- Decision
- dismissed, 24 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: P Brennan
- Authority
- Buckinghamshire (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6009513
- Application reference
- PL/25/4389/FA
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition and erection of a detached dwelling in the side garden of Nunhayes, with access, parking and amenity space
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 3.62 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), HE7(2), S4
- Development plan policies
- Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2013-2033 BE1, BE2, Cuddington Neighbourhood Plan CDN03, CDN04
- Main issues
- conservation area; listed building settings; non-designated heritage asset
Summary
A house squeezed into the side garden of Nunhayes, a converted barn and non-designated heritage asset in the Cuddington Conservation Area. Dismissed: mid-range harm to the CA and to the NDHA, each outweighing the benefits of one home (substantial weight with a 3.62-year supply). The letter runs HE6(1), (3), (4) and HE7(2) as a separate heritage balance before the S4 conclusion.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The parties have been provided with the opportunity to comment on the implications of the revisions to their cases" (DL ¶2).
- CA: HARM (mid-range). "the domestic and ordered character to the design and siting of the proposed dwelling would be discordant and visually incongruous with the agrarian historic character" (DL ¶12); "the degree of harm found to the CCA would be calibrated at the mid-range of such harm" (DL ¶15).
- Listed buildings: no effect (DL ¶17, ¶19).
- NDHA: HARM. "This crowding effect would diminish the significance of the NDHA" (DL ¶26).
- Heritage balance. "whilst the proposal's public benefits attract substantial weight, they would not outweigh the considerable weight ascribed to the harm that would be caused to the heritage significance of the CCA and the significance of the NDHA and the substantial weight afforded to the conservation of designated heritage assets" (DL ¶38).
Planning balance
S4(1): "the benefits of the proposed development within a settlement, would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects of the proposal" (DL ¶43), citing conflicts with L2(1)(d)(i), DP3(1), HE6(4) and HE7(2) (DL ¶42). DP3(3) is not named.
What made the difference
The green gap's role in both the CA's sporadic pattern and the NDHA's setting. Limited public visibility behind a wychert wall did not help. A permitted scheme next door was distinguished because it respected the spacing.
Transferable points
- Heritage harm graded as "mid-range" and HE6(4) run on its own terms before S4 (DL ¶15, ¶33–38).
- A side garden can be an "important green gap" contributing to CA significance even with limited public views (DL ¶9, ¶13–14).
- NDHA harm from crowding: a 2.5 m gap "would fail to provide a proportional and adequate separation distance" (DL ¶26).
- Substantial weight to benefits of one home in a 3.62-year-supply district still loses to CA harm given considerable importance and weight (DL ¶35–38).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE9(1) | harm | site (former orchard) makes important positive contribution; cramped infill, forced building line, domestic design and hardstanding erode loose-knit agrarian pattern; harm "calibrated at the mid-range" (DL 8-15); letter attributes the total loss / harm / no effect / positive effect scale to HE9(1) | |
| HE6(1) | harm | substantial | substantial weight to conservation stated (DL 33, 38) |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | considerable importance and weight to CA harm (DL 33-34) |
| HE6(4) | fail | combined benefits (substantial) do not outweigh CA harm (DL 38, 42) | |
| HE6 | neutral | no effect on settings of Grade II Nunhayes Cottage and outbuilding, or Great Stone House (DL 16-19) | |
| HE7(2) | fail | Nunhayes (converted barn, NP-identified and locally listed NDHA) suffers mid-range / moderate harm from 2.5 m gap and loss of side garden; balanced judgement against one dwelling (DL 20-26, 28, 42) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | one dwelling; supply 3.62 (council) or 3.16 (appellant); combined benefits substantial (DL 35-38) |
| L2(1)(d)(i) | fail | not consistent with the overall street scene (DL 42) | |
| DP3(1) | fail | would not respond well to its context (DL 42); DP3(3) not named | |
| S4 | fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 43) |
Key facts
- Supply 3.62 years (council) or 3.16 years (appellant) (DL 35)
- Adjoining site has permission (21/04844/APP) for dwellings, under construction (DL 10)
- Nunhayes identified as NDHA in made neighbourhood plan and later added to local list (DL 20)
- Parties given opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2)
Sources
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.