- Decision
- dismissed, 21 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: P Terceiro
- Authority
- Tunbridge Wells (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6005225
- Application reference
- 25/02947/FULL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Two single-storey rear extensions and patio to a Grade II listed 17th-century cottage (Appeal A; linked LBC Appeal B 6005229)
- Site context
- listed building setting, conservation area, national landscape
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(1), HE4(2), HE6(4)
- Development plan policies
- Tunbridge Wells Local Plan 2025 H11, EN4, EN1
- Main issues
- listed building
Summary
Two single-storey rear extensions to a Grade II Wealden cottage were refused. The roof forms were contrived, the timber shingle contrasted with the host's rare tile-hung and weatherboard combination, and the extensions would overwhelm the rear elevation. Moderate harm was not outweighed by modest benefits (DL 10-17).
What made the difference
The design choices (incoherent roof forms, alien cladding) rather than size alone. There was also no evidence that the energy-efficiency and living-space benefits could not be achieved in a less harmful way (DL 17).
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) | fail | moderate harm from contrived roof forms, timber shingle cladding and obscuring of the rear elevation; benefits modest (DL 10-17). Enriched by corpus-rest-1 — grading "moderate harm" (no "less than substantial"); HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation, HE4(2) clear and convincing justification and HE6(3) "considerable importance and weight" all stated (DL 14-15); s16(2)/s66(1)/s72(1) cited | |
| HE6(4) | benefit | enriched by corpus-rest-1 — larger, more energy-efficient family home (HE6(4) names energy efficiency as an important public benefit), construction jobs, sedum/wildflower roofs: "modest weight"; discounted because "no substantive evidence ... that this could not be achieved in another, less harmful manner" (DL 17) | |
| N4 | neutral | localised heritage harm would not affect the natural beauty of the High Weald NL (DL 19) | |
| HE9 | pass | Lamberhurst and The Down CA character preserved (DL 20) |
Key facts
- Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 5)
- Inspector gives 'substantial weight' to the harm rather than to the asset's conservation (DL 17)
- Linked LBC Appeal B 6005229 (25/02977/LBC) decided in the same letter and also dismissed; no separate case file (corpus-rest-1)
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.