Appeal 6004600

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area including the Tring Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached property of traditional appearance with red brick elevations and tiled hipped roof. It has a distinctive open front porch with tiled pitched roof and front gable finished in wavey edged timber boarding. The immediate street scene comprising the southern part of Woodland Close is characterised by a number of similar semi-detached properties set around a central green area providing an attractive setting. Further semi-detached dwellings within the northern part of Woodland Close front the street, many are finished of render, set behind modest planted front gardens. A few have larger enclosed front porches which appear to be later additions.

Woodland Close appears to be a relatively recent addition to the CA. The Tring Conservation Area Character Appraisal and [name] (March 2019) (CAMP) notes that Woodland Close comprises of mid twentieth century rows of municipal housing which stand on a raised site at the west end of the town with well-preserved frontages and soft landscaping of high quality. The significance of this part of the conservation area is derived from the overall combination of the uniform semi-detached pairs, including the distinctive front porches, attractive well planted front gardens and setting around a pleasant central green area.

Whilst the proposed porch would have the same ridge height as the existing, it would be noticeably wider and deeper. In comparison to the existing more modest open porches that currently exist, it would appear disproportionately large and out of scale with the existing dwelling. Its enclosed sides and front elevations with new prominently sited front door would introduce a bulky addition that would be prominently seen within the street scene of this part of Woodland Close. The additional front gable window feature would emphasise the incongruity of the porch, further disrupting the uniform character of this part of the CA.

Whilst large enclosed porches have been introduced on some other properties, these are few in number and are not located within the southern part of the close set around the green. In my view they only serve to demonstrate that such overly large and unsympathetically designed additions detract from the existing modest dwellings and the overall pleasant uniform character of the close.

The appellant refers to a previous permission at the appeal site for extensions and front porch granted in 20191, prior to the inclusion of the appeal site within the CA. However, that permission was not implemented and is now expired therefore does not provide a fall-back position. In addition, it appears that the porch was of a different design, albeit the approved plans do not appear to have been provided.

Having regard to the statutory duty of Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and would result in harm to its significance. In accordance with paragraphs 212 and 213 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), great weight is to be given to the asset’s conservation and any harm should require clear and convincing justification.

The harm arising would equate to less than substantial harm at the lower end of the spectrum in the terms of the Framework, and, in accordance paragraph 215, this should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The appellant argues that the proposal would improve the thermal qualities of the property providing an improved front entrance and useful additional storage area. These would amount to public benefits by enhancing the quality of accommodation and energy efficiency of the property to which moderate weight can be attached. However, these are insufficient to outweigh the harm arising to which considerable weight and importance is attached.

Overall, I find that the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the host property and wider street scene and would have a harmful impact on the CA. The development therefore fails to accord with Policies CS11, CS12 and CS27 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2013) and saved Policy 120 of Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004) and Appendix 7 which, amongst other things, seek high quality design which complements and harmonises with the original dwelling and which protect and conserve the integrity, setting and distinctiveness of designated heritage assets. Furthermore, the development does not satisfy the Framework which seeks to achieve good design which is sympathetic to local character whilst also conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.