# 28 Main Street, Lyddington

- **Decision:** allowed, 8 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Fleming
- **Authority:** Rutland (East Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008495
- **Application reference:** 2025/1700/LBA
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Replacement of modern rear bedroom and kitchen windows, patio doors and side door at Grade II listed house
- **Site context:** listed-building-setting, conservation-area, inside-settlement
- **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, conservation-area, windows, transitional-no-consultation, heritage-no-harm

## Summary
Replacing modern rear windows and doors at a Grade II listed ironstone house in Lyddington Conservation Area was allowed (planning and LBC). The existing units were modern and degraded, and the replacements with astragal bars would be an improvement with limited visibility. There was no harm, so no public-benefits balance was run (DL ¶9-11).

## What made the difference
The fabric being replaced was not historic. The SPD's preference for integral glazing bars applies to historic windows, and the inspector read it that way (DL ¶8-9). Contrast PINS-6008490, where original sashes were lost.

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

## Key facts
- Appeal A 6008494 (planning, 2025/1699/FUL) and Appeal B 6008495 (LBC) decided together (DL 3)
- Windows being replaced are C20 and "clearly not historic fabric" so the SPD's historic-window guidance does not bite (DL 9)
- Parties not re-consulted; policies "have not materially changed" (DL 4)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008495
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2dd5da5d-b003-4428-bec6-3ff0ccc32198

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008495.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.