- Decision
- allowed, 14 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: F Cullen
- Authority
- East Riding of Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6006422
- Application reference
- 25/01754/PLF
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Retrospective installation of a biomass boiler and 10 m flue in an outbuilding attached to a Grade II listed farmhouse
- Site context
- settlement edge, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(a), HE6(4), CC2(2), W3(1)(a), P3, DM7(1), DM3(1)(e)
- Development plan policies
- East Riding Local Plan Update 2020-2039 (April 2025) ENV1, ENV3, ENV6
- Main issues
- living conditions - emissions; listed building setting; character and appearance
Summary
A retrospective biomass boiler and 10 m flue in an outbuilding attached to the Grade II listed North Burton Hall, on a working farm at the edge of Burton Fleming. Refused by the Council on emissions and heritage grounds. Allowed on appeal. Residents' smoke photographs and consumer PM2.5 readings were not robust enough, the Council's own Environmental Control Team and the EA raised no objection, and a straw-only fuel condition would deal with any harm. The flue causes "very low" harm to the Hall's significance. That harm is outweighed by the low-carbon heating benefit, which carries substantial weight under CC2(2) and W3(1)(a) and is expressly an "important public benefit" under HE6(4). The S5(1)(a) balance is passed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The updated Framework includes policy changes which are relevant to the main issues … the main parties were given the opportunity to comment" (DL ¶6).
- Emissions: P3 PASS. The residents' information "is not sufficiently detailed and does not allow for a robust assessment. There is an absence of: verifiable baseline data; details of the environmental conditions … and regular objective monitoring over an appropriate period of time, preferably by an independent professional" (DL ¶13). "technical compliance with environmental permitting or nuisance legislation does not automatically equate to an absence of harm in planning and amenity terms" (DL ¶16), but ECT and EA sign-off "remains material" (DL ¶17). A fuel condition "would adequately mitigate any existing or potential adverse effects" (DL ¶19).
- Heritage: HE5(2), HE6 HARM (very low). The flue "disrupts the established relationship and hierarchy between the main body of the Hall and the outbuilding" (DL ¶35). The harm comes "with what could reasonably be concluded as clear and convincing justification" because of the EA flue-height requirement (DL ¶37). "I find that the scheme results in a very low level of harm to the significance of the Hall" (DL ¶42). Substantial weight to conservation and "considerable importance and weight to the identified harm" (DL ¶43). No harm to the Grade II* church (DL ¶40).
- HC4: not engaged. The Council's reliance on it was misplaced (DL ¶45).
- Other regimes: DM7(1). "No compelling evidence has been presented that any other relevant regulatory regime will not operate effectively" (DL ¶47).
Planning balance
The HE6(4) heritage balance comes first. "Policy HE6(4) of the Framework confirms that enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures to be employed is an 'important public benefit' in heritage terms. In addition, Policy CC2(2) requires substantial weight … Similarly, Policy W3(1a) requires substantial weight" (DL ¶59). The very low harm is outweighed (DL ¶61). The S5 balance follows: the site is outside development limits, the development falls under S5(1)(a) ("agriculture or infrastructure (including energy)"), and the "effects do not substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶¶57, 62). The development plan conflict is outweighed by material considerations (DL ¶63).
What made the difference
The new Framework's explicit weighting of low-carbon heating, as an HE6(4) "important public benefit" and substantial weight under CC2(2) and W3(1)(a), against harm that was only "very low" because the flue sits on a subordinate outbuilding rather than the principal building. On emissions, the Council offered no data of its own, its specialist officers did not object, and residents' evidence was anecdotal. With an independent air-quality study showing exceedances, or with the flue fixed to the principal listed building, the result could have been different.
Transferable points
- Under the 2026 Framework, low-carbon heating in or at a listed building is an "important public benefit" under HE6(4) and gets substantial weight under CC2(2) and W3(1)(a). That is enough to outweigh very low less-than-substantial harm (DL ¶¶59, 61).
- HE5(2)(c) requires the degree of harm to be identified. The inspector identified it as "very low" (DL ¶42).
- A domestic or farm biomass installation can fall within S5(1)(a) "agriculture or infrastructure (including energy)" (DL ¶57).
- Residents' photographs and consumer PM2.5 monitor readings, without baseline, conditions or independent monitoring, will not support a P3 refusal. Specialist officer and EA non-objection is material (DL ¶¶13, 17).
- DM7(1): decision-makers assume separate regulatory regimes will work unless there is clear contrary evidence (DL ¶47).
- DM3(1)(e): a fuel-type condition can be relied on even where harm is not established (DL ¶19).
- HC4 is about community facilities and public-health development and is not a general health policy for refusals (DL ¶45).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| P3(2)(c) | pass | PM2.5 concerns considered but residents' monitor readings and photos lacked baseline, conditions and independent monitoring; ECT and EA no objection (DL 10-18) | |
| DM3(1)(e) | pass | even if harm had been shown, a straw-only fuel condition would mitigate it (DL 19) | |
| DM7(1) | pass | assume separate regulatory regimes (EA permitting, nuisance) operate effectively (DL 17, 47) | |
| HE5(2) | harm | degree of harm identified as "very low" to Grade II Hall - flue disrupts hierarchy between Hall and outbuilding (DL 29, 34-35, 42) | |
| HE6(1) | harm | considerable | substantial weight to conservation and considerable importance and weight to harm; "clear and convincing justification" (EA flue-height requirement) (DL 37, 43) |
| HE6(4) | benefit | low-carbon heating is an "important public benefit" in heritage terms; outweighs very low harm (DL 59, 61) | |
| HE6 (Grade II* Church of St Cuthbert) | neutral | setting preserved - separation, very limited intervisibility, no evidence of emissions affecting fabric (DL 38-40) | |
| CC2(2) | benefit | substantial | energy efficiency / renewable heat for existing buildings (DL 59) |
| W3(1)(a) | benefit | substantial | transition to net zero (DL 59) |
| S5(1)(a) | pass | outside development limits; "development for agriculture or infrastructure (including energy)"; adverse effects do not substantially outweigh (DL 57, 62) | |
| HC4 | not-engaged | Council's reliance rejected - policy concerns community facilities and public health developments (DL 45) | |
| E2(1)(b), E4 | not-engaged | appellant did not show business growth benefit (DL 60) | |
| ERLP ENV1, ENV3 | conflict | limited harm to character and appearance and heritage harm; conflict with plan outweighed by material considerations (DL 41, 63) |
Key facts
- Biomass boiler in outbuilding since 1990; current Glen Farrow system installed 2014; retrospective application
- Flue about 10 m, about 4 m above outbuilding ridge and above the Hall roofline; painted matt black
- Outbuilding attached to Grade II listed North Burton Hall (curtilage-listed by s1(5)); Grade II* church opposite
- Many objections with photos and consumer Temtop PM2.5 readings; Council ECT no objection with fuel condition; EA found compliant March 2025
- Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework
- Conditions - flue colour maintained, straw-only fuel
- Costs application by appellant decided separately (not read)
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.