Free UK Listed Building Consent Refusal Appeal — LBCAA 1990 s.20

Listed Building Consent Refusal Appeal — LBCAA 1990 s.20

Statement Of Case  ·  12 June 2026  ·  6-Month Deadline: 8 October 2026

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write on behalf of The Trustees of the Hartwood Estate to lodge a Notice of Appeal under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against the refusal of listed building consent by Bath and North East Somerset Council (LPA reference 24/01294/LBA) by decision notice dated 8 April 2026. The application concerns Hartwood Manor (including walled garden and west range stables) at Hartwood Manor, Hartwood Lane, BA2 8DT, GRADE II* (particularly important buildings of more than special interest — 5.8% of all listings; heightened protection) (National Heritage List for England entry 1135742). The statutory deadline for this appeal is SIX MONTHS from the date of the decision notice — 8 October 2026. This appeal is lodged by the original applicant (who alone has standing under LBCAA 1990 s.20). The preferred procedure is Hearing. This letter accompanies the online appeal submission via appeals.planninginspectorate.gov.uk and constitutes the appellant's STATEMENT OF CASE.

Appellant: The Trustees of the Hartwood Estate
Address: Hartwood Manor, Hartwood Lane, Wiltshire BA2 8DT
Telephone: 01225 832047
Email: estate@hartwoodmanor.co.uk
Capacity: Original applicant — LBCAA 1990 s.20 standing confirmed
Heritage / planning agent: Beaumont Heritage Consulting Ltd of 14 Queen Square, Bath BA1 2HX

LPA: Bath and North East Somerset Council
LPA address: Lewis House, Manvers Street, Bath BA1 1JG
Application reference: 24/01294/LBA
Listed building name: Hartwood Manor (including walled garden and west range stables)
Property address: Hartwood Manor, Hartwood Lane, BA2 8DT
Listed grade: GRADE II* (particularly important buildings of more than special interest — 5.8% of all listings; heightened protection)
NHLE entry number: 1135742
Date first listed: 22 June 1959
Proposed works: Reinstatement of the south range gallery window: removal of the unsympathetic 1965 timber sash inserted into the original 1742 Westmacott-glazed bay; installation of a hand-blown crown glass replacement with bespoke joinery reproducing the 1742 mouldings (executed by Allen and Greaves of Bath, an IHBC-listed conservation joinery). Roof works: replacement of the West Range stables Westmorland slate covering, like-for-like, with a Cumberland salvage source. Internal: sympathetic reinstatement of the lime plaster ceiling in the Great Chamber following 2024 structural movement repair.
Decision type: REFUSAL of listed building consent
Decision date: 8 April 2026
Appeal deadline (6 months — LBCAA 1990 s.20): 8 October 2026

The LPA refused listed building consent by decision notice dated 8 April 2026. The reasons given are as follows (quoted verbatim from the decision notice):

1. The proposed reinstatement of the south range gallery window would not preserve the special architectural interest of the listed building. The 1965 timber sash, although described by the applicant as "unsympathetic", is now of historical interest in its own right as part of the building's evolution; its removal would result in substantial harm contrary to the LBCAA 1990 s.16(2) duty and NPPF paragraph 200.

2. The proposed crown glass and bespoke joinery, although replicating a historic specification, are non-traditional in the modern context; the LPA is not satisfied that the workmanship at the proposed price point will achieve the standard claimed.

3. The proposed West Range stables roof replacement is contrary to the Conservation Officer recommendation to retain in-situ all surviving Westmorland slate; the applicant's claim of necessary replacement is not supported by an adequate structural / condition report.

4.1 Special regard. In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works affecting the listed building, the LPA / decision-maker shall have SPECIAL REGARD to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting and any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses (LBCAA 1990 s.16(2) + s.38).

4.2 "Preserving". Per South Lakeland DC v SSE [1992] AC 141, "preserving" means not harming — there is no positive duty to enhance, only a duty to avoid causing harm to special interest features.

4.3 Considerable importance and weight. The appellate authority must give "considerable importance and weight" to the desirability of preserving when balancing heritage harm against public benefits (per the established case-law line including Barnwell Manor Wind Energy v East Northants DC [2014] EWCA Civ 137).

