Catesby Estates Ltd v Steer [2018] EWCA Civ 1697
Catesby Estates v Steer is an important Court of Appeal judgment on the setting of a heritage asset. It confirms that setting is not determined by a rigid visual test. Historical, social and economic relationships can also matter. But those relationships do not automatically place every historically connected parcel of land within the setting of a listed building.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2018] EWCA Civ 1697
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 18th July 2018
- Judge
- Lord Justice McFarlane, Lord Justice Lindblom and Lady Justice Asplin
- Case number
- C1/2017/1840 & C1/2017/1934
What Catesby Estates decided
The appeals concerned proposals for substantial housing development on farmland near Kedleston Hall in Derbyshire. Kedleston Hall is Grade I listed and sits within a Grade I registered park and garden.
Objectors argued that the appeal site formed part of the Hall’s setting because of its historic connection with the wider Kedleston estate, even though modern tree planting known as the Derby Screen largely prevented views between the site and the Hall.
The Inspector granted permission. Lang J quashed the decision, but the Court of Appeal allowed the developer’s and Secretary of State’s appeals and restored the Inspector’s decision.
Setting is a matter of fact and planning judgment
The Court of Appeal said the setting of a listed building does not lend itself to a universal legal boundary. Identifying its extent is a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision-maker.
The planning authority or Inspector must understand what the relevant setting is sufficiently well to assess whether and how a proposal affects it. But the court should not substitute its own view of the setting unless the planning decision-maker has made a legal error.
A visual connection is not always essential
Catesby is useful because the court expressly accepted that setting is not limited to what can be seen.
Visual and physical relationships will often be central. Other factors can also be relevant, including historical, social and economic relationships. Government guidance may require consideration of the historic relationship between places, while cases such as Palmer show that noise or smell can affect the setting of a listed building too.
The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced are therefore not limited to a photograph or a line of sight.
Historic association alone does not define the setting
The other side of the judgment is equally important. The fact that land once formed part of the same estate as a listed building does not automatically bring all of that land within the building’s setting.
The Kedleston estate had historically extended well beyond the immediate surroundings of the Hall. The Inspector was entitled to decide that something more than the historic social and economic connection was required before this particular development site could be regarded as lying within the setting of the Hall.
Otherwise land geographically remote from the heritage asset could be included merely because of past ownership or estate management.
Different heritage assets can have different settings
The Inspector concluded that the appeal site did not form part of the setting of Kedleston Hall in the circumstances then existing, but did form part of the setting of the registered park and conservation area.
The Court of Appeal held that there was nothing inconsistent in that conclusion. The setting of one heritage asset does not have to share the same boundary as another nearby asset. Each has to be assessed on its own significance, surroundings and relationships.
The Derby Screen mattered to the planning judgment
The Derby Screen had been planted decades earlier to block views of expanding development around Derby. It had materially changed the surroundings in which Kedleston Hall was experienced.
The Inspector considered both the current position with the screen in place and the possibility that it might later be opened or removed. The Court of Appeal held that this showed a lawful and rounded assessment rather than an impermissibly narrow visual test.
Section 66 still carries considerable importance and weight
Where development does affect a listed building or its setting, the duty in section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 remains important. The desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting must be given the considerable importance and weight required by the earlier heritage authorities.
Catesby does not reduce that duty. It deals primarily with the preceding question of what the setting is and whether the development affects it.
Read the full Catesby Estates judgment
The approved Court of Appeal judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Related Planning Geek guidance
See our detailed guide to the setting of a heritage asset, together with the pages on listed buildings and heritage significance and harm.
Catesby Estates Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026