- Decision
- dismissed, 8 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: A James
- Authority
- Uttlesford (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6004605
- Application reference
- UTT/25/2544/HHF
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Replacement of modern garage with a timber-framed cart lodge in the curtilage of a Grade II listed cottage (Appeal A 6004604 planning dismissed; Appeal B 6004605 LBC UTT/25/2545/LB — consent not required)
- Site context
- green belt, listed building setting, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- Yes
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), HE6(1), HE6(3), HE4(2)
- Development plan policies
- Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (adopted March 2026) Core Policies 61, 62
- Main issues
- setting of listed building
Summary
A new cart lodge to replace a modern garage beside a Grade II listed 16th-century cottage. The planning appeal was dismissed; listed building consent was held not to be required for a new freestanding structure. The cart lodge's wider, more prominent roof would not be subservient, causing harm "at a low level" to the cottage's setting. The inspector stressed that "a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection" (DL ¶15). The benefits were limited and mostly private.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶5).
- Setting harm. "given its height and more prominent roof form ... the proposal would fail to be subservient to the listed building and would result in an unduly prominent new addition" (DL ¶13).
- Harm grading and weight. "Policy HE6 of the Framework advises that ... substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation ... the harm would be at a low level. Nonetheless, a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection and the Framework is clear that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶15).
- Benefits. Omitting first-floor accommodation is not a benefit, because the scheme must be judged on its merits "rather than by reference to a more intensive alternative scheme that is not before me" (DL ¶17). "this is principally an absence of harm, rather than a positive public benefit" (DL ¶18). "the benefits which would accrue would primarily be of a private nature" (DL ¶19).
Planning balance
HE6(4): low-level harm, which carries considerable importance and weight, against limited public benefits. Harm prevails, and there is no clear and convincing justification under HE4(2) (DL ¶19-21).
What made the difference
Width and roof massing relative to the listed cottage. A smaller or lower roof that stayed subservient, like the existing garage, would probably have been acceptable. An expired 2021 consent for a replacement garage got limited weight because policy had changed since and its dimensions were unclear (DL ¶22).
Transferable points
- "a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection" (DL ¶15). This is a clean statement of how HE6(3) works now that the "less than substantial" label has gone.
- Scaling a scheme down from a more intensive, unconsented version is not a public benefit (DL ¶17).
- Reusing an already developed part of a curtilage is an absence of harm, not a benefit (DL ¶18).
- An expired consent carries limited weight where policy has since changed (DL ¶22).
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 | considerable | grading "the harm would be at a low level. Nonetheless, a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection"; HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation and HE6(3) considerable importance and weight both stated; s66(1) cited; wider, taller roof not subservient to 16th-century cottage (DL 13, 15) |
| HE6(4) | benefit | limited | small economic investment, removal of modern garage, unspecified landscaping all limited; omitting first-floor accommodation is not a public benefit; reuse of developed curtilage is "principally an absence of harm"; benefits "primarily ... private" (DL 16-20) |
| HE4(2) | fail | "there is no clear and convincing justification for the harm" (DL 19) |
Key facts
- Grade II Willow Cottage (1322687), 16th century or earlier timber-framed house
- Proposed cart lodge wider than the existing garage and, seen from the highway, wider than the two-storey part of the house (DL 13)
- 2021 permission and LBC for a replacement garage had expired; limited weight (DL 22)
- Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 5); new Local Plan adopted March 2026 (DL 6)
- LBC not needed for a new freestanding curtilage structure (DL 3-4)
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.