The appellant respectfully disagrees with each of the three refusal reasons. (1) The 1965 sash is a documented unsympathetic substitution; the Statement of Significance identifies the 1742 original glazing as a primary aesthetic and historical value, with the 1965 replacement of negative or no significance — its removal does not cause "substantial harm" but reverses an earlier harm. (2) The proposed conservation joinery is by Allen and Greaves of Bath, an IHBC-recognised conservation specialist; references and project examples provided. (3) The structural condition report by Mann Williams (RIBA Conservation Architects) provides detailed evidence of slate fracturing and water ingress; the in-situ retention recommendation is rebutted with structural / hydrology evidence.

The appellant requests that the appeal proceeds by way of HEARING — structured discussion before an Inspector (no witnesses, no cross-examination); 1-day hearing format; typical timetable 6-9 months. The appellant acknowledges that PINS determines the procedure based on case complexity (per the PINS Procedural Guide on or before 31 March 2026 (STANDARD version)) and that the procedure ultimately followed may differ from the preference indicated.

(A) PINS THREE-PROCEDURE FRAMEWORK. The Planning Inspectorate Procedural Guide on or before 31 March 2026 (STANDARD version) identifies three procedures for listed building consent appeals:
   (i) Written Representations — no oral hearing; statement of case + LPA statement + responses + (optional) site visit by Inspector; typical timetable 4-6 months; suitable for straightforward listed building cases where the heritage issues are documentary (set out in Statement of Significance + LPA refusal reasons + appellant rebuttal).
   (ii) Hearing — structured discussion before an Inspector; no formal witnesses, no cross-examination; 1-day format; typical timetable 6-9 months; suitable where the case turns on the Inspector's judgment of competing heritage significance assessments and material considerations.
   (iii) Inquiry — formal proceedings with witnesses (Heritage Consultant, Conservation Architect, Structural Engineer as relevant), expert evidence, cross-examination, opening / closing submissions; 5+ days; typical timetable 9-18 months or longer; reserved for complex / contested heritage cases (typically Grade I or Grade II* listings where Historic England has been formally consulted).

(B) APPELLANT'S PREFERENCE. HEARING — structured discussion before an Inspector (no witnesses, no cross-examination); 1-day hearing format; typical timetable 6-9 months

(C) EXPERT EVIDENCE PLANNED. A HERITAGE CONSULTANT supported by a CONSERVATION ARCHITECT (RIBA Conservation Architect accreditation) — appropriate where the case turns on detailed design of the alteration / extension.

(D) PINS DISCRETION. The Planning Inspectorate determines the procedure based on the complexity of the heritage issues, the level of public interest, the relationship to any related planning permission appeal, the level of Historic England engagement and the appellant's representational needs. The preference is taken into account but is not binding; PINS may direct a different procedure (e.g. uplift WR to Hearing where Historic England has made a formal representation).

(E) COST-BENEFIT. Written Representations is the least costly procedure (no oral hearing; faster timetable). Inquiries involve significant heritage expert witness costs (typically £15,000-£50,000 for a complex Grade II* heritage inquiry inclusive of the conservation architect / heritage consultant / structural engineer) but provide the strongest evidential platform for contested significance cases. The appellant has weighed the cost-benefit and selected its preferred procedure accordingly.

(F) RELATIONSHIP TO PLANNING PERMISSION APPEAL. Where the proposed works also require planning permission and the LPA has issued a related refusal, the listed building consent appeal under LBCAA 1990 s.20 is typically PROCEDURALLY LINKED to the planning permission appeal under TCPA 1990 s.78. The two appeals are heard together where practicable; the Inspector issues a joined decision letter addressing both.

Procedure narrative:
The case is heritage-significant (Grade II* listed building of national importance, with Historic England engagement in the application stage). The appeal procedure elected is HEARING — sufficient for the Inspector to test the heritage values articulated in the Statement of Significance against the LPA's refusal reasoning, but not requiring the cost burden of formal Inquiry. The 1-day hearing format allows: (i) appellant's opening submission via Beaumont Heritage Consulting; (ii) site visit (essential for the gallery window context); (iii) Inspector questions of the appellant's heritage consultant and conservation architect (Mann Williams); (iv) LPA Conservation Officer response; (v) closing. Cost estimate: heritage consultant attendance + conservation architect attendance + agent + half-day site visit + 1-day hearing = c. £8,500 (vs estimated £35,000 for full Inquiry). Procedure preference reflects the assessment that the case turns on documentary heritage evidence + Inspector judgment, not contested expert cross-examination.

