Land at Castle End, Lea, Ross-on-Wye (PIP, up to 3 dwellings)

Decision

dismissed, 1 October 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: B Phillips

Authority

Herefordshire (West Midlands)

Appeal reference

6002708

Application reference

251948

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for residential development of a maximum of 3 dwellings

Homes

3

Site context

settlement edge, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2), S5

Development plan policies

Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2011-2031 LD4, SS6, LD1, SD1, Lea Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011-2031 (2018) Lea 3

Main issues

setting of a Grade II* listed building; character and appearance

Summary

Permission in principle (PIP) for up to three homes at the northern edge of Lea was dismissed. The site is the last open buffer between modern housing and the Grade II* listed Castle End, and building on it would cause moderate harm to the asset's significance through its setting. Given considerable importance and weight, and greater weight for a Grade II* asset, that harm was not outweighed by three homes in an authority without a five-year supply.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The Council and the appellant have had opportunity to comment on this and I have taken into account any representations received" (DL ¶6).
• Setting. "in being mostly open from development, save for dilapidated outbuildings at the rear of the site, the appeal site does contribute positively to the setting of Castle End by being a remaining buffer" (DL ¶14).
• HE6(1)/(3): harm, moderate. "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 ¶22).
• HE6(4): FAIL. "in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset, I find that this would not be outweighed by the public benefits that the proposal would generate" (DL ¶25).
• HE4(2): FAIL. "the harm identified to the significance of the designated heritage asset has not been supported by clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶26).
• Non-designated heritage assets (NDHA): not found. "I conclude therefore on this matter that these structures do not merit NDHA status" (DL ¶20).
• Character and appearance: no harm. "the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the surroundings" (DL ¶34).

Planning balance

The heritage balance is run first (DL ¶23–26), then S5: "Framework Policy HE6 (3) sets out that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of ‘considerable importance and weight’" (DL ¶40). "I find therefore that, in accordance with Framework Policy S5, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects" (DL ¶41). The letter does not say which S5(1) category applies. The weight given to the homes is stated two ways: moderate in ¶24 and ¶38, substantial in ¶39.

What made the difference

The grade of the asset and the fact that this was the last undeveloped land between it and the modern estate. Limited intervisibility did not help: the open space mattered for how the listed building is experienced, and earlier development next door made the remainder more important. Nothing at PIP stage could show a layout that kept the buffer.

Transferable points

• Setting harm does not depend on intervisibility: an open buffer can contribute to significance where views are limited by walls and planting (DL ¶10–11, ¶14).
• Development of neighbouring land increases the importance of what open setting remains (DL ¶16).
• Moderate harm to a Grade II* setting outweighs up to three homes without a five-year supply; HE6(1) gives greater weight for a more important asset (DL ¶22–25, ¶40).
• A council raising NDHA status late, on an assumption from historic maps, needs sound evidence of heritage merit (DL ¶17–20).
• At PIP stage, harm to setting from the amount and location of development is a matter of principle (DL ¶15).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Castle End is a Grade II* 17th-century manor house opposite the site, with a separately listed Grade II dovecote (DL 8)
• Intervisibility is limited by walls, a Leylandii hedge and trees, but the remaining open space still contributes to setting (DL 10-12)
• Adjoining land has already been developed, which "increases the importance of the remaining open space" (DL 16); an earlier appeal on the site (APP/W1850/W/22/3290424) also found harm (DL 16)
• Council cannot show a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 23)
• River Wye SAC drainage information not pursued, as the appeal failed for other reasons (DL 35-36)
• Parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 6)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.