Appeal 6003703

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension to provide two further bedrooms and part demolition of boundary wall at Hastovan, [site address] , Tring [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application ref: 25/02619/FHA and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of this decision.

The development relates to the following approved plans: 25654 A-0001/P1 (existing and proposed plans), 25654 A-0002/P2 (proposed elevations and site plan), 25654 A-0002/P3 (proposed elevations),

The brickwork removed from the existing boundary wall shall be re-used in the construction of the brick plinth of the southern and western external elevations of the extension, as indicated on the approved plans, with any additional bricks as required to match in respect of colour, texture and size.

The appellant agreed to amend the original description, as set out in the banner heading, to that used in the decision above.

The main issue is the effect of the loss of part of the boundary wall on the character and appearance of the Tring Conservation Area and the setting of the listed building at 23 [site address] .

The appeal site lies to the rear of 21 [site address] in the town centre. It comprises a detached 1930s dwelling and curtilage containing a single storey outbuilding used as an annexe at its far southern end set against the walls which run along the western, southern and eastern boundaries of the property. The eastern boundary comprises a high brick wall which abuts a footpath linking the [site address] with areas to the south. 21 [site address] is former bank premises now used as a restaurant of distinctive design of the early 20th Century.

The southern wall of the outbuilding on the appeal site abuts a parking area which serves the adjoining properties to the west including the [name] listed [address] at 23 [site address] . The list description for this property notes that this has early 18th century rear parts with early 19th century frontage comprising three storeys of brick elevations with low stucco plinth, painted stone string course and parapet roof with deep corbelled band below stone coping. The two-storey rear wing has fine moulded brick cornice and early 18th century venetian sash window.

The site lies in the Tring Conservation area and the long narrow shape of the site reflects the historic burgage plots referenced in the Tring Conservation Area Appraisal and [name] 2019 (CAMP). The CAMP also refers to the burgage plot walls especially on the southern side of the [site address] , quoting the example of No. 23, as well as the back yards with outbuildings which they enclose. The northern part of the wall along the western boundary of Hastovan and brick piers are visible from the [site address] through the gap between Nos. 21 and 23.

Overall, the significance of this part of the CA is derived from both the historic and architectural quality of the frontage buildings as well as the site layouts which reflect the original burgage plots.

The Council contend that harm arises due to the original form and scale of the boundary wall being further diminished following the incremental loss of parts of the wall through a number of planning applications, including one relating to the removal of wall towards the northern part of the site to enable a new vehicular access to a new garage for Hastovan.1.

However, only a small section southern boundary wall would be removed as part of the current proposals with the walls comprising the eastern and western boundaries unaffected. Unlike these boundary walls, the southern wall is not visible from any public vantage point being seen only from within the private parking area to the south. Furthermore, it has already been altered through the addition of render with a number of unsightly air conditioning units attached to the upper part.

The proposal indicates that the larger part of the southern wall that would be retained would be exposed internally within the new extension. In addition, the bricks from the section of wall to be removed would be reused externally as part of the brick plinth to the extension. I note that a similar approach was accepted by the Council in respect of the above application to remove part of the side boundary wall to the appeal site, much closer to the [site address] entrance. A condition to ensure that the bricks were reused in the gable wall of the garage was imposed on that permission with the Council concluding that overall this would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. In the above circumstances, a similar approach would be appropriate in this case.

The Council also cites limited harm to the setting of the adjoining listed building but the reasons for this are not explained in the officer report. The wall is sited a considerable distance from the listed building and whilst both the wall and the rear 1 LPA ref: 25/01019/FHA approved 19 June 2025 of the building are can be seen in views from the rear parking area there is little visual connection between them such that there would be no harm to its setting.

Overall, given the above, I find that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Tring Conservation Area and would not harm the setting of the nearby listed building. Indeed, the new extension would improve the appearance of the southern part of the appeal site by removing the unsightly render and air conditioning units and introducing a well-designed building that would more suitably complement the area whilst at the same time retaining the majority of the original boundary wall in situ, albeit as an internal feature, with the removed bricks re-used in the external walls. It would thus accord with Policy CS27 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy 2006-2031 (2013) and Policy 120 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004) which seek to ensure that development positively conserves and enhances the character and appearance of conservation areas and the setting of listed buildings and that where demolition is proposed replacement is secured that satisfactorily contributes to its character.

The development would also satisfy the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure that development conserves and enhances the historic environment and that the significance of heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.

The statutory duties within sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act, 1990 would also be satisfied.

It appears that the proposed extension would ‘overlap’ with some of the proposed parking to serve the development previously permitted on the site opposite (to the west of) the appeal site. However, this has not been cited as a reason for refusal and whilst it may affect those permissions, it does not alter my conclusions above.

As well as the standard time condition, a condition to refer to the approved plans is necessary for clarity and in the interests of proper planning. A condition to ensure that the bricks removed through the demolition of the section of wall are re-used in the new building is also necessary to conserve the character of the heritage assets. Reference has been made to a suggested condition to restrict the use of the extended outbuilding, the original permission for which appears to have been granted a few years ago. However, given that the current proposal only relates to an extension to this existing building / annex it would not be appropriate to now seek to impose such a condition. No separate, independent use of the accommodation is proposed and the Council would be able to consider any further action should that be necessary.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.