Appeal 6003396

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant submitted amended proposed block plans with the appeal documentation. These show changes to the proposed parking layout and patio area. My consideration of either of the amended plans could cause procedural unfairness or prejudice to interested parties. Therefore, I have determined the appeal based on the plans considered by the Council.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the [address] Barn grade II listed building; • whether the site would be a suitable location for housing, having regard to the provisions of the development plan and the accessibility of services and facilities; and • the effect of the proposal on road user safety, with particular regard to parking arrangements.

The appeal site comprises a large barn and associated access onto [site address] . The simply designed barn has a corrugated metal roof and timber clad walls and doors, with a small glazed area on the north east side. The barn lies within a complex of former farm buildings, many of which have been converted. The site is located close to the grade II listed [address] Barn, a designated heritage asset in residential use. The proposal is to demolish part of the building and convert it to a dwelling with the introduction of garden and parking areas alongside.

The significance of [address] Barn, in so far as it relates to this appeal, is derived from its architectural interest as an 18th century or earlier barn built of Kentish ragstone with a half-hipped clay tiled roof, hipped waggon entrance and weatherboarded sides. There is some brickwork behind the ragstone at ground floor level and the openings are largely modest sized.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) defines the setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which it is experienced. [address] Barn is experienced as part of the historic farmstead complex. Despite it being more modern than the listed building, the large scale and simple form of the barn on the appeal site forms an inherent part of this complex, and this farmstead setting positively contributes to the architectural value of the listed building.

The appeal scheme would significantly reduce the size of the barn. Nonetheless, given its position relative to [address] Barn, the smaller structure would still be visually read alongside the listed building on approach along the access track and would continue to appear as part of the former farmyard. The introduction of glazed openings, solar panels, a flue, a residential garden and boundary fences, surfaced areas and parking including an electric vehicle charging point would alter the current utilitarian, agricultural context into a domestic environment.

Some glazed openings have been installed in the listed building, but these are largely modest in scale and reflect the proportions of that structure. In contrast, although no doors or windows are proposed on the trackside elevation, the proposed development would include many different openings over two levels, the pattern and sizes of which would appear wholly domestic. The extent of glazing on the gables would appear at odds with the farmyard context on approaching the building from [site address] and the wider [address] complex, particularly during hours of darkness when there would be light spill from inside the new house.

The walls would mainly comprise larch or cedar vertical timber cladding, but the grey powder coated aluminium framed openings would be in stark contrast to the proposed timber walls. The standing seam zinc roof with sizeable integrated PV solar panels would add a further modern element into this historic farm complex.

Some landscaping could screen parts of the garden. Nonetheless, cumulatively the scheme’s design, including the proposed roof and window materials and extent of openings, together with the new external surfacing, parking areas and boundaries would unacceptably change the simply designed barn into a domestic complex. This domestication of the site would harm the farmstead setting of the [address] Barn, failing to preserve the significance of the listed building.

Given the effects of the proposal and the location of the site relative to the listed building, this would be at the medium end of less than substantial harm. In this instance, Policy ENV13 of the Ashford Local Plan 2030, adopted 2019 (LP) is relevant. This states that where a development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, harm will be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Further, the Framework outlines that when considering the impact of a proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

There would be a public benefit from bringing a disused building into use as a dwelling. However, the public benefits would not outweigh the great weight to be given to the harm to the significance of the listed building caused by the appeal scheme. Thus, the proposed development would be contrary to LP Policy ENV13 and the Framework.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would harm the setting and significance of the [address] Barn grade II listed building. It would conflict with Policies SP1, SP6, ENV3a and ENV13 of the LP. Together, these seek to conserve the settings and significance of designated heritage assets, requiring proposals to positively respond to local character and have regard to the setting, scale and design of vernacular buildings, amongst other things.

Policies SP1 and SP2 of the LP set out the Council’s strategic approach to development. They seek to focus development at accessible and sustainable locations which utilise existing infrastructure, facilities and services wherever possible. Most new housing will be at and around Ashford, with development in rural areas of a scale consistent with the settlement’s accessibility and level of services, amongst other things. Windfall housing development should be consistent with this strategy and other LP policies.

The appeal site lies in the countryside around 1.6km from the centre of the nearest settlement at Pluckley and over 3km from the centre of [site address] . Policy HOU5 of the LP only allows certain types of residential windfall development in the countryside where it is not close to the built up confines of certain settlements. This includes the re-use of redundant or disused buildings where it would lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting.

The appellant states that the building has previously been used for karate lessons and courses and as residential accommodation, but there is no history of planning permission for these uses. Even though the barn is redundant as an agricultural building and currently disused, I have found that the proposal would harm the setting and significance of the listed [address] Barn. As such, it would not enhance the immediate setting and thus would conflict with Policy HOU5 of the LP.

Pluckley has a fairly wide range of services, including a primary school, post office, farm shop and train station. However, the roads between the site and Pluckley are largely unlit country lanes with no footways and subject to a 60mph speed limit. The nature of the route to access the facilities and train station at Pluckley would limit its attractiveness to those on foot, particularly for older people, those with reduced mobility or with children and at times of darkness and bad weather. As such, I consider that future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be likely to be reliant on private vehicles to access services in Pluckley and further away.

Consequently, I conclude that the site would not be a suitable location for housing, having regard to the provisions of the development plan and the accessibility of services and facilities. This would be contrary to Policy HOU5 of the LP. Although not referred to in the relevant reason for refusal, it would also conflict with Policies SP1 and SP2 of the LP.

The site is accessed via a narrow concrete track which also provides access to [name] and a parking area behind [address] Cottage. The proposal includes two parking spaces at an angle to the track.

The Council’s Residential Parking and Design Guidance SPD 2010 (SPD) outlines that open parking spaces should be 2.5m wide by 5m long. The proposed car parking spaces would meet the required width. The plans indicate that they would be a length of 4.8m, but the appellant states that if the plans are scaled the parking spaces measure 5m long. Given the inclusion of written measurements, it is not clear from the plans that the parking spaces would meet the required length, so I cannot be certain that the proposal would not result in a substandard parking arrangement. This could lead to parked cars overhanging the track, obstructing other vehicles from using this access.

Further, the angled layout of the proposed parking spaces together with the narrowness of the access track mean that drivers of vehicles would have to carry out excessive manoeuvring to exit the site in a forward gear. As the track also provides access to other properties, this would not be an appropriate arrangement.

Therefore, the proposed parking arrangements would harm road user safety. This would be contrary to Policies TRA3a and TRA7 of the LP where they seek safe traffic movements and require parking for residential development to follow the layout guidance in the SPD.

The proposed scheme is intended to provide a permanent home for an older local person with health issues who is currently living in a mobile home which is said to be cold and damp. Therefore, I have had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The duty includes having regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and advance equality of opportunity between those sharing relevant protected characteristics and those who do not. [name] am mindful of the needs of the older person, it has not been demonstrated that their needs cannot be met by a less harmful scheme. Thus, the PSED considerations do not outweigh the harm that I have identified, and following careful consideration of these matters, I am satisfied that the impact of dismissing this appeal is proportionate and justified.

The proposal would have potential impacts on the integrity of the Stodmarsh Lakes Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area and Ramsar site due to its location within the [name] catchment which feeds into the [name]. Nevertheless, there is no need to consider the implications of the proposal on the protected sites because the scheme is unacceptable for other reasons.

There is reference to pre-application advice and previous planning applications for the site. Nonetheless, I must determine the proposed scheme on its merits based on the plans before me.

The appellant expresses general dissatisfaction with the Council’s handling of this and previous applications. However, this is a matter between those parties, and it does not in this instance have any bearing on my determination of this appeal.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including living conditions, protected species, noise, flood risk and landscaping. Nevertheless, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the proposed scheme.

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