(A) NPPF CHAPTER 16 + HISTORIC ENGLAND CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Chapter 16 ("Conserving and enhancing the historic environment") requires that proposals affecting heritage assets be assessed against the asset's SIGNIFICANCE. Historic England's Conservation Principles (2008/2017) identify four categories of heritage value: EVIDENTIAL, HISTORICAL, AESTHETIC and COMMUNAL.

(B) GRADE-LEVEL CONTEXT. Hartwood Manor (including walled garden and west range stables) is GRADE II* (particularly important buildings of more than special interest — 5.8% of all listings; heightened protection). As a Grade II* listed building, the asset is of MORE THAN SPECIAL interest. Heightened protection applies; Historic England consultation may be required for substantive interventions.

(C) STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE — HERITAGE VALUES.

(i) EVIDENTIAL VALUE. The potential of the place to yield evidence about past human activity. The principal evidential value lies in the surviving 1742 Westmacott-period fabric: the south range gallery and Great Chamber retain primary lime plaster, oak joinery and copper rainwater goods; the West Range stables retain the 18th-century cobbled floor and trough partitions evidencing the working horse-yard typology. The proposed works affect a portion of the south range gallery (window only — not the wider gallery fabric) and the West Range slate roof (the timber roof structure and slate battens are retained).

(ii) HISTORICAL VALUE. The ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present. Hartwood Manor has documented association with the Westmacott family (1739-1843), the design of Hartwood Park (Capability Brown attribution noted in the Wiltshire Pevsner), and a recorded 1820 alteration by John Pinch the Elder (architect, Bath). The 1965 sash replacement in the south range gallery is documented in the Wiltshire Council planning archives as an emergency repair following bomb-damage glazing failure; it is not associated with any historically-significant individual or movement.

(iii) AESTHETIC VALUE. The ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place. The aesthetic value rests on the south range gallery as a primary Westmacott-period composition: the bay window with crown-glass Westmacott glazing was the principal architectural set-piece of the 1742 phase. The 1965 sash inserts a flat plate-glass square that disrupts the rhythm of the bay; conservation photography (annexed) shows the disruption to the bay composition. Reinstatement restores the aesthetic value identified as primary in the Statement of Significance.

(iv) COMMUNAL VALUE. The meanings of a place for people who relate to it. Hartwood Manor is open to the public 8 days per year under the Heritage Open Days scheme; the south range gallery is the principal public-access space. The communal value is concentrated in the appreciation of the 1742 set-piece; reinstatement enhances communal value through the restoration of the original visitor experience.

(D) SETTING ANALYSIS. The setting of a listed building — its surroundings as experienced — is a material consideration. Setting analysis covers the curtilage and the wider townscape / landscape context, viewing corridors and the relationship to other listed buildings.

(E) PROPOSED WORKS IMPACT. Per Steer v Secretary of State [2017] EWHC 1456 — significance assessment must be specific to the proposed works, identifying how each element of the proposal affects each identified value. R (Newsmith Stainless Ltd) v Secretary of State [2017] EWCA Civ 1057 — Inspector duty to engage with specific significance findings.

Significance narrative:
The Statement of Significance was prepared by Beaumont Heritage Consulting (Charlotte Beaumont MA IHBC, lead consultant) in February 2026, building on earlier work by John Goodall (Historic England — formal advice received 2018 in connection with a related grant scheme). The hierarchy of significance places the 1742 Westmacott phase as PRIMARY; the 1820 Pinch alteration as SECONDARY (where surviving); the 19th-century minor modifications as MODERATE; and the 1965 emergency repair as NEGATIVE / DETRACTING. The proposed works are characterised in the Heritage Impact Assessment as having a NET POSITIVE impact on heritage significance — reinstating primary fabric while leaving secondary and moderate elements untouched.

The appellant addresses each refusal reason in turn, with reference to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Chapter 16, the relevant Local Plan policies, Historic England guidance, PPG 15 principles (where still applicable) and the case-law on listed building consent decisions (Tesco Stores v SS [1995] 1 WLR 759 — material considerations; South Bucks v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33 — adequate reasons; R (Save Britain's Heritage) v SS [2018] EWCA Civ 2137; R (Newsmith Stainless) v SS [2017] EWCA Civ 1057; South Lakeland DC v SSE [1992] AC 141).

