# Home Lea, 15 High Street, Alconbury Weston (listed building consent)

- **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Bayliss
- **Authority:** Huntingdonshire (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010766
- **Application reference:** 25/02284/LBC
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Listed building consent to demolish a modern outhouse, add a single-storey rear extension and a three-bay open barn to a timber outbuilding at a Grade II house (Appeal B; the householder Appeal A is 6011362)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6, HE9
- **Development plan policies:** Huntingdonshire Local Plan 2019 LP12, LP34
- **Main issues:** special interest of the listed building, conservation area
- **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, heritage-no-harm, transitional-no-consultation, linked-appeals

## Summary
Listed building consent for replacing a crude 1980s outhouse with a single-storey painted-brick extension, and extending a modern timber outbuilding, at a Grade II house in Alconbury Weston. Allowed with the linked planning appeal. The outhouse contributed little if anything to significance, and the new work was sympathetic, so there was no harm. The inspector criticised the thin heritage assessment but found it enough to decide.

## Issues and findings
- **Outhouse.** "given its approximate age, appearance and quality of construction, I consider that it makes little contribution, if any, to the building’s significance" (DL ¶11).
- **Assessment quality.** "the appellant’s heritage assessment accompanying the original application and appeals is lacking in detail and depth" (DL ¶8), but "I am satisfied that I have enough information before me to make a meaningful assessment" (DL ¶16).
- **Conclusion.** "It would comply with Policies HE6 and HE9 of the Framework which, amongst other things, state that substantial weight should be given to an asset’s conservation" (DL ¶17).

## Transferable points
- A modern utilitarian outbuilding in the curtilage can be removed without harm where it adds nothing to the asset's significance (DL ¶10-13).
- A thin heritage assessment is not fatal where the decision-maker can still reach a meaningful view from the evidence and the site visit (DL ¶8, 16).

## Policy findings
- **HE5(2): neutral.** outhouse (probably 1983) makes little if any contribution; extension and barn cause no harm to the listed building or conservation area, subject to conditions (DL 10-15)
- **HE5(1): pass.** heritage assessment "lacking in detail and depth" but enough to decide (DL 8, 16)
- **HE6: pass.** complies with HE6 and HE9 (DL 17)

## Key facts
- Same decision letter as the householder Appeal A (6011362), which was also allowed; no case file for Appeal A in this batch
- [object Object]

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010766
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2f260d87-fc86-4c06-a2e0-ad3bcb284521

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010766.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.