Appeal 6002368

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against East Hertfordshire District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The appeal site is located within the Benington Conservation Area (‘the CA’) and includes a [name]* listed building (as ‘ [site address] [address]’). In determining the appeals, I have therefore been mindful of the statutory requirements placed on decision makers by sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the LBCA Act’).

During the Hearing, the Council submitted a copy of a letter sent to one of the appellants in relation to the designation status of the appeal building as an Asset of [name] (‘ACV’). Given the nature of the matters raised, the appellants were not in a position to provide a full response to the letter during the Hearing. In Appeal Decisions 6002368 and 6002371 the interests of fairness, I therefore agreed with the main parties that responses could be provided in writing. The Hearing was subsequently closed in writing on 8 April 2026.

The main issues are: i) whether or not the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of a community facility (Appeal A only); ii) the effect of the proposal on the special interest and significance of the [name]* listed building, ‘ [site address] [address]’ ([name] and B); and iii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Benington Conservation Area ([name] and B).

[site address] is located within Benington and comprises a public house with ancillary residential accommodation, although I understand that the public house closed during the Covid pandemic and has not reopened since. The proposed change of use of the building to a single dwelling would result in the loss of the public house use from the site.

Both the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and the supporting text of the East Herts District Plan 2018 (‘the EHDP’) refer to public houses as examples of community facilities. Policy CFLR8 of the EHDP sets out that proposals that result in the loss of uses, buildings or land for public or community use will be refused unless specified criteria apply. Of these, the appellants rely on (a) which concerns where an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown that the facility is no longer needed in its current form.

In considering this matter, the Council highlights paragraph 19.8.3 of the EHDP which indicates that the Council will require proposals for changes of use to be supported by evidence that the particular facility is no longer viable and to explain the options that have been investigated to maintain the service. However, the appellants have drawn my attention to caselaw1 indicating that supporting text is an aid to the interpretation of policy but is not itself policy and cannot operate independently to impose a policy requirement that was not in the policy in question.

In this case, the wording of Policy CFLR8 gives no suggestion of any requirement for viability evidence. To my mind, the viability of a service is also an inherently different consideration to the question of whether or not it is needed. Indeed, while its written evidence had suggested that viability evidence was a way to assist in demonstrating need, the Council accepted during the Hearing that viability and need are not equivalent or analogous concepts. It further agreed that evidence of non-viability would not demonstrate that a facility was not needed.

Taking these factors together, I do not find that there is a requirement for a proposal to provide evidence on viability in order to demonstrate a lack of need or satisfy Policy CFLR8. 1 R (Cherkley Campaign Ltd) v Mole Valley DC [2014] [name] 567 Appeal Decisions 6002368 and 6002371

More widely, the supporting text to the EHDP notes that the loss of local village shops, post-offices and pubs can be a substantial loss to the local community and that public houses play an important role in rural communities, providing a social venue, local employment opportunities and adding to the vitality of a village. However, while this provides context, it does not offer specific guidance on how to assess whether an individual facility is needed in its current form.

In this case, the appellants argue that there is no planning need for [site address] to remain given that there is a second pub (known as ‘The Lordship Arms’) in Benington as well as other supplementary facilities.

In support of this position, they note that the existence of two pubs against Benington’s resident population of around 1,000 people puts the level of provision well above the Eastern region average of around 0.56 pubs per 1,000 residents2. Be that as it may, the quoted research simply presents data on the average level of pub provision across wide geographic areas which I note would cover a mix of areas and communities, rather than providing any assessment or analysis of what may constitute a particular level of need, not least in specific respect of a rural village. Furthermore, my attention has been drawn to the nearby village of Aston which has a smaller population than Benington but which currently has two pubs putting the level of provision even higher than Benington. I acknowledge that Stevenage is relatively close by and has footpath links to Aston. Even so, the lack of lighting and unsurfaced nature of much of the route means that I consider residents of the urban area would be unlikely to regularly walk to Aston to such a degree that the relevant local population base would be significantly increased. Taking these factors together, I do not find the average level of pub provision in Benington well above regional averages to be compelling evidence that there is no need for [site address] .

