- Decision
- dismissed, 19 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Sarah Manchester
- Authority
- Cheshire East (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6006027
- Application reference
- 25/0504/LBC
- Procedure
- hearing
- Development
- Conversion of curtilage-listed coach house to ancillary living accommodation with glazed link to Grade II farmhouse (planning 6006023 and LBC 6006027)
- Site context
- green belt, conservation area, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- Yes
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(1), 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
Summary
Converting a curtilage-listed coach house into principal living space linked to a Grade II farmhouse in the Mobberley Conservation Area and Green Belt. After a hearing, the Inspector found "a moderate degree of harm" to the listed building, given considerable importance and weight. The benefits were mainly private, the energy-efficiency claims went no further than compliance, and less harmful alternatives had not been explored. Both appeals dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Harm: HE5/HE6. "Policy HE6 … advises that … substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation … it would result in a moderate degree of harm to the LB which in this instance is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶33).
- Public benefits: HE6(4). The Inspector expressly paraphrased the new HE6(4) examples, "securing the long-term reuse of an underused listed building and enabling energy efficiency" (DL ¶34), and then rejected 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" (DL ¶35). This borrows the DP3(5) wording.
- Reuse: "Grove House is already in optimum viable use … not dependent on the proposal" (DL ¶36). "there would likely be alternative schemes that would result in similar benefits without the harm … only limited weight" (DL ¶37).
- The link "would be a significant private benefit" but "little public benefit" (DL ¶¶38–39).
- Deliberate neglect (HE4(3)). The earlier unauthorised works had an unknown baseline, so the current state was used, but "the earlier unauthorised alterations and loss of historic features do not justify further loss" (DL ¶17).
- CA vs LB. "listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public views … are afforded" (DL ¶31).
Planning balance
HE6(4). Moderate harm of considerable importance and weight, against limited and mainly private benefits. The development plan was also breached.
What made the difference
The internal loss of the coach-house plan form and the paired faux arched openings. The glazed link could have been fixed by conditions (DL ¶¶24–26), but the other elements could not, and no alternative forms had been tested.
Transferable points
- To count under HE6(4), energy efficiency needs evidence that the scheme goes beyond compliance. The Inspector read HE6(4) together with the DP3(5) "outstanding or innovative design" test (DL ¶35).
- "Underused" reuse carries limited weight where the asset is already in optimum viable use and alternatives exist (DL ¶¶36–37).
- Harm to a listed building can be found without any harm to the conservation area, because public visibility is not a precondition for listed-building harm (DL ¶31).
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(3) | harm | considerable | "a moderate degree of harm": loss of coach-house plan form and fabric, faux arched glazed openings, light spill, elevation of ancillary building status (DL 13-20, 30-33) |
| HE6(4) | fail | limited | short-term economic limited; energy efficiency not beyond compliance; not optimum viable use (house already in OVU, alternatives not explored); link a private benefit (DL 34-40) |
| HE4(3) | neutral | condition before unauthorised earlier works unknown, so existing state taken as baseline; past losses do not justify further loss (DL 17) | |
| HE9 | pass | changes not prominent in public views, so CA significance preserved; no inconsistency with LB harm (DL 4, 31) | |
| GB7 | pass | not disproportionate; not inappropriate (common ground) (DL 5) |
Key facts
- Coach house is the only surviving farmstead outbuilding; curtilage listed, could be an NDHA in its own right
- An amended fully glazed link with retained cobbles would have been acceptable, but the arched openings and internal losses were not
- Bat roost; licence likely, no conflict
Related decisions
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.