Appeal 3337728

The appeal is dismissed.

The Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan Review (LPR) was adopted on 20 March 2024. Consequently, this decision has considered under Policies LPRSP9, LPRSP14, LPRSP15, LPRHOU11, LPRENV1 and LPRQD4 of the LPR, as well as Policies, SP17, SP18, DM1, DM4, DM30, and DM32 of the Maidstone Local Plan (LP) 2017. Comments of main parties have been considered in this

The main issues are the effects of the proposal on (a) the settings of listed buildings, known as [address], Oasthouse, the Cottage, Dovecote and [name], and (b) the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a small single storey building, forming a stable outbuilding, which has been converted into a dwelling. An access serves the building and nearby [address], [name]* listed, and Oasthouse, Cottage, Dovecote and [name] buildings, all [name] listed. There are also four nearby new dwellings clustered around a new access, between them and the main road, which are also served off this drive.

The original building is asymmetrical in form, constructed in brick and with a part hipped plain tiled roof. Its frontage has semi-oval windows within protruding brickwork and a tall central door similarly slightly forward of brickwork either side. The central door, with a multipaned window, rises above the roof eaves line and has a lean-to type roof extending above the sloping roof plane. The conversion has resulted in new openings down the flanks of the building but there is attractive Victorian brickwork undertaken in a Flemish stretcher type bond. Within one flank, there is a date stone marked 18BP52. The appellant’s Heritage Statement (HS) dates the construction of the building to 1850s and details the use of the building for horses connected with the estate. Furthermore, it is associated with [name], a 19th century, clergyman and antiquarian who occupied [address].

[address] is a former 15th to 16th century [name] house, heavily disguised by early 19th century render and sashed windows. The statutory listed building (statutory listed building number 1075786) describes the building as L-shaped and two-storey, with a front elevation consisting of a centre, 2 wings and attics. The roof comprises a hipped roof with 4 dormers. There are casement windows with small square leaded planes and sashes with glazing bars intact. There is a 19th century gabled porch, stone chimneybreast on the south west side and the north-west wing comprises stone with 2 casements, probably 17th century.

[name] history of Kent, An Epitome of County History, published in 1838, [address] ([address]) is described as being occupied by one Vidian and others, in the time of [name], and by the Westons in following Tudor monarch reigns. In 1612, it was purchased by [name], Esq. by an alliance with whose descendent it became the property of [name], in

Within the house, an apartment was used as a place of worship, from 1701 to 1746, by a congregation of Baptists. The house came into the ownership of [name], fourth son of [name], in 1806 and his notebooks provide evidence of changes made to the building at this time, particularly to the interior.

The listed building description also indicates group value attached to [address] in connection with the other nearby listed buildings. The Oasthouse is early 19th century, 2 storeys with yellow brick and slate roof, and has three distinctive oasthouse casts, one circular with a conical roof and [address] with pyramidal roof, with fantails. [address] has a red brick ground and rendered first floors, with a tiled roof, and is a possible timber-framed building refaced in the 18th century. The stone constructed Dovecote, with pigeonholes on the ground floor, dates to 17th century and was converted to a cottage in the early 19th century. The Farmhouse is constructed with painted brick with a mansard tiled roof and dates to the 18th century. As confirmed by the HA, these buildings comprised part of the former farm complex at Bydews.

In conclusion, [address] is a large and dominant dwelling house, [name]* listed, and set in a complex of mostly former agricultural buildings. It has a high level of architectural and historical significance and special interest because of its date, evidential qualities, evolution illustrating building techniques, association with [name] and group value with the other listed buildings. The surrounding listed buildings are [name], with similar architectural and historical significance and special interest, and their connection to [address] is subordinate in a physical and/or functional capacity.

A rural setting is important for an understanding and appreciation of the Place and neighbouring listed buildings as they formed an agricultural complex of buildings in the countryside. During the late 20th and early 21st century, some of the listed buildings have been converted into residential use and there has been new housing adjacent to the appeal site. As such, there is a more domesticated feel to the setting of the agricultural complex and [address]. Nevertheless, the spacious and landscaped context gives a a semi-rural character and appearance to the Place and adjacent listed buildings, which continues to inform the understanding of the listed buildings as having been built and been in agricultural use in the countryside.

Within this setting, the appeal building retains an ancillary building presence through its size, materials and simplicity in design. Despite its residential use and extension, it still conveys rural character and appearance, and feeling of being part of a hierarchy within the former agricultural complex of buildings. As such, it contributes to the setting of [address] and other listed buildings.

The proposal would result in a large extension, with a pitched roof, which would cover much of the original flank of the former stable building. It would have substantial ill-proportioned floor to ceiling glazed openings to the side and rear. From the front, the extension would appear overly imposing with its extensive brickwork rising above the roof eaves line of the former stable building. Together with the window, this would also be unsympathetic to the simple symmetry of the façade. As such, the modest scale, simple rural design and proportions of the building would be fundamentally lost. Cumulatively, the footprint and extent of existing and proposed extensions would greatly exceed that of the existing building, and would adversely affect the simple rural design of the building.

There is established landscaping around the plot of the appeal building, especially between it and [address]. However, listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest, irrespective of whether or not public views of them can be gained. Consequently, appreciation of their significance and special interest is not solely determined by views. In any case, there is no guarantee that vegetation will not be removed for any number of reasons, such as disease, extreme weather, or accidental damage, and replacement planting would take significant time to be fully established.

Consequently, there would harm to the settings of these listed buildings, with harm being most marked for [address] due to its closer proximity. For each listed building, such harm would be less than substantial in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The appeal site lies within Medway Valley Landscape of Local Value designated under the LP and LPR. The site is enclosed within a group of buildings and vegetation and trees that separate it from the wider area, including the urban area focused on [name] and [address], and farmland, hedgerows, and woodland, in a gently undulating landscape. As such, the effect of the enlargement of the appeal building would be localised and the harm relating to the unacceptability of the extension on the historical building and its immediate surroundings. Thus, the harm on the character and appearance of the area would be small.

My attention has been drawn to the planning permission for the four nearby dwellings and by implication, the Council’s acceptance of the effect of this development on the setting of the Place and the other listed buildings. However, inevitably, every proposal will be different in nature, circumstances and policy, and there will be differing weights to benefits and harms in heritage and planning balances. Consequently, every proposal has to be considered on its planning merits and therefore, such a decision attracts negligible weight.

Paragraph 208 of the Framework states where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The appeal proposal is part of a wider scheme of restoration and repair of listed buildings within the control of the appellant. However, the appeal proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of this former outbuilding by reason of size and design, and as a result, it would adversely affect the setting of listed buildings. In considering whether to grant planning permission, s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and [name]) Act 1990 requires decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. In light of the forgoing, the public benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm identified and the considerable importance and weight this carries in the heritage balance for each listed building.

For all these reasons, there would be harm to the character and appearance of the area, and the setting of listed buildings. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Policies SP17, SP18, DM1, DM4, DM30, DM32 of LP and Policies LPRSP9, LPRSP14, LPRSP15, LPRHOU11, LPRENV1 and LPRQD4 of the LPR, which collectively and amongst other matters, requires the quality of heritage assets to be protected and where possible conserved, high quality design, scale of extensions to be sympathetic to the existing building, without overwhelming or destroying its form, and the conserving of the distinctive landscape character of the Medway Valley Landscape of Local Value. There would be conflict with the development plan, taken as a whole, and there would be no material considerations that indicate that it should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.

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