# 1 The Down Cottages, Lamberhurst (rear extensions, listed building)

- **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
- **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building, heritage-harm-decisive, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, national-landscape, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, alternatives-not-explored, householder

## 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
- **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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005225
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/74bfb5cf-dabe-46d6-ad8c-87747a06f001

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005225.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.