# Pound Scots, Chinnor Road, Bledlow Ridge (self-build dwelling in listed building's garden) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Lewis Condé - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010097 - **Application reference:** PL/25/4253/FA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Self-build three-bedroom detached house, carport, shed and new access in the front garden of Grade II listed Pound Scots - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, washed-over-village, inside-settlement, listed-building-setting, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Wycombe District Local Plan 2019 CP11, DM31 - **Main issues:** setting of listed buildings - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, self-build-unsecured, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, national-landscape, green-belt-policy-not-applied, washed-over-village-as-settlement, garden-land, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A self-build house in the front garden of Grade II listed Pound Scots at Bledlow Ridge, in the Chilterns National Landscape and the Green Belt. The inspector found modest harm to the listed building's setting through loss of its spacious garden, and even substantial weight to one home did not outweigh it under HE6(4). The case was then run through S4 as a within-settlement scheme, leaving the Green Belt question undecided. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties given an opportunity to comment on the new Framework (DL ¶2). - **Setting harm.** The development "would erode the spacious landscaped character that contributes to the listed building's significance" and "that harm would be modest in extent" (DL ¶8). - **Housing.** "In accordance with policy HO7 of the Framework, I attach substantial weight to this benefit. However, as there is no appropriate legal mechanism to secure the dwelling as self-build housing … I attach no additional weight on that basis" (DL ¶11). - **HE6: FAIL.** "The substantial weight attached to the additional dwelling, together with the other public benefits, would not outweigh that harm" (DL ¶14). - **S4.** "As the proposal is within a settlement, it benefits from the in-principle support provided by policies S3 and S4 of the Framework" (DL ¶15). - **Green Belt not decided.** "it is unnecessary to determine whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt because that assessment would not alter the outcome" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance HE6(4), then S4: "the adverse heritage effect would substantially outweigh the benefits of granting permission" (DL ¶15). ## What made the difference The garden's contribution to the listed building's setting. Modest harm, with HE6(1) and HE6(3) weight, beat substantial housing weight for one home. ## Caution The site is in the Green Belt within a village the letter treats as a settlement. Under S3(1) and S5(5), Green Belt proposals go to GB6 and GB7, not S4, and washed-over villages are not settlements under Annex B. The route did not change the result (dismissed on heritage), but do not cite this letter as S4 authority for a Green Belt village. ## Transferable points - Modest harm to a listed building's garden setting outweighed substantial housing weight for one self-build dwelling (DL ¶14). - Self-build status earns no extra weight without a legal mechanism (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail.** modest harm to the setting of Grade II Pound Scots from erosion of its spacious garden; substantial weight to conservation, considerable weight to harm; benefits including housing (substantial) do not outweigh (DL 8, 10, 14) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of the Grade II listed waterspout preserved (DL 9, 13) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling against a significant shortfall; no extra weight for self-build without a legal mechanism (DL 11) - **S4: fail.** site treated as inside Bledlow Ridge's settlement boundary; heritage harm substantially outweighs benefits (DL 15) - **GB6: not-engaged.** site in the Green Belt but inappropriateness not determined because the appeal fails on heritage (DL 20); S4 applied to a Green Belt site - **N4: neutral.** garden plot within the village; Chilterns NL natural beauty not materially eroded (DL 17) ## Key facts - Council has a significant housing land supply shortfall (figure not stated) (DL 11) - Parties given an opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2) - Council did not allege Green Belt harm (DL 20) - Harm described as "modest in extent" (DL 8, 14) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010097 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5d91fe7d-15f8-4ce4-9af1-6927dcb7331c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010097.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.