Appeal 6003498

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for loft conversion with insertion of 3 dormer windows, changes to fenestration at ground level and changes to materials at [site address] , Brasted, Kent [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02093/HOUSE subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Sevenoaks District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The development subject to this decision is substantially complete and I was able to view the development when I attended my site visit.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to whether it preserves or enhances the setting of the adjacent Brasted [site address] Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal site comprises a large, detached dwelling in a generous plot. It has various roof profiles and although located on the busy A25, due to the presence of built form and mature woodland to the west of the site, the property is largely obscured from long-range views.

The site lies outside, but close to, the [name] which encapsulates the predominantly linear settlement. This includes the [site address] (the A25) and parts of its side streets, land between the [site address] and the [name] including the lodge and part of the grounds of [name], along with [address] and part of its grounds. Its significance is derived, in part, from its rich collection of historic buildings which demonstrate how the settlement has evolved.

In the vicinity of the appeal site properties vary considerably in their scale, mass and design. Amongst other things, the Brasted Conservation Area Appraisal 2003 (CAA) notes that for most of the [site address] , buildings are set close to the pavement, providing an intimate feel to the streetscape and that landscaped frontages contribute positively to the verdant character and appearance of the locality.

The appeal site is viewed in the context of the more recent suburban housing located outside of the CA and I consider it has a neutral impact on the significance of the CA.

Interested parties submit that the appeal property should be regarded as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). The absence of the property from a local list does not mean it cannot be regarded as a NDHA with the Planning Practice Guidance establishing that NDHA’s can be identified through a number of processes including when determining applications1. Nevertheless, limited information has been presented as to why the property should be regarded as a NDHA other than that the property incorporated gable ends with elaborate fascia boards. These were not in situ at the time of my site visit. Whilst these may have been an attractive feature of the property it is understood that the property had little other architectural merit and had been extended and altered. Having considered the evidence before me I am not persuaded that the dwelling should reasonably be regarded as a NDHA.

It is a significant material consideration that there is an extant planning permission for alteration and extension at the property2. It is understood that the extant permission includes similar single storey extension in terms of its overall footprint, but that the roof profile and fenestration would differ. Although the revised roof profile of the extension would have a different appearance, the increase in height would be limited and it would maintain a part-pitched, part-flat roof, not dissimilar to its original profile. When viewed from the public highway directly opposite the site the proposal would have an increased visual prominence. Nonetheless, the position of the property relative to the streetscene means that views of the western roof profile, wherein lie the dormer windows, would be largely obscured from view by the presence of built form and mature vegetation. Consequently, it would have a very localised visual impact. Furthermore, as dwellings vary in height along [site address] the modest increased height of the property would not be unduly out of keeping.

I observed dormer windows to be prevalent in the locality, and noted them to be a feature to the front elevation of dwellings located within the boundary of the CA. Therefore, although sizeable, they are not uncharacteristic of the locality, including the CA, and therefore the dormer windows would not be an incongruous addition to the streetscene.

In respect of the external finish the proposed dwelling would have a contemporary appearance, incorporating the use of white render to its elevations. The CAA states that whilst less common slate is apparent on a range of buildings and render is also 1 Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph 040 [name]: 18a-040-20190723 2 24/03146/HOUSE mentioned as a characteristic building material. Accordingly, the external appearance of the proposal would be acceptable having regard to its immediate and wider context.

In considering the proposal I have had regard to the distinctive views, into and out of, the CA identified within the CAA. The appeal site does not lie within such views and accordingly, I am satisfied that the setting of the CA would not be harmed. In the absence of harm to a designated heritage asset the question of public benefits to outweigh any harm does not arise.

For the reasons stated, I conclude that the appeal scheme would not have a detrimental impact on character and appearance and that it would not harm the setting, and thereby the significance of, the Brasted [site address] CA. It therefore follows that I find no conflict with Policy EN1 of the [name] and Development Management Plan (SADMP) which, amongst other things, requires development to be designed to a high-quality, responding to and respecting the character of the area in which it is situated. Nor do I find conflict with Policy EN4 of the SADMP which states that proposals will be permitted where the development conserves or enhances the character, appearance and setting of the heritage asset.

The appeal site lies within the Kent Downs National Landscape (NL). A statutory duty under section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 requires me to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the NL. This duty is also reflected in the Framework that states great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL.

The proposed development is a domestic extension located within the boundary of an existing residential garden. As such, there would be no material change to the landscape character and therefore it would conserve the natural beauty of the area. The Council has not raised any concerns in this respect and even when giving great weight to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty, as set out in the Framework, I see no reason to disagree.

As the development has been substantially commenced it is not necessary to impose the standard time limit for commencement. In the interests of clarity, I shall impose a condition for the compliance with the approved drawings, which also sets out the external materials to be used in the construction of the development.

For the reasons given above, having had regard to the development plan and Framework as a whole, and taking account of all other matters, the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: SL01 P1 – Site Location Plan, PL10 P3 – [name] & First Floor Plan, PL11 P1 – Proposed Roof Plan, PL12 P3 – [name] & B, PL13 P4 – [name] and PL16 P1 – Proposed Block Plan. ***End of Schedule***