Heritage harm against a few homes

Appeal 6009245 · Harborough · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• HE6(3) harm harm to the significance of the Bushby Conservation Area, degree not graded; "considerable importance and weight" (DL 11, 18)
• HE6(4) fail no net gain in dwellings, short-term construction benefits and modest benefits of occupation; public benefits not sufficient (DL 11-12)

A replacement dwelling in the Bushby Conservation Area was dismissed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. The new house would dilute the spacious plot pattern and appear overtly contemporary and dominant, harming the conservation area. With no net gain in homes, the public benefits did not outweigh that harm under HE6(4). The design conflict with DP3(1) and (2) was then run as a "should be refused" policy through S4, and the benefits were substantially outweighed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010746 · Epping Forest · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• HE6(1) harm substantial weight to the asset's conservation stated (DL 22, 30)
• HE6(3) harm harm "at the lower level" is still a matter of considerable importance and weight (DL 30)
• HE6(4) fail one-for-one replacement adds nothing to housing supply; modern living and energy standards not shown to be unachievable in the existing dwelling; no other public benefits (DL 22-23)

A much larger replacement house in the Green Belt at Matching. It failed the replacement-building category GB7(1)(b) as materially larger (floorspace up 141.9%), but passed GB7(1)(e): the plot is previously developed land and the harm to openness was moderate, not substantial. So it was not inappropriate. It was still dismissed, because its scale and urban design caused low harm to the setting of a Grade II listed thatched house nearby with no public benefits to weigh against it, and harmed the rural character of the row.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6002708 · Herefordshire · Appeal · 1 Oct 2026 · 3 homes

• HE6(1) harm moderate harm to the significance of Grade II* Castle End through loss of the open buffer in its setting; greater weight for a more important asset (DL 14-15, 21-22, 25, 40)
• HE6(3) harm harm of considerable importance and weight (DL 22, 25, 40)
• HE6(4) fail public benefits of up to three homes and associated benefits do not outweigh the harm; HE6(4) not cited by number (DL 23-25)

Permission in principle (PIP) for up to three homes at the northern edge of Lea was dismissed. The site is the last open buffer between modern housing and the Grade II* listed Castle End, and building on it would cause moderate harm to the asset's significance through its setting. Given considerable importance and weight, and greater weight for a Grade II* asset, that harm was not outweighed by three homes in an authority without a five-year supply.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006003 · Kirklees · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• HE6(3) harm moderate harm to Linthwaite CA from loss of the open visual break and larger trees; no clear and convincing justification (DL 20-21)
• HE6(4) fail one dwelling and unsecured self-build do not outweigh; HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation stated (DL 21-25)

One dwelling on an open, treed gap in the ribbon of Manchester Road, Linthwaite, in the Green Belt and the Linthwaite Conservation Area. The inspector accepted grey belt and found the scheme not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). But the loss of the visual break and larger trees caused moderate harm to the conservation area and conflicted with DP3(1) without clear justification. Under S5(5), applying S5(2), the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006266 · South Downs National Park Authority · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• HE6(1) harm HE6(1) stated correctly - "substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation"; low harm to the Grade II stables (fabric loss, domesticated rear elevation) and to the setting of Grade II Adsdean House (DL 17-21, 24)
• HE6(3) harm low harm, individually and cumulatively, "of considerable importance and weight" (DL 21)
• HE6(4) fail economic and housing-stock benefits; not shown that rear windows are needed or that this is the only way to secure reuse of the vacant building or energy-efficiency measures (DL 22-24)

Listed building consent to extend a flat into the rest of a Grade II stable block was refused on appeal. The internal works were harmless, but new windows and a door on two levels of the plain rear elevation would domesticate it, lose original stone, and weaken the stables' contribution to the setting of Adsdean House. The low harm was not outweighed by public benefits, and the appellant had not shown that this scheme was the only way to secure reuse or energy efficiency.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008864 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• HE6(1) harm letter attaches "very high substantial weight" to conservation of the WHS; degree of harm not graded (DL 30)
• HE6(4) fail letter concludes "the public benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects", importing the S5 formula into the HE6(4) balance; no HE6(3) statement (DL 31-32)

