Appeal 6004214

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

As the proposal relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve a [name] listed building, known as ‘Dawkins’ (Ref: 1107941), and any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

Dawkins is a detached, two storey dwelling, with attic. It is a [name] listed building, which dates back to around the 17th century and has later additions. The appeal property is a timber-framed building, which features white, weatherboarding on the ground floor, with tile hanging above. The building has a clay tiled roof, with two dormers on the front elevation. The front of the building displays a sense of symmetry. There is a single-storey projection to the side of the property and a two storey projection to the rear. The appeal property also has a modern, single storey rear projection, which is constructed of brick and has a mansard-style roof. Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6004214 and Appeal B: 6004213

Based on my site visit and the evidence before me, I find that the listed building’s special interest insofar as is relevant to these appeals is derived from its historic and architectural interests as an illustration of domestic architecture from the 17 th century. The building’s surviving historic fabric, its timber frame and its pleasing architectural design make important contributions in these regards.

The proposal seeks consent to extend the existing single storey rear projection and for some internal alterations. The existing rear projection extends across a large part of the rear elevation. It is modern in its design and the mansard-style roof contrasts with the more traditional roof forms found on the historic part of the building. However, given the limited depth of the existing extension it has a minimal impact on the historic building.

The proposal would be subservient in terms of its height and the provision of white weatherboarding would be in keeping with the materials found on the principal part of the dwelling. Nevertheless, the existing white, brickwork does not discord with the other materials found on the listed building. In combination with the existing single storey rear projection, the proposal, by reason of its increase in depth, would result in an extension that would fail to be subordinate to the host building. The provision of a veranda/pergola to the rear would accentuate this impact further. The proposal would also extend the mansard-style roof. The extension of this unsympathetic feature would cause harm to the special interest of the listed building. The extent of glazing proposed would also harmfully contrast with the smaller and more domestic scale of fenestration found on the host property.

The proposal would create a large, open plan living area, which would contrast with the more domestic scale plan form of the historic core of the building. The proposal also includes some internal alterations, including the removal of a small section of wall between the hall and utility room. It is unclear from the evidence before me and my site visit, whether this section of wall contains any historic fabric. Accordingly, the proposal may also result in the loss of historic fabric, which would further add to the harm that I have identified.

I appreciate that the proposal would be sited on the rear elevation of the building and only glimpses of the extension would be visible from the public domain. Nevertheless, listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public views of the building can be gained.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal scheme would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Given the nature and extent of the proposal, I find the harm to the special interest of the listed building 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 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

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 provide enhance living conditions, through additional internal floorspace, improved levels of natural daylight, improved accessibility and Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6004214 and Appeal B: 6004213 would allow greater views of the garden, which the appellant argues would improve the wellbeing of the occupants. However, these are largely private benefits.

The appellant considers that the existing extension is substandard, particularly in terms of energy efficiency and that the rear wall is in a poor condition and needs replacing. There would be a small environmental benefit from the reduction in use of artificial lighting and the provision of water butts, which I give limited weight in my decision. However, there is no substantive evidence before me in respect to the environmental credentials of the proposal and any savings in carbon emissions that would flow to the public at large are likely to be minimal. There is also no condition survey before me in respect to the brickwork or why it is necessary for it to be replaced. Furthermore, there is no clear and convincing justification before me that similar benefits in respect to enhanced levels of daylight or improving the thermal performance of the existing rear projection could not be achieved by other means.

There is also no compelling evidence that the optimum viable use of the asset as a dwelling would cease in the absence of the proposal. As a result, I do not find the appeal scheme necessary to secure the viability and long-term conservation of the building.

Overall, I give the public benefits limited weight in my decision. Consequently, in attributing great weight to the harm that would be caused to the significance of the designated heritage asset, I find that there are insufficient public benefits arising from the appeal scheme to outweigh this harm.

Given the above, I conclude that, on balance, the appeal scheme fails to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Accordingly, it fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the historic environment policies of the Framework. The appeal scheme conflicts with Policies HOU8 and ENV13 of the Ashford Local Plan 2030, adopted February 2019. These policies among other things require that proposals preserve or enhance the heritage assets of the Borough and that extensions are suitable in terms of their size and scale in relation to the existing dwelling.

The appellant has drawn my attention to examples of single storey extensions that have been approved at other listed buildings in the borough.1 Full details of the circumstances of the other schemes are not before me and I therefore give them limited weight in my decision.

I appreciate that no objections were received from local residents or the Parish Council; however, this does not alter my findings set out above. The appellant also raises concerns that the Council did not visit the property or submit an appeal statement. However, I find that the Council’s concerns are clearly set out on the decision notices and within the Officer’s reports.

Appeal A: The appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, that would 1 Application refs: PA/2024/0588, 17/01437/AS and 13/00097/AS. Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6004214 and Appeal B: 6004213 outweigh that conflict. Therefore, for the reasons given above, Appeal A should be dismissed.

Appeal B: For the reasons given above, Appeal B should be dismissed.