# Bastle house north of Whitlees, Elsdon (listed building consent conditions) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Paul Martinson - **Authority:** Northumberland National Park (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006903 - **Application reference:** 25NP0102 (LBC condition variation) - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Variation of approved-plans condition and removal of arrow-slit condition on listed building consent 25NP0020LBC for conversion of a bastle and byre to two holiday lets, to allow wider windows (Appeal A 6006905 is the s73 planning appeal, also dismissed) - **Site context:** national-park, listed-building-setting, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE6(3) - **Development plan policies:** Northumberland National Park Local Plan 2020 ST1, ST2, DM6, DM14 - **Main issues:** special interest of listed building, whether conditions serve a useful purpose - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-graded, old-heritage-wording, old-wording-slip, s73-conditions, national-park, rural-tourism, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A joint letter on a Grade II bastle house in Northumberland National Park, already consented for holiday-let conversion with arrow-slit openings. Appeal B (this file) sought to vary the listed building consent conditions to allow wider windows; Appeal A (6006905) sought the same through s73. Both dismissed: moderate harm to significance, and the named HE6(4) benefit of reusing a vacant listed building was discounted because the extant consent already secures it. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have taken into account the national decision-making (DM) policies contained within the new National Planning Policy Framework" (DL ¶4). No consultation paragraph. - **Harm: moderate.** The windows "would introduce window proportions more akin to those of modern domestic windows" (DL ¶15); "I consider the harm to the designated heritage asset to be of a moderate level" (DL ¶21). - **HE6(1) wording slip (incidental).** "the Framework sets out that great weight should be given to the asset's conservation" (DL ¶20). The conclusion rests on the 2026 formula at DL ¶26. - **HE6(4) public benefits: FAIL.** Reuse "would represent a substantial benefit", but "This benefit could be provided through a more sensitive scheme, as evidenced by the existence of the extant approvals" (DL ¶22). "the moderate public benefits I have set out above are not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I am required to attach to the moderate level of harm" (DL ¶26). - **Conditions** "continue to serve a useful purpose and are reasonable and necessary" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance HE6(4) harm v public benefits, with s16(2)/s66(1) duties. Benefits discounted as achievable without the harm (reuse, tourism) or unevidenced (escape, daylight). ## What made the difference The fallback cuts both ways: the extant consent secured the same reuse and tourism benefits, so none of them could be credited to the harmful change. Evidence that only the wider windows could make the conversion work (Building Regulations escape, viability) would have been needed. ## Transferable points - The HE6(4) named benefit of reusing a vacant listed building loses weight where an extant, less harmful consent already achieves it (DL ¶22, ¶25). - Listed buildings are protected for their inherent interest whether or not the elevation is publicly visible (DL ¶18). - Building Regulations flexibility for historic buildings undercuts a justification based on means of escape (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (great weight).** letter says "great weight should be given to the asset's conservation" (2024 wording, DL 20); moderate harm to Grade II bastle from wider, domestic-proportioned windows and loss of historic fabric (DL 15-17, 21) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "considerable importance and weight" to the moderate harm (DL 26) - **HE6(4): fail.** long-term reuse of a vacant listed building is a named public benefit ("substantial") but weight limited because extant consent achieves it without the harmful windows; escape and daylight not shown to need them; tourism benefits also available from extant approvals; "moderate public benefits" do not outweigh (DL 21-26) ## Key facts - One application (25NP0102) sought both the s73 variation (Appeal A 6006905) and the LBC condition variation (DL header) - Grade II bastle house (16th/17th C fortified farmhouse), List Entry 1155121; significance in massive walls and high solid-to-void ratio (DL 3, 8-10) - Extant permission and LBC (18 Aug 2025) allow frameless recessed arrow slits; appeal sought a single 600 mm window per pair (DL 12-15) - Inspector doubts a frameless openable escape window is buildable, questioning drawing accuracy (DL 16) - Building Regulations flexibility for historic buildings; window not shown to be the only escape route (DL 23) - 2026 Framework applied; no consultation paragraph (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006903 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a0b987d6-1606-4ddc-af59-bc59ebc347f4 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006903.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.