Appeal 6002410

The appeal is dismissed.

As part of their submission, the appellant has put forward an alternative scheme that would lower the height of the roof and alter the internal layout. The procedural guidance1 explains that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially the same proposal that was considered by the Council and interested parties at the application stage. However, I have considered whether to accept the amended plans.

Having regard to case law, I conclude that, whilst the amendments do not constitute a substantial change to the scheme determined by the Council, I am mindful that those who should have been consulted on the changed development have not had the opportunity to make representations. I therefore cannot be certain that accepting the alternative proposal would not be prejudicial to interested parties. I have therefore determined the appeal against the plans considered by the Council when it made its decision.

The Amber Valley Borough Local Plan 2022 to 2040 (the Local Plan) was adopted on 2 March 2026. This now forms part of the statutory development plan and replaces policies of the Amber Valley Borough Local Plan (2006), and I have therefore had due regard to this in my decision. The Council has confirmed which policies are most relevant to the decision and both parties have been provided with the opportunity to make representations on these policies. I have taken into account any comments received. 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026 (updated 18 February 2026

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the Belper and Milford Conservation Area and the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site.

The appeal site lies within the Belper and Milford Conservation Area (the CA). The statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The significance of the CA derives from, amongst other factors, its strong links with the industrial revolution, reflected in the surviving mill buildings and early industrial housing, typically comprising rows of terraced cottages.

The site is also within the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site (the WHS). The WHS is internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) and is a designated heritage asset of the highest significance, as identified in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Its significance is derived from the establishment of the modern factory system in the Derwent Valley to accommodate the new technology for spinning cotton in the late 18th century, and new processes for efficient production. The need to provide housing and other facilities for workers resulted in the first modern settlements and included Belper. The housing that accompanied the industrialisation of the area is an important part of the significance of the WHS and its OUV.

The appeal site is located near the northern end of [address], close to [address], and sits beside a short terrace of 3 former workers’ cottages, likely dating from around the1830s. Whilst they are not listed, and the evidence does not suggest that the cottages were built by the [name], which played a central role in the development of the mills and associated housing, nevertheless they retain a historic association with the industrial development of the town and share similarities in materials, form and design to earlier housing. They therefore contribute towards the OUV of the WHS, as well as to the significance of the CA.

Further stone-built terraced properties, of a similar period, line [address] to the north. Their long, consistent frontages create a strong rhythm and verticality, reinforced by repeating features such as brick chimneys, with stepped roof ridges responding to the topography. This character continues along [address] up to the appeal site, albeit interrupted by a slightly taller later 19th century extension at [site address] . Despite this, the extension forms part of the historic development of the terrace and the overall form and detailing of this terrace remains coherent and contributes significantly to the CA’s character. The appeal site makes a positive contribution to the CA as its openness allows almost uninterrupted views of the end of the terrace, increasing its prominence and adding to the contribution that these buildings make to the significance of the CA and the WHS.

The irregular shape of the appeal site, influenced by the green space at the corner of [address] and Fellside, would push the proposed dwelling towards the rear where the plot is widest. This would leave limited rear space, conflicting with the established layout of the terraces to the north and creating a cramped appearance. Whilst acknowledging the use of local traditional stone on the lower portions of the building, and that the World Heritage Site Management Plan allows for contemporary designs, I find the flat‐roofed design, including a grey‐clad first floor element overhanging the amenity area, would appear visually incongruous alongside the traditional terraced properties. Although set back from the road, the dwelling would occupy a prominent corner plot and be clearly visible in views along [address] from the south and from [address] to the west.

The proposed layout would also place the only external amenity space to the side of the dwelling, directly beside the footway, rather than at the rear as is typical of surrounding properties. This exposed position would likely lead to pressure for a higher boundary treatment to secure privacy for the outdoor space.

The combination of the dwelling’s siting, its 2‐storey flat‐roofed form, modern upper‐floor materials and the top‐heavy appearance created by the overhang would disrupt the established rhythm of the street. It would fail to respect the prevailing scale, plot pattern, height, roofline and architectural detailing, and would appear visually jarring, detracting from the historic development in the site’s vicinity, which forms an important part of the town’s industrial heritage and contributes to the significance of both the CA and WHS.

[name] contains 20th century bungalows, these are visually and historically separate from the 19th century terraced housing that defines the prevailing character of the area and continues along [address] beyond Fellside to the south. The site currently contains an element of hardstanding, and was previously occupied by a garage. However, this is not comparable to the proposal, which would create a new dwelling with its associated parking and amenity space on this constrained plot, and does not therefore provide justification for the proposed development.

