# 7 Church Street, Stamford - **Decision:** dismissed, 20 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L N Hughes - **Authority:** South Kesteven (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6007762 - **Application reference:** S25/2181 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two-storey rear extension with dual-gable roof, solar panels, rooflights, side window and ASHP to a 1903 end-terrace house (non-determination) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(4), HE7(2), HE9(1) - **Development plan policies:** South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036 EN6, DE1, Stamford Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036 Policies 8, 10, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven SPD - **Main issues:** conservation area, non-designated heritage assets - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, less-than-substantial-legacy-wording, conservation-area, ndha, householder, transitional-no-consultation, inspector-departs-from-conservation-officer, positive-building-as-ndha ## Summary A two-storey rear extension, with solar and an ASHP, to a 1903 terraced house in the Stamford Conservation Area. Dismissed after non-determination. The inspector went further than the council's conservation officer, who had found no harm to the CA. The near full-height, dual-gabled extension, visible through a gap in the street frontage and across a public car park, caused less than substantial harm "at the lowest end" to the CA and harm to the house and terrace as NDHAs. Energy and economic benefits got "very minor weight". ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Changes "have not been determinative"; no re-consultation (DL ¶3). - **Positive buildings are NDHAs.** "The appeal property along with most of those along Church Street are identified as positive buildings within the CA. As such, they form non-designated heritage assets, whereby the Framework Policy HE7(2) further identifies ..." (DL ¶7). - **Harm.** "It would not be sufficiently subordinate to the original dwelling, being nearly its full height and width, and with the dual gable as a new architectural form which would overwhelm the host" (DL ¶16). - **Grading.** "less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA ... albeit this would be at the lowest end of that spectrum of harm to which the Framework Policy HE6(1) requires that I give substantial weight" (DL ¶18). - **Benefits.** "I give very minor weight to the proposed improved energy efficiency measures ... improvement of the latter two elements could be achieved in other ways, and provision of additional living space would only be a private benefit" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance HE6(4): harm at the lowest end, carrying substantial weight under HE6(1), plus NDHA harm under HE7(2), against very minor benefits. There is also an alternative, stand-alone DE1 character finding (moderate harm) (DL ¶21). ## What made the difference Massing relative to the host, and visibility through a gap in the street and from the car park. Materials were set aside as conditionable. A smaller, subordinate extension would probably have passed. Energy-efficiency benefits carried almost nothing because they could be achieved without the extension. ## Transferable points - Inspectors can find CA harm where the council's own conservation officer found none (DL ¶18). - Buildings identified as "positive" in a CA appraisal can be treated as NDHAs in their own right under HE7(2) (DL ¶7). - HE6(1) "substantial weight" is being applied directly to even the lowest-end harm, and "less than substantial" persists as a label (DL ¶18). - Energy measures that could be installed without the harmful part of a scheme get very little weight (DL ¶19). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (substantial weight).** grading "less than substantial harm ... at the lowest end of that spectrum of harm to which the Framework Policy HE6(1) requires that I give substantial weight" — legacy LTS vocabulary plus HE6(1) weight applied to the harm; HE6(3) wording not used; s66 and s72 cited; inspector finds CA harm although council's own conservation officer found none (DL 16-18) - **HE6(4): benefit (very-limited weight).** "very minor weight" to energy-efficiency measures (solar, ASHP) and construction spend; insulation and bathroom could be improved other ways; extra space a private benefit (DL 19-20) - **HE7(2): harm.** house and Church Street terrace are positive buildings in the CA and so treated as NDHAs; near full-height, full-width dual-gable extension overwhelms host (DL 7, 16-17, 20) - **HE9(1): fail.** positive-contributor buildings to be conserved (DL 7) - **DE1 (South Kesteven LP): conflict.** alternative finding — even without CA harm there would be "moderate harm" to character, so conflict with DE1 and NP Policy 10 (DL 21) - **HE6: neutral.** no effect on Grade I St Martin's Church or Grade II* George Hotel (DL 15) ## Key facts - Extension visible through a gap in the Church Street frontage and across the George Hotel car park (DL 17) - Red brick and blue slate would contrast with limestone and Collyweston; treated as conditionable (DL 13) - Parties not re-consulted; old paragraph references "no longer relevant" (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007762 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f26861f2-837e-495c-bd00-a8a653b9aaeb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007762.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.