# Bastle house north of Whitlees, Elsdon (s73 planning appeal)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Paul Martinson
- **Authority:** Northumberland National Park (North East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6006905
- **Application reference:** 25NP0102
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** s73 application to vary the approved-plans condition and arrow-slit condition on permission 25NP0019 (conversion of a bastle and byre to two holiday lets) to allow wider windows (Appeal B 6006903 is the linked listed building consent appeal)
- **Site context:** national-park, listed-building-setting, open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4)
- **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, s73-conditions, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, old-heritage-wording, old-wording-slip, national-park, rural-tourism, transitional-no-consultation

## Summary
Appeal A of a joint letter (Appeal B, 6006903, is the listed building consent appeal). A consented holiday-let conversion of a Grade II bastle house in Northumberland National Park was approved with narrow arrow slits; this s73 appeal sought wider windows. Moderate harm to significance; the HE6(4) benefit of reusing an underused listed building was discounted because the extant consent already secures it. Dismissed.

## 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.
- **Harm.** "the proposal would lack the authenticity of the approved arrow slits and would introduce window proportions more akin to those of modern domestic windows" (DL ¶15). Public visibility is irrelevant: "listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public views of the buildings can be gained" (DL ¶18). "I consider the harm to the designated heritage asset to be of a moderate level" (DL ¶21).
- **Weight wording.** "great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation" (DL ¶20) is 2024 wording; the operative balance uses "the considerable importance and weight I am required to attach to the moderate level of harm" (DL ¶26). The slip is incidental.
- **HE6(4): FAIL.** "The proposal would secure the long-term reuse of a vacant or underused listed building. This would represent a substantial benefit of the appeal scheme. However, there is little evidence before me that this benefit is entirely dependent upon the provision of the windows" (DL ¶22). "Overall, 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).

## Planning balance
HE6(4), harm against public benefits, with s16(2) and s66(1). The conditions continue to serve a useful purpose (DL ¶28).

## What made the difference
The fallback of the extant consent. The named HE6(4) benefit (reuse of a vacant listed building) and the tourism benefits would be delivered anyway, so they did not weigh in favour of the harmful change.

## Transferable points
- A named HE6(4) public benefit carries little weight where an extant, less harmful consent already delivers it (DL ¶22, ¶25).
- Harm to a listed building counts even on elevations the public cannot see (DL ¶18).
- Building Regulations flexibility for historic buildings undercuts a claim that a harmful opening is needed for 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); incidental, since the balance at DL 26 uses the 2026 HE6(3) formula
- **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm to the Grade II bastle from wider, domestic-proportioned windows, likely framed casements and greater loss of historic fabric (DL 15-17, 21, 26)
- **HE6(4): fail.** reuse of a vacant or underused listed building is a named public benefit ("substantial") but not dependent on the harmful windows, since extant consent secures it; escape and daylight needs not shown; tourism benefits also available under extant approvals; "moderate public benefits" do not outweigh (DL 21-26)

## Key facts
- Grade II bastle house, List Entry 1155121; significance from massive walls, few openings and high solid-to-void ratio (DL 3, 10)
- Extant permission 25NP0019 and LBC 25NP0020LBC (18 Aug 2025) allow frameless recessed arrow slits (DL 5, 12-13)
- Appeal sought a single 600 mm window in place of each pair of arrow slits on the north elevation (DL 14-15)
- Conditions 2 and 18 found still to serve a useful purpose (DL 28)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006905
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1722b8ec-eee7-43c5-a8a6-3d4e6fc02f8e

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006905.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.