(A) SUBSTANTIAL HARM — NPPF paragraph 200. Where the LPA finds that the proposed works cause substantial harm to (or loss of) the significance of the listed building, consent should only be permitted where outweighed by public benefits. The appellant's rebuttal: The LPA characterises the removal of the 1965 sash as "substantial harm" within NPPF paragraph 200. This is rebutted on three grounds. First, "substantial harm" in NPPF paragraph 200 is reserved for serious loss of significance — the 1965 sash is identified in the Statement of Significance as NEGATIVE / DETRACTING; its removal does not lose significance, it reverses a prior harm. Second, the Statement of Significance is supported by Historic England's 2018 advice (annexed) which itself records the 1965 sash as out-of-period and recommends reinstatement should grant funding become available. Third, the case law (R (Save Britain's Heritage) v SSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ 2137 — reasons; South Lakeland DC v SSE [1992] AC 141 — preservation = not causing harm) does not support a "substantial harm" finding where the proposed works improve significance.

(B) LESS THAN SUBSTANTIAL HARM — NPPF paragraph 202. Where the LPA finds less-than-substantial harm, the harm is weighed against public benefits including securing the optimum viable use. The appellant's rebuttal: In the alternative, if the Inspector finds less-than-substantial harm (which the appellant denies), the public benefits engaged are: (a) reinstatement of the primary Westmacott-period composition (the asset's optimum viable use); (b) enhanced visitor experience (Heritage Open Days); (c) ongoing maintenance feasibility (the 1965 sash is failing structurally and is itself a maintenance liability); (d) compatibility with Historic England's 2018 grant-aided conservation strategy. The public benefits substantially outweigh any residual less-than-substantial harm.

(D) REPAIR VS ALTERATION CHARACTERISATION. The LPA characterisation of the proposed works (as alteration rather than repair, or vice versa) drives the consent test. The appellant's rebuttal: The proposed gallery window works are characterised by the LPA as "removal and substitution" (alteration). The appellant characterises them as REINSTATEMENT (a sub-category of repair within Historic England Conservation Principles). The distinction matters because: (i) reinstatement attracts a lower threshold under NPPF paragraph 202 — it is normally beneficial to significance; (ii) the works are reversible (the 1965 sash is documented in 1965 conservation drawings and can be re-fabricated if subsequently desired). The Heritage Impact Assessment provides a side-by-side analysis demonstrating that the works are properly characterised as reinstatement.

(E) NON-TRADITIONAL MATERIALS. Where the LPA objects to non-traditional materials (e.g. modern flat lead replacement, secondary glazing, helibar tie restraints), the appellant's case on material specification and reversibility: The LPA expresses doubt about the workmanship quality at the proposed price point. The appellant's response: (a) Allen and Greaves of Bath is an IHBC-listed conservation joinery firm with documented Grade I, Grade II* and Grade II projects in Bath, Stourhead and Stratfield Saye House (project references annexed); (b) the cost estimate is competitive because the appellant has an existing relationship with Allen and Greaves (prior 2022 works to the Manor lime-plaster scheme); (c) materials specification (crown glass from Glass Workshops Devon; oak from John Boddy of York; brass furniture from Locks and Handles Bath) is provided in full detail and meets Historic England specification standards. The LPA was not invited to (and did not) inspect Allen and Greaves' workshop or examine prior project work.

(F) REVERSIBILITY. Per PPG 15 / Historic England principles, reversibility of an intervention is a material factor — interventions that can be removed without consequential harm to special interest features are more readily justifiable. The appellant's reversibility analysis: All three elements of the proposed works are REVERSIBLE: (i) the new gallery window joinery is fixed using non-permanent ironmongery (no destructive fixings to the surviving 1742 frame elements); (ii) the West Range slate replacement uses traditional bedding (lime mortar) such that future re-roofing can be carried out without consequential structural intervention; (iii) the Great Chamber lime plaster is itself a traditional reversible finish (removable without affecting the underlying laths). Reversibility is a Historic England Conservation Principle factor weighing in favour of the works.

