# 4 Prospect Street, Reading

- **Decision:** dismissed, 25 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Sharp
- **Authority:** Reading (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008475
- **Application reference:** PL/25/1803
- **Procedure:** householder
- **Development:** Retrospective replacement of natural slate roof with fibre-cement tiles in a conservation area
- **Site context:** conservation-area, inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(4)
- **Development plan policies:** Reading Borough Local Plan 2019 EN3, EN6
- **Main issues:** conservation area
- **Tags:** conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-ungraded, retrospective, roof-materials, public-benefits-unevidenced

## Summary
A retrospective replacement of a natural slate roof with fibre-cement tiles in a Reading conservation area on the Heritage at Risk register was dismissed. The Inspector ran the new HE6 sequence explicitly: substantial weight to conservation under HE6(1), then a finding of "harm" with no grade, then an HE6(4) weighing against the public benefits, which were unevidenced.

## Issues and findings
- **Effect on the CA: harm.** The tiles are "visually jarring against the adjoining, retained natural slate" (DL ¶8), and "the removal of the natural slate results in the loss in the legibility of the building's history … part of a wider incremental diminishing" (DL ¶9).
- **HE6(1).** "substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation. This is irrespective of whether any effect … amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss" (DL ¶11).
- **Harm, ungraded.** "In this instance the development results in harm. This is because of the overall identified risk to the CA, how incremental loss affects its significance, and how important natural slates are" (DL ¶12). The letter does not use "less than substantial" and gives no scale position.
- **HE6(4): FAIL.** The claimed benefits of embodied carbon, avoided waste, reduced loading and durability had "little evidence"; there was "no evidence of a net benefit to fire safety"; "such public benefits do not outweigh the harm" (DL ¶13).
- The local plan policies EN3 and EN6 were found consistent with HE4–HE6 (DL ¶10).

## Planning balance
An HE6(4) heritage balance within a s38(6) plan-led decision. Substantial weight went to conservation, against unevidenced private or modest public benefits.

## What made the difference
Heritage-at-Risk status meant incremental loss carried extra significance, and the adjoining slate roofs made the contrast obvious. Environmental claims such as embodied carbon need evidence before they count as public benefits.

## Transferable points
- Under HE6 an Inspector can find simply "harm" without grading it, and then weigh it directly against public benefits (DL ¶¶12–13).
- The HE6(1) "irrespective of" limb is quoted as the basis for substantial weight even where the harm is modest (DL ¶11).
- Asserted low-carbon or material-efficiency benefits carry little weight without evidence (DL ¶13).
- Heritage-at-Risk status of a CA supports weight on the cumulative effect of incremental loss (DL ¶¶9, 12).

## Policy findings
- **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation "irrespective of whether any effect … amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss" (DL 11); harm left ungraded — simply "the development results in harm" (DL 12)
- **HE6(4): fail.** claimed benefits (affordability, embodied carbon, weight, durability) unevidenced; do not outweigh harm (DL 13)
- **HE5: harm.** loss of natural slate erodes legibility; incremental loss in a Heritage-at-Risk CA (DL 8-9, 12)
- **Reading LP EN3, EN6: conflict.** found consistent with HE4-HE6 (DL 10)

## Key facts
- Russell Street/Castle Hill CA is on Historic England Heritage at Risk register
- Roofs in the character area remain almost entirely natural slate; adjoining roofs still slate
- Grade II terrace 199-203 Oxford Road setting preserved (distance)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7b364670-ec1b-4f5c-bb64-248401890ef0
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008475

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008475.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.