Installation of a new external soil and vent pipe

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 July 2026 by JJ Packman MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011109 16 Cricket Green, Hartley Wintney, Hampshire, Hook, RG27 8PP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mark Ellis against the decision of Hart District Council. • The application 26/00303/HOU. • The development proposed is the installation of a new external soil and vent pipe. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of a new external soil and vent pipe at 16 Cricket Green, Hartley Wintney, Hampshire, Hook, RG27 8PP in accordance with the terms of the application 26/00303/HOU and the plans submitted. with it subject to the condition set out below: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be retained in accordance with the following approved drawings: Location Plan, Block Plan, Front Elevation Existing, Front Elevation Proposed, Side Elevation Existing, Side Elevation Proposed. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development in the banner heading above has been adapted from the planning application form but shortened to more clearly describe the development the subject of this appeal. During my site visit, I observed that the external soil vent pipe had already been installed. I have determined the appeal on that basis. 3. Since the Council made its decision, the National Planning Policy Framework was revised in August 2026. The revised Framework is a material consideration in this appeal, and I have taken relevant national decision-making policies into account. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed external soil and vent pipe on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the Hartley Wintney Conservation Area. Reasons 5. The appeal property (No.16) forms part of the terrace of two-storey dwellings known as Nos. 10–19 Cricket Green situated within the Hartley Wintney Conservation Area. The Conservation Area derives much of its significance from Appeal Decision 6011109 2 the relationship between its historic buildings, mature landscaping and the open expanse of Cricket Green, which together create a distinctive village character. 6. The front elevation of Nos. 10–19 Cricket Green faces a narrow access path and, owing to the presence of the intervening terrace at Nos. 5–9 Cricket Green, is largely screened from wider public views. I observed that it has been subject to a range of modern alterations, including replacement materials, extensions, external fittings and the installation of a number of black plastic soil and vent pipes. 7. The rear elevation of the terrace is readily visible in views from Mount Pleasant and across Cricket Green. It retains a cohesive appearance, characterised by its brickwork, chimney stacks, roofscape and traditional architectural detailing, notwithstanding some domestic alterations. These qualities make an important contribution to the character and appearance of the Hartley Wintney Conservation Area. 8. The proposal is for the installation of an external black plastic soil vent pipe to serve a new first-floor WC. The pipe has been fixed to the front elevation of the appeal property, extending vertically from ground level to above the eaves before terminating above the roofline. 9. The soil and vent pipe introduces a modern plastic feature to the front elevation of the appeal property. Although this has resulted in a degree of harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the Hartley Wintney Conservation Area, I find only a very limited degree of harm, not amounting to substantial harm. 10. The degree of harm is limited because the proposed soil vent pipe is located on the front elevation of the terrace, which is principally experienced from the narrow access path. Wider views are filtered by the intervening terrace at Nos. 5–9 Cricket Green. This elevation has been subject to a range of modern alterations, including replacement materials, extensions, external fittings and black plastic soil vent pipes. Whilst these alterations do not justify further change, they mean the proposal makes only a very limited additional contribution to the cumulative alteration of this elevation. Furthermore, the more cohesive rear elevation, which makes an important contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, remains unaffected by the proposals. 11. I have had regard to the Council's view that the soil vent pipe could be routed internally, thereby avoiding any visual impact. However, the appeal before me relates to the proposal as submitted. Whilst an internal solution may be possible, I have no detailed evidence before me regarding its feasibility or implications. In any event, the existence of an alternative solution does not alter my assessment of the effect of the proposal before me. 12. Policy HE6(4) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that where a proposal would harm the significance of a designated heritage asset the effect on the asset and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal. 13. In this case, the public benefits are modest. They arise from facilitating the provision of a first-floor WC, enabling the dwelling to be adapted to meet the needs of its occupants and supporting its continued residential use. Given that I have found the heritage harm to be very limited, I find that this public benefit is sufficient to outweigh that harm. Appeal Decision 6011109 3 14. Taking all of the above into account, and having paid special attention to the desirability of preserving the character and appearance of the Hartley Wintney Conservation Area, I conclude that the limited degree of harm identified would be outweighed by the public benefit of the proposal. The proposal therefore accords with Policy NBE8 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2016–2032, which seeks to conserve or enhance heritage assets having regard to their significance and the tests set out in the Framework, and Policy NBE9, insofar as it seeks to protect or enhance surrounding heritage assets, and the heritage objectives of the Framework. Conditions 15. Whilst the development appears to have already been carried out, I have imposed a condition specifying the approved drawings in the interests of certainty. Conclusion 16. For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. JJ Packman INSPECTOR