Considering the nature of the two pubs in Benington more specifically, the Council and interested parties note differences in their offer. In particular, [site address] has been described as being family-friendly, visited for meals and used by a wide range of users and activities when it was open, while it is suggested that children are not allowed in The Lordship Arms, food is limited to just sandwiches on certain lunchtimes and it has been referred to as predominantly a drinkers pub. However, these differences would appear to reflect management choices and there is no compelling evidence before me to suggest that The Lordship Arms would be incapable of altering the offer to more closely reflect what was formerly provided by [site address] . Nor that a re-opened [site address] would necessarily replicate the former offer. On that basis, it seems to me that the pubs could at least theoretically be capable of serving similar types of needs, even if that is not the case currently.

That said, while the pubs are both ostensibly referred to as being within Benington, the village effectively comprises separate clusters of built form with open space between them. [site address] is located towards the west, close to the village green and church, while The Lordship Arms is located some way to the south east within the [name] part of the village. The appellants indicate that the distance between the two pubs is around 1.4km which is within the 2km maximum walking range advocated in Manual for Streets3. However, it is significantly further than the 2 House of [name] 8591, 22 April 2021: [name] 3 Department for Transport 2007 Appeal Decisions 6002368 and 6002371 distance of up to about 800m which the guidance indicates is equivalent to around [address] and comfortably accessible on foot.

Furthermore, the appellants assert that the majority of village residents live within a [address] of The Lordship Arms. However, the route from the western part of the village for residents, visitors or those attending events at the church includes a stretch of reasonable distance passing between areas of open fields and woodland. Street lighting here would be partial at best given the fairly large gaps that I observed between lighting columns and with no adjoining buildings and relatively low levels of passing traffic, there would be limited other sources of light or opportunities for natural surveillance. In my assessment, there would consequently be points where users of the route could feel particularly vulnerable or unsafe during hours of darkness.

In combination with the overall distance and the sections of narrow footway that I saw, I consider walking this route would be a highly unattractive proposition for many, particularly for families with children or during darker evening hours when people may often be most likely to want to visit a pub. The lack of lighting and cycle lanes would be likely to make cycling similarly unattractive to many, and both cycling and driving could additionally be impractical alongside alcohol consumption. I note that both pubs are on the same bus route, but buses are comparatively infrequent and do not run into the evening, and the additional cost and practical considerations involved in taking taxis could further inhibit the desire or likelihood of some being able to rely on this as an option.

Taking all of these factors together, I find on balance that The Lordship Arms would not in reality offer a suitably accessible and practical alternative to [site address] as a social venue for a large proportion of Benington. It would not therefore adequately replace or compensate for the loss of [site address] ’s social and community function for many, and so the presence of The Lordship Arms within Benington does not persuade me that [site address] is not needed to serve the functional requirements of the community.

Other pubs in the surrounding area including in Aston and Stevenage could be reached within a fairly short journey by vehicle and walking may also be an option for some, albeit that the distance and terrain means that such trips would be highly unlikely to be regular or widespread. However, the appellants confirm that they do not rely on pubs in other settlements as a substitute for a village pub and while they may broaden the overall choice, including for walkers, they would not offer a reasonably accessible alternative to replace the role of [site address] as a village pub.

More generally, the village hall in Benington could cater for some social and community activities. However, I heard that pop-up pub events in the hall hosted by the Friends of [site address] group have been infrequent, on no more than a few evenings across any year. They also take place to raise awareness and funds towards a potential community bid for [site address] as a pub, and because they would not therefore continue should there be a change of use of [site address] leaving no realistic prospect of a return to trade, this would not offer an alternative pub-style function for the village. Other activities at the village hall predominantly take place during the daytime and while it could offer an accessible meeting space, it does not in my judgement replicate or provide a comparable substitute for the nature and particular function fulfilled by a pub use. Appeal Decisions 6002368 and 6002371

Even when considered in combination, I am not persuaded that the [name], other pubs in the wider area and the village hall would provide suitable alternative facilities to [site address] to properly accommodate the community role and function it would fulfil such that it has been demonstrated that [site address] is no longer needed in its current form. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy CFLR8 of the EHDP and in my view, its loss would be detrimental to the sustainability and vitality of the community and its ability to meet needs locally.

