23 July 2026
(HPK/2026/0228) and should be read alongside my objection to that application. Listed building consent is a separate decision, with its own legal test, so I ask that these points are considered on their own and placed on the HPK/2026/0229 file. In plain terms: the developer's own paperwork accepts that this landmark listed building would be harmed, and the benefits meant to make that acceptable have not been backed up with evidence. 1. The legal test for altering a listed building is not met Winster Place matters. It is a listed building of real importance to the townscape ' the landmark once known as the Royal Hotel and Royal Exchange, and later the headquarters of ICI. When it decides a listed building consent application, the Council must, by law (section 16 of the Listed Buildings Act 1990), give special weight to keeping the building, its setting and its special features. The courts treat any harm to a listed building as a serious matter. The developer's own Planning Statement (paragraph 9.2) accepts that the scheme causes "less than substantial harm" ' real, but not total harm ' to this building. So harm is admitted; the only question is whether it is justified. Under the law and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 16 (paragraphs 208, 209 and 215), that means the developer must give a clear and convincing reason, and must show the harm is outweighed by real public benefits. 2. The harm is not justified or outweighed The changes to Winster Place have to stand on their own heritage merits ' they should not be waved through just because the Council backs the wider scheme. The benefits meant to outweigh the harm are, as my main objection explains, not backed up: Derbyshire County Council records that "No Economic Impact Assessment' has been provided" and no figures on empty shops or footfall, which "harm[s] the robustness of the need for this development". If the benefits are not proved, they cannot outweigh the harm, and the strong legal presumption in favour of protecting the building stands. Consent should be refused. 3. Not enough detail, and too soon To judge a listed building consent properly, the Council needs enough detail of the works ' drawings, materials and methods ' to see the effect on the building's special character. Historic England's response leaves that detail to the Council's own heritage advisers, and no visual study (Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) has been submitted to show how the altered building and the new blocks around it would look in views of the town (a gap the Gardens Trust points out). Until that detail and justification are provided and independently checked, this application is not ready to be decided. 4. The wrong body to decide it As with the planning application, the Council is at once the applicant, landowner, funder, future tenant and decisionmaker, and is about to be abolished under local government reorganisation. For the reasons in my objection to HPK/2026/0228, I ask that this application is decided by the full Planning Committee in public, and that the Council and residents ask the Secretary of State to "call it in" (section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). What I am asking for I ask the Council to REFUSE listed building consent HPK/2026/0229, or to hold it back until the changes to Winster Place are fully detailed, properly justified against the legal test, and shown to be outweighed by real, evidenced benefits. Please read this alongside my objection to the related planning application HPK/2026/0228.