A listed building restoration at Plompton Hall Farmhouse, near Knaresborough in North Yorkshire, has won two appeals despite an Inspector accepting that the proposals would cause a very low level of harm to the Grade II listed building.
Inspector F Cullen allowed planning appeal 6005610 and listed building consent appeal 6007387 on 28 October 2026. The scheme involves repairing and reusing a dilapidated stone outbuilding, rearranging internal space, creating a new external doorway and linking the outbuilding to the farmhouse with a modest glazed connection.
North Yorkshire Council had refused the scheme. The important distinction in the appeal decision is that recognising harm to a heritage asset does not automatically mean refusal. The Inspector considered the conservation benefits of saving deteriorating historic fabric, the statutory duties and the policies in the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework.
A listed building restoration at a historic farmstead
Plompton Hall Farmhouse dates from about 1760 and is thought to have been designed by the Yorkshire architect John Carr for Daniel Lascelles. Its Palladian-style sandstone frontage, central portico, classical detailing and stone slate roof form part of an historic planned farm complex. The wider Plompton Conservation Area contains the landscaped estate and Plumpton Rocks, a Grade II* registered park and garden.
The detached outbuilding stands close to the farmhouse. It is believed to date from the nineteenth century, with dressed stonework, stone copings and a single-pitched Welsh slate roof. Although modest in size, the structure retains an historic and functional connection with the main house. The Inspector accepted that the building was within the farmhouse’s curtilage and had formed part of the land before 1 July 1948.
That last point mattered legally. Section 1(5)(b) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 meant the outbuilding was treated as part of the listed building for these appeals, notwithstanding the absence of a physical connection. The works therefore had to be assessed with the significance of the listed farmhouse as a whole in mind.
The outbuilding had fallen into poor condition. Its roof structure and masonry were deteriorating, vegetation had taken hold and the space was vacant. Active reuse would help secure its future, but a listed building restoration still needs to address how much historic material and spatial character will be lost.
Why the glazed link caused heritage harm
The proposed glazed link was the crux of the council’s concern. It would create a covered connection between two buildings that had historically remained separate. The design was set back from the prominent farmhouse elevation and used a restrained contemporary form with timber framing, glazing and a flat powder-coated aluminium roof.
Inspector Cullen accepted that the link would not dominate the farmhouse or compete with its Palladian composition. Conditions could control how the new structure joined the historic fabric. Even so, joining the buildings would change the way the original relationship between them could be experienced and understood, particularly from the garden.
Some other aspects of the conversion also involved heritage loss. Internal cross-walls would be removed to make a single space, a doorway would be formed, and some stone, slate and timber would have to be replaced during repair. The Inspector distinguished those losses from the beneficial repair and occupation of a building that was otherwise deteriorating.
The listed building restoration would thus result in a very low degree of harm to the significance of the Grade II asset. It would not harm the significance of the conservation area as a whole, nor would it adversely affect the setting of the other nearby listed buildings or the registered park and garden.
Public benefits outweighed the limited harm
Under the heritage provisions of the revised Framework, harm to a designated heritage asset remains an important and weighty consideration. The Inspector applied the statutory duties under sections 16, 66 and 72 of the 1990 Act and considered policies HE4, HE5 and HE6. The decision did not dismiss the loss of historic fabric merely because it was small.
The positive case was that the listed building restoration would remove risks to a failing structure, retain and repair historic materials, provide a use compatible with the farmhouse and support the continued occupation of the principal building. The Inspector also acknowledged limited economic benefits from carrying out the works.
Inspector Cullen concluded: On balance, I find that the public benefits resulting from the proposal would outweigh the harm to the asset’s significance.
This exact quotation is from Planning Inspectorate material reproduced under the Open Government Licence.
That balance explains how an appeal can succeed even where an Inspector expressly identifies heritage harm. The decision does not mean that a modern link to any listed outbuilding would be acceptable. The scale of loss, design, existing condition, conservation benefits and ability to secure appropriate detailing through conditions were all important.
Planning Geek’s guide to heritage significance and harm examines the distinction between identifying harm and deciding whether public benefits justify a proposal. Its listed building consent appeal guide explains why the planning permission and consent routes may need separate decisions.
Green Belt status did not prevent approval
The farmstead also lies in the Green Belt, but this was not a dispute about creating a new dwelling in open countryside. Under Policy GB7(1)(b), the Inspector found the reuse and alteration of the existing permanent, substantial and lawful building did not amount to inappropriate Green Belt development. That conclusion was not contested by the main parties.
For a listed building restoration involving existing structures, the Green Belt finding is useful context, rather than a precedent for unrelated forms of residential development. The decisive appeal dispute concerned the heritage assessment, particularly the relationship between the farmhouse and the detached building.
Conditions on the listed building consent require the careful recording, cataloguing and reuse of existing stonework before dismantling, together with detailed approval for the glazed link and its junctions, new door openings, pointing, replacement materials and joinery. The Inspector also imposed the ordinary commencement and approved-plans conditions.
What the Plompton decision means
Both appeals succeeded, but for slightly different statutory purposes. Planning permission was allowed despite conflict with the development plan, because the benefits and other material considerations justified an alternative decision. The corresponding listed building consent was granted subject to a detailed set of controls intended to protect the asset during construction.
The case is a reminder that a listed building restoration should be supported by a careful account of significance, the particular fabric affected and the advantages of viable long-term reuse. It also shows the importance of a credible conservation engineering assessment and an approach to detailing that can be converted into enforceable conditions.
That is rather more useful than a rule of thumb suggesting either that old buildings cannot be altered or that repairing one part of a property gives an automatic right to build a link. Neither proposition reflects the Inspector’s reasoning.
Decisions and sources
Read the official planning appeal record and listed building consent appeal record. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments