Appeal 6004118

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues raised by this appeal are: - a) The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and [site address] scene; and b) Whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Selmeston Conservation Area (the CA) and the effect of the proposed development upon the setting of the Grade II Listed Buildings of Fairland and Wheelwrights.

The frontage of the host dwelling has a degree of uniformity to its appearance with the fenestration and central entrance aligning with those older heritage properties either side of it. Its construction of brick with first floor tile hanging also reflects the materials of neighbouring properties. This has created a visually pleasing coherence to this part of [site address] scene in which the host dwelling visually assimilates with the character and appearance of its neighbouring properties. The existing porch is a predominantly glazed structure that allows views of the host property enabling this pleasing coherence to be seen and maintained.

The proposed extension would be of some considerable size and height that would obscure visibility of much of the ground floor of the existing property. It is of brick construction that would not allow for views of the existing property frontage. Those adjacent heritage buildings do not host large front extensions. As such, the proposal would harmfully disrupt the existing visual coherence that is an attractive quality of this street scene. Furthermore, given its size and height it would not appear as a subordinate addition to the front of the dwelling. Its design, including the fenestration along with the flat crown style roof with tile type sides, would not reflect the design of the existing dwelling and the would appear as an uncharacteristic and unsympathetic addition to host dwelling. Given its overall size it would also be visually prominent at the front of the property. The site’s elevated position within [site address] would accentuate the visual harm arising from the proposed development that would be visible from public vantage points.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and [site address] scene. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with [name] DC19 and EN27 of the Wealden Local Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These policies seek, amongst other matters, extensions to be of an appropriate size and character relative to the original dwelling and to not visually dominate or otherwise adversely change the character of the existing building.

The property falls within the [name]. CA designations recognise architectural characteristics and/or historic values of an area that make such areas special and worthy of CA status. The appeal property is one of those properties that forms part of the character of the CA. The appeal site therefore contributes to the significance of the CA.

The proposed development would sit within the setting of two Grade II Listed buildings, Fairland and Wheelwrights, which sit immediately to the south and north of the appeal site respectively. Their age and listed status make these properties of architectural and historic value and this attracts special interest for these reasons. This is their significance.

Although there may be separation between the neighbouring historic buildings where some existing structures and/or vegetation intervene, the appeal property is clearly read as part of the CA street scene and forms part of the setting of the listed buildings either side. This can be seen in public views from the highway and in views toward the CA, as can the site’s context with the listed buildings either side.

I have found that the proposal with its forward projection, overall size and design would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the existing dwelling and the wider street scene. Furthermore, the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA and would therefore lead to harm to its significance. The proposal would thus undermine the purposes of the CA designation. The proposed extension to Windover would be harmful adjacent to and within the setting of Fairlands and Wheelwrights and would fail to preserve the character, appearance and special interest of the adjacent listed buildings and their setting. The inappropriate location, design and form of the extension would therefore have a harmful impact on the setting of the listed buildings and therefore be harmful to their significance.

Given the size and scale of the proposal in the CA, I consider there would be less than substantial harm to the character or appearance of the CA and less than substantial harm to the setting of the Listed buildings. In accordance with the Framework, I must weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal. The proposal would provide additional living space within the property but this would be limited to providing a personal benefit for the appellant. There would be no clear benefit to the public that would sufficiently outweigh the harm identified. I conclude therefore that the proposed development would fail to accord with national policy.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of [name] and would have a harmful effect upon the setting of the Grade II Listed Buildings of Fairland and Wheelwrights. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Spatial Planning Objective SP02 of the [name] and the provisions of the Framework. That policy and the Framework seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that the intrinsic quality of the historic environment is protected.

The Council’s decision notice also includes a paragraph (paragraph 3) indicating that the local planning authority has had regard to paragraph 39 of the Framework that requires the authority to negotiate both positively and pro-actively with the applicant. The paragraph comments that the planning constraints leading to the refusal of planning permission do not appear capable of resolution without major revision to the scheme. The appellant contends that this requirement has not been met but comments that there has been communication by way of an email that suggested the proposal be withdrawn and the possibility of a side or rear extension be considered as an alternative. This is not a matter that is before me, rather it is a matter for the appellant to take up with the local planning authority separate to this appeal.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.