Appeal 6002630

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

As the proposal relates to a listed building which is within a conservation area, I have had special regard to sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

The two appeals concern the same scheme under different, complimentary legislation. I have dealt with both appeals together in my reasoning.

A main issue in Appeal A and the main issue in Appeal B is: • whether the proposal would i) preserve the [name] listed building, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and ii) preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area.

An additional main issue in Appeal A is whether insufficient information has been submitted with regards to protected species. Appeal Decision 6002626, 6002630

The appeal site comprises a [name] listed1 building known as ‘[name], dating from the late 18th century. The former farmhouse is a large, detached two-storey dwelling constructed mainly from coursed rubble walls with a slate roof and end brick stacks. Its form has a linear arrangement with a stepped ridge and eaves to the two-storey element. It sits on an east-west axis with its western gable elevation positioned close to and fronting the road. Its north elevation is the building’s principal elevation, with traditional stonework, leaded-light casement windows and panelled door within a lattice porch.

The rear elevation faces south and is also constructed from course rubble walls and has a modest design with modern painted casement windows set within historic apertures.

Later additions to the property include a single-storey lean-to attached to the east elevation, with two softwood casement windows facing north. Above the lean-to is the brick gable of the old dairy with a stepped barge board and exposed purlins with an abutment valley to a modern two-storey extension built in reconstituted stone. The modern extension is set back from the historic northern wall of the dwelling with a catslide roof on the south forming single storey eaves.

Although modern extensions have been added to the building, the listed building largely retains its external historic character and form to its north and south elevations.

Based on the listing description and what I observed during my site visit together with the evidence put forward, I find that the special interest and significance of this heritage asset largely derive from its historic and architectural interests. These are drawn from its illustration of an 18th century farmhouse along with the simplicity of its linear form, which remains evident despite the later additions. The local building materials and building style are reflected in, amongst other characteristics, its traditional materials and its gable end positioned to the road.

The appeal site is located within the [site address] Conservation Area (CA). Although there is no Conservation Area Appraisal for the CA, the Gillingham Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2031 describes the character area for [site address] as a dispersed rural settlement characterised by a collection of farmsteads interspersed with numerous secular buildings which are located adjacent to but not all fronting or positioned on the highway. Its buildings reflect the vernacular and architectural traditions of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.

Given the above, the character and appearance and thus special interest and significance of the CA, insofar as it relates to these appeals, is primarily the way the buildings of varying ages and styles reflect the evolution of the settlement and its historical relationship with the rural area.

By virtue of its historic and architectural integrity and authenticity, [name] adds considerably to [site address] ’s heritage merit. In doing so, it positively contributes to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole and thereby to its significance as a designated heritage asset. 1 [name]: 1305051 Appeal Decision 6002626, 6002630

The proposal includes a flat-roofed, single-storey glazed link to the southern elevation of the appeal building. The link’s large glazing panels would be a distinctly modern design element that would contrast sharply with the traditional materials of the listed building. Its reflective surfaces would visually compete with the building’s historic fabric, disrupting its visual coherence and eroding its architectural integrity.

Furthermore, the link would extend across a considerable section of the southern elevation, upsetting the balance and rhythm of the building’s design. Its presence would dominate this part of the elevation and detract from the building’s traditional character and historic linear form.

The proposed utility room would protrude forward of the listed building’s southern elevation, extending beyond the building’s existing footprint. Consequently, it would alter the predominant linear form. Although its walls would be constructed of natural stone similar to the listed building’s material, its large glazed window and flat roof would appear noticeably contemporary. This would detract from the listed building, appearing awkward and unrelated to its historic design.

Despite being single-storey, the proposed utility room and glazed link would create a substantial modern addition to the listed building’s southern elevation. Their massing and incongruous design would overwhelm the listed building and erode its legibility as a former rural farmhouse, contrasting negatively with its historic linear form and gable-end profile. They would detrimentally alter the authenticity of how the asset is experienced and diminish the ability to appreciate its significance.

I have had regard to the appellant’s comments concerning the visibility of the proposal. Although the proposed utility extension would be screened from views from the road by vegetation and the existing boundary fencing, I observed during my site visit that there would be views of the glazed link extension from the road and from the neighbouring property. In any event, the presence of screening does not justify unacceptable development and works.

The harmful effects to the listed building would incrementally harm the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. Notwithstanding that the proposal would not be prominent within the street scene, it would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA and would cause harm to its significance as a designated heritage asset.

I acknowledge that the proposal has been designed intentionally to ensure that the extension is not read as a pastiche addition to the property. Nevertheless, for the reasons given, it would compromise the significance of the listed building.

The proposal’s garden room extension would be of modest scale and proportions and would be attached to the dairy building, a later addition to the listed building positioned to its east elevation. It would maintain the linear character of the historic farmhouse. I also note that the Council have since approved a revised planning and listed building application for the garden room extension only ([name]/HOU/2025/07146 and P/LBC/2025/07147), stating that the plan form of the dairy would still be legible by nibs of wall left in situ. Therefore, I am satisfied that the proposed garden room would preserve the listed building’s significance. It would also have little impact on the CA due to its visual enclosure. Nevertheless, these Appeal Decision 6002626, 6002630 acceptable aspects of the appeal proposal would not justify the harm identified above.

I have been referred to a previous approval for a modern porch on the southern elevation (Refs 2/2014/0155 and 0156). However, this previously approved porch would be smaller than that of the proposed design and would incorporate fewer glazing elements. In contrast, the larger scale of the proposed extension, with its extensive span of glazing panels, would create a visually dominant feature that fails to integrate harmoniously with the historic building.

Drawing the above together, I find that the proposal would not i) preserve the [name] listed building, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and ii) preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area. In doing so, it would harm the significance of these heritage assets.

With reference to paragraphs 214 and 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), in finding harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the magnitude of that harm should be assessed. Given the extent and fairly localised nature of the proposal, I find that the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets assessed above would, individually and cumulatively, be ‘less than substantial’ but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. To my mind, this is towards the middle of the range of the less than substantial harm. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires this harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

In this case, economic benefits would be delivered through the manufacturing and construction phase and the general investment into the property. However, the scale of those benefits is short-term and would be limited by the extent and nature of the scheme.

I have considered the various benefits put forward by the appellant, including those arising from the demolition of the dilapidated garage, the internal replacement of modern staircases and modern-style windows, and the benefits of removing the uncharacteristic modern extension and bringing a neglected dairy building back into use. Such benefits would carry weight in favour of the appeals.

However, I am not persuaded that the only way of securing the benefits identified would be via the appeals proposal. Additionally, it has not been demonstrated that the property would not be usable or viable as a dwelling or that its future would be at risk if the appeals were to fail and the development and works as proposed were not implemented. In these respects, the identified harm to the significance of the listed building and the CA has not been clearly and convincingly justified as required by paragraph 213 of the Framework.

On balance, in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, I find that this would not be outweighed by the small public benefits arising from the proposal.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would not i) preserve the [name] listed building, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it Appeal Decision 6002626, 6002630 possesses, and ii) preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area. It would therefore fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. It would also conflict with Policy 5 of the North Dorset District Local Plan Part 1 (adopted 2016) (Local Plan). This policy, amongst other things, seeks to ensure heritage assets and their setting are conserved and enhanced.

The appellant has submitted an updated Ecological Impact Assessment, dated 2025, which concludes that the proposed works will not directly impact any of the confirmed bat roosts. The assessment contains a working method statement for the avoidance of impacts to bats. The Council has acknowledged that this method statement provides the degree of detail and certainty about the nature of the impact on bat roosts at [site address] that was previously absent, to which I agree. Furthermore, the Council indicate that it is now evident that there are no direct impacts to the roosts identified, and that a mitigation licence from Natural England would not be required.

As a result, I am satisfied that sufficient evidence has been submitted regarding protected bat species. Therefore, for this main issue, I find no conflict with Policy 4 of the Local Plan, which aims to ensure development does not result in an unacceptable impact on protected species.

I have considered the comments of support from Gillingham Town Council. Nevertheless, these comments do not lead me to a different conclusion. I have determined these appeals on their own individual merit based on the evidence before me and my own observations on site.

I note the appellant’s desire to create a glazed link to avoid the need to walk through several rooms of the house. However, this does not justify the harm identified.

Appeal A: The proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole. There are no material considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal A should be dismissed.

Appeal B: For the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal B should be dismissed.