# Land at 38 Ackerman Street, Eaton Socon, St Neots

- **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Allen
- **Authority:** Huntingdonshire (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009545
- **Application reference:** 25/01894/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Three-bedroom backland bungalow with garage in former pub garden
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Housing land supply (years):** 3.68
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), S4(1), DP3(1)
- **Development plan policies:** Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 LP11, LP12, LP34, St Neots Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2029 A3
- **Main issues:** setting of listed building, conservation area, character
- **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-graded, s4-substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, backland, conservation-area, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme

## Summary
A backland bungalow in a former pub garden behind a Grade II cottage in St Neots Conservation Area was dismissed. The inspector found heritage harm of "a low level" and gave the benefits "substantial weight" (3.68-year supply). The inspector still concluded that the benefits were "substantially outweighed" under S4. The considerable importance and weight attached to heritage harm, together with DP3 context and grain conflict, tipped the balance.

## Issues and findings
- **Setting of No 36 — HE6.** "it would greatly reduce the openness to the rear of No 36, harmfully diminishing the contribution that the site makes to its significance" (DL ¶9).
- **Grading.** "the harm to the significance of the heritage assets … would, individually and cumulatively, be of a low level" (DL ¶17).
- **L2/L3.** "whilst the proposal would create an additional home and contribute to an increase in density in the area … the proposal would fail to accord with Framework Policies LP2 and LP3" (DL ¶14).
- **Benefits.** 3.68-year supply, "an important contribution"; "Overall, I attach substantial weight to the benefits of the proposal" (DL ¶18-20).

## Planning balance
The HE6(4) and S4(1) balances are merged. On the adverse side: DP3 grain conflict and heritage harm, "a matter to which I attach considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶21). On the other side: substantial-weight benefits. Conclusion: "the benefits of the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶23). S4(2)(c) was not invoked.

## What made the difference
The inspector treated low-level heritage harm, carrying HE6(3)'s "considerable importance and weight", as able to *substantially* outweigh housing benefits given substantial weight. The statutory duty in effect lifts even low harm above the S4 threshold. That is a strong reading for objectors and a questionable one for appellants: the letter does not explain how "low level" harm clears "substantially outweighed".

## Transferable points
- Low-level harm to the setting of a Grade II building and to a conservation area was held to *substantially* outweigh substantial-weight housing benefits in a 3.68-year-supply authority (DL ¶17-23).
- Backland development contrary to a road-fronting historic grain fails DP3(1) and the L2/L3 effective-use tests even though it adds density (DL ¶14, 21).
- Energy efficiency, BNG and flood-free status "would be expected of any well-designed development" (DL ¶20). The inspector nonetheless folded them into the benefits package.
- Drafting slip: "LP2 and LP3" for L2/L3 (DL ¶14).

## Policy findings
- **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** grading "individually and cumulatively, be of a low level" (DL 17); HE4(1)/HE4(2) irreplaceable resource and clear and convincing justification, HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation stated (DL 16); harm to No 36 "a matter to which I attach considerable importance and weight" (DL 21) — HE6(3) wording; ss66(1)/72(1) cited (DL 11)
- **HE9: harm.** backland dwelling at odds with road-fronting historic grain of St Neots CA (DL 8-11)
- **DP3(1): fail.** unlabelled — "the Framework requires that development responds to its context … such as through the arrangement of development plots and buildings and the integration of heritage assets" (DL 21); DP3(3) not invoked
- **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** cited as "Framework Policies LP2 and LP3" — visible from street frontage and at odds with grain, so fails effective/efficient use despite adding a home and density (DL 14)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 3.68-year supply; "Overall, I attach substantial weight to the benefits of the proposal" (DL 18-20)
- **S4(1): fail.** "when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework, the benefits of the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL 23) — reached despite low-level heritage harm v substantial-weight benefits

## Key facts
- Council supply 3.68 years (DL 18)
- Site already subdivided from No 38, a former pub garden; never part of No 36's curtilage (DL 4, 6)
- Grade II No 36 is an C18 timber-framed cottage (List entry 1127987) (DL 5)
- Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009545
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/594883fd-8295-488a-bb86-f05dd6c418c8

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009545.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.