# Nunns, 60 Market Street, Old Harlow (listed building consent)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Terceiro
- **Authority:** Harlow (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010645
- **Application reference:** HW/LBC/26/00066
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Listed building consent for a single-storey rear and side extension to a Grade II listed house, replacing a rebuilt store
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE4(2)
- **Development plan policies:** Harlow Local Development Plan 2020 PL1, PL12, WE5
- **Main issues:** special interest of Grade II listed building, character of Old Harlow Conservation Area
- **Tags:** listed-building-consent, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, heritage-harm-decisive, private-benefit-not-public, conservation-area, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2

## Summary
Listed building consent for a wide single-storey extension to Nunns, a c.1700 Grade II house in Old Harlow, was refused on appeal. The extension would overwhelm the house's proportions and hide the base of its rear chimney stack, and it would replace a sympathetic rebuilt store. The moderate harm to the house and the conservation area was not outweighed by the modest benefits of more living and office space, which could be achieved less harmfully.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The main parties were invited to provide comments on the revised Framework" (DL ¶3).
- **Harm.** "the proposal would cover over the base of the chimney stack, where it is at its widest and most interesting" (DL ¶9). "the proposal would result in moderate harm to the significance of the Grade II listed building and moderate harm to the CA. Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶13).
- **Reconstructed fabric.** Although rebuilt, the chimney "is not only significant visually, but also in terms of the building's plan form and it aids an understanding of how the building functioned historically" (DL ¶9).
- **HE6(4): FAIL.** "there is nothing before me to suggest that this could not be achieved in another, less harmful manner" (DL ¶14). The benefits "attract modest weight and fall short of overcoming the substantial weight I give to the harm" (DL ¶14).

## Planning balance
HE6(4), with HE6(1) and HE4(2) cited (DL ¶12–13). The letter calls the weight to the harm "substantial" at DL ¶14, after stating HE6(1) and HE6(3) correctly.

## What made the difference
The chimney stack's base, which the extension would enclose, and the width and depth of the addition. The home-office and kitchen benefits were private and could be delivered another way.

## Transferable points
- A faithfully reconstructed historic feature can still carry significance where it explains plan form and function (DL ¶9).
- Private benefits such as more floorspace carry modest weight and fail where no less harmful alternative has been explored (DL ¶14).

## Policy findings
- **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation stated; letter later says "the substantial weight I give to the harm" (DL 12, 14)
- **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm to the Grade II house (overwhelms proportions, covers base of rear chimney stack, loses rebuilt store) and moderate harm to Old Harlow CA (DL 9-11, 13)
- **HE6(4): fail.** home office, larger kitchen and construction benefits "modest"; nothing to show they could not be achieved less harmfully (DL 14)
- **HE4(2): fail.** clear and convincing justification required (DL 12)

## Key facts
- House c.1700 (list entry 1111683), end of terrace, brick ground floor and tile-hung first floor; rebuilt external rear chimney stack (DL 5)
- Rear elevation and chimney visible from Broadway Avenue (DL 8)
- Plans and elevations not fully consistent; not pursued (DL 17)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010645

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010645.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.