In view of the above, I therefore find that the appeal proposal would have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the area, and it would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and would cause harm to the OUV of the WHS.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, and that the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Paragraph 213 of the Framework states that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.

I have found that the development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the CA and the OUV of the WHS. This harm would be less than substantial, and given the scale of the proposal and the presence of the 20th century development close to the site, I find the level of harm to be at the middle to lower end of that spectrum. Nevertheless, mindful of my statutory duty, I give this harm considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this should be weighed against the public benefits.

The scheme would provide a new dwelling in one of the main urban areas within the district where the Council aims to focus new development. It would contribute to meeting local housing needs, meeting a need for smaller units, and would support the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. However, a single dwelling would make a limited contribution to the Council’s housing supply, and therefore I find the public benefits arising from the delivery of one additional dwelling would be modest.

Public economic benefits would arise from the proposal, including contributions to the local economy during the construction phase of the development. These however would be short term benefits. Further economic benefits would also arise from additional spending in the area by future occupants of the dwelling. Cumulatively, given the scale of development, the economic support to the area arising from the appeal proposal would be relatively small. I therefore attach limited weight in respect of the economic benefits.

As such, when taken together, I find that the above-mentioned public benefits do not outweigh the considerable importance and weight I must attach to the harm to the CA and the WHS, including the special attention that I must pay to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the CA and the WHS. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Local Plan Policies EN4, EN5 and EN15 and Policy NPP11 of the Belper Neighbourhood Plan. Collectively, amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development reflects the local character in terms of height, scale and layout, makes a positive contribution to the character, distinctiveness and appearance of heritage assets, having regard to their special interest, and proposals protect the authenticity and integrity of the WHS. The proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and would therefore be contrary to the requirements of the Act as well as the relevant sections of the Framework.

Whilst the WHS Partnership did not raise an objection to the proposed development, and supports a contemporary design approach, I have nevertheless found harm to the significance of the WHS, in addition to the CA.

The appellant has provided several examples of contemporary developments within Belper and I was able to view these when I visited the site, although limited details have been provided. The development at [address] relates to a 2-storey detached dwelling constructed of stone and brick under a pitched roof and its general form and design responds to that of the historic development within its vicinity. Whilst the associated garden is to the side rather than the rear, I observed that this was provided privacy and screening by a hedge and sliding gate. I note that the design of the dwelling as constructed differs from the plans provided by the appellant.

Both the developments on [address] and that referenced as being near [address], fall outside the CA and WHS. In respect of the former, whilst also on a constrained site, it relates to a pitched roof bungalow. Both dwellings are of a different design to the appeal proposal and therefore, neither the context nor the design of either example directly relate to the proposed development.

The development visible from [address] relates to a contemporary design, but is reflective of the industrial buildings which provide some of the foreground to the development. The dwelling at [address] relates to a large property of a contemporary design on a large plot which contains features such as a pitched roof and chimney which are reflective of the mixed age and design of the development in its vicinity. The development at [address], is an extension to an existing property and, whilst contemporary, draws on features of the host dwelling. The development on [address], whilst a modern bungalow and close to a listed building, lies at the end of a row of modern properties including bungalows. Furthermore, I have no details in respect of the planning history of this development and whether its appearance results from extensions to an existing property or it replaced a previous building at the site.

Whilst there are examples of contemporary design within Belper, these are not directly comparable to the development proposed or its context, as set out above. They do not therefore provide justification for the proposed development and its resulting harm.

The appellant has provided an appeal decision from January 2026 (APP/M1005/W/25/3371964) where the Inspector accepted the Council’s housing land supply at 4.95 years. This does not appear to have been contested by the Council. However, I am also mindful that the Local Plan was adopted in March 2026 and both parties were invited to make comments on the impact of this for the appeal.

As part of their response the Council has not provided an update on the current supply of deliverable housing sites following the recent adoption of the Local Plan. Nevertheless, even in the scenario whereby I was to accept the appellant’s position on this matter, Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework states that where the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, which includes situations where a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites cannot be demonstrated, permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusal. Footnote 7 includes designated heritage assets in its list of assets of particular importance.

Whilst the proposed development would be located within one of the main urban settlements in the district, it would make a very small contribution towards housing within the area. I acknowledge that the housing requirement within the district may increase in the future, to respond to changes to the methodology used for calculating housing need, and that the housing land supply requirement is a floor and not a ceiling. However, the proposal will cause harm to the significance of the CA and the WHS and, in this regard, the Framework gives strong reasons for refusal. As such, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework.

The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.