- Decision
- allowed, 9 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: R Kent
- Authority
- East Devon (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6006240
- Application reference
- 25/2102/LBC
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Listed building consent for 13 solar panels on a 1980s south-east roof slope of a Grade II 16th-century farmhouse
- Site context
- open countryside
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), CC2(2), HE4(2)
- Development plan policies
- East Devon Local Plan 2016 EN8, EN9, draft East Devon Local Plan 2020-2042 HE01, HE02
- Main issues
- special interest of listed building; public benefits
Summary
Listed building consent was refused for 13 solar panels on the rear roof of a Grade II 16th-century Devon farmhouse. The appeal was allowed. The inspector found limited harm and gave substantial weight to energy efficiency under the new CC2(2). Together with HE6's recognition that enabling energy efficiency is an important public benefit, that gave the "clear and convincing justification" for the harm. It is the clearest early example of CC2(2) tipping an HE6(4) heritage balance.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "On 17 August 2026 a new National Planning Policy Framework … was published. The Council and the appellants have had the opportunity to make comments" (DL ¶4).
- Heritage: LIMITED HARM. The panels "would contribute to the gradual erosion of the historic character of the building as a result of the cumulative effect of the alterations" (DL ¶11). However, "The relatively recent construction of the roof and the absence of harm to the historic fabric … coupled with the fact that the roof is not in a prominent location, means that the proposal would result in limited harm" (DL ¶15). HEAN 18 treats a roof slope "of less prominence" as generally acceptable (DL ¶14).
- Energy efficiency: SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT (CC2(2)). "enabling energy efficiency and transferring unused electricity to the National Grid would also be a substantial public benefit. This is also recognised by NDMP HE6 which states that enabling energy efficiency can be an important public benefit. The benefit of improving the energy efficiency of the existing building attracts substantial weight in favour of the proposal in accordance with NDMP CC2 paragraph 2" (DL ¶17).
- Balance: PASS. "The limited harm … is nevertheless a matter of considerable importance and weight and I have given substantial weight to the asset's conservation. However … the public benefits resulting from the proposal provide clear and convincing justification for the limited harm" (DL ¶18).
Planning balance
This was an HE6(4) harm-versus-public-benefit balance under s16(2) of the Listed Buildings Act. On one side: limited harm, with substantial weight to conservation (HE6(1)) and considerable importance and weight to the harm. On the other: substantial weight to energy efficiency (CC2(2)), plus grid export and climate objectives. The benefits outweighed the harm (DL ¶22).
What made the difference
The roof was a 1980s replacement that was not prominent, and the building's significance lay inside. That kept the harm limited. CC2(2) then supplied a substantial-weight public benefit that a householder solar scheme would not reliably have had under the 2024 Framework. Contrast PINS-6011314 and PINS-6007221: there, CC2(2) was held not engaged because an extension does not improve the energy efficiency of the existing building.
Transferable points
- CC2(2) gives substantial weight to improving the energy efficiency of an existing listed building, and this counts as a public benefit in the HE6(4) balance (DL ¶17).
- Roof-mounted solar on a non-prominent, non-original roof slope causes only limited harm, even where visible from the garden (DL ¶13-15, citing HEAN 18).
- Substantial weight to conservation (HE6(1)) does not prevent limited harm being outweighed where CC2(2) benefits are engaged (DL ¶18).
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(1) | harm | considerable | limited harm - utilitarian panels add to cumulative erosion of historic character, but roof is a late-1980s replacement, no historic fabric touched, and slope not prominent (DL 11-15, 18) |
| CC2(2) | benefit | substantial | improving energy efficiency of the existing building attracts substantial weight; export to the grid is a public benefit (DL 16-17) |
| HE6(4) | pass | public benefits outweigh limited harm; HE6 itself recognises enabling energy efficiency as an important public benefit (DL 17-18, 22) | |
| HE4(2) | pass | public benefits give "clear and convincing justification" (DL 18) | |
| HE5(1) | pass | appellant's heritage statement adequate; local policy EN8 met (DL 19) |
Key facts
- Grade II farmhouse, early to mid-16th century; significance mainly in its internal three-room and through-passage plan; exterior much altered (DL 7-9)
- Roof covering thought to date from the late 1980s (artificial slates replacing thatch); 13 panels 30 mm deep in two blocks, 8 on the lower subordinate garage roof (DL 8, 10)
- Slope faces a landscaped garden and is not prominent from the road; Historic England Advice Note 18 (2026) relied on (DL 13-14)
- Ground-mounted alternative discounted because of tree shading and setting effects (DL 20)
- Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 4)
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.