- Decision
- dismissed, 7 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Vicky Simpson
- Authority
- Buckinghamshire (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6004675
- Application reference
- PL/25/5170/HB
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Listed building consent (Appeal B) for refurbishment and extension of a Grade II farmhouse, barn and granary, including a glazed first-floor rear corridor and a link to the cottage; linked s73 plans-variation Appeal A (6004673); both against non-determination
- Site context
- green belt, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4)
- Development plan policies
- Chiltern Local Plan 1997 (consolidated 2011) LB1, LB2, Chiltern Core Strategy 2011 CS20, Chalfont St Giles Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2036 Historic Environment Policy 1
- Main issues
- s73 scope; listed buildings; public benefits
Summary
These were linked non-determination appeals about a Grade II farmstead at Jordans. Appeal A sought to vary a plans condition under s73. It was outside s73 because the new link and first-floor corridor were not within the original description of development. Appeal B was listed building consent for the same works. The inspector applied the new HE6(1), (3) and (4) sequence expressly, found low-level harm to the farmhouse, and dismissed it. The substantial weight that reusing the barn and granary could attract was cut to small weight because nothing secured the works.
Issues and findings
- Section 73 (Appeal A): FAIL. "a variation to the terms or extent of the 'operative' part of the planning permission would be required, which is not possible under Section 73 of the Act" (DL ¶15, citing Finney [2019] EWCA Civ 1868).
- Harm to the farmhouse. The first-floor glazed corridor would "draw the observer's eye … away from parts of the chimney stacks" and "harmfully erode the legibility of the composition of the rear elevation" (DL ¶25). The link to the cottage is subservient and does not harm group value (DL ¶28).
- HE6 sequence. "In line with policy HE6: 1. of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), substantial weight is given to the conservation of the Listed Buildings" (DL ¶30). "The harm … would be to a lower level within this category" (DL ¶31). "In accordance with policy HE6: 3 … considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶32).
- Benefits. Reusing the barn and granary would attract substantial weight, "However, in the absence of a planning obligation or any suggested condition wording requiring a programme of works for the entire scheme … I cannot be certain that the public benefits … would result. Therefore, only a small amount of weight can be attributed" (DL ¶35). Better living conditions are "a private rather than a public benefit" (DL ¶37).
- Fallback. The extant consent "does not weigh in favour of Appeal B" because the appeal scheme adds harm (DL ¶41).
Planning balance
This was an HE6(4) balance under s16(2). Harm: low level, with substantial weight to conservation and considerable weight to the harm. Benefits: modest (farmhouse reuse), small (barn and granary, unsecured), very little (economic). The benefits did not outweigh the harm (DL ¶38). Green Belt questions were not reached because Appeal A failed on s73 scope.
What made the difference
Two things. The glazed first-floor corridor enclosing the chimney stacks, and the lack of any mechanism tying the heritage benefits (barn and granary works) to the harmful works. With a phasing obligation, the barn and granary benefit could have carried substantial weight.
Transferable points
- Public heritage benefits count only to the extent they are secured. Unsecured reuse benefits drop from substantial to small weight (DL ¶35).
- An extant consent is not a fallback in favour where the appeal scheme adds harm beyond it (DL ¶41).
- New elements outside the original description cannot be added by varying a plans condition under s73 (DL ¶13-16).
- A clear example of the HE6(1) → (3) → (4) sequence with "lower level" harm (DL ¶30-33).
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 | loss of small parts of historic fabric (chimney breast, early dormer, side wall) and reduced legibility of the rear chimney stacks; harm 'to a lower level' (DL 23-31) |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | harm to the farmhouse attributed considerable importance and weight (DL 32) |
| HE6(4) | fail | reuse of farmhouse modest weight (less harmful works possible); barn and granary reuse would be substantial but only small weight because not secured by obligation or phasing condition; economic very little; living space private (DL 33-38) | |
| TCPA s73 | fail | Appeal A: new link and first-floor corridor go beyond the operative part of the original permission, outside s73 (Finney v Welsh Ministers) (DL 13-16) |
Key facts
- Three Grade II buildings (16th-century farmhouse and barn, 17th-century granary) in the Green Belt (DL 4, 17)
- An extant alternative LBC was a real fallback but causes less harm, so it did not weigh in favour (DL 41)
- Burnham Beeches SAC zone of influence; not pursued because the appeal failed (DL 39-40)
- Parties had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework (DL 9)
Related decisions
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.