# Three Horseshoes, Bannister Green, Felsted (replacement windows, LBC) - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A James - **Authority:** Uttlesford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6006059 - **Application reference:** UTT/25/3150/LB - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent to replace front sashes, rear casements and two front doors of a Grade II 17th-century former pub with slimline double-glazed timber units - **Site context:** listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(4), HE4(2), CC2(2) - **Development plan policies:** Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (adopted March 2026) Core Policy 62 - **Main issues:** listed building, energy efficiency - **Tags:** listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, energy-efficiency, evidence-gap, windows, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Listed building consent to replace all the windows and front doors of a Grade II 17th-century former pub with slimline double-glazed timber units was refused. The case matters for how it handles the new CC2(2). The inspector accepts that CC2(2) requires substantial weight to improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings. But "this does not disapply other parts of the Framework". Unquantified savings for one house carry limited weight, and even substantial weight would not have outweighed the low harm. ## Issues and findings - **Harm: LOW.** There was no condition survey and no detailed drawings of profiles, glazing bars, horns or sash mechanism: "such information is fundamental … and I do not find that such details can be left to condition" (DL ¶13). "I am not persuaded that replacement is the only option or the most appropriate conservation-led solution" (DL ¶16). - **Weight to harm.** "a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection and the Framework is clear that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶17). - **CC2(2).** "Policy CC2 of the Framework requires that substantial weight is given to the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings. However, this does not disapply other parts of the Framework" (DL ¶18). "any improvements to the building's thermal efficiency and consequent energy savings have not been quantified. Given that the proposal relates to a single property, any environmental benefits which would flow to the public at large are likely to be minimal" (DL ¶19). - **Balance.** "Even if I were to afford substantial weight to the energy efficiency improvements, I do not find that the public benefits would outweigh the considerable weight and importance that I am required to give to the harm" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance The HE6(4) balance under s16(2). Harm: low, with substantial weight to conservation (HE6(1)) and considerable weight to the harm. Benefits: small economic, and energy efficiency given limited weight (and held insufficient even at substantial weight). The benefits were mostly private (DL ¶20). Refused. ## What made the difference Evidence and alternatives. No survey showed the joinery was beyond repair, there were no detailed replica drawings, and there was no quantification of energy savings. Compare PINS-6006240 (Sheldon): there, roof solar on a non-historic, non-prominent roof caused only limited harm, and CC2(2)'s substantial weight tipped the balance. ## Transferable points - CC2(2)'s substantial weight to energy efficiency "does not disapply other parts of the Framework". It is weighed within HE6(4), not an override (DL ¶18). - Unquantified energy savings from a single dwelling carry limited public-benefit weight (DL ¶19). - Replacing traditional windows needs a condition survey and detailed drawings; these cannot be left to condition (DL ¶13). - A low level of harm "does not equate to a low planning objection" (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** low-level harm: no condition survey showing all joinery beyond repair; double glazing differs visually and no sash mechanism or glazing-bar details (DL 10-17) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification for the harm (DL 16) - **CC2(2): benefit (limited weight).** CC2 requires substantial weight to improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings, 'However, this does not disapply other parts of the Framework'; savings unquantified, single property (DL 18-19) - **HE6(4): fail.** public benefits limited; 'Even if I were to afford substantial weight to the energy efficiency improvements' they would not outweigh the harm (DL 18-21) ## Key facts - Revised scheme submitted at appeal not accepted: 'An appeal should not be used as a mechanism to evolve or refine a scheme' (DL 6) - Some windows rotten, others repairable; no detailed condition survey (DL 10-11) - Parties given the opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006059 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c6273877-ff41-4b44-817b-bf11440a4450 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006059.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.