Appeal 6004898

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the host property. • The effect of the proposed development on the setting of listed buildings.

The appeal property forms part of a cluster of buildings in this rural area, having originally been more closely associated with the [site address] buildings to the east which are now in residential use. There is a separate access to [site address] from [site address] .

I am informed the property was substantially modified, extended and rebuilt in 1980s. The dwelling is orientated towards its large garden, away from the collection of former farm buildings. Nevertheless, the historical link between the building and the wider farmstead is still evident in views towards the appeal site, due to the close grouping of buildings and the clear historic function of each building within that group; an historic function that is still evident with [site address] notwithstanding the rebuilding works. This relationship between the buildings and their individual forms provides an illustration of the agricultural origins of the collection of buildings. The property itself also still has clear historic form as an oast house building, and is identified by the Council as a non-designated heritage asset with the significance of the building arising from its appearance, historic function and grouping with the farmstead.

The proposed development would see a single storey extension projecting westwards from [site address] , providing a new indoor swimming pool in the location of an existing outdoor swimming pool. There would also be an extension on the southern side of the house. This swimming pool extension would be a very substantial addition to the house. The footprint is large, with a length and depth comparable to that of the existing property. The extension would project away from the house into the current open, undeveloped area.

The design incorporates a large crown roof over much of the extension, with extensive glazing to the elevations in the extension building and the link to the house. These are design elements that do not draw on the character and form of the oast house building, or the nearby farmstead buildings, and emphasise the large scale of this single storey projection.

It is the combination of the above aspects of the proposal when taken together that leads to the extension appearing an addition of excessive size and inappropriate design. The extension to the property and the large pool building would not relate well to the host building and be significantly harmful to the wider rural area.

Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure new development is visually attractive and is sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. Policy HOU8 of the Ashford Local Plan 2030 (adopted 2019) requires residential extensions to be suitable in size, scale and materials to the existing dwelling, and that they should not result in significant harm to the overall character and appearance of the area. Paragraph 216 of the Framework further states that effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account, and a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm to significance.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development would not satisfy the requirements of Policy HOU8. It would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and the host property. The scale, position and design of the extension would thus also be an adverse effect on the building as a non-designated heritage asset, and my judgement is there would be harm to the significance of the property. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Policy HOU8 and the Framework.

Within the grouping of buildings to the east are two designated heritage assets, namely the listed buildings of [name] and an adjoining barn. These are both in residential use with associated gardens, and retain their form and appearance as noted in the list descriptions. The significance of those buildings derives from the traditional construction and use of materials, the original function of the buildings still being evident, and the setting of the buildings within a group of what can be seen as an original farmstead.

Under s66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 I have a duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building. The appeal site forms part of the setting to those listed buildings due to its close proximity and grouping of buildings, and the site plays a positive role in this setting through the oast house and the open land adjoining indicating the historic relationship with the farmstead group.

I have commented above that the design, siting and scale of the extension would not relate appropriately to the host building or the surrounding area. In addition, the scale of the addition and the projection into the open area, would notably increase the spread of development away from the current grouping of farmstead buildings. When combined with the design of the extension, this scale would unduly impose into the setting of the nearby listed buildings. This would be harmful to the significance of those heritage assets.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets, and paragraph 213 says any harm to significance should require clear and convincing justification. I attach considerable importance and weight to this harm. That harm would be less than substantial and so, in accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework, must be considered against the public benefit of the proposal.

The proposed works are private benefits for an existing dwelling which, for the reasons given, are unacceptable. I therefore conclude that there are no public benefits arising from the proposed works that would outweