Appeal 6004104

The appeal is dismissed.

As the appeal site forms part of the setting of a number of listed buildings, I have had special regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, having special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of nearby listed buildings; the effect of the proposal on the setting of the Mayfield and [address] Conservation Area; and, the effect of the proposal on the High Weald National Landscape.

The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling, which was constructed in the mid-20th century. It is located within the High Weald National Landscape and is adjacent to the Mayfield and [address] Conservation Area (CA). The appeal site lies in an elevated position next to a junction. It is partially screened from the public realm by the existing boundary treatment, including soft landscaping. Buildings within the CA are generally of a traditional character and utilise traditional materials, which contribute to the locally distinctive character of the area.

The Mayfield and Coggins Conservation Area (CA) encompasses the medieval core of the settlement, which among other things includes a former Archbishop’s palace, [name] and the historic high street. The settlement is located on top of a ridge and has far reaching views. To the north of the appeal site is the [address], which includes a large number of historic buildings, which are of various architectural styles and periods. The significance of the CA, insofar as is relevant to this appeal derives from the high-quality historic architecture from different periods, which depicts the evolution of the village as a historic trading settlement. The CA’s ridge top location and the picturesque, rural landscape surrounding it also contribute to its significance.

To the north of the appeal site is ‘[name] by [address]; [name] and Sons, Butcher; [name], Antiques; and Country Wise Grocers’ (Ref: 1028214), which is a [name] listed building. This terrace dates back to the 18th century and is two storeys high with attic. The terrace has a half hipped, clay tiled roof and features tile hanging at first floor level. It has some later additions to the rear. Based on the evidence before me and my site visit, I find that the special interest of this listed building, insofar as is relevant to this appeal is derived from its historic and architectural interests as an illustration of architecture from the 18th century. The building’s surviving historic fabric, presence of traditional materials and the contribution that it makes to the group of historic buildings along the [address] make important contributions in these regards.

‘[address]’ is a [name]* listed building (Ref: 1193529), which dates back to the 15th century and has a 16th century wing to the rear. It is a timber framed building, which features close studding. [address] has a traditional hipped roof, which is finished with clay tiles. The building has a first floor jetty and leaded light windows. [address] extends some distance down the side of [site address] and lies on the opposite side of the lane to the appeal site. From the evidence available to me and my site visit, I find that the special interest of [address] is derived from its historic and architectural interests as an illustration of a high-status building from the 15th century. The building’s timber frame, presence of traditional materials and its pleasing architectural design contribute to its special interest.

Adjacent to [address] is ‘[address] Hotel’ (Ref: 1028215), which is a [name] listed building. [address] Hotel dates back to 1575. It is two storeys high with attic. It is described in the listing description as ‘one of the best timber-framed buildings in Sussex’. The building features ornate, circular timber detailing and close studding, with plaster infilling. The building has a gable at each end, which over sails on moulded bressummer and brackets. It is clear from the design of the building and the elaborate detailing, that this was a high-status building. Based on the evidence before me and my site visit, I find that the special interest of the [address] Hotel is derived from its historic and architectural interests as an illustration of architecture from the late 16th century. The building’s elaborate timber frame and surviving historic fabric, its use of traditional materials and its striking architectural design make positive contributions in these regards.

The special interest and significance of the aforementioned listed buildings and CA stem, in part, from their setting, including the surrounding high-quality historic environment, the distinct topography of the settlement and the attractive landscape surrounding the settlement.

The appeal site lies within the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL). The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that great weight is given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of National Landscapes. The HWNL is characterised, by among other things, the presence of dispersed settlements, including medieval villages, which feature traditional clay tiled roofs. The landscape setting of these settlements, including the rolling pastures, irregular shaped field patterns and areas of woodland all contribute to the character of the HWNL.

The existing dwelling is two storeys high and has a plain-tiled, hipped roof. It has a two storey bay on the front elevation, which has a gable and a single storey side projection. Given the building’s relatively modest size, its design, hipped roof form, the colour palette of materials and the existing screening, it is not overly prominent within the street scene. While the existing dwelling is visible in long and short distance views, it sits quietly in its plot and has an unassuming appearance. Consequently, I find that the existing dwelling makes a neutral contribution to the setting of the nearby listed buildings, the CA and the HWNL.

The proposal seeks to extend and reconfigure the existing dwelling. The appellant advises that the width of the proposed dwelling would be slightly less than the scheme previously allowed at appeal, which was for extensions and alterations to form a pair of semi-detached dwellings1. However, I am advised that the design has been completely altered. The proposal seeks to provide an Edwardian-style dwelling, with corner turret, mock-Tudor detailing and large areas of glazing.

The appellant has drawn my attention to examples of corner turrets within the [name] and in the locality. I observed a curved, corner feature on the local primary school. However, this is single storey in height and materially different in its design than the appeal scheme before me. The proposed corner turret would come closer to the lane than the existing dwelling and given its design, height and elevated position would appear as an incongruous and prominent feature, in an area which generally features more traditional style roof forms. The other examples of corner turrets before me are materially different in design to the appeal scheme and do not include an inharmonious mix of Edwardian-style architecture, with a corner turret and a mock-Tudor gable. Although the proposal would utilise locally sourced materials, I find that the proposed mix of architectural styles and mix of materials lacks architectural coherence.

The proposed turret would be visible in long and short distance views and would appear as a discordant feature at the edge of the CA. I appreciate that the appeal site does not sit on one of the principal routes that leads into and out of the historic core of the village and lies some distance away from the edge of the settlement. However, the appeal site still forms part of the setting of the CA and nearby listed buildings and the proposal’s incongruous appearance would detract from the setting of these heritage assets and how they are appreciated. The appeal site also falls within the HWNL, where traditional roof forms within historic settlements make a positive contribution to the landscape and scenic beauty of the HWNL. For the reasons set out above, I find that the inharmonious nature of the proposal would fail to preserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the HWNL.

In this case, I find that the proposal would harmfully discord with the more traditional architecture and roofscapes within the locality. I appreciate that there is a large, contemporary dwelling adjacent to the appeal site, which has a flat roof. The appeal scheme would be smaller in scale and less prominent from the public realm than the adjacent property. However, the adjacent dwelling is atypical in its design, when compared to other development in the area. There is also a car park 1 Appeal ref: APP/C14435/W/21/3274076 opposite the appeal site and to the rear of the [address] Hotel, a car sales steel framed garage and some other 19th and 20th century development in the locality. I also acknowledge that the rear curtilages of the listed buildings are more utilitarian in appearance than the principal elevations. However, I do not find that these factors, justify the harm that I have identified above.

The proposal seeks to reconstruct part of the existing boundary wall, which is constructed of concrete. The proposal would rebuild this wall, using materials to match the historic section of the wall. This element of the proposal would provide a more sensitive and coherent boundary treatment, which would result in a small enhancement to the character and appearance of the area, setting of the nearby listed buildings and CA and the HWNL. I give this element of the scheme moderate weight in my decision.

Overall, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of nearby listed buildings and the CA and the landscape and scenic beauty of the HWNL.

I find the harm to the setting of the listed buildings and CA to be ‘less than substantial’ and at the lower end of the scale. However, this should not be equated with a less than substantial planning objection and is of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the appeal scheme.

The proposal would result in investment into the property, which would result in a small economic benefit, which I give limited weight in my decision as a public benefit. The proposal would also reinstate part of the dry-stone wall along [site address] , which would improve the visual appearance of the boundary treatment along this lane, which I give moderate weight as a public benefit. While the use of traditional materials is supported, given my concerns regarding the design of the proposal I give this element limited weight in my decision.

Overall, I give the public benefits in this case moderate weight. Consequently, in attributing considerable importance and weight to the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, I find that there would be insufficient public benefits arising from the proposal to outweigh this harm.

Given the above, the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the historic development policies of the Framework. The proposal would also conflict with [name] GD1, EN6 and EN27 of the Wealden Local Plan December 1998 and Spatial Planning Objectives SPO1, SPO2 and SPO13 of the Wealden District Core Strategy Local Plan February 2013. These policies among other things seek to ensure that the intrinsic quality of the historic environment is protected, that development promotes local distinctiveness and that development conserves or enhances the natural beauty and character of the landscape.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR