# Grove House, Town Lane, Mobberley (planning appeal) - **Decision:** dismissed, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Sarah Manchester - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006023 - **Application reference:** 25/0500/HOUS - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Conversion of curtilage-listed coach house to ancillary habitable accommodation with glazed link extension to the Grade II farmhouse (planning appeal A; LBC appeal B is 6006027) - **Site context:** green-belt, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 SD2, SE1, SE3, SE7, Cheshire East SADPD 2022 GEN1, HER1, HER4 - **Main issues:** listed building, protected species - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, private-benefit-not-public, alternative-scheme-not-explored, curtilage-listed, householder-gb, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary The planning half of the Grove House, Mobberley appeals (LBC appeal B is PINS-6006027, decided in the same letter). Converting the curtilage-listed coach house into principal living space linked to the Grade II farmhouse would cause a moderate degree of harm to the listed building. The benefits were mainly private and less harmful alternatives had not been explored. The Green Belt and conservation area were not objections. Dismissed after a hearing. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I am satisfied that the interests of neither party would be prejudiced by my taking it into account in my decision." (DL ¶2). - **Green Belt, GB7(1)(b): PASS.** Council's view accepted: "the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. I see no reason to disagree." (DL ¶5). - **Harm (HE5/HE6).** "it would result in a moderate degree of harm to the LB which in this instance is of considerable importance and weight in the planning balance of these appeals" (DL ¶33). Visibility is irrelevant: "listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public views of the building or curtilage listed structures are afforded" (DL ¶31). - **HE6(4): FAIL.** The inspector paraphrased the new named benefits, "securing the long-term reuse of an underused listed building and enabling energy efficiency" (DL ¶34), then discounted both. Energy: "there is little evidence that it would be outstanding design which promotes high levels of sustainability or that it would go beyond compliance with the requirements of national and local planning policy" (DL ¶35). Reuse: "Grove House is already in optimum viable use as a residential dwelling." (DL ¶36). Conclusion: "the benefits, while considerable to the appellants, would be primarily private and they are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified" (DL ¶40). - **Bats.** "I conclude that the proposal would not harm bats or their roosts." (DL ¶47). ## Planning balance HE6(4) public-benefits balance, then plan conflict (SD2, SE1, SE7, GEN1, HER1, HER4) (DL ¶40). ## What made the difference The internal loss of the coach houses and the paired faux arched openings. The glazed link alone could have been made acceptable by conditions, but no alternative forms for the other elements had been tested. ## Transferable points - HE6(4) energy-efficiency and reuse benefits need evidence that goes beyond policy compliance, and reuse carries little weight where the asset is already in its optimum viable use (DL ¶34-37). - Harm to a listed building can be found with no harm to the conservation area, because public visibility is not a precondition (DL ¶31). - A GB7(1)(b) householder pass does not help where the heritage balance fails (DL ¶5, ¶40). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** Council accepted no disproportionate increase over the original building; not inappropriate; inspector agrees (DL 5) - **HE9: pass.** alterations not prominent in public views, so Mobberley CA preserved (DL 4, 31) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** moderate degree of harm to the Grade II farmhouse through loss of coach-house fabric and plan form, faux arched openings, glazing and light spill (DL 30, 32-33) - **HE6(4): fail (limited weight).** short-term economic benefit limited; energy efficiency not shown to go beyond compliance; house already in optimum viable use and alternatives not explored; link a private benefit (DL 34-40) - **HE4(3): neutral.** condition before earlier unauthorised works unknown, existing state taken as baseline; past losses do not justify further loss (DL 17) ## Key facts - Joint letter with LBC appeal 6006027 (same reasoning); both dismissed (DL 1) - Coach house is the only surviving outbuilding of the historic farmstead; could be an NDHA in its own right (DL 8, 12) - A fully glazed link with retained cobbles and no internal lighting would have been acceptable, but the arched openings and internal losses were not (DL 24-26, 29-30) - One common pipistrelle day roost; EPS licence likely, mitigation secured by condition; no harm to bats (DL 41-47) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006023 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ea053bb7-6968-4c7d-b383-742c1d24307b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006023.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.