Appeal 3279636

The appeal is dismissed.

The address for the appeal site given on the application form is [name], [address]. However, the address given on the Council’s decision notice is [site address] , [site address] . As this is the address used on all the other documents and reflects the address shown on the [name] plan, I have adopted this address in the header above.

I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the setting of numbers 87b listed grade II and whether the works would serve to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Faversham Conservation Area.

The appeal property, 87b is the former coach house to the adjacent dwelling, number 87, previously a public house. Both buildings are listed grade II, located in the Faversham Conservation Area, and now occupied as residential dwellings.

[site address] is a two-storey structure, brick up to first floor level with timber boarding above. It is a very simple unadorned building. Due to its design and detailing it is clearly an ancillary structure to the former public house.

The appellant proposes the erection of a garden shed in the courtyard garden of [site address] . Due to the size of [site address] the shed is required, for general storage as well as to provide a quiet study space for the appellant’s son. The garden is located above street level and is accessed from the first floor of [site address] .

A garden building here would be in the setting of the listed building. However, and while it would be for the Council to consider any proposal in the first instance, in my judgement, a small, appropriately designed, well-mannered, weatherboard clad garden building, reflecting the simple design of [site address] would, given the domestic setting of the listed building, not necessarily cause harm to its setting.

However, the proposed garden shed would be quite large in relation to the small courtyard garden. Further, by reason of its ‘log’ form of construction, cantilevered roof, ornate facias, and roof covering it would, in contrast to the vernacular form and detail of [site address] , appear more as a Scandinavian style garden chalet. It would therefore, in my judgement, appear as a fussy, incongruous and prominent structure that would cause harm to the setting of the listed building.

[name] have found that the proposal would cause harm to the setting of the listed building I concur with the Council, that due to the residential nature of the area it would have a neutral impact on the character of the conservation area.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, which include listed buildings. It draws a distinction between substantial harm and less than substantial harm to such an asset. For the latter, which applies here, the test is that the harm should be weighed against public benefits, including securing the optimum viable use.

The works would provide some very limited economic benefit. However, given the harm that has been identified I conclude that the public benefits would not outweigh this harm, or the conflict that the works would have with the objectives of Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Framework and Policies DM14 and DM32 of the Swale Borough Local Plan Bearing Fruits 2031 ([name] 2017) as they relate to the preservation of the setting of listed buildings.

Given the limited size of [site address] , in particular the appellant’s son’s bedroom, I appreciate the need of the appellant for additional space. [name] am sympathetic to these matters, on balance, they do not outweigh the harm the outbuilding as designed would cause in the long term.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.