In reaching this view, I have noted an appeal decision in respect of [address] in North Pickenham4 where it was found that there would be suitable alternative facilities available so that there was not a specific local need for a public house. However, the decision in that case includes reference to a community hub providing for a café and various social events including a weekly pop up pub event within a short walk of the village centre. The circumstances are not therefore directly comparable to the current appeal where I have found that a large part of the village would not have reasonable access to a public house type facility. I have accordingly reached my own conclusions considering the specific merits and circumstances of the proposal that is before me.

I also acknowledge brief commentary provided by the appellants on the experience of operators of [site address] and its disposal by a major brewery, as well as the proximity of the [name] notwithstanding my findings about the realities of access to this establishment. Nevertheless, there is no substantive evidence before me demonstrating that a pub operation on the site could not be viable. Similarly, the appellants suggest that [site address] was marketed for over three years following its closure, but from the very limited details provided, I am unable to determine that marketing was appropriate including in respect of whether or not the asking price was fair and reasonable. The lack of clear, robust evidence on viability or marketing does not lead to conflict with Policy CFLR8 of the EHDP, but neither do viability or marketing grounds offer a compelling material consideration that might otherwise weigh in favour of the proposal.

I understand that [site address] has twice been designated as an ACV, most recently in April 2024, but that no formal offer was made during the moratorium period and the Council subsequently advised the owner that the ACV had been removed and it was omitted from the register online. The recent letter to the owner submitted by the Council during the Hearing explained that this had been an error resulting from misapplication of the legislation. It suggested that [site address] is listed as an ACV and will remain on the register until April 2029. However, the appellants argue that the actions of the Council amounted to a formal delisting of [site address] as an ACV and that there is no power enabling the authority to reverse or undo that removal. On that basis, they assert that the property cannot presently be treated as having ACV status. The Council has offered no compelling argument to dispute this position.

Nevertheless, even if [site address] is not presently designated as an ACV, it is clear to me from the number and content of representations on the proposal that it is much valued by many for the role that it has and could continue to play in meeting a range of social, leisure and community needs. This may not comprise clear evidence of ‘need’ but does in my view highlight the importance of the pub to the community here. [site address] Appeal ref APP/F2605/W/24/3356255 Appeal Decisions 6002368 and 6002371

Drawing these matters together, I am not satisfied that [site address] has been clearly shown to be no longer needed in its current form. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy CFLR8 of the EHDP. It would also be contrary to the Framework insofar as it seeks to guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day to day needs. As a consequence, I conclude that there would be an unacceptable loss of a community facility.

[site address] is a late medieval hall house which the list entry indicates had become an inn by 1693. In the mid 17th Century, the hall was rebuilt as two-storeys with a central chimney and jettied crosswing. It is timber framed with sections of pargetting and weatherboarding to the exterior and a steep tiled roof with a gablet to one end. Above the large open fireplace within the hall is a wall painting of a stag hunt in a wooded landscape with mounted hunters and hounds which the list entry indicates dates to around 1720. The appellants have not disputed the Council’s suggestion that this was painted for patrons of the public house to view and enjoy.

Insofar as it relates to these appeals, I find that much of the special interest of the listed building is associated with its age and the historic, architectural and aesthetic interest deriving from its historic form and fabric and the wall painting.

Furthermore, it may originally have had a residential use, but [site address] has been in public house use throughout a considerable period of its history. Although some features such as the barrel drop to the basement are clear, the appellants have provided comparatively little substantive evidence considering how the building has otherwise been adapted over time including to facilitate the public house use. It is therefore difficult to draw firm conclusions about the relationship between the design and function of the building and the full extent to which interest associated with the public house use may be expressed in its fabric. Nevertheless, and although there would undoubtedly have been change to the precise nature of food and drink served over time and I acknowledge that fittings such as the current bar/servery are relatively modern, the underlying function and use of the building as a public house remains apparent. In my judgement, there would be historic and communal value associated with the continuation of the use which would have provided a longstanding focus for social activity within the village. I find for these reasons that the use of [site address] as a public house contributes to the special interest of the listed building.

