# Manor Court, North Side, Steeple Aston (two-storey rear extension)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Jonathan Edwards
- **Authority:** Cherwell (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008562
- **Application reference:** 26/00019/F
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Two-storey rear extension replacing single-storey projection, internal refurbishment and window replacement (non-determination)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE9, HE6(1), HE6(4), HE4(2)
- **Development plan policies:** Cherwell Local Plan 2015 ESD15, Cherwell Local Plan 1996 C28
- **Main issues:** conservation area, setting of listed buildings
- **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, energy-efficiency, private-view-heritage, non-determination, transitional-no-consultation

## Summary
A two-storey rear extension to a vernacular stone house in the Steeple Aston Conservation Area, beside a Grade II former manor house and opposite a Grade II* church, was dismissed after the council failed to decide it. Harm to the conservation area and the settings of both listed buildings outweighed public benefits. The benefits were solar panels; insulation was discounted because it could be done anyway.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "There is no need to seek the main parties' views on the new version of the Framework as its provisions on conserving and enhancing the historic environment are similar to the previous version" (DL ¶4).
- **Conservation area (HE9): HARM.** The two-storey roof "would protrude well above the eaves level … it would visually overwhelm the rear of the appeal property so that the linear form of the main part of the house would not be so readily appreciated" (DL ¶11). This is contrary to "policy HE9 of the Framework" (DL ¶14).
- **Setting: HARM.** There would be moderate harm to the former manor house through obscuring and overbearing its rear elevation (DL ¶16, ¶27). For the church: "the loss of a view of the tower would be harmful to its significance, even if the view is from private land" (DL ¶18).
- **Public benefits.** "Policy HE6 of the Framework identifies enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures as an important public benefit. However, whilst the solar panels attract some weight as public benefits the internal insulation could take place in the absence of this proposal" (DL ¶25). The extra space is a private benefit carrying limited weight (DL ¶26).
- **Conclusion.** "Part 1 of policy HE6 … substantial weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset … no clear or convincing justification … contrary to policy HE4 of the Framework" (DL ¶28).

## Planning balance
An HE6(4) balance: moderate harm to a listed building, limited harm to the church and modest harm to the conservation area, all with substantial weight, against some weight for solar and limited weight for private space. The harm outweighed the benefits, so the development-plan conflict stood (DL ¶24-28).

## What made the difference
The extension broke above the eaves and dominated a simple linear vernacular form visible from the road and churchyard. The energy benefits were thin: insulation did not depend on the extension.

## Transferable points
- Energy-efficiency benefits only count as public benefits of a proposal if the proposal is needed to deliver them (DL ¶25).
- The loss of a view of a listed building from private land can still harm its significance (DL ¶18).
- Inspectors treat 2026 HE9 as the Framework's conservation-area test (DL ¶14).

## Policy findings
- **HE9: fail.** extension overwhelms the linear vernacular form of a positive building visible from road and churchyard; modest effect on CA significance (DL 9-14, 27)
- **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** moderate harm to setting of Grade II Manor Court Cottage Rectory Farmhouse; limited harm to Grade II* church (loss of private view of tower and erosion of intervisibility) (DL 15-20, 27-28)
- **HE6(4): fail.** solar panels some weight; internal insulation could happen anyway; extra space a private benefit (limited) (DL 25-26, 28)
- **HE4(2): fail.** no clear or convincing justification (DL 28)

## Key facts
- The house was a former farmworkers' dwelling, altered over time; not treated as curtilage-listed or a non-designated heritage asset, but "evidently of heritage significance" (DL 3, 7)
- The extension would block a view of the church tower from the private patio; harm held to count "even if the view is from private land" (DL 18)
- No re-consultation on the Aug 2026 Framework because its heritage provisions are "similar to the previous version" (DL 4)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008562
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c6123e3b-a258-434f-826d-fc747a0c704e

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008562.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.