Appeal 6003806

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of former day care centre to residential dwelling. To include replacement flat roof, installation of glazed roof lanterns and rooflights, infilling of external openings, addition of new external door, installation of air source heat pump and internal alterations and refurbishment at [site address] , [site address] , Buntingford, Hertfordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/25/1477/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; proposed site plan 1372 02 02 D; proposed ground floor plan 1372 02 03 F; proposed first floor plan 1372 02 04 A; proposed north and west elevations 1372 02 05 D and proposed east and south elevations 1372 02 06 B.

Prior to any above ground construction works being commenced, the external materials of construction for the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall demonstrate that the roof lanterns would be capable of being opened. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, of an enhanced sound insulation value DnT,w [and L’nT,w] of at least 5dB above the Building Regulations value, for the floor/ceiling /wall structures separating different types of rooms/ uses in adjoining dwellings. The approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter be permanently retained.

Prior to first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the bin storage shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans and shall thereafter be retained for the storage of waste and recycling.

Prior to the first occupation of the new dwelling hereby approved, details of cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of the new dwelling.

The external sound level emitted from plant, machinery, or equipment (including air source heat pumps), at the development hereby approved shall be lower than the existing background sound level by at least 5dB(A) when measured at the nearest noise sensitive receptor. The noise level shall take into account any noise characteristics such as indeterminacy or tonality as set out in BS4142 or show compliance with the current MCS 020 a) guidance.

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the carbon dioxide and energy reduction measures set out in the submitted [name], [name], Energy, Water and [name] dated 24th July 2025. [name] adapt to climate change, reduce carbon emissions, and efficient use of water, in accordance with Policies DES4, CC1, CC2, CC3 and WAT4 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.

The main issues in this appeal are whether the proposal would:  comply with development plan policies for the loss of community facilities; and  provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with respect to outlook.

East Herts District Plan (October 2018) (EHDP) Policy CFLR8 sets out that, pertinent to this appeal, proposals that would result in the loss of buildings for community use must be accompanied by an assessment which clearly shows the facility is no longer needed in its current form. Buntingford Community Area Neighbourhood Area Plan 2014-2031 (made 2017) (NAP) Policy LR3 imposes a very similar test.

There is no robust assessment before me demonstrating that the building is no longer needed in its current form. A decision to cease a use does not indicate no need, irrespective of who the operator of the community use is. Furthermore, the policy is not limited to only the previous use but any community use. Much of the appellant’s assessment is assertion, with no supporting evidence such as of the building being marketed for community use.

There would be no requirement for a landowner, even where the landowner is a public body, to carry out the assessment required by the policies of the development plan when making decisions around service provision and disposal of assets. The [site address] was of longstanding use, and its previous use would not be of any relevance to the need to assess the proposal against the current development plan. Part of the assessment required by the development plan would allow for the access constraints of the proposal to be tested such as through any responses to marketing.

I therefore conclude it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would comply with development plan policies for the loss of community facilities. It would be contrary to EHDP Policy CFLR8 and NAP Policy LR3 which seek to retain community facilities unless an assessment has clearly shown that the facility is no longer needed in its current form.

Three of the proposed bedrooms would be served by roof lanterns. [name] acknowledge my visit took place on a particularly sunny day, the rooms all had abundant levels of light. I have no reason to disagree with the sunlight and daylight assessment that suitable levels of light would be available to future occupiers of the rooms, even on days that would be more overcast.

There would not be any conventional outlook from any of the three bedrooms cited in the reason for refusal. However, there would be views of sky from the rooflights. While this would be somewhat limited in bedroom 3 due to the position of the rooflight and the layout of the room, in the other two rooms these openings would be positioned centrally. The building would provide a more than reasonable standard of accommodation for future occupiers given the floorspace. Unconventional does not automatically equate to unacceptable and I am satisfied that the roof lanterns would provide sufficient outlook to the sky that there would be acceptable living conditions to future occupiers of the property. Further details of the works to the roof lanterns could be secured by condition which would ensure that these would be opening and so would allow for natural ventilation of the property.

The Council has referred me to another appeal decision1 which also concerned a listed building. I do not have full details of that proposal and works before me. However, I note in that case, the Inspector referred to windows being partially obscure glazed due to concerns about overlooking, and that the view of the sky that would remain would be for a very small section. That decision also referred to the outlook being towards tall rear walls. It also goes on to refer to occupiers as feeling hemmed in. That would not be the case at this property. This would clearly be materially different to the proposal before me and so would not alter my assessment of the proposal.

There would not be any outdoor amenity space associated with the property. However, it is not uncommon for properties in the centre of settlements to not have private amenity space. The Council also has raised no concerns with respect to this issue and note the presence of public open spaces elsewhere within Buntingford.

The proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with respect to outlook. It would therefore be in accordance with EHDP Policy DES4 1 APP/X5990/W/24/3351379 and APP/X5990/Y/24/3351378 dismissed 15 May 2025 which requires development to be of a high standard of design and reflect local distinctiveness.

