# 28 Main Street, Lyddington (planning appeal)

- **Decision:** allowed, 8 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Fleming
- **Authority:** Rutland (East Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008494
- **Application reference:** 2025/1699/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Replacement of modern rear windows, patio doors and side door at a Grade II listed house (planning appeal A; LBC appeal B is 6008495)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6
- **Development plan policies:** Rutland Core Strategy 2011 CS22, Site Allocations and Policies DPD 2014 SP20, Rutland Window and Door Design Guidance SPD 2025
- **Main issues:** Grade II listed building, Lyddington Conservation Area
- **Tags:** tier-2, windows, heritage-no-harm, conservation-area, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement

## Summary
Planning half of the Lyddington window appeals (LBC appeal B is PINS-6008495). The windows and doors being replaced were modern and degraded, and the replacements would be an improvement with limited visibility. No harm to the listed building or the conservation area. Allowed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "insofar as they are relevant to these appeals, the policies have not materially changed" (DL ¶4).
- **Heritage: NO HARM.** "They are clearly not historic fabric and not historic windows as referred to in the SPD." (DL ¶9). "The proposals would therefore preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building." (DL ¶10). "For the same reasons, there would be no conflict with the heritage preservation aims of the Framework." (DL ¶11).

## What made the difference
The fabric being replaced was modern, so the SPD's historic-window guidance did not apply.

## Transferable points
- Replacing modern, non-historic joinery in a listed building can preserve its special interest; with no harm, no public-benefits balance is needed (DL ¶9-11).

## Policy findings
- **HE6: pass.** modern degraded units replaced, not historic fabric; special interest and CA preserved; no conflict with the heritage preservation aims of the Framework; no specific HE code cited (DL 9-11)

## Key facts
- Joint letter with LBC appeal 6008495; both allowed (DL 1-3)
- Parties not re-consulted on the 2026 Framework; policies said not to have materially changed (DL 4)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008494
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7b2a3424-415b-41b5-8aeb-fdae9a890fb6

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008494.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.