Appeal 3291630

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the setting of the host property Ravynsden, a [name] listed building; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene.

The proposal is for a detached double garage/workshop (three bays wide) with a home office in the roof space to one side of Ravynsden, a [name] listed building on the southern outskirts of [site address] . The home office would be accessed by an external flight of steps and lit by three front facing dormer windows and three rooflights to the rear.

Ravynsden is a modest 17th century two storey tile hung and tile pitched roof dwelling, with casement windows, gabled porch and catslide roof to the rear. Five front windows, two staircases and two fireplaces suggest it may originally have been two cottages before conversion. Contrary to the heritage statement submitted with the application, the building has significance as a typical small Sussex/Kent cottage of its period, relatively unspoilt by later alterations.

The proposed garage/workshop would be located to one side of the listed building, facing towards it, but partly set forward of its front elevation to allow the necessary vehicular access. Whilst the appeal statement claims it would be 10 m away, this is not supported by an accurate large-scale plan showing the width of the hedgerows along the site frontage and southern boundary which would be retained for screening. As a result, the building may well be located less than 10 m from the dwelling. In addition, whilst eaves and ridge heights at 3.2 m and 6.5 m would be lower than the dwelling, without the equivalent figures for the listed building it is not clear this would sufficiently reduce its impact. The garage/workshop building facing the dwelling would also be wide, 9.3 m, perhaps half of this projecting forward of the front elevation.

Taking these factors into account, the proposal would appear unduly bulky when seen alongside the main frontage of the listed building. There is already an existing double garage set back behind the dwelling on one side, and the garage/workshop would appear to encroach upon the property from the other, showing insufficient subservience to it. Being a relatively modest dwelling, a large scale three bay outbuilding with dormer windows set at right angles alongside would appear out of place, adversely affecting its setting. Whilst the level of harm to the heritage asset and its appreciation as a typical small-scale Sussex/Kent cottage would be less than substantial, the public benefit of the proposal would be negligible.

For these reasons the proposal would adversely affect the setting of the host property, Ravynsden, a [name] listed building, contrary to the legislative requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. The proposal would also conflict with Policies EN2 and EN3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 (RLPCS) and Policy DHG9 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan 2019 (DSALP). These seek to preserve the setting of locally distinctive vernacular building forms, require new development to contribute positively to the character of the site, and require outbuildings to existing dwellings to respect their scale, particularly when historic buildings.

The garage/workshop building would be sited gable end to the road. Whilst 6.5 m to the ridge, it would be clad with sympathetic materials and set back behind a close boarded fence, hedge and several tall roadside trees. Given this substantial level of screening and the built-up frontage opposite, the building would not significantly affect the character and appearance of the street scene. The proposal would not therefore conflict with [name] OSS4 and EN1 or [name] DEN1 and DEN2. These seek to ensure development protects the character and appearance of the locality, the landscape generally and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

In addition to garage/workshop space, the proposal would provide storage for bins and a desirable home office. Whilst it would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the street scene, the proposal would unduly harm the setting and appreciation of the listed building. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.