# 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
- **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, energy-efficiency-benefit, private-benefit-not-public, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, innovative-design

## 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
- **HE9: harm (considerable weight).** loss of spacious side gap characteristic of Kingsland SCA; harm "(insofar as it relates to the categories of "harm" listed in the Framework)" judged "minor" but of considerable importance and weight (DL 10-13, 25-26)
- **DP3(5): fail.** innovative contemporary design, but substantial weight unavailable as not "consistent with the overall form and layout of surroundings" (DL 14-15)
- **HE7: pass.** NDHA fabric unharmed; removal of 2-storey rear extension reveals original form (DL 14, 27)
- **HE6(4): fail.** 67% carbon reduction — "substantial weight can be given" but contribution minor at domestic scale; heritage gains, economy minor; family space private; benefits "localised and minor" (DL 27-31)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d2f1f88e-e6ce-4a6e-8afd-64552da9b23b
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007355

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007355.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.