Appeal 3320173

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the insertion of two rooflights and a light tunnel tube inlet on the south elevation roof at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/01080/FHA, dated 1 April 2022, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 100 Plans as Existing; 101 [name] as Existing and Section AA; 102 Rear and [name] as Existing; 103 Location Plan; 200 Plans as Proposed; 201 Rear (South) Elevation as Proposed, Block Plan and Location Plan.

The appeal property is located in the Green Belt. The proposal will not increase the mass and bulk of the existing property. For this reason, the Council’s assessment in its delegated report found the proposal would accord with development plan policies and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which serve to protect Green Belt land. From everything I have seen in submissions and on my site visit, I have no reason to disagree.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the Tring Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a former barn which has been converted to a dwelling. It is situated within a group of buildings which formerly comprised [address] and is associated with the Tring Park estate. Whilst the complex does not contain listed buildings, it is located within the Tring Conservation Area (CA).

Since the appellant’s statement refers to the Tring Conservation Area Character Appraisal and [name] 2019 ([name]), I have had regard to the [name] in my decision. The CA Appraisal describes the special architectural or historic interest of the CA as being derived from its character as a small market town which grew in the post-reformation period and visibly flourished in the early-nineteenth century. The CA Appraisal notes the town has a diverse architectural and historic character. An important aspect of the town's character comes from buildings from around 1900 associated with the patronage of [name] and the architecture of [name], which is of a distinctive, vernacular revival style.

The buildings of the former [address] complex are all now converted to residential use. However, the [name] indicates that these component buildings of Tring Park form a very important part of the history, character and appearance of the CA and possess historic interest through their former function, their connection to Rothschild and Huckvale, and for their design and materials which link them to many other buildings in the town. The appeal property therefore makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA.

The appeal property is situated in one corner of a group of converted barns arranged around a central courtyard. The form and layout of this group of buildings, along with materials and features such as the traditional wooden vents and finials atop the ridge of the plain tiled roofs, provide a clear reference to the former agricultural use of the buildings.

However, the converted barns have doors and windows typical of dwellings, and rooflights are common across roof slopes. Domestic paraphernalia such as flues, meter boxes, aerials and satellite dishes are visible along the exterior of buildings. Across the wider [address] complex is a tarmac access road, footway, demarcated parking bays, and maintained verges and planting. These features, together with the neatly landscaped central courtyard and front gardens with established planted borders, lawns, patio seating, and boundary treatments comprised of low hedges and fencing, provide a distinctly domestic appearance to the area.

Therefore, whilst there are prominent visual clues to its former agriculture use, the appeal property and its surrounding area is principally residential in character. Consequently, the proposed development, which would involve the insertion of roof lights and a lighting tube into the roof slope, would not be out of keeping with the appeal property’s domestic appearance and would not alter its residential character.

The proposed development would be located on the roof slope at the rear of the appeal property. This roof slope is not visible from any public highway.

There is a glimpsed view of the roof slope beyond a driveway adjacent to No [address] serving the [address] complex. However, the proposed rooflights and lighting tube would be set into the roof slope. From this angle, viewed from the gable end, the proposed development would be barely discernible from the tiled roof plane.

Moreover, the roof slope is generally concealed from view from the private access road by a row of evergreen trees behind a tall brick wall. The proposal would therefore not normally be visible to users of the access road.

Were this vegetation ever removed, the proposed development would be revealed above the height of the boundary wall. However, I have no evidence to suggest the removal of trees would be likely. Even if trees were lost, the appeal property is located furthest from the access road and due to this distance, would not appear visually prominent.

Furthermore, from the access road there are other more prominent rooflights visible on roof slopes of other nearby dwellings. The proposed development would not therefore appear out of keeping with the residential character and appearance of buildings in the area.

The proposed development would occupy an otherwise unbroken section of roof slope and it has been put to me that the proposal would set a precedent for roof lights along rear roof slopes. However, as set out above, the appeal property’s roof slope differs from the other dwellings in the area insofar as it is oriented away from publicly accessible locations and is generally screened from view. Therefore, I do not expect that allowing the appeal would set a precedent for other similar development.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area, and as such would have a neutral effect upon the significance of the CA. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy CS27 of the [name] 2013 which requires development to positively conserve and enhance the appearance and character of conservation areas. In addition, the proposal would satisfy paragraph 189 of the Framework which requires heritage assets be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.

S72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. As set out above, the proposal would not harm, and thus would preserve, the character and appearance of the CA.

In addition to the standard time limit of the planning permission granted, in the interests of certainty I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans.

For the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan taken as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.