The proposal indicates only limited direct alterations to the internal fabric of the listed building comprising removal of part of the bar/servery and alterations to ground-floor toilets to provide a utility and shower room. It is common ground that the affected fabric is comparatively modern and so there would not be a harmful loss of historic fabric. However, it is unclear whether or not the current bar maintains the form and position of an earlier feature and so a historic layout.

Despite the appellants’ suggestion that a large proportion of the bar would be retained, only the back length would remain within the room containing the wall painting. The side and front sections are shown to be retained within the adjoining room, but there would be no clear visual indication to suggest a bar of symmetrical layout nor the overall extent, shape and position within the wall painting room and I cannot therefore agree that the existing arrangement would remain clear or legible. Appeal Decisions 6002368 and 6002371 In that context and without clear evidence to show that the current bar does not maintain a historic arrangement, I am unable to determine that the proposal would not result in a harmful alteration to the historic layout of the listed building with consequent detriment to its special interest.

No changes are proposed to external fabric. However, I see no firm reason that changes would necessarily need to be physical to have a tangible effect on the building. In this case, the change to solely residential use means that there would no longer be public access and social activity occurring on the site leading to a marked change in the pattern of movement and a reduction in comings and goings and people congregating within the building. I consider this change would be apparent, particularly during evenings.

I would also expect residential use on the ground floor of the building to result in changes to how and when lighting is used, and measures such as drawing curtains in the evenings and at night to provide privacy which would be at odds with what might be anticipated for a public house use.

Despite the lack of external changes and the retention of features such as the public house signage and [name] plaque, I find as a result that there would be a clear perception that the building was being used for residential purposes and that the longstanding function as a public house was no longer continuing. This would alter its overall character and the special interest that the listed building derives from its longstanding use as a public house would in my judgement be diminished.

I acknowledge that a residential use may reflect the original purpose of the listed building. Nevertheless, the building has since been used for a considerable period as a public house and I consider the retention of features associated with the public house use such as the signage would confuse and undermine the legibility of a reversion to residential use.

Furthermore, the proposed use as a private dwelling would mean that there would no longer be public access to view the wall painting above the ground floor fireplace. In addition to restricting opportunities for public appreciation of this element which contributes to the special interest of the building, this would mean that it would no longer be likely to be readily recognised as a feature painted for patrons of the public house to enjoy, altering how it would be understood.

The Council raises additional concern that there might be a requirement for further alterations beyond those shown on the plans in future. However, any proposal seeking consent for further alterations would be assessed on its own merits at that time. Moreover, there is no firm evidence to suggest that the standard of accommodation that the current proposal would offer occupiers would not be suitably high quality such that further changes might reasonably be necessary to provide suitable living standards or justify harm that might be caused.

Be that as it may, I conclude taking the above factors together that the proposal would fail to preserve the features of architectural and historic interest that the listed building possesses and would cause harm to its special interest and significance.

In reaching this view, I note that the [name] appeal decision found the loss of public house use to have a neutral impact on the heritage significance of the Appeal Decisions 6002368 and 6002371 subject listed building. However, heritage effects were not a matter in dispute between the parties and so the discussion of this matter within the decision is limited. Moreover, my attention has been drawn to appeal decisions in respect of the Rose and Crown in Aston5 and The White Horse in Wareside6 where the loss of public house use was found to cause harm, albeit that I acknowledge a greater degree of physical alterations were proposed in the Rose and Crown case which would be likely to exacerbate the perception of change. I have therefore reached my own conclusions in the current appeals having regard to the particular circumstances of the appeal building and the evidence that is before me.

There would be only very limited physical impact on the building and while I consider the public house use to be an important element contributing to special interest, there would remain some visual indications such that legibility of this phase of use would not be wholly undermined. In my assessment, the harm would therefore be less than substantial in the terms of the Framework and towards the low-moderate end of this range.