Permission in principle for up to five homes on a field at Somerford, next to Congleton. Dismissed. The site met S5(1)(j), and the location conflict with local accessibility policies was limited. But the site is in the Jodrell Bank consultation zone, and no heritage statement assessed radio-frequency interference with the World Heritage Site. The inspector held that omission determinative under HE8, and the heritage balance failed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010097 · Buckinghamshire · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• HE6(4) fail modest harm to the setting of Grade II Pound Scots from erosion of its spacious garden; substantial weight to conservation, considerable weight to harm; benefits including housing (substantial) do not outweigh (DL 8, 10, 14)
• HE6 neutral setting of the Grade II listed waterspout preserved (DL 9, 13)

A self-build house in the front garden of Grade II listed Pound Scots at Bledlow Ridge, in the Chilterns National Landscape and the Green Belt. The inspector found modest harm to the listed building's setting through loss of its spacious garden, and even substantial weight to one home did not outweigh it under HE6(4). The case was then run through S4 as a within-settlement scheme, leaving the Green Belt question undecided. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008773 · Buckinghamshire · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• HE6(3) harm loss of an open, verdant gap in Singleborough CA (on a PRoW) and harm to settings of Grade II Park Lodge and Old Vine Cottage; lower end of the spectrum (DL 15-18)
• HE6(4) fail housing, economic and social benefits limited for one dwelling; PRoW widening not securable at PIP stage (DL 19-20)

Permission in principle for one house on an open gap in Singleborough, a hamlet with a bus only twice a month and no footway. The site counted as limited infilling under S5(1)(e), and the restrictive spatial strategy got very limited weight. But developing the gap would harm the conservation area and the settings of two listed buildings, and occupiers would be almost wholly car-reliant. Through the S5(2) trigger and TR3, the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6001896 · Herefordshire · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• HE6(1) harm substantial weight to conservation; Grade II* asset "extremely important"; the field is the last open buffer between development and Castle End, so harm to setting at "a moderate level" (DL 10-16, 19, 29)
• HE6(3) harm moderate harm "nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight" (DL 16)
• HE6(4) fail housing and moderate social/economic benefits do not outweigh the harm (DL 17-19)

Permission in principle for up to six homes on a field next to Castle End, a Grade II* 17th-century manor house at Lea. Dismissed. The field has no value for the character of the area, because it is surrounded by development. But it is the last open buffer that lets the manor be read in its historic landscape. The inspector found moderate harm to the setting, gave it considerable importance and weight, and held that housing (substantial weight) did not outweigh it. The benefits were then "substantially outweighed" under S5 (DL ¶30), and the letter says the same would follow under S4.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007158 · Maidstone · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• HE6(1) harm substantial weight to conservation stated (DL 11); moderate harm to Grade II* Brishing Court through loss of orchard on its historic approach (DL 7-8, 12)
• HE6(3) harm "moderate harm ... Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL 12)
• HE6(4) fail housing, self-build, older-person design, orchard restoration, efficiency - "substantial weight" given supply, but one dwelling insufficient (DL 13)

A self-build bungalow in a disused traditional orchard on the historic approach to Grade II* Brishing Court, outside any settlement near Maidstone. The inspector found moderate harm to the listed farmhouse's setting that one dwelling could not outweigh, significant localised landscape harm, a car-dependent location that was not "physically well-related" under S5(1)(j)(i), and no reptile survey. With no S5(1) category met and no exceptional circumstances, S5(4) failed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010498 · Cornwall · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• HE6(1) harm substantial weight to conservation of the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS stated (DL 10)
• HE6(4) fail plot almost certainly part of a mineworkers' smallholding, an OUV attribute; a dwelling would make it unreadable; harm "would not be substantial" but outweighs very limited benefits (DL 6-11)

