# Barrow Hill House, 7 East Mersea Road, West Mersea (two-storey rear extension, listed building consent)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 2 October 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Timothy King
- **Authority:** Colchester (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6005014
- **Application reference:** 252445
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Listed building consent for a 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
- **Tags:** listed-building-consent, householder, listed-building, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-ungraded, private-benefit-not-public, linked-appeals, drafting-slip

## Summary
The listed building consent appeal of a joint letter (with planning appeal 6005011) for a two-storey flat-roofed rear extension to Grade II listed Barrow Hill House. The inspector found harm to the building's significance from the junction of the flat roof with the catslide roof, no public benefits, and no clear and convincing justification. Dismissed. The full reasoning is recorded in PINS-6005011.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** No switch paragraph. HE4 and HE6 are applied by their 2026 codes and wording.
- **Listed building: HARM.** "This physical relationship would appear particularly jarring and would highlight the problem of sympathetically integrating a flat roof form." (DL ¶15).
- **Framework sequence.** "Framework Policy HE6 says that when considering the potential effect of a development proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be." (DL ¶13).
- **Public benefits: NONE.** "I have not identified any actual public benefits arising from the proposed works" (DL ¶22).
- **Conclusion.** "I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the Grade II listed building, Barrow Hill House." (DL ¶24).

## Planning balance
HE6(4): harm of considerable importance against no public benefits; HE4(2) not met (DL ¶18, ¶22-23). The works are contrary to sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the 1990 Act and to HE4 and HE6 (DL ¶24).

## What made the difference
The flat roof form against the catslide roof. The inspector left the door open to a different design: "That is not to say, of course, that alternative proposals, if sympathetically designed, would be precluded" (DL ¶23).

## Transferable points
- Listing does not prevent change, but change must sustain the building's significance (DL ¶10).
- With no public benefit, ungraded harm to a Grade II listed building is enough to refuse consent (DL ¶16, ¶22-24).
- The setting of a listed building "is not a heritage asset" in itself (DL ¶9).

## Policy findings
- **HE4(1): conflict.** the works would not conserve the building in a manner appropriate to its significance; contrary to HE4 and HE6 (DL 23-24)
- **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation stated (DL 13)
- **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** awkward interface between the flat roof and the catslide roof; not subservient; degree of harm not graded (DL 15-16, 18)
- **HE6(4): fail.** no public benefits identified; the benefits are a private aspiration (DL 20-22)
- **HE4(2): fail.** clear and convincing justification not provided (DL 18, 23)

## Key facts
- Joint letter with the planning appeal 6005011; both dismissed on the same reasoning (DL 1-2)
- Grade II listed 17th century house with an exceptional number of original fixtures and fittings; bakehouse and stable block of group value (DL 6-8)
- Works fail to preserve the building's special architectural and historic interest under sections 16(2) and 66(1) (DL 24)
- Council's separate concern about the setting relationship with the stable block was not the inspector's main concern (DL 14)
- Site visit 14 July 2026; no switch paragraph; 2026 policy codes used

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005014
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ba5265f0-775b-4e4b-812e-c70bb117873f

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005014.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.