The Benington CA encompasses the historic core of the village which is focused around [name], the remains of [name] and the village green and includes a number of listed buildings, many of which date to the 16 th and 17th centuries. While most are now in residential use, the Benington Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan 2019 (‘the CAAMP’) records a range of historic commercial activities including at [site address] Inn. Insofar as it relates to these appeals, I find that the quality of the historic buildings, and the pattern of buildings, uses and open spaces are all factors which add to the distinctive character and appearance of the CA and thus its significance.

The CAAMP identifies the appeal building as one of the most important in the CA. It occupies a prominent position alongside [site address] and as part of a cluster of historic buildings, the structure undoubtedly adds much to the character and appearance of the area. Its use as a public house over a considerable period would further have provided a longstanding focus for social and communal activity, playing an important role in village life and adding much to the vitality, sense of community and historic identity of Benington. On that basis, I consider the public house use to make an important contribution to the character of the village and thus to the significance of the CA.

The lack of external changes to the fabric of the appeal building means that I consider there would not be meaningful effects on the appearance of the CA. Nevertheless, I have found above that it would be apparent that the longstanding function as a public house was no longer continuing with a notable change in the overall character of the building.

This would diminish the contribution that the site currently makes to the historic identity and character of the CA. Accordingly, there would be harm to the significance of the CA, albeit that the comparatively modest scale and role of the appeal site within the overall area means that I consider the effect on the CA as a whole would be less than substantial in the terms of the Framework and at a low level. 5 Appeal refs APP/J1915/W/18/3204166, APP/J1915/Y/18/3204165, APP/J1915/W/18/3212386 and APP/J1915/Y/18/3212384 6 Appeal ref APP/J1915/W/23/3330386 Appeal Decisions 6002368 and 6002371

I note that the Rose and Crown and [name] appeal decisions came to contrasting views as to whether proposals including change of use of public houses would cause harm to the conservation areas that the sites were part of. I have reached my own conclusions in the current appeals having regard to the particular circumstances of the appeal building, proposal and the evidence that is before me.

The Council has not raised specific concerns about the effect of the proposal on other nearby listed buildings, Lordship Park Registered Park and Garden and Benington Castle Scheduled Monument. The site would form part of the wider setting of these designated heritage assets, and I am mindful of the duty at s66(1) of the LBCA Act to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their setting.

However, there would be no external changes to the building and in the absence of any clear evidence to suggest that the use and activity of the appeal building would contribute to the special interest or significance of the nearby heritage assets, I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve the setting of the listed buildings and that there would not be harm to the significance of other designated heritage assets in the vicinity of the site.

I have noted comments made by interested parties, including those supporting the appeals and highlighting the efforts made by the appellants to sustain [site address] . However, these do not alter my findings on the main issues nor the overall balance.

I have found above that the proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of a community facility, that there would be harm to the special interest and significance of the host listed building and that there would be harm to the character and appearance of the CA.

The Framework advises that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. It states that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.

The harm to the listed building and CA would in each case be less than substantial, and at a low-moderate level in the case of the listed building and a low level in the case of the CA. It nevertheless attracts considerable importance and weight, with the harm to the listed building attracting greater weight given its [name]* listing which denotes that it is a particularly important building of more than special interest.

Where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the Framework provides that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

In considering whether or not the proposal would secure the optimum viable use of the listed building, the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance sets out that if Appeal Decisions 6002368 and 6002371 there is a range of alternative economically viable uses, the optimum viable use is the one likely to cause the least harm to the significance of the asset. The optimum viable use may not necessarily be the most economically viable one. Nor need it be the original use.

I have noted under the first main issue that there is no substantive evidence before me considering the viability of public house use of the appeal building. Furthermore, while the appellants have suggested that a lack of need for the public house would speak to its long-term viability, I have found that a lack of need has not been adequately demonstrated. On the strength of the evidence that is currently before me, I am not therefore persuaded that the existing public house use would not represent an economically viable use of the building.