It is accepted by the parties that the appeal site is ‘curtilage listed’ and by virtue of s1(5)(b) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), should be ‘treated as part of’ the [name] listed building Peel House2. I have no reason to disagree and have determined the appeal on this basis. The site also lies within the Buntingford Conservation Area (CA) and the setting of the [name] listed 91 and 93 High Street3, and 97 High Street4

Consequently, in determining the appeals I have had regard to the relevant statutory duties set out in sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act. These require me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

[address] dates from the early 19th century and has architectural and historic interest arising from its polite architectural style and former use of part of the building as Buntingford’s police station. The appeal site is the former courthouse, which likely dates from the 1930s given the date on the rainwater goods. It is constructed from brick with an art deco style entrance and lies partially to the rear of [address]. It has functional association with [address] and contributes in a meaningful way to its special interest. This is despite the properties no longer being in the same ownership and both no longer being in those original uses.

The appeal site also lies to the rear of No.97 and is immediately adjacent to the rear garden of Nos91 and 93. Pertinent to this appeal, the special interest of both of these buildings lies in their architectural interest as vernacular residential properties. The character and appearance of the CA are mainly derived from its historic interest as a rural settlement with association to historic routes to London. It also has architectural interest arising from the quality of its historic buildings and use of traditional materials.

The Council’s officer report contains a detailed assessment of the works proposed to facilitate the conversion of the property and concludes that the special interest of the listed building would be preserved. Listed building consent has been granted in respect of these works. From my observations at my site visit, I agree that the proposal would allow the original plan form of the building to be retained and appreciated when viewed from the mezzanine. While there would be some loss of historic fabric, particularly the clerestory lights, this would not harm the ability to appreciate the special interest of the property. I am also satisfied that the works would preserve the special interest of the listed building.

The limited scale of the alterations and the proposed use would have a neutral impact on, and so would preserve the setting of the neighbouring buildings. The CA has a mixture of commercial and residential uses so the proposal would preserve its character or appearance. 2 [name]:1174553 Date first listed:22 February 1967 3 [name]:1101319 Date first listed:22-Feb-1967 4 [name]:1101320 Date first listed:22-Feb-1967

The appellant purchased the property in 2023 and has highlighted delays arising from discussions about the use of the site has resulted in the building being empty for three years and that this combined with a lack of investment has seen a deterioration in the condition of the structure. I am mindful of the advice in paragraph 209 of the Framework that deliberate neglect of a heritage asset, which an acknowledged lack of investment could amount to, should not be taken into account in any decision.

The proposal is for a residential use in an area with a reasonable level of residential properties. The proposed alterations would not result in a materially different relationship with neighbouring properties with respect to overlooking. Suitable conditions could ensure appropriate sound attenuation from the property and limit noise levels from the proposed air source heat pump. Concerns have been raised by neighbouring occupiers with respect to access to the site for construction traffic and associated requirements, however this would be for a short period and would be a private matter between the relevant landowners, as would any damage caused during the construction process.

The site would be well located in relation to services and facilities in the settlement and as such it would be acceptable for the proposal to not provide any car parking. The provision of cycle parking can be controlled by condition.

I am satisfied the proposal could be considered as self build or custom housing. However, as this has not been secured, it attracts no additional weight in support of the proposal beyond that from the provision of an additional dwelling.

Pre-application advice is not binding on any future decision of the Council and so would not alter my assessment of the proposal. There is no requirement for developers to carry out consultations or discussions with neighbouring land owners. Management of hazards such as asbestos are controlled through other legislation.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, with the evidence before me indicating that supply is somewhere below 4.72 years. Consequently, paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework is engaged. This sets out that planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having regard to key policies.

The proposal would be contrary to the policies of the development plan which seek to protect community facilities. I attach limited weight to this harm, given the location of the site within a well sized settlement where other community facilities were located.

Against this harm, I must weigh the benefits from the delivery of an additional dwelling in an area where there has been a lack of housing land supply since at least August 2024. There would be economic benefits during the construction and occupation stages of the proposal. Given the proposal is for a single dwelling and would involve conversion of an existing building, I attach limited weight to these. The proposal would bring a designated heritage asset back into use in a manner consistent with its conservation. I attach moderate weight to this benefit.

When assessed against the policies in the Framework, the adverse effects of the development would be limited and therefore would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The appeal proposal therefore benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The Council has suggested conditions should I be minded to allow the appeal. I have had regard to these in light of the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework and I have made amendments to some of them for consistency and clarity purposes. I have imposed standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and approved plans to define the terms of the permission.

It is reasonable and necessary for details of materials of the proposed development to be agreed to ensure the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building is preserved. I have amended this condition to require that the roof lanterns are capable of being opened in the interests of the living conditions of future occupiers.

To ensure there would not be an adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, sound attenuation conditions in relation to the interior works and controlling the operation of the proposed air source heat pump are reasonable and necessary. As there is no outdoor space associated with the site, it is necessary to ensure suitable provision for bin storage can be made. The submitted details are not sufficient to allow for the storage of both cycles and bins in the location shown and as the site has no car parking, it is reasonable and necessary for this matter to be addressed by condition. It is reasonable and necessary for the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved carbon and energy efficiency measures to comply with the requirements of the

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. For the reasons given above, I have attached limited weight to this conflict, and there are no other material considerations which would weigh against the proposal. The policies of the Framework are a material consideration which weigh strongly in support of the appeal as the adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development.

I therefore consider that in the specific circumstances of this case, the material considerations indicate that the decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed.