- Decision
- allowed, 30 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Hannah Guest
- Authority
- Cheltenham (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6010276
- Application reference
- 26/00312/LBC
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Listed building consent for partial demolition and like-for-like rebuilding of a structurally defective section of a listed garden wall
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), HE4(2)
- Main issues
- special interest of Grade II listed building; character of conservation area
Summary
Listed building consent was granted on a non-determination appeal to rebuild a leaning, deteriorating section of a listed brick garden wall in Cheltenham. Rebuilding would lose some historic fabric and the wall's evolved lean, a limited harm. Three structural reports showed the wall needed stabilising and that buttresses were not a reliable long-term fix. The long-term survival of the wall was a public heritage benefit that outweighed the limited harm.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The Council and the appellant were given an opportunity to comment on those amendments during the appeal process" (DL ¶2).
- Significance assessment, HE5(1). Despite objections, "I have been able to determine the special interest and significance of the designated heritage assets relevant to the appeal and to assess the effects of the proposed works" (DL ¶10).
- Need for works. "the three structural reports provide compelling justification for remedial works to stabilise the garden wall" (DL ¶24).
- Harm: LIMITED. "The resulting reduction in the garden wall's authenticity and integrity would give rise to a limited degree of harm to the significance of the listed building" (DL ¶30). "it is the effect on the listed building's significance rather than the scale of the proposed works which should be considered" (DL ¶30).
- Conservation area: preserved (DL ¶31).
- HE6(4): PASS. "The proposed works would secure the long-term structural stability of the garden wall … This is a meaningful public heritage benefit" (DL ¶33). "giving considerable importance and weight to the limited harm that I have identified, together with substantial weight to the conservation of the heritage asset, I conclude that, in this case, the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh that harm" (DL ¶34).
- Alternatives. No evidence "that a properly specified buttress scheme would represent a less harmful and satisfactory long-term alternative" (DL ¶35).
Planning balance
HE6(4), with HE6(1) and HE6(3) stated correctly (DL ¶34). HE4 cited, including the clear and convincing justification requirement (DL ¶17–18). No S4 balance (consent appeal).
What made the difference
Independent structural evidence, including a report commissioned by the Council itself, that the wall was failing and that buttresses would not secure it. Brick reuse and conditions on lime mortar and foundations kept the harm limited.
Transferable points
- Securing a heritage asset's long-term structural survival is a public heritage benefit under HE6(4) that can outweigh limited harm from rebuilding (DL ¶33–34).
- Harm is judged on the effect on significance, not the scale of works (DL ¶30).
- A less harmful alternative must be shown to work before it counts against the proposal (DL ¶35).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE5(1) | pass | third parties said significance not assessed; the 2021 Heritage Report plus site visit sufficient (DL 10) | |
| HE6(1) | benefit | substantial | substantial weight to conservation (DL 34) |
| HE6(3) | harm | considerable | limited harm - loss of some historic fabric and of the wall's evolved lean and meandering alignment (evidential value); minimised by brick reuse (DL 29-30, 34) |
| HE6(4) | pass | long-term structural stability of the wall is "a meaningful public heritage benefit"; with modest economic benefits, considerable weight; outweighs limited harm (DL 32-34) | |
| HE4(2) | pass | three structural reports give "compelling justification" for remedial works; buttress alternative not shown to be less harmful or effective (DL 17-18, 24, 35) | |
| HE9 | neutral | Cheltenham Central Conservation Area (Tivoli Character Area) preserved; s72(1) met (DL 31) |
Key facts
- Wall 1.6-1.7 m high, 230 mm brick in lime mortar, between the gardens of Nos 74 and 76; part of the Grade II terrace 72-80 Andover Road (list entry 1386687) under s1(5)(a) (DL 3, 13)
- Non-determination appeal; Council's appeal statement said it would have recommended consent (DL 7)
- Three structural reports (May, Jul, Dec 2025) including one commissioned by the Council (Davidson Walsh); buttresses added in 2023 and later on No 74's side not shown to stabilise the wall (DL 21-28)
- Rebuild chainage 12.5-36.86 m with specialist foundations near an apple tree's root zone; repair and repointing 0-12.5 m (DL 20)
- Council refusals of wall works in 2021 superseded by later structural evidence (DL 36)
- Boundary ownership disputes are private matters (DL 37)
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.