- Decision
- dismissed, 17 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: J Moore
- Authority
- Bassetlaw (East Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6003318
- Application reference
- 25/00800/HSE
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Appeal A: two-storey front porch and first-floor side extensions to a modern house; Appeal B (6003486, 25/00871/HSE): appeal against materials/design conditions on an approved outbuilding
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- December 2024 NPPF (transitional)
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), HE4(2)
- Development plan policies
- Bassetlaw Local Plan 2024 ST33, ST40, ST41, Blyth CAAMP 2012
- Main issues
- setting of listed church; setting of conservation area; character and appearance; conditions
Summary
Householder extensions to a modern house on the former grounds of Blyth Hall, just outside the Blyth Conservation Area and in the immediate setting of a Grade I priory church. There was also a conditions appeal on an approved outbuilding. Both were dismissed. The two-storey glazed front porch would intrude into the view of the church from the street entrance, causing less than substantial harm that minor construction benefits could not outweigh. The disputed materials conditions were necessary to protect the heritage settings.
Issues and findings
- Framework version. The letter is dated 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but it applies the December 2024 Framework (paras 208, 212, 213, 215) without comment. It is recorded as transitional.
- Setting of a conservation area. "This duty [s72] is exercised in relation to any building or other land in a CA, and not in relation to its setting. However, paragraph 213 ... establishes the need to consider any negative impact of development within the setting of a CA" (DL ¶6).
- Setting of the listed church. "the volume and mass of the front extension would intrude into the left-hand side of the frame of view within which the listed Church is seen at the entrance to the street ... The extensive glazing ... would draw attention to this part of the proposal, detracting from views of the listed Church" (DL ¶22).
- Harm grading. "I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶31).
- Balance. "Such limited public benefits would not outweigh the harm that I have found, to which I am required to attach great weight" (DL ¶32).
- Conditions (Appeal B). "Even small details could draw the eye and detract from their settings" (DL ¶34). Conditions 3 to 6 were retained.
Planning balance
Heritage balance under NPPF 2024 para 215 (now HE6(4)). The only benefits were temporary construction benefits.
What made the difference
A specific, identifiable view of the Grade I church from the public street entrance. The side extension, which stayed within the existing depth and height, caused no harm (DL ¶23). Larger neighbouring houses on the other side of the street did not help, because they do not interrupt the church view (DL ¶26).
Transferable points
- Setting harm to a conservation area is assessed through the Framework, not s72 (DL ¶6). HE4(2) and HE6 do the same job under the 2026 Framework.
- A transient, kinetic view still counts: the effect was "limited in duration" but still failed to preserve the immediate setting (DL ¶24).
- Materials conditions on outbuildings in a heritage setting are justified where the plans do not define the final appearance clearly (DL ¶36).
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(4) | harm | great | decided under NPPF 2024 paras 208, 212, 213, 215 (= HE4(1)(b), HE6(1), HE4(2), HE6(4)); "less than substantial ... but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight"; "great weight" to conservation; s66 and s72 cited; front extension intrudes into the frame of view of the Grade I Blyth Priory Church from the street entrance (DL 22-24, 31) |
| HE6(4) | benefit | limited | only temporary construction jobs; no specific public benefits advanced (DL 32) |
| HE4(2) | fail | setting harm needs clear and convincing justification; used to bring CA setting into play because s72 does not apply to setting (DL 6); mapped from NPPF 2024 para 213 | |
| DM6 | pass | Appeal B: disputed materials, eaves/verge and no-tile-vent conditions are reasonable and necessary to protect settings (DL 34-39); code mapped by harvester |
Key facts
- Only the boundary wall of the plot is inside the conservation area; the house and extensions are outside it, in its immediate setting (DL 5)
- Grade I church (list entry 1239182) seen from the street entrance; extension would obscure part of its roofscape and elevation (DL 22)
- Dated 17 August 2026 but cites NPPF 2024 paragraph numbers throughout with no mention of the new Framework
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.