- Decision
- allowed, 3 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Jonathan Edwards
- Authority
- Herefordshire (West Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6010739
- Application reference
- 251696
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of redundant church and erection of 52-bed care facility on three floors with parking
- Site context
- inside settlement, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 3.11 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HC6(1)(c), HC6(2), S4, S4(2)(a)(i), L2(1)(b), HO7, HO9(1)(a)(i)
- Development plan policies
- Herefordshire Core Strategy 2015 SC1, SD1, H3, LD1
- Main issues
- loss of community facility; living conditions
Summary
Demolition of a redundant Hereford church and its replacement with a 52-bed care home. The appeal was allowed. The loss of a place of worship met HC6 through limb (c), sufficient alternative provision, and marketing was not required for a church. The inspector found significant harm to neighbours' privacy and outlook, in conflict with the development plan. Under S4 that harm did not substantially outweigh substantial weight for reuse of under-used land and for care-bed need where the council has 3.11 years' supply.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The parties' comments on the August 2026 Framework were considered (DL ¶4).
- HC6: PASS. "Policy HC6 of the Framework also resists the loss of key community facilities including places of worship … However, the same policy allows their removal when there is no reasonable prospect of the community use being retained due to insufficient community support or there is sufficient alternative provision in the local area" (DL ¶7). "it is fair to envisage a broader range of community facilities exist in the city as a whole" (DL ¶10).
- Marketing not needed for a church. "policy HC6 of the Framework only refers to marketing of shops and public houses where commercial viability is an issue. Therefore, neither CS policy SC1 nor policy HC6 of the Framework require the church to be marketed if there is sufficient alternative facilities in the local area" (DL ¶11).
- Living conditions: HARM. "the development would have a harmful effect on living conditions at properties behind the site on Admirals Close in terms of loss of privacy and outlook" (DL ¶17). "I attach significant weight to the adverse effects" (DL ¶36).
- S4(2)(a)(i). "There would be no adverse impact in relation to the safeguarding of buildings for particular uses as referred to in part 2(a)(i) of policy S4 of the Framework. This is a neutral factor" (DL ¶32).
- Benefits. Better use of under-used land under L2(1)(b), "a factor of substantial weight" (DL ¶33). A 3.11-year supply "is a significant shortfall … a benefit that attracts substantial weight" (DL ¶34). Care-bed need attracts HO7 substantial weight; HO9(1)(a)(i) is met (DL ¶35).
- Conclusion. "the benefits of the proposal would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects and so policy S4 of the Framework dictates that planning permission should be approved" (DL ¶37).
Planning balance
S4 against the development plan. Harm: overlooking and overbearing effect on the Admirals Close homes and The Vicarage, significant weight (P3, with L2 privacy as argued by the council). Benefits: L2 reuse (substantial), the housing shortfall and HO7 specialist need (substantial), and employment plus BNG (considerable). Not substantially outweighed, so allowed despite the plan conflict (DL ¶30-37, 44).
What made the difference
S4's "substantially outweighed" threshold. A real, significant amenity harm, which under a plain section 38(6) balance would probably have led to dismissal, was not enough against stacked substantial-weight benefits. On HC6, a church closed for years whose former users had relocated passed limb (c) without marketing.
Transferable points
- For places of worship, HC6(1)(c) alternative provision can be judged at city-wide scale, and HC6 marketing applies only to shops and pubs (DL ¶10-11).
- A policy-compliant loss under HC6 is neutral under S4(2)(a)(i) (DL ¶32).
- Under S4, significant amenity harm (P3) did not substantially outweigh L2(1)(b) reuse plus HO7 care-need benefits where supply is 3.11 years (DL ¶33-37).
- A C2 care home engages HO7 substantial weight and HO9(1)(a)(i) (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| HC6(2) | pass | places of worship are key community facilities (DL 7) | |
| HC6(1)(c) | pass | church closed for worship since 2019; informal users left in July 2024 and moved elsewhere; sufficient alternative facilities across the city (DL 8-12) | |
| HC6(1)(a) | not-engaged | the marketing requirement applies to shops and pubs where commercial viability is at issue, not to a church where limb (c) is met (DL 11) | |
| S4(2)(a)(i) | neutral | no adverse impact on safeguarding buildings for particular uses (DL 32) | |
| L2(1)(b) | benefit | substantial | better use of under-used land (DL 33) |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | 3.11 years' supply and specific need for care beds (DL 34-35) |
| HO9(1)(a)(i) | pass | acceptable living conditions, urban location with access to services (DL 35) | |
| P3 | harm | significant | overlooking and overbearing effect on Admirals Close and The Vicarage; council also relies on L2 privacy (DL 13-17, 36) |
| HE6 | neutral | settings of Grade II Cox Cottage and Abbey Grange preserved (DL 25-28) | |
| S4 | pass | benefits not substantially outweighed by significant amenity harm (DL 37) |
Key facts
- Diocese-owned church closed for regular worship in June 2019; an independent church used it informally until July 2024
- Only very limited marketing evidence
- Council supply 3.11 years; Strategic Housing supported the scheme for care-bed need
- River Wye SAC phosphate issue handled because occupation will post-date the WwTW upgrade (31 Dec 2026)
- Amenity conflict with CS SD1 was the only plan conflict, but it meant conflict with the plan as a whole
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.