R (The Forge Field Society & Others) v Sevenoaks District Council [2014] EWHC 1895 (Admin)
Forge Field heritage is an important High Court judgment on the weight which must be given to preserving listed buildings and conservation areas when a council accepts that development will cause heritage harm.
Mr Justice Lindblom quashed two permissions for affordable housing at Penshurst. The second decision failed because the council had not applied the statutory heritage duties with the required weight and had not adequately considered a realistic alternative site.
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
- [2014] EWHC 1895 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
- Judgment date
- 12th June 2014
- Judge
- Mr Justice Lindblom
- Case number
- CO/735/2013 and CO/16932/2013
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
What Forge Field heritage decided
Forge Field lies in Penshurst in Kent, within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Metropolitan Green Belt and Penshurst Conservation Area. The proposal was for six affordable homes close to listed buildings including Grade II* Star House.
Sevenoaks granted permission twice. The first permission was not defended in court because of defects concerning the listed-building duties. The second permission was challenged on bias, heritage, AONB, alternative-site and rationality grounds.
The heritage and alternative-site grounds succeeded. Both permissions were quashed.
Heritage harm must carry considerable importance and weight
The council accepted that the proposal would harm the setting of listed buildings and the character and appearance of the conservation area, but treated that harm as limited and therefore as only a limited objection.
The court held that this was not enough. Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 create strong statutory duties. Once harm is identified, preserving the listed building or conservation area must be given considerable importance and weight in the balance.
The judgment applied the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Barnwell Manor and the House of Lords decision in South Lakeland.
A local affordable-housing policy does not override the statutory duty
The development plan strongly supported rural affordable housing where there was proven need. That policy was important, but it did not displace the separate statutory heritage duties.
The council still had to give the preservation objective the weight required by Parliament and then balance it against the benefits of the affordable-housing scheme.
Alternative sites can become a necessary part of the assessment
The claimants argued that another site, Becket’s Field, could accommodate affordable housing with less harm. There was material before the council suggesting a combined alternative scheme promoted by two housing associations.
Given the acknowledged heritage and landscape harm and the strong statutory presumption in favour of preservation, the court held that the council needed to grapple properly with that alternative. It had not done so.
This was not a general rule that every planning application requires a search for alternatives. The need arose from the particular policy and heritage context.
The bias argument failed
The second application was considered while the first permission was under judicial review. The court rejected the suggestion that the committee was therefore biased or had unlawfully predetermined the second application.
Members had been advised to approach the fresh application on its own merits. A council can lawfully reconsider a proposal after an earlier decision has been challenged.
The AONB and irrationality grounds also failed
The court treated the assessment of limited and localised AONB harm as a planning judgment. It also rejected the argument that six houses automatically amounted to major development simply by borrowing a different statutory definition of major development.
For current heritage guidance, see our pages on listed buildings and conservation areas. The affordable-housing policy context is explained separately on our affordable housing page.
Read the full Forge Field judgment
The full High Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Forge Field Heritage Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026