Appeal 3336516
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
7 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
replace existing defective glass roof tiles on eastern elevation with 2No. conservation roof lights.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement of existing defective glass roof tiles on eastern elevation with 2No. conservation roof lights at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/01642/HOU, dated 21 June 2023, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.
Section 03
[name]
The main issues are the effects of the proposal on the character of the host building and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] and Martock Conservation Area (CA).
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal dwelling is a former barn, now converted, one and a half storeys in height. It is constructed from stone and has red clay roof tiles. Its east elevation faces on to [site address] and has a single storey lean-to element adjacent to the road, which has a recessed entrance door and separate full height glazed opening. The roof plane over the single storey lean-to has two areas of glazed roof tiling to allow light into the building.
The Council’s decision notice refers to the setting of the CA. However, the statutory duty under S72(1) of the Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA is engaged because the site forms a part of the CA, rather than part of its setting.
The combined CA of [site address] , Hurst and Martock displays a variety of special qualities. [site address] and Hurst incorporates a range of domestic buildings from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, some of which are former agricultural buildings, now converted. The largely ham stone construction of the buildings and their informal positioning around a network of lanes helps the area to maintain a distinctly rural character. This area contrasts with the more linear areas of Hurst and north towards Martock. There are a significant number of listed buildings of fine quality throughout the CA, three of which are found in close proximity of the appeal site. Their age is around C17- C18 and they are all good surviving examples of the vernacular style of building in the area from that time. Their settings include the streetscene of [site address] and nearby buildings.
The appeal building presents a wide, relatively inactive frontage to the street, with two uncluttered roof planes and two simple recessed openings with external timber shutters at street level. Its simple form, agrarian character and largely traditional materials contribute positively to the character and appearance of the CA.
From the evidence, the glass roof tiles, clustered into two openings on the eastern lean-to roof, were in existence prior to the building’s conversion to a dwelling around 1996/97. The openings have a secondary glazed frame on the underside of the roof and a sealant layer in between, which I saw had degraded. The evidence indicates that numerous repairs have been made to the glass tiled openings since the conversion was originally undertaken. The evidence details issues with weathering, damp penetration and ingress of water through the glass tiled openings which renders the affected room relatively uninhabitable.
The proposal would replace the glass tiles with conservation-style rooflights of broadly the same dimensions. The precise specification of the rooflights could be secured by way of planning condition as the submitted details are limited in this regard.
The character of the building is still strongly agrarian due to its form, position in relation to the road, limited openings and materials. The formalisation of the two openings in the lean-to roof with conservation-style rooflights would add a minor degree of domestication. However, it is now a building with a domestic function which has surprisingly few openings or modern interventions in the eastern elevation. That the rooflights would replace existing glass tiled openings would, in my view, represent an acceptable evolution of the building to bring it up to the expectations of modern day living and allow for the building to be usefully maintained to enhance its longevity. There would only be two in number and they would not introduce any further clutter to the roof plane.
In the same way that the glass tiled openings are visible from the street scene, the replacement conservation-style rooflights would be too. Whilst glass tiles are also a feature of buildings throughout the CA, conservation-style rooflights also appear regularly. Though the rooflights would also be visible from areas in the vicinity of nearby listed buildings, including Roselea, [address] and Bankside, my view is that such a modest change would not undermine the cohesion or significance of the CA or the individual settings of the aforesaid listed buildings, thus preserving their respective significance.
In drawing together the above, my view is that the proposal would not harm the character of the host building and would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. Consequently, the proposal accords with Policies EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2015) which, amongst other things, seek to ensure development respects local character and safeguards, or where appropriate, enhances the significance, character, setting and local distinctiveness of heritage assets.
Section 05
Conditions
In addition to the statutory time limit, a condition is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty.
In order to ensure the rooflights are of an acceptable conservation-style specification, a condition is necessary for details to be submitted prior to their installation.
Whilst the Council has specified a materials condition, the aspects of the building that will be changed is to be sought by way of condition 3 and no other materials would change. This condition is therefore unnecessary.
Section 06
Overall conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the proposal accords with the development plan and there are no considerations of such materiality that indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance therewith.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
Section 07
SCHEDULE OF 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: • Location Plan, scale 1:1250 • Proposed Roof Plan, scale 1:100, received 6 November 2023
No work shall be carried out to fit the rooflights hereby permitted unless details of the units have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details to include the size, Manufacturer/model, colour and finish of the rooflights which shall be metal “conservation” lights, top hung and flush with the roof covering. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 1238No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 April 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 April 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3336516
- Application reference
- 23/01642/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- South Somerset District Council *
- Planning authority code
- E07000189
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Unknown
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 8 January 2024
- Valid date
- 16 January 2024
- Start date
- 22 February 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 8 November 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 18 April 2024
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 49748
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21