The proposed residential use as a single dwelling may also be viable, but would involve alterations and while direct physical impacts would be limited, I have identified that there would still be harm to the significance of the listed building overall. In contrast, there is no clear evidence to suggest that continuing the existing use would cause harm to the significance of the asset.

Insofar as it has not been demonstrated that the existing use is not viable and maintaining this use would cause lesser harm to the significance of the asset, I am not therefore satisfied that the proposal would secure the optimum viable use of the listed building.

In terms of other public benefits, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of housing, with a current supply position of around 3.7 years. This is a fairly significant shortfall and I note the imperative in the Framework seeking to significantly boost the supply of homes. However, it is common ground that the appeal building lawfully contains a three-bedroom dwelling ancillary to the public house use. The proposal would extend residential use to the whole building, but it would remain a three-bedroom dwelling.

I accept that the pool of potential occupiers for the dwelling would be likely to be widened to include non-publicans and that occupation by families with children may be more likely. Even so, there would be no net increase in the overall number of dwellings on the site. The proposal would not therefore contribute to reducing the current shortfall in housing land supply and while the Framework supports providing housing for different groups, the contribution that the proposal would make to the mix of available housing would be very small. Against this context, I afford limited weight to provision for housing as a benefit of the proposal.

Economic benefits and employment associated with implementing the proposal would be very limited given the extent of the works required and would further be temporary. Furthermore, while there could be some social and economic benefits associated with occupiers of the dwelling purchasing goods and services, which the appellants suggest would be greater than currently given the potential for occupation by families, this would be likely to be very slight in comparison to the existing ancillary dwelling. Overall, I consider that any social and economic benefits would be of very limited magnitude, and they attract no more than modest weight.

The CAAMP highlights the car park and fencing on the appeal site as detracting elements out of keeping with the CA. The proposed dwelling would require less parking than the existing public house use and the appellants have submitted that new planting and landscaping would offer scope for enhancement of the site with Appeal Decisions 6002368 and 6002371 details secured by a planning condition. However, the absence of firm details at the current time means that the extent of visual enhancement benefitting the setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of this part of the CA that could be delivered is not clear. Accordingly, the weight that I can afford to this as a benefit of the proposal is limited.

In my judgement, the limited public benefits of the proposal, even taken cumulatively, would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm to the listed building, nor to the CA. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that there is a clear and convincing justification for the harm that the proposal would cause to the significance of the listed building and CA.

Drawing these matters together, the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the [name]* listed building and the character and the appearance of the [name] would be neither conserved nor enhanced. The proposal would be contrary to the LBCA Act and it would conflict with the aims of the Framework as it would fail to sustain the significance of the listed building and the CA and public benefits would not outweigh the harm. It would also be contrary to Policies HA1 and HA4 of the EHDP insofar as they broadly seek the preservation and enhancement of the historic environment and the preservation or enhancement of conservation areas, and to Policy HA7 of the EHDP which seeks to sustain and enhance the significance of listed buildings and ensure that they are in viable use consistent with their conservation.

The proposal would not result in a net gain of housing, but the appellants argue that the change in the nature of the dwelling on the site means that this would be an application involving the provision of housing under the terms of footnote 8 of the Framework. [name] were to agree with that position, the absence of a five year supply of housing land means that Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework would apply.

In light of the above however, I find that policies in the Framework that protect designated heritage assets would provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed in Appeal A. On that basis, the presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 11 d) would not in any event indicate that permission should be granted in this case.

Furthermore, the proposal would be contrary to the Framework insofar as it seeks conservation and enhancement of heritage assets and provision of the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs. There would additionally be conflict with Policies HA1, HA4, HA7 and CFLR8 of the EHDP. Having regard to the importance of the matters raised, I consider that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when it is read as a whole.

Even taken together, I find that the cumulative benefits of the proposal are insufficient to outweigh the unacceptable loss of a community facility and the harm that would be caused to the listed building and the CA, and the resulting conflict with the development plan and the Framework.

I find as a result that the Appeal A proposal would conflict with the development plan when it is read as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that a decision contrary to the development plan should be reached. Appeal Decisions 6002368 and 6002371

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeals should both be dismissed.