# Land adjacent to 9 Windmill Close, Ivinghoe - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R J Redford - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007136 - **Application reference:** 25/01494/APP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** One 3-bedroom detached house (non-determination appeal) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.73 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), HE6(1), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2021 BE1, Ivinghoe Parish NP 2018 HSG1, ENV2 - **Main issues:** heritage setting, conservation area - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, grade-i-setting, conservation-area, s4-within-settlement, substantially-outweighed, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, drafting-slip ## Summary One house on the last open plot in the historic core of Ivinghoe, between a Grade I church, two Grade II buildings and the conservation area's focal junction. Dismissed. Within a settlement, so S4 applied; harm to the setting of the Grade I church and Grade II Kings Head and to the conservation area, carrying HE6(1) substantial weight, outweighed the substantial weight to one home despite a 3.73-year supply. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties given opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶3). - **Heritage setting — HE6 / s66, s72: HARM.** "The enclosing of this space would have an urbanising effect on the setting of the Church, further narrowing the important visual and physical relationship between it, the village and surrounding countryside" (DL ¶18); "impact on setting is not limited to intervisibility and does not negate the physical encroachment and reduction of spaciousness" (DL ¶21). - **HE6(4) balance: FAIL.** "As the proposal would cause harm to the significance of 3 designated heritage assets, including a Grade I listed building, it is not found that the public benefits are sufficient to outweigh this harm" (DL ¶27). - **S4 balance.** "Framework Policy HE6:1 places substantial weight on the conservation of heritage assets, irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss of its significance. It also highlights the more important the asset the greater the weight should be" (DL ¶35). ## Planning balance S3(1)(a)/S4(1) "substantially outweighed" balance (DL ¶33). Benefits: HO7 substantial weight (3.73-yr supply), L2(1) substantial weight to better use of underutilised land (DL ¶34). Against: HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation, greater for Grade I. Note: DL ¶35 as written says "the adverse effects would not substantially outweigh the benefits of the proposal" — which reads as a drafting slip given the dismissal and DL ¶36 ("no sufficiently weighted material considerations"). The HE6(4) balance (DL ¶27) is the clear operative reasoning. Treat the S4 formulation in this letter with care. ## What made the difference The site's openness was itself part of the setting of a Grade I church and the conservation area's key views; a single modern house matching adjoining 20th-century infill would further erode that. With a Grade I asset involved, one home's benefits could not tip the HE6(4) balance. A site outside key views or not contributing to Grade I setting would have favoured approval given S4 and the shortfall. ## Transferable points - HE6(1) "substantial weight" to conservation applies whatever the level of harm, and increases with asset importance (DL ¶35). - HE6(4) harm/benefit balance is run on its own before the S4 balance (DL ¶¶24–27). - Two policies now each give "substantial weight" — HO7 (homes) and L2(1) (underused land) — alongside HE6(1) (DL ¶¶34–35). - Screening does not remove setting harm; setting is not just intervisibility (DL ¶21). - A reduced scheme after an earlier dismissal is not acceptable just because it is an improvement (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** harm to setting of Grade I Church of St Mary and Grade II Kings Head by loss of spaciousness; HE6(1) substantial weight, more important asset greater weight (DL 18-20, 35) - **HE9: harm.** fails to preserve Ivinghoe CA — loses glimpsed views from junction to countryside (DL 18, 23) - **HE6(4): fail.** public benefits of one dwelling do not outweigh harm to three designated assets (DL 24-27) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 3.73-yr supply (North and Central Bucks) (DL 25, 34) - **L2(1): benefit (substantial weight).** better use of vacant/underutilised land (DL 34) - **S4(1): fail.** within settlement; S4 balance applied — heritage harm outweighs (DL 33-35) - **Grade II Old Brewery House setting: neutral.** set-back siting preserves significance (DL 17) ## Key facts - Last open part of the former brewery site between Grade I church, Grade II Old Brewery House and village-centre junction - Earlier larger scheme dismissed on appeal (APP/J0405/W/23/3329511); smaller scheme still harmful - Buckinghamshire (North and Central) 3.73-year supply - Screening trees do not negate harm — setting not limited to intervisibility ## Sources - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/APPEAL-DECISION-6007136-Land-Adjacent-to-9-Windmill-Close-Ivinghoe-Leighton-Buzzard-LU7-9EW.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/2026/ivinghoe-appeal/ --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007136.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.