Permission in principle for one dwelling on a plot in the hamlet of Higher Bal, near St Agnes, inside the Cornwall Mining World Heritage Site and the Cornwall National Landscape. The plot was almost certainly part of a mineworkers' smallholding, an attribute of the site's Outstanding Universal Value. The inspector accepted S5(1)(e) infill, but found WHS harm that very limited benefits could not outweigh, a DP3(1) conflict engaging DP3(3), and some car reliance. The harm substantially outweighed the benefits. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011227 · South Kesteven · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• HE6(3) harm loss of open plot that shows the historic linear plan form; harm "at the lower end of the spectrum" but of considerable importance and weight (DL 11-16)
• HE6(4) fail housing, economic and social benefits do not outweigh; affordable homes and design not secured, so no weight (DL 17-18)

Outline housing (six indicated) on a long, narrow garden and paddock plot behind Main Road in the Uffington Conservation Area, refused by committee against officer advice. Dismissed. The inspector split the site under S3(2): the garden section is inside the settlement (S4) and the paddock outside it (S5), where S5(1)(j) was met. But developing the open plot would erode the legible historic linear plan form: low-end harm, of considerable importance and weight, not outweighed by public benefits. With the DP3 context conflict, the benefits were substantially outweighed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009513 · Buckinghamshire · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• HE6(1) harm substantial weight to conservation stated (DL 33, 38)
• HE6(3) harm considerable importance and weight to CA harm (DL 33-34)
• HE6(4) fail combined benefits (substantial) do not outweigh CA harm (DL 38, 42)
• HE6 neutral no effect on settings of Grade II Nunhayes Cottage and outbuilding, or Great Stone House (DL 16-19)

A house squeezed into the side garden of Nunhayes, a converted barn and non-designated heritage asset in the Cuddington Conservation Area. Dismissed: mid-range harm to the CA and to the NDHA, each outweighing the benefits of one home (substantial weight with a 3.62-year supply). The letter runs HE6(1), (3), (4) and HE7(2) as a separate heritage balance before the S4 conclusion.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011037 · Burnley · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• HE6(3) harm low harm to Padiham CA - dwelling built into the boundary wall, conspicuous corner position, loss of burial-ground spaciousness (DL 9-13, 15, 18)
• HE6(4) fail CA and NDHA harms together outweigh moderate housing and limited other benefits (DL 16-18)

A new dwelling built into the stone boundary wall of the garden of a former chapel and burial ground in the Padiham Conservation Area. The inspector found low harm to the conservation area, moderately high harm to the wall as a non-designated heritage asset, and moderate harm to the outlook of a facing terrace. The scheme failed L2(1)(d) and DP3(1) without clear justification, both routes to refusal under S4(2). The benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011585 · South Kesteven · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• HE6(4) fail considerable importance and weight to harm, substantial weight to conservation; housing moderate, other benefits limited (DL 16-20)

Three dwellings on a paddock that the conservation area appraisal names as an Important Open Space in Hough-on-the-Hill, a village of dispersed farmsteads. The inspector found harm at the lower end of the spectrum but of considerable importance and weight, not outweighed by moderate housing benefits. The design conflict was treated as a DP3(3) refusal circumstance under S5(2), and the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008414 · Cornwall · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• HE6(3) harm potential harm "likely to be minor" but of considerable importance and weight (DL 19)
• HE6(4) fail benefits (moderate collectively) do not outweigh the potential harm (DL 20-22, 26)

Permission in principle for two affordable-led homes on a field opposite a mining-era terrace near Helston, inside a World Heritage Site and an Area of Great Landscape Value. Dismissed. The road and hedge separate the site from the linear settlement, so it was not physically well related (S5(1)(j)(i), HO10). No assessment of the site's contribution to the WHS had been made, so harm could not be ruled out. Minor potential harm, given considerable importance and weight, outweighed moderate benefits.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6004909 · Cornwall · Appeal · 10 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• HE6(1) harm substantial weight to conservation; harm to the WHS "a serious matter that must attract very significant weight" (DL 13, 21)
• HE6(4) fail limited public benefits (1-2 homes on PDL, economic) "clearly outweighed" by the harm (DL 14)

