are needed and whether removal would genuinely return the fabric to its earlier condition.
It also pays to make the application drawings and supporting documents agree. Here, drainage measures discussed in the surveyor’s note were absent from the proposal before the Inspector. An appeal cannot safely rely on an important technical solution that is not actually shown or specified.
Planning Geek’s basement planning guide explains how below-ground works can engage planning, heritage and building-control issues. The planning appeal guide sets out the wider process for challenging a refusal.
The Sekforde Street vaults secured useful consent, but not the element that would have changed their historic character most visibly. The result is a narrow permission for repair and finishing works, alongside a clear warning that concealment can amount to heritage harm even where the method is technically reversible.
0 Comments