- Decision
- dismissed, 28 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: B Phillips
- Authority
- Herefordshire (West Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6001896
- Application reference
- 251639
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for up to six dwellings on an open field beside a Grade II* listed 17th-century manor house
- Homes
- 6
- Site context
- settlement edge, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), HE6(3), S5
- Development plan policies
- Herefordshire Core Strategy 2015 LD1, LD4, SD1
- Main issues
- setting of Grade II* listed building; character and appearance
Summary
Permission in principle for up to six homes on a field next to Castle End, a Grade II* 17th-century manor house at Lea. Dismissed. The field has no value for the character of the area, because it is surrounded by development. But it is the last open buffer that lets the manor be read in its historic landscape. The inspector found moderate harm to the setting, gave it considerable importance and weight, and held that housing (substantial weight) did not outweigh it. The benefits were then "substantially outweighed" under S5 (DL ¶30), and the letter says the same would follow under S4.
Issues and findings
- Setting. The site "is the one remaining buffer between development in this direction and Castle End, providing a visual separation that increases the prominence of the listed building" (DL ¶10). Development "would diminish the way the listed building is experienced" (DL ¶13).
- Degree of harm. "I find the degree of harm to the heritage asset to be at a moderate level but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶16).
- HE6(1) and HE6(4). "substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss of its significance" (DL ¶19). The harm "would not be outweighed by the public benefits that the proposal would generate" (DL ¶19).
- HE4(2). The harm "has not been supported by clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶20).
- Character: no harm. The site "has the character of being within the wider built form rather than the nearby open countryside" (DL ¶22).
- Housing. HO7 substantial weight; no five-year supply (DL ¶17, ¶28).
Planning balance
The HE6(4) balance was run first and failed (DL ¶19). In the overall balance, benefits got moderate weight each and housing substantial weight, against harm to a Grade II* asset that "is extremely important" (DL ¶29). "in accordance with Framework Policy S5, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects" (DL ¶30). "This would also be the case if the site was within the settlement and Framework Policy S4 was relevant" (DL ¶31). Heritage harm is not a listed example, but "this is not a closed list" (DL ¶31).
What made the difference
The grade of the asset and the site's role as the last open link to its historic landscape. The same field raised no character objection. The letter never settled whether the site was inside a settlement or which S5(1) category applied, and it did not need to: the heritage harm decided the balance either way.
Transferable points
- A field that is visually part of the built-up area can still be important to the setting of a listed building, as the last buffer that keeps the asset legible (DL ¶10-13, 21-23).
- Moderate harm to a Grade II* asset outweighed six homes with substantial HO7 weight, despite a supply shortfall (DL ¶16-19, 28-30).
- Heritage harm counts under both S4 and S5 even though the policies' examples do not name it; the list "is not a closed list" (DL ¶31).
- A PIP can fail at the first stage on setting alone, as the setting is part of the location question (DL ¶4, 6).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6(1) | harm | substantial | substantial weight to conservation; Grade II* asset "extremely important"; the field is the last open buffer between development and Castle End, so harm to setting at "a moderate level" (DL 10-16, 19, 29) |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | moderate harm "nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight" (DL 16) |
| HE6(4) | fail | housing and moderate social/economic benefits do not outweigh the harm (DL 17-19) | |
| HE4(2) | fail | harm "has not been supported by clear and convincing justification" (DL 20) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | up to six homes; no five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 17, 28) |
| S5 | fail | benefits "substantially outweighed" by the heritage harm; the letter does not decide whether the site is inside or outside a settlement, or identify an S5(1) category, and says the result would be the same under S4 (DL 30-31) | |
| DP3 | neutral | mapped: no character harm; site reads as part of the built form (DL 21-24) |
Key facts
- Castle End is Grade II* (list entry 1348810); a separately listed Grade II dovecote stands in its grounds (DL 7)
- The appeal field is enclosed on three sides by a school and houses, so no character harm, but it is the last open link between the manor and its historic landscape (DL 10, 21-23)
- River Wye SAC foul drainage objection not pursued because the appeal failed on heritage (DL 25-26)
- Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 5)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.