Permission in principle for one or two homes on a small plot at Vicarage Hill, St Day, inside the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site. Dismissed. The inspector accepted the WHS Office's evidence that the plot was part of a mineworker's smallholding that contributes to Outstanding Universal Value. Domestic development would sever it visually from the surviving landholding. Low-end harm under HE5/HE6, given "very significant weight", substantially outweighed limited housing benefits under S4(1), even with HO7 substantial weight.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007136 · Buckinghamshire · Appeal · 9 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• HE6(1) harm harm to setting of Grade I Church of St Mary and Grade II Kings Head by loss of spaciousness; HE6(1) substantial weight, more important asset greater weight (DL 18-20, 35)
• HE6(4) fail public benefits of one dwelling do not outweigh harm to three designated assets (DL 24-27)

One house on the last open plot in the historic core of Ivinghoe, between a Grade I church, two Grade II buildings and the conservation area's focal junction. Dismissed. Within a settlement, so S4 applied; harm to the setting of the Grade I church and Grade II Kings Head and to the conservation area, carrying HE6(1) substantial weight, outweighed the substantial weight to one home despite a 3.73-year supply.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007466 · Cornwall · Appeal · 8 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• HE6(4) fail benefits not site-specific "could be achieved elsewhere"; cumulative-erosion argument; substantial weight to WHS harm (DL 21-23, 27)

Permission in principle for nine homes on two small fields south of the A390, opposite the roadside settlement of Penstraze, within the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site. Dismissed. The location was found "relatively sustainable": there is a level segregated cycleway and a bus stop. The Council's supply is only 3.9 years. But the loss of legible miners' smallholding enclosures was harm to the WHS's Outstanding Universal Value. Given HE6 substantial weight and the site's international importance, that harm outweighed substantial weight to housing.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007779 · Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole · Appeal · 3 Sept 2026 · 8 homes

• HE6(4) fail harm to setting of The Avenue CA at 'the lower end of less than substantial' but considerable importance and weight; benefits insufficient (DL 22-27)

An 8-flat block replacing a house in a sylvan plot next to Poole's The Avenue Conservation Area was refused, despite a 2.55-year supply and substantial weight to seven net homes. The inspector used the new L2 support for "additional units within residential curtilages" but held it to its "sensitive redevelopment … consistent with the overall street scene" qualifier. Harm to the conservation area's setting, uncertain effects on protected trees and an expired bat survey "would substantially outweigh" the benefits (the S4 test).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011471 · Croydon · Appeal · 3 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• HE6(4) fail crown-roofed extension above eaves breaks terrace uniformity — "localised and less than substantial" harm to CA appearance; "considerable weight requiring justification" (DL 5-7, 14)

Upward and rear extension to create two flats above a pharmacy in the South Norwood CA. Dismissed on three grounds: CA appearance, the neighbour's light and outlook, and parking in the absence of a signed car-free obligation. The letter treats the 2026 Framework as materially the same as 2024 and uses 2024 language throughout: "less than substantial" and "significantly and demonstrably outweigh".

Full summary and sources

26/01399/PIP · Stratford-on-Avon · Council (delegated) · 28 Aug 2026 · 1 home

• HE6(3) harm harm to character and appearance of Ilmington Conservation Area and to setting of Grade II Hill Farm Barns (1–3); officer also says "great weight"
• HE6(4) fail one dwelling "a modest benefit in the scheme of things"; public benefits do not outweigh

A PIP for one house in a back garden inside Ilmington's BUAB and Conservation Area, next to Grade II listed barns. Principle was acceptable under the Core Strategy and S4. It was refused under delegated powers on 28 August 2026 on heritage grounds: harm to the Conservation Area, to the setting of the listed barns and to the host building (a non-designated heritage asset), not outweighed by the "modest" benefit of one home.

Full summary and sources