Palmer v Herefordshire Council & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 1061
Palmer is an important Court of Appeal judgment on the setting of listed buildings. It confirms that heritage setting is not purely visual. Noise, smell and other non-visual effects can in principle harm the setting of a listed building. The case also explains how mitigation can remove that harm and how the statutory heritage weight should then be approached.
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
- [2016] EWCA Civ 1061; [2017] 1 WLR 411
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 4th November 2016
- Judge
- Lord Justice Moore-Bick, Lord Justice Lewison and Lord Justice Hamblen
- Case number
- C1/2015/3383
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 Palmer decided
Herefordshire Council granted permission for four large poultry broiler sheds near Mansel Lacy. Each shed would hold around 45,000 chickens.
About 50 metres away stood Flag Station, a Grade II listed former railway station. The challenge argued that the council had not properly considered the effect of noise and smell from the poultry operation on the setting of that listed building.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge.
Heritage setting is not limited to what can be seen
The parties agreed, and the Court of Appeal accepted, that the setting of a listed building can in principle be harmed by non-visual effects.
Noise and smell can therefore be relevant to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 where they affect the surroundings in which a listed building is experienced or appreciated.
This is a useful counterweight to the common misconception that listed-building setting is only about views and visual intrusion.
The council had considered smell and noise
The specialist landscape and conservation officers had considered the likely effects of the poultry units, including traffic, activity, noise and smell. They concluded that appropriate mitigation would avoid adverse effects on Flag Station and its setting.
The planning officer’s reports then advised members that the relevant listed-building and heritage policies would be satisfied with mitigation.
The Court of Appeal held that, read fairly and as a whole, the advice showed that non-visual effects had not been ignored.
Mitigation can mean there is no overall heritage harm
Palmer is often cited for the proposition that positive and negative effects can be considered together when deciding whether a proposal causes heritage harm.
Where mitigation removes the adverse effects, a decision-maker may lawfully conclude that there is no overall adverse effect on the listed building or its setting. In Palmer the council’s conclusion was that the proposed mitigation meant the development complied with the relevant heritage policies.
That is different from identifying residual heritage harm and then asking whether separate public benefits outweigh it.
Considerable importance and weight is not a fixed numerical weight
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that section 66(1) requires considerable importance and weight to be given to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting where harm is identified.
But that does not mean the same weight must be attached in every case. The appropriate weight will depend on matters including the extent of the assessed harm and the significance of the heritage asset.
A slight effect on a Grade II building does not have to be treated as though it were identical to major harm to a Grade I asset.
Ownership did not remove listed-building protection
Flag Station was controlled by the developer and formed part of the same agricultural unit. That did not mean its listed status could be ignored.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the agricultural context was relevant to understanding the building’s setting. It did not accept that ownership or control removed the statutory duty.
Officer reports are read practically
Palmer also applies the familiar approach to planning officer reports. They are written for a knowledgeable planning committee and should not be subjected to unrealistically demanding textual analysis.
The question is whether, read as a whole, the report materially misled members on an important matter and left that error uncorrected. The court does not infer that an issue has been ignored merely because every aspect of it is not separately rehearsed in the report.
Palmer does not create a mandatory internal heritage balance
The later Court of Appeal decision in City & Country Bramshill is important here. It rejected the idea that Palmer created a universal legal rule requiring every decision-maker first to carry out a separate internal balance of heritage harms and heritage benefits before considering wider public benefits.
Palmer concerned mitigation that avoided the apprehended harm. It did not prescribe one mandatory method for every heritage decision.
Read the full Palmer 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 guides to listed buildings and the setting of a heritage asset.
Palmer Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026