- Decision
- dismissed, 23 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: A Hunter
- Authority
- Kingston upon Hull (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6009857
- Application reference
- 25/00618/FULL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use of two terraced houses (flats) to sui generis supported living with office, rear external wall insulation render, rear windows and fencing (retrospective)
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), DP3(3), S4(2)(c)
- Development plan policies
- Hull Local Plan 2016-2032 Policies 14, 15, 16
- Main issues
- effect on the Avenues and Pearson Park Conservation Area
Summary
Retrospective change of use of two terraced houses in Hull's Avenues Conservation Area to supported living with an office. The rear walls were rendered with external wall insulation and a palisade fence was put up. Dismissed, but only because of the render and the fence. The use, the windows and the bins were acceptable. The heritage balance gave the insulation's energy benefit modest weight, because it was unquantified and less harmful options had not been excluded. DP3(3) and S4(2)(c) were applied.
Issues and findings
- Render. "the discordant appearance of the render, particularly across the entire rear sides of both properties appears jarring" (DL ¶11). Low public visibility "is not a reason to justify poor quality development, and the duty applies to the whole of the CA" (DL ¶12).
- Palisade fence. "The galvanised metal appearance, together with its utilitarian design ... appears incongruous against views of the rear sides of the terrace of properties, and harms the CA" (DL ¶14).
- Energy efficiency as a public benefit. "Whilst Policy HE6 says important public benefits can include enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures to be employed, the actual thermal improvements by the insulation and environmental benefits have not been quantified, and it is not clear if similar or greater benefits could not have been found from alternative sustainable technologies in a less harmful manner" (DL ¶22). "I therefore attach modest weight to these benefits, even when taken collectively" (DL ¶22).
- DP3. "section (2) of Policy DP3 says where there is conflict with this part of the policy, without clear justification (as in this case) the development should be refused" (DL ¶31).
- Housing weight. "there is no needs assessment provided to justify a need for it, and the development would result in a net loss of 1 no. residential unit. As such I am not able to attach the substantial weight from this policy" (DL ¶32).
- CC2. "The external insulation in this case would attract the substantial weight provided by Policy CC2" (DL ¶33).
Planning balance
The HE6 balance failed (DL ¶23). S4 with the should-be-refused carve-out: "where there is conflict with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused, this is likely to indicate the benefits are substantially outweighed" (DL ¶34). The CC2 weight did not change the result.
What made the difference
The materials. Brick-matching insulation, or insulation inside the building, and a traditional boundary treatment would probably have been acceptable, since the use itself raised no objection. The letter is internally uneven: the same insulation gets modest weight in the heritage balance (DL ¶22) and substantial CC2 weight in the overall balance (DL ¶33).
Transferable points
- The energy-efficiency benefit named in HE6(4) can be discounted where the thermal gain is unquantified and less harmful ways to achieve it are not excluded (DL ¶22).
- Rear elevations seen only from a back lane (the "ten foot") and neighbouring properties are within the conservation area duty (DL ¶12).
- HO7 substantial weight needs an evidenced accommodation need; a net loss of units does not attract it (DL ¶32).
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 | harm | light render over the rear brick of a unified terrace, and a galvanised palisade fence on the ten-foot, harm the Avenues and Pearson Park CA; use, windows and bins acceptable (DL 7-19, 24) | |
| HE6(1) | harm | substantial | substantial weight to conservation; degree of harm not graded and HE6(3) wording not used (DL 20) |
| HE6(4) | fail | EWI carbon benefit not quantified and less harmful alternatives not excluded; supported-living and reuse benefits not dependent on the render or fence; modest weight collectively (DL 21-23) | |
| DP3(3) | fail | context conflict "without clear justification (as in this case)"; the letter cites "section (2) of Policy DP3" for the refusal wording, which is in DP3(3) (DL 31) | |
| CC2 | benefit | substantial | substantial weight to improving energy efficiency of existing buildings, although the heritage balance gave the same insulation modest weight (DL 22, 33) |
| HO7 | neutral | no needs assessment and a net loss of one unit, so HO7 substantial weight not applied; L2 substantial weight also not applied (DL 32) | |
| S4(2)(c) | fail | conflict with a should-be-refused policy; benefits do not outweigh (DL 34) |
Key facts
- Works already carried out (DL 3)
- Rear render on Nos 7 and 9 said to be unauthorised, given limited weight (DL 10)
- Palisade fence offer to paint or powder-coat rejected; security need not shown (DL 15)
- Crime data too basic to attribute increases to the use; a management plan condition would have addressed concerns (DL 27-28)
- Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4)
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.