# Thamesfield Retirement Village, Wargrave Road, Remenham - **Decision:** dismissed, 1 October 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Laura Cuthbert - **Authority:** Wokingham (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011062 - **Application reference:** 243125 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Part demolition and a three-storey extension to provide 17 extra-care apartments (Class C2, net gain of 13), with parking, landscaping and basement alterations - **Homes:** 13 - **Site context:** green-belt, PDL, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(3), S5(2) - **Development plan policies:** Wokingham Core Strategy 2010 CP3, Managing Development Delivery Local Plan 2014 TB24, Borough Design Guide SPD 2012 (R15) - **Main issues:** living conditions, heritage, planning balance - **Tags:** dp3-refuse-trigger, s5-2-refusal-policy, design-refusal, living-conditions, living-conditions-outlook, heritage-harm-outweighed, he6-harm-graded, conservation-area, specialist-housing, housing-shortfall, pdl-e-limb, grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, s5-1-d-pdl, drafting-slip, ndha, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A three-storey extra-care extension (13 net Class C2 units) at a riverside retirement village in the Green Belt opposite Henley was dismissed. The heritage harm to two conservation areas was limited and was outweighed by substantial public benefits under HE6(4). The appeal failed on living conditions: the overbearing effect and overlooking of 1 to 5 Remenham Row conflicted with DP3, there was no clear justification, and S5(2) then indicated refusal. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Comments were sought from the main parties on the implications of the revised Framework for the determination of the appeal" (DL ¶2). - **Living conditions, DP3(1): CONFLICT.** "the proposal would result in both an overbearing relationship and a harmful loss of privacy for the existing occupants of Remenham Row" (DL ¶17). It would "conflict with Policy DP3 of the Framework, which requires development to respond positively to its context so that it integrates with and enhances its surroundings" (DL ¶17). - **P3: not determinative.** "that policy is principally concerned with living conditions in relation to matters such as daylight and sunlight, together with air, noise, light, water and other forms of pollution" (DL ¶18). - **Heritage, HE6(1)/(3)/(4): harm limited, OUTWEIGHED.** "I find that the degree of harm would be limited. Nevertheless, Policy HE6.1 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. I have therefore attached considerable importance and weight to that harm" (DL ¶30). "Having attached considerable importance and weight to the identified heritage harm, I nevertheless find that these substantial public benefits outweigh that harm" (DL ¶37). - **Green Belt: not inappropriate.** "I am satisfied that the proposal would constitute not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, comprising the partial redevelopment of previously developed land" (DL ¶39). - **DP3(3): FAIL.** "While the benefits I outline above are significant, they do not in my view, provide clear justification to allow development that would harm the living conditions of the existing residents in the manner I have described" (DL ¶44). - **S5(2): FAIL.** "As I have found that the proposal conflicts with Policy DP3, I consider this to be such a case. Accordingly, I find that the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶45). ## Planning balance Two balances were run. The HE6(4) heritage balance came first and was passed: significant weight to 13 net units, significant weight to older persons' need, and moderate weight to land use, environmental, and economic and social benefits, against limited harm given considerable importance and weight (DL ¶30–37). The principle was then tested under S5(1)(d) and S5(2), not S5(5), although the site is in the Green Belt (DL ¶39, ¶41). The DP3(3) failure decided it (DL ¶43–45), and the conclusion is plan-led (DL ¶47). ## What made the difference The neighbours' frontage was private, on lower ground, and faced by new upper-floor living-room windows, so compliance with separation guidelines did not answer the harm. Benefits large enough to outweigh conservation-area harm were still not a "clear justification" for amenity harm to five homes. A lower building at the northern end, without the third floor, would have addressed both the neighbours and Historic England's concern. ## Transferable points - DP3(1) and DP3(3) were applied to harm to neighbours' outlook and privacy, not only to character and appearance (DL ¶17, ¶42–44). - P3 was read as covering daylight, sunlight and pollution, so it did not decide an outlook and privacy case (DL ¶18). - A scheme can pass the HE6(4) balance and still fail DP3(3): the same benefits were "substantial" against heritage harm but gave no clear justification for the living-conditions harm (DL ¶37, ¶44). - Meeting SPD separation distances "does not, in itself, demonstrate that a proposal would preserve neighbouring living conditions" (DL ¶10). - The letter applies S5(1)(d) and S5(2) to a Green Belt site rather than S5(5); the balance and the trigger are the same under either route, so the outcome is unaffected (DL ¶39, ¶41, ¶45). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict (substantial weight).** overbearing effect on outlook and loss of privacy for 1 to 5 Remenham Row treated as a failure to respond positively to context (DL 17, 42); substantial weight to the harm (DL 46) - **DP3(3): fail.** letter says "Criterion 3"; the significant benefits were held not to provide clear justification for the living-conditions harm (DL 43-44) - **S5(2): fail.** DP3 is a policy that says development should be refused, so benefits found to be substantially outweighed; conflict with S5 (DL 45) - **S5(1)(d): pass.** redevelopment of previously developed land; applied to a Green Belt site in place of S5(5) (DL 41); letter says "Criterion d)" - **P3: not-engaged.** P3 read as concerned with daylight, sunlight and pollution, not outlook and privacy; not determinative (DL 18) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** limited harm to the Remenham Henley Bridge CA (development within it) and the Henley-on-Thames CA (setting); letter says "HE6.1" (DL 29-30) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** considerable importance and weight attached to the limited harm (DL 30, 37) - **HE6(4): pass.** substantial public benefits outweigh the heritage harm; letter says "HE6.4" (DL 30-37) - **HE7(2): pass.** in the alternative, any harm to the original mansion as an NDHA also outweighed (DL 21, 38) - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** not inappropriate as partial redevelopment of PDL; also said to meet the grey belt provisions; one paragraph in Other Matters, no reasoning (DL 39) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** 13 net C2 units against a supply shortfall; a second significant weight for older persons' need (DL 31-32) - **L2: benefit (moderate weight).** efficient use of previously developed land and continued specialist provision (DL 33) ## Key facts - Extension would be 21.4 m to 26 m from 1 to 5 Remenham Row, a private gated terrace on slightly lower ground; replaces a largely single-storey building with three storeys (DL 7, 9, 12) - Separation distances in the Design Guide SPD are guidelines; meeting them does not show that living conditions are preserved (DL 10) - Daylight and sunlight assessment showed no significant losses; outlook is a separate matter (DL 13) - Council cannot show a five-year supply (figure not stated); substantial unmet need for older persons' accommodation (DL 31-32) - Historic England identified the third floor as the main source of heritage harm (DL 23); no separate harm to Grade I Henley Bridge (DL 28) - Section 106 agreement dated 9 June 2026 (employment and skills, 30-year habitat plan, NHS contribution of 15,405 pounds) resolved refusal reasons 3 to 5 (DL 3-4) - Council officers had assessed the harm to neighbours as limited and outweighed; the inspector reached her own view (DL 46) - Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011062 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/aadceb38-a2f5-4ec0-8a40-ffcca2ddca1c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011062.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.