Planning appeals rarely make rhe national news. However, a number of decisions in Northamptonshire involving thatching materials and derailing led to an article in the Daily Telegraph on 3 October. Not to be outdone, therefore, the Appeals Correspondent of Context is going to deal with the same issue in a slightly different way. Quire what Sir Titus would make of a roofing material which only last 20 or 30 years I am not sure. Yorkshire stone slates last well over 100 years and then of course we turn them and use them for another 100! The article is based on four appeal decisions in the last two years _ three in Northamptonshire and one in Oxfordshire, which are dealt with in a chronological order. (i) Daventry District Council - replacement of thatch with reed at Church Farm, Newnham Church Farm is a Grade II* listed building in the centre of the Newnham Conservation Area. The walls are of stone with brick stacks and the roof verges are capped with stone coping. Part of the roof is reedthatched with a scalloped ridge and part straw with a flush ridge. The appeal, ~hich was dealt with by written representations, was against the replacement of the straw part of the roof with reed. The Secretary of State accepted that long straw is the traditional thatching material of Northamptonshire and he noted that English Heritage considered that Church Farm was a particularly important example of Northants vernacular architecture. He also accepted that long straw may not be as long lasting as reed and may not be as readily available in the locality. He was not, however, persuaded that these factors in themselves justified a change of material. Although the part of the building proposed for rethatching was not obvious from the Main Street the Secretary of State refused consent for the change of material and expressed the view that when the remainder of the building required replacement it could also be thatched in long straw and thus restore the building to its original appearance. (ii) Vale of the White Horse District Council - removal of thatch at Carriers Cottage, Main Street, West Hanney and replacement with tiles Carriers Cottage is a building which has been substantially extended in recent times. It is unlisted and outside the West Hanney Conservation Area and had at one time been the subject of a demolition order. The most interesting issue in this enforcement case was whether in fact the replacement of thatch with riles on an unlisted building CONTEXT 36 SIR TITUS David Morton discusses recent cases concernmg re-thatching. represented a development which required consent. The inspecror considered that it amounted to a material change in the external appearance of the property and that this constituted development. He then had to decide whether the change was permitted development under the 1988 GDO. He did not consider that any sharpening of the roof outline as the result of changing from sofr thatch to hard tiles could be said to affect the concept of the shape of the building. However, in association with other changes to the eaves of the building it did constitute the "enlargement of a dwelling house consisting of an addition or alteration of its roof' and therefore the removal of the thatch required consent. The inspector did not consider that any unusual design conditions existed in this case and that the changes which had taken place over the years had taken away the original character of the building. He concluded that the removal of the thatch was not such an important matter in the street scene as to justify its reinstatement and granted of consent for the replacement tiles. (iii) East Northants District Council - replacement of existing long straw by water reed at 39 Main Street, Sudborough Number 39 Main Street is a stone built Grade II cottage with a low eaves line and steeply pitched thatched roof lit by eyebrow dormer windows. It is one of nine thatched buildings in the village and comprises one of a pair of cottages, the other half of which had at the time of this appeal recently been reroofed with a form of combed wheat with a decorative capping which forms the next part of the saga. The adjacent buildings were higher and roofed with Collyweston slates. The proposal which was the subject of the appeal was to replace long straw thatch with water reed in order to take account of its greater durability; an argument which the inspector considered the council was unable to refute. As a result of the site visit, the inspector considered that there was a marked difference in colouring, surface texture and detailing berween water reed and long straw which is not so apparent in the variations of the straw material. The inspector considered that the visual disparity in terms of colour and text"ure between numbers 39 and 40 would be disruptive to the unified appearance of the rwo listed cottages, could not be effectively disguised by detailing and would be exacerbated by the passage of time. In refusing consent the inspector also considered that to allow the appeal would have an adverse effect upon the ability of the council to effectively resist similar proposals for listed buildings in this and other Conservation Areas. (iv) East Northants District Council - rethatching of 40 Main Street, Sudborough, including the provision of a patterned block ridge detail This is a very interesting and important enforcement appeal in a number of ways. No listed building consent existed for rethatching the roof of 40 Main Street with combed wheat but the Council did not seek the reinstatement of long straw. The detail as implemented, however, included a patterned block cut ridge which was the subject of the enforcement notice. Unusually the decision letter starts by defining terms such as patterned block cut ridge, flush ridge, wrapover ridge and buttup ridge. Much of the debate at the inquiry appears to have been concerned with thatching materials - reed versus straw - although these were not the subject of the enforcement notice. The first major issue was whether in fact listed building consent was required for a ridge detail and whether therefore the enforcement notice was valid. The inspector considered that as a matter of fact and degree the character of the roof had been affected by the change of sryle of the ridge. This in turn affected the character of the listed building and therefore the creation of the block cut ridge required listed building consent. 21
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=