20 Kennedy Road, Kingsland, Shrewsbury

Decision

dismissed, 7 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: N Bromley

Authority

Shropshire (West Midlands)

Appeal reference

6007355

Application reference

25/03653/FUL

Procedure

householder

Development

Wide single-storey side extension with barrel-vaulted first-floor element, rear and basement extensions to Victorian semi (NDHA)

Site context

inside settlement, conservation area

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), DP3(5)

Development plan policies

Shropshire Core Strategy 2011 CS6, CS17, Shropshire SAMDev 2015 MD2, MD13

Main issues

conservation area; trees

Summary

A large contemporary side extension to a Victorian semi in the Shrewsbury Conservation Area (Kingsland) was dismissed. It filled a characteristic side gap, causing "minor" harm to the conservation area of considerable importance and weight. That harm outweighed heritage gains, a 67% carbon reduction and high-quality design.

Issues and findings

• Grading harm under the 2026 Framework. "there would be harm (insofar as it relates to the categories of "harm" listed in the Framework) to the significance of this part of the CA … I have judged the extent of harm to be minor … Nevertheless, still of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶26). This is an explicit acknowledgement that the Framework's categories are now harm / substantial harm / total loss.
• Innovative design: DP3(5). "even though substantial weight can be given to innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability … a development should also be consistent with the overall form and layout of surroundings" (DL ¶15).
• Energy benefits. "as an energy efficient extension, the proposal would reduce carbon emissions by 67%, and, in accordance with the Framework, substantial weight can be given. However, due to the nature and domestic scale … the contribution to climate change mitigation would be minor" (DL ¶27).
• Private benefits. Family and work-from-home space are "private benefits" (DL ¶28).

Planning balance

HE6(1)/(3)/(4). "the public benefits … would generally be localised and minor in scale and would not be sufficient to outweigh the substantial weight that I attach to the conservation of the CA and the irreversible harm" (DL ¶31).

What made the difference

The spacious gaps between large Victorian villas are part of what makes this part of the conservation area significant. The extension's width and the barrel vault showing above the hedge eroded that gap.

Transferable points

• "Minor" harm to a conservation area still carries considerable importance and weight, and can outweigh a 67% carbon reduction at domestic scale (DL ¶¶26–31).
• The DP3(5) substantial weight for innovative or sustainable design is conditional on fitting the surrounding form and layout (DL ¶15).
• Inspectors now say expressly that harm is graded within the Framework's "harm" category rather than as "less than substantial" (DL ¶26).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Victorian Society and local support noted but did not change outcome
• PD fallback for side outbuildings unsubstantiated, limited weight (DL 21)
• Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 2)

Sources

• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)
• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service

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.