Larger listed building windows intended to improve escape routes and daylight have been refused at a Northumberland bastle house, despite permission already existing to convert it into holiday accommodation.
Inspector Paul Martinson dismissed both appeals at Whitlees, Elsdon, on 30th September 2026. He found that wider openings would erode the Grade II listed building’s defensive character, remove more historic stonework and introduce a more domestic appearance.
The important point for owners is that the benefit of bringing the building back into use was accepted. What failed was the argument that this benefit justified the particular windows proposed, when a more sensitive conversion already had approval.
Why these listed building windows mattered
A bastle is a fortified farmhouse associated with the troubled border country between England and Scotland. The Whitlees building dates from the sixteenth or early seventeenth century, when protection against Border Reivers helped shape its construction.
Its significance lay in massive stone walls, austere simplicity and very few openings. The Inspector also valued the ability to read its later evolution: a formerly two-storey defensive building reduced in height, with adjoining bays used as a byre and store.
This was therefore about more than whether a window looked attractive. The high solid-to-void ratio, meaning the predominance of masonry over openings, was part of what made the building special. Our guide to heritage significance and harm explains that distinction.
What the existing conversion allowed
Planning permission 25NP0019 and listed building consent 25NP0020LBC were granted on 18th August 2025. They allowed two holiday accommodation units and an ancillary store: one let in the bastle, another in the adjoining former byre, and storage in the final bay.
The approved conversion already included new openings. There were three narrow arrow slits in the byre’s western gable and two pairs on the north elevation, one pair serving each accommodation unit. Rooflights were also approved.
These arrow slits were new interventions, not surviving medieval openings. However, the Inspector considered their narrow, recessed and frameless design sympathetic to the building’s defensive origins and predominantly blank walls.
The conditions for these listed building windows required the arrow-slit openings to be frameless and recessed by at least 100mm. The appeal proposal would replace each northern pair with a single window approximately 600mm wide.
Wider openings meant more than extra glass
The Inspector found no historic precedent put before him for windows of the proposed position, scale or proportions. Their width would diminish the building’s solid-to-void ratio and introduce proportions more associated with modern domestic windows.
He also questioned the drawings. A detailed elevation appeared to show a single frameless panel, yet he considered an opening escape window would require a framed casement. That would make the intervention more conspicuous and domestic in character.
The masonry argument also failed. Forming the approved arrow slits might require temporarily removing and reinstating stone, but the central section would be rebuilt. A wider opening would permanently remove additional historic fabric.
For these listed building windows, the assessment therefore covered both appearance and physical loss. A similar construction process did not establish an equivalent heritage impact.
A hidden elevation still has protection
The proposed listed building windows were on a less prominent elevation, where public views were less likely. That did not resolve the heritage objection.
In paragraph 18 of the combined Whitlees appeal decision, the Inspector said:
“listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public views of the buildings can be gained.”
The practical lesson is straightforward. Limited visibility may be relevant to an assessment, but it does not remove the need to consider the building’s intrinsic interest. Our listed buildings guidance covers the wider scope of protection.
Why the escape and daylight arguments failed
The appellants argued that wider windows would improve the accommodation’s functionality and safety by providing practical escape routes for holiday guests. They also relied on improved daylight and the long-term sustainability of the conversion.
The Inspector recorded that both parties recognised flexibility within Building Regulations for historic buildings. Crucially, the evidence had not demonstrated that the proposed window was the only suitable means of escape.
That is an evidential finding in this appeal. It does not establish that fire safety can be ignored, or approve a particular alternative escape strategy. The decision identifies no replacement solution that owners elsewhere can simply copy.
On daylight, he was unconvinced that the difference would be significant. A frame could itself restrict light, while the approved scheme already had sizeable rooflights, large southern openings and an open-plan arrangement.
He consequently rejected the suggestion that the approved windows undermined the conversion’s long-term sustainability. For applicants, this underlines the value of coordinating heritage design and fire-safety evidence before seeking changes to listed building windows.
Reuse benefits could come from a more sensitive scheme
The Inspector assessed the heritage harm as moderate and applied Policy HE6 of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework.
HE6 requires substantial weight to be given to conserving designated heritage assets. Under HE6(4), harm is weighed against public benefits, which can include securing the long-term reuse of a vacant or underused listed building.
He accepted that reuse represented a substantial benefit. But there was little evidence that it depended entirely on the harmful windows. In his words, that benefit could be delivered through “a more sensitive scheme”, as the extant approvals demonstrated.
The same difficulty affected tourism and visitor-spending benefits advanced in support of the listed building windows. Those would also arise from the approved holiday accommodation, so they did not depend on the proposed wider openings.
Overall, he described the public benefits as moderate and insufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight attached to the moderate heritage harm. The existence of an acceptable alternative was central to that conclusion.
Two appeals, two different statutory routes
Appeal A, reference 6006905, followed refusal of a section 73 planning application. The disputed planning conditions were condition 2, specifying approved plans, and condition 18, controlling the arrow-slit design. The appeal was under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Appeal B, reference 6006903, concerned listed building consent. It sought variation of condition 2 and removal of condition 8, the corresponding arrow-slit condition. The Inspector expressly identified section 20(1)(b) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as the appeal route.
Section 19 of that Act provides for applications to vary or discharge listed building consent conditions. Section 73 does not vary listed building consent. Planning Geek’s guide to varying listed building consent conditions explains the separate route and the difficulties which can arise with approved drawings.
This decision determined the listed-building appeal on its heritage merits. It should not be read as a general ruling that every change to approved works can be made through a plans condition.
The Inspector had special regard to section 16(2) and section 66(1), which address preservation when considering listed building consent and planning permission respectively.
He concluded that the disputed conditions remained reasonable and necessary. Both appeals failed, leaving the existing sensitive conversion as the approved option. For anyone proposing listed building windows, the question is not simply whether the change would be useful, but whether the evidence justifies its additional heritage harm.
0 Comments