67 Main Street, Bushby (replacement dwelling in conservation area)

Decision

dismissed, 2 October 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: M Russell (on the recommendation of appeal planning officer Ellie Nutman)

Authority

Harborough (East Midlands)

Appeal reference

6009245

Application reference

26/00298/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Demolition of a chalet bungalow and erection of a replacement dwelling, detached gym and swimming pool

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement, conservation area

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HE6(4), DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4(1)

Development plan policies

Harborough Local Plan GD2, GD8, HC1, Harborough Development Management SPD 2021

Main issues

conservation area character and appearance

Summary

A replacement dwelling in the Bushby Conservation Area was dismissed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. The new house would dilute the spacious plot pattern and appear overtly contemporary and dominant, harming the conservation area. With no net gain in homes, the public benefits did not outweigh that harm under HE6(4). The design conflict with DP3(1) and (2) was then run as a "should be refused" policy through S4, and the benefits were substantially outweighed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties were invited to comment on the revised Framework: "no party would be prejudiced by me proceeding to determine the appeal on the basis of the up-to-date local and national planning policies" (DL ¶3).
• Conservation area: HARM. "the dwelling would appear overtly contemporary and unacceptably dominant within the street scene" (DL ¶8). The degree of harm is not graded.
• HE6(4): FAIL. "The harm should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal in line with Policy HE6 of the Framework." (DL ¶11). "there would not be public benefits in this instance sufficient to outweigh the identified harm to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶12).
• DP3(3): applied. "DP3 states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of this policy or relevant aspects of the principles at paragraph 2." (DL ¶17).
• S4(2)(c): applied. "the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development proposals are likely to be outweighed by adverse effects include situations where the development proposals would fail to comply with the national decision-making policies which include Policy DP3" (DL ¶18). The paraphrase leaves out the word substantially, an incidental slip; the conclusion uses the correct test.
• Heritage weight. "There would also be conflict with Policies HE4 and HE6 of the Framework relating to heritage, a matter which attracts considerable importance and weight." (DL ¶18).

Planning balance

HE6(4) first (DL ¶11-12), then S4 with the DP3 trigger: "I find that the benefits of approving the development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶19).

What made the difference

The loss of the modest bungalow's subordinate role beside No 65, and a formal, regimented elevation on a prominent plot facing Newstead Avenue. Because the scheme replaced one house with one house, there was almost nothing on the benefit side. The principle of replacement was not disputed (DL ¶15); a lower design that kept the gap and the varied roofscape would have been judged differently.

Transferable points

• Conservation area significance includes plot pattern and the spaces between buildings, not only historic fabric (DL ¶9).
• A one-for-one replacement dwelling brings little public benefit to set against heritage harm, even where a housing shortfall is suggested (DL ¶12).
• A design conflict in a conservation area can fail twice: under HE6(4), and again as a DP3(3) refusal policy feeding S4(2)(c) (DL ¶17-18).
• The acceptability of ancillary buildings does not rescue a harmful main dwelling (DL ¶10).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Decision on the recommendation of an appeal planning officer; site visit 21 July 2026, before the Framework changed (DL 2)
• Existing dwelling a modest chalet bungalow set back in its plot; with Nos 65 and 69 it contributes to the varied, traditional and spacious character of the conservation area (DL 6)
• Replacement of similar scale and alignment to the two-storey No 65 and close to it, with a regimented arrangement of large three-pane windows and a substantial central porch (DL 8)
• Council had no concern about the detached gym and swimming pool (DL 10)
• A shortfall in housing land is suggested in the delegated report, but there is no net increase in dwellings; no supply figure stated (DL 12)
• Parties invited to comment on the revised Framework; the Council said its heritage policies are not materially different on the actions to take when harm is identified; the appellant made no comment (DL 3)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.