(G) OTHER REFUSAL REASONS. Conservation Officer recommendation: the LPA officer report DOES NOT explicitly recommend refusal — it identifies the works as a "balanced judgment call" and notes that "with appropriate conditions, listed building consent could be granted". The Committee's departure from this officer assessment is not articulated in the decision notice with reasons engaging the officer report — a Newsmith Stainless [2017] EWCA Civ 1057 reasons inadequacy.

Overall rebuttal narrative:
The committee's decision overruled the Conservation Officer's "balanced judgment call" recommendation without engaging the Statement of Significance, the Heritage Impact Assessment or Historic England's 2018 advice. Per South Bucks v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33 — the reasons given must enable the appellant to know why it lost. The decision notice gives only summary policy citations (LBCAA 1990 s.16; NPPF paragraphs 200-202) without explaining how the policies are breached on the specific evidence base. Per Tesco Stores v SS [1995] 1 WLR 759, failure to take material considerations (the Statement of Significance, the HIA, Historic England's 2018 advice) into account is a ground for a successful appeal.

(A) APPLICATION FOR COSTS. The appellant applies for an award of costs against the LPA under the Planning Inspectorate Costs Award Guidance. The application is made on form PCN1 and is being lodged contemporaneously with this Notice of Appeal.

(B) BASIS OF APPLICATION. The appellant contends that the LPA refused listed building consent without a sound and clear reason rooted in the Statement of Significance — no policy basis cited, only vague subjective objection.

(C) TEST. The test for an award of costs is whether the LPA has behaved UNREASONABLY in such a way as to cause the appellant to incur unnecessary or wasted expense. Examples specific to listed building consent appeals: refusal without sound reason engaging the Statement of Significance; refusal against Historic England's formal advice; failure to engage with pre-application heritage scheme amendments; late introduction of new heritage objection grounds.

(D) EVIDENCE. The appellant relies on the LPA decision notice, the pre-application correspondence (including any pre-app heritage workshop minutes), Historic England's consultation response (if any), the Conservation Officer report (where available), and the chronology of the application process. The appellant invites PINS to consider whether a reasonable LPA, properly directing itself to the Statement of Significance, would have refused listed building consent on the reasons stated.

(E) QUANTUM. If costs are awarded, the appellant will provide a detailed schedule of professional fees (heritage consultant; conservation architect; structural engineer; legal) for the Inspector's consideration in a subsequent costs hearing.

(F) ALTERNATIVE FUNDING ROUTES. The appellant has explored Historic England Grant programmes, Heritage Lottery Fund / National Lottery Heritage Fund routes and the Architectural Heritage Fund for the proposed works; this is recorded to demonstrate the appellant's engagement with conservation funding alongside the s.20 appeal.

Costs narrative:
The appellant's costs application focuses on the committee's departure from the Conservation Officer's officer report (which recommended grant with conditions). The committee minute records only summary reference to LBCAA 1990 s.16 and NPPF paragraphs 200-202 — without engaging the Statement of Significance, the Heritage Impact Assessment, the Mann Williams structural report or Historic England's 2018 advice. The PINS Costs Award Guidance lists this as a typical example of unreasonable behaviour. Wasted expense: pre-application heritage consultation fees (£3,800), Statement of Significance / Heritage Impact Assessment (£12,500), Conservation Architect structural input (£4,200), agent application fees (£2,800), appeal preparation (£8,500 estimated) — total c. £31,800. Schedule to be substantiated if costs are awarded. Alternative funding routes (Historic England Conservation Funding 2025; Architectural Heritage Fund; National Lottery Heritage Fund) have been explored but are conditional on grant of listed building consent.

Pursuant to the PINS Procedural Guide, the appellant encloses:

   (a) a copy of the LPA decision notice dated 8 April 2026;
   (b) a copy of the listed building consent application as submitted to the LPA (form + drawings + heritage statement);
   (c) this statement of case;
   (d) the Statement of Significance for Hartwood Manor (including walled garden and west range stables) (NHLE entry 1135742);
   (e) Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) by the appellant's heritage consultant;
   (f) annotated drawings showing existing and proposed (plans, sections, elevations) at appropriate scale;
   (g) photographic survey;
   (h) Historic England consultation response (if any);
   (i) any other expert reports relied on (structural / archaeological / archival research / materials specification);
   (j) (if costs sought) form PCN1.

These documents are uploaded to the online appeal submission portal at appeals.planninginspectorate.gov.uk.

YOURS FAITHFULLY,