- Decision
- dismissed, 14 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Hannah Guest
- Authority
- Herefordshire (West Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6011314
- Application reference
- P253605/L
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Internal and external alterations including single-storey west-gable extension to a Grade II c.1600 timber-framed farmhouse (linked s78 appeal 6011319, P253604/FH)
- Site context
- open countryside
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(1), HE6(4), HE4(2), S5
- Development plan policies
- Herefordshire Core Strategy 2015 LD4
- Main issues
- special interest of listed building; public benefits; S5 balance
Summary
These were linked planning and listed building consent appeals for a single-storey extension and internal alterations to a Grade II c.1600 Herefordshire farmhouse. Both were dismissed for moderate harm to significance, compounded by inconsistent plans. The letter is useful for two readings. CC2(2)'s substantial weight covers only works that improve the existing building's energy efficiency, not an efficient new extension. And a listed building extension that passes S5(1)(c) still fails the S5 "substantially outweighed" test on heritage.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "Parts of the Framework relevant to the appeals were amended. The Council and the appellants were given an opportunity to comment" (DL ¶3).
- Heritage: MODERATE HARM. The harm arose from the extension's depth and projection competing with the later additions, and from the loss of legibility of the historic entrance hall. "I find that it would result in a moderate level of harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. I afford this matter considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶33).
- Energy efficiency: CC2(2) NOT ENGAGED. "Policy CC2 (2) of the Framework affords substantial weight to the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings. However, while the proposed extension may incorporate an energy efficient specification … this would not improve the energy efficiency of the existing building. Consequently, I afford this benefit limited weight" (DL ¶36).
- Private benefit. "the desire to secure a more convenient or desirable arrangement of accommodation does not, in itself, justify development" (DL ¶39). There was no clear and convincing justification (DL ¶40).
- S5(1)(c): PASS but S5 balance FAIL. The extension "would not result in a disproportionate increase in size compared to the existing building as a whole" (DL ¶45). But "the benefits of approving the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶49), relying on the HE6 weights and the DP3(3) refusal limb (DL ¶48).
Planning balance
Two balances were run: HE6(4) for the listed building consent, and S3(1)/S5 for the planning appeal. Harm: moderate, with substantial weight to conservation and considerable importance and weight to the harm. Benefits: modest (construction, housing stock, reversibility, energy efficiency limited). Both failed.
What made the difference
The harm to the plan form and to the later additions, and the applicant's inconsistent drawings (DL ¶30: "The onus rests with the appellants"). CC2(2) could have helped only if the works improved the existing fabric's performance, as the roof solar did at PINS-6006240.
Transferable points
- CC2(2) substantial weight is confined to improving the energy efficiency of the existing building. A well-insulated new extension gets limited weight (DL ¶36; same reading at PINS-6007221 ¶38).
- Passing S5(1)(c) (not disproportionate) does not secure approval. Heritage harm plus DP3(3) can "substantially outweigh" under S5 (DL ¶44-49).
- Private convenience carries very limited weight as a heritage public benefit (DL ¶39).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6(4) | fail | considerable | moderate harm (extension competing with later western additions; loss of legibility of historic entrance-hall plan; inconsistent plans preventing assessment) not outweighed by modest benefits (DL 31-33, 41) |
| CC2(2) | not-engaged | limited | an energy-efficient new extension "would not improve the energy efficiency of the existing building", so limited weight; window renewal unevidenced (DL 36) |
| HE4(2) | fail | no clear and convincing justification; no evidence that the works are needed to keep the building in use (DL 40) | |
| S5(1)(c) | pass | extension not disproportionate to the existing building as a whole (DL 45) | |
| S5 | fail | benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects assessed against the Framework, relying on HE6(1)/(3) and DP3(3) (DL 44-49) | |
| DP3(3) | conflict | cited in the S5 balance as the "should be refused … without clear justification" limb (DL 48) |
Key facts
- Grade II farmhouse c.1600, timber-framed L-shaped core with later western additions of heritage interest (DL 8-13)
- Two sets of plans with the same drawing numbers and discrepancies between floor plans and elevations; the inspector could not assess several elements (DL 16-19, 29-30)
- Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 3)
- Great crested newt survey issue left unresolved (DL 43)
Related decisions
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.