# 202A High Street, Harwich - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S F Barnes - **Authority:** Tendring (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008784 - **Application reference:** 26/00239/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Second-floor roof terrace cut into pitched rear-addition roof, external staircase and reconfiguration of flats above restaurant - **Site context:** conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 SP7, SPL3, PPL8 - **Main issues:** conservation area, privacy - **Tags:** conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-low-degree-harm, he6-3-considerable-weight, s4-substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, roof-terrace, public-benefits-private, costs-application ## Summary A roof terrace cut into the traditional pitched roof of a rear addition in the Lower Dovercourt conservation area at Harwich was dismissed. The harm to the CA was "a low degree of harm", but under HE6(3) it carried "considerable importance and weight". It was not outweighed by a set of mainly private or unevidenced benefits. The Inspector then ran the S4 "substantially outweighed" test and dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage harm: "low degree".** The terrace would "detract from the legibility of the rear addition's traditional roof form … This would result in harm to the positive contribution made by the building to the CA" (DL ¶10). "Having regard to the localised effect on the significance of the CA, the proposal would result in a low degree of harm" (DL ¶12). This is a new-style grading in place of "less than substantial". - **HE6(4) balance: FAIL.** Private outdoor space was "largely as a private benefit … only limited weight" (DL ¶13). The fire-safety or Building Regulations need had "no compelling evidence" (DL ¶14). The insulation gain had "little quantified evidence" (DL ¶15). Construction benefits were limited (DL ¶16). "Overall, the benefits identified would not outweigh the considerable importance and weight that I attach to the harm to the CA" (DL ¶17). - **L2(1)(d): not engaged.** There were no new units or floorspace, and "that policy does not preclude me from finding harm" (DL ¶20). - **Privacy: PASS**, subject to a screening condition (DL ¶¶18–19). ## Planning balance Two stages. The HE6(4) weighing against HE6(3)'s "considerable importance and weight", then the S4 overall test: "Having regard to national decision-making policies in the Framework, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects through harm to the CA" (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference The building was identified as positive in a recent CA appraisal, and the unified rear roofscape was visible from a public lane. Every claimed benefit was either private or unevidenced. Energy-efficiency benefits, now named in HE6(4), still need quantification. ## Transferable points - HE6 harm is graded on a free scale ("low degree of harm") and then given HE6(3) "considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶¶12, 17). - A low degree of harm to a CA can on its own "substantially outweigh" limited benefits under S4 (DL ¶23). - Private amenity gains are private benefits and carry limited weight in the HE6(4) balance (DL ¶13). - HE6(4)'s energy-efficiency benefit needs quantified evidence (DL ¶15). - L2(1)(d) is not engaged where no additional homes or floorspace are created (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** "the proposal would result in a low degree of harm" to the Lower Dovercourt CA (DL 12) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "the considerable importance and weight that I attach to the harm to the CA" (DL 17) - **HE6(4): fail.** private amenity space, fire-safety rationalisation, insulation, bin/cycle storage, construction jobs — each limited weight (DL 13-16) - **L2(1)(d): not-engaged.** no additional units or floorspace; L2 "does not preclude me from finding harm" (DL 20) - **HC1: not-engaged.** terrace not a public/community facility (DL 20) - **P3: pass.** overlooking of 206-208 High Street could be screened by condition (DL 18-19) - **S4(1): fail.** "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects through harm to the CA" (DL 23) ## Key facts - Appeal building identified as a positive building in the 2023 CA appraisal - Traditional rear-addition roof forms unify the terrace; visible from public rear lane - Parties given opportunity to comment on the new Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a1bc3161-3994-420e-9fce-42e1f9422c1d - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008784 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008784.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.