Appeal 6002669

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and area, having regard to the location of the site within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL) and to the significance of the building as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).

Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 requires that regard be had to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. I am also conscious of my duty under Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area.

[site address] is a well-presented converted oast house that sits within a large plot. The building displays a strong agricultural design and form, which along with features including the external materials and double roundel, contribute to its aesthetic quality. The building utilises a moderate amount of glazing and its roof form is hipped on one end, while the other end is half-hipped. The significance of the NDHA is therefore derived in part from its legibility as a former historic agricultural building set within the largely rural environment of the HWNL.

The special qualities of the HWNL include historic farmsteads, routeways and field boundaries set in a mosaic of fields interspersed by woodlands and hedges. The HWNL includes a sense of tranquillity and dark skies, as well as locally distinctive historic buildings such as oast houses. The appeal building, due to largely retaining its appearance and form as a former agricultural building that utilises traditional materials, positively contributes to the landscape and scenic beauty of the HWNL.

The proposal would be an oak-framed, lightweight and articulated structure which would read as a proportionate addition to its host. However, the proposal’s design with substantial amounts of glazing, including a large sky lantern and bi-fold doors, would fail to reflect the window to wall ratio of its host and would lead to a more domestic appearance that would relate poorly to the character of its host. Moreover, the extension would have a mock pitched roof with a section of flat roof, which would appear markedly at odds with the roof form of the existing building.

Overall, due to its uncharacteristic roof form, large areas of glazing and appearance, the extension would lack cohesion with the established composition of its host, such that it would appear as a discordant addition. As a consequence, the proposal would detract from the largely retained agricultural character and appearance of the host building. Therefore, in my judgement, the extension would appear as an incongruous addition would harm the legibility of the NDHA and dilute its significance.

The areas of glazing, while letting natural light into the room they serve, would also have the potential to increase levels of light spill in the hours of darkness. However, there is no compelling evidence before me to suggest that these would not be proportionate to the use of the site as a residential property. However, this would not justify the harm to the host building by reason of design.

The existing vegetation along [name] would limit public views towards the proposal. In this case, however, the quality of the HWNL includes the locally distinctive oast houses and its dark skies. Although the proposal would be sited within an established plot and would protect the dark skies, since its design would dilute the agrarian appearance of the building, the HWNL would be harmed in this case.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies. [name] have not been directed to any policy pertaining to the amount of glazing, for the reasons set out above the design of the extension before me would harm the legibility and form of the historic building and would not maintain its agricultural character, contrary to local policies. The harm would be significant.

The appellant asserts that sky lanterns are common design features in barn conversions, but I have not been directed to any specific example. Consequently, I do not find that this factor provides compelling evidence to support this appeal.

Thus, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and area, including HWNL and the significance of the NDHA, contrary to Policies OSS4, RA3, RA4, EN1 and EN3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy 2014, Policies DHG9, DEN1 and DEN2 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan 2019 and Policies HD4, HD5, EN3, EN4 and EN5 of the Battle Civil Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2019-2028 (2021). Amongst other things, these policies require new development to be of high design quality, seek to ensure the retention of the legibility of historic farm buildings, the protection of non-designated Heritage Assets, to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the HWNL, and support extensions that respect and respond positively to the details, overall design, and character and appearance of their host.

The scheme would be acceptable in terms of other factors, including living conditions and highways. However, these are neutral factors that neither weigh for or against the development.

Whereas the proposal may support the long-term viability of the dwelling, I am not persuaded that the scheme before me is the sole means to achieve this.

Brede Parish Council supports the proposal, but this does not alter my findings above regarding the identified harm.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.