Barrow Hill House, 7 East Mersea Road, West Mersea (two-storey rear extension, planning appeal)

Decision

dismissed, 2 October 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Timothy King

Authority

Colchester (East of England)

Appeal reference

6005011

Application reference

252444

Procedure

written representations

Development

Two-storey flat-roofed rear extension with perimeter parapet to a Grade II listed house

Site context

listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HE6(4), HE4(2)

Development plan policies

Colchester Borough Local Plan Section 1 SP7, Section 2 DM13, DM15, DM16, West Mersea Neighbourhood Plan WM25

Main issues

special interest of the listed building

Summary

The planning appeal of a joint letter (with listed building consent appeal 6005014) for a two-storey flat-roofed rear extension to Grade II listed Barrow Hill House. The inspector found the flat roof would meet the house's catslide roof awkwardly and would not be subservient, harming the building's significance. The benefits were private, so there were no public benefits to weigh and no clear and convincing justification. Both appeals were dismissed; the planning appeal on conflict with the development plan.

Issues and findings

• Transition. No switch paragraph. The letter applies HE4 and HE6 by their 2026 codes and wording.
• Listed building: HARM. "the intended two-storey, flat-roofed extension would, at its eastern flank, have an awkward interface with the building’s characteristic section of catslide roof" (DL ¶15). "Accordingly, I shall attribute considerable importance to this in weighing up the planning balance." (DL ¶16).
• Method. "firstly, it needs to be identified whether there would be harm, and the second stage is whether public benefits weigh against this harm" (DL ¶17).
• HE6(3), HE4(2), HE6(4) stated. "any resultant harm will be a matter of considerable importance and weight and, as indicated in policy HE4 thereto, any such harm should have a clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶18).
• Design quality is not enough. "I am satisfied that the proposed extension, as a single entity, would be to a high quality design, but it would not be appropriate here in terms of its interface with the host building" (DL ¶19).
• Public benefits: NONE. "the additional floorspace provided by the extension, and the proposed internal reconfiguration, would represent a private aspiration" and "I have not identified any actual public benefits arising from the proposed works" (DL ¶22).
• HE4(2): FAIL. "clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the development and works which would compromise the listed building’s conservation" (DL ¶23).

Planning balance

HE6(4): harm of considerable importance against no public benefits. The planning appeal is then decided under section 38(6): "it conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations which indicate that the decision for Appeal A should be made other than in accordance with the Local Plan" (DL ¶26). No S4 balance is run.

What made the difference

The roof form. The blank rear wall "can perhaps accommodate an extension of appropriate design" (DL ¶15), so the objection was to the flat roof against the catslide, not to extension in principle. With nothing but private benefit on the other side, any harm was enough.

Transferable points

• More living space and internal reconfiguration are private benefits and do not count under HE6(4) (DL ¶20, ¶22).
• An extension can be of high quality in itself and still harm a listed building through its junction with the host (DL ¶15, ¶19).
• Where a building is not at risk or in poor repair, there is no conservation benefit to claim (DL ¶22).
• A redesign after an earlier refusal is assessed on its own merits, not on whether it answers the council's earlier concerns (DL ¶4).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Joint letter with the listed building consent appeal 6005014; both dismissed on the same reasoning (DL 1-2)
• Barrow Hill House is a Grade II listed 17th century house with an earlier timber-framed cross wing, a bakehouse and a stable block of group value (DL 6-7)
• Extension proposed behind the western wing, a redesign of a scheme previously refused (DL 3-4)
• Inspector satisfied the extension would be of high quality design as a single entity, but not appropriate in its interface with the host building (DL 19)
• Building not at risk and not in poor repair (DL 22)
• No harm to neighbours' living conditions (DL 20)
• Site visit 14 July 2026; no switch paragraph; 2026 policy codes used
• Letter slips, the header calls the planning appeal a refusal of "[outline] planning permission", the running header gives the second reference as "600514", and DL 24 and 26 use "Appeal A" and "Appeal B" without defining them

Related decisions

• PINS-6005014

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.