Appeal 6002420

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 3/25/1172/FUL for erection of a five bedroom detached dwelling with basement, new vehicular access way and associated works, including installation of heat pump and landscaping at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] [postcode] granted on 30 October 2025 by East Hertfordshire District Council, is varied by deleting condition 13 and substituting for it the following condition:

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of Class B of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken.

Planning permission was granted for the erection of a dwellinghouse, the construction of which was at an advanced stage at the time of my site visit.

The appeal site is next to the [name] listed Church of [name] the Baptist. A condition attached to the permission removed permitted development rights for certain alterations and extensions to the dwellinghouse under [name] and B of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) and for the construction of outbuildings under Class E of the GPDO, in order to protect the setting of the listed building and the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The appellant seeks to amend this condition by removing the restrictions to [name] and E of the GPDO, whilst retaining the restriction to Class B.

The main issues therefore is whether the condition is necessary and reasonable having regard to: • the setting of the nearby listed building; and • the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

The Grade II listed Church of [name] the Baptist is a mid C19 parish church on a corner plot with trees and hedging to the front and side. The church was a key focal and civic building within the locality as a result of its architectural primacy and presence. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the significance of the church is founded on its age, architectural detailing and function. The appeal site is to the rear of the church. As such, the church is visible from the appeal site and vice versa, so the development would be within the setting of the listed building.

The limitations and conditions set out in Class A of the GPDO would ensure that any addition or extension to the dwelling would be, in context, modest in size and finished in materials that are of a similar appearance to those used of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse. Furthermore, the dwelling is situated in a large plot and there is a significant separation between the dwelling and the church which would reduce the visual impact of any such extension.

Although an outbuilding under Class E of the GPDO cannot be erected forwards of a wall forming the principal elevation, it could cover up to 50% of the total area of the curtilage. Given the large size of the plot, this could allow a substantial outbuilding to the rear of the dwelling. Nevertheless, the rear of the site would have very limited, if any, visibility from public vantage points. Furthermore, the limitations of Class E would ensure any outbuilding is modest in height and there would be a significant distance between any outbuilding and the church.

For these reasons, an extension or addition under Class A or an outbuilding under Class E of the GPDO would not harm the architectural detailing, primacy and presence of the church. The removal of [name] and E from condition 13 would therefore preserve the setting of the listed building. As such, the amended condition would comply with policies HA1 and HA7 of the East Herts District Plan October 2018 (EHDP), insofar as they require development to preserve and where appropriate enhance the historic environment and to sustain and enhance the significance of listed buildings.

Under Class A of the GPDO, a two-storey extension which projects beyond the 45- degree line from the neighbouring property at 14 [site address] (No 14) could be constructed. However, the generous separation between the dwellinghouse and No 14 would ensure that such an extension would not cause a harmful reduction in outlook or sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No 14. Furthermore, the conditions of Class A would require any first-floor side window to be obscure-glazed and for any part of the window which is less than 1.7 metres above floor level to be non-opening, which would prevent any harmful overlooking of No 14.

For these reasons, the amended condition would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The amended condition would therefore accord with EHDP policy DES4, insofar as it requires development to avoid significant detrimental impacts to the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed condition and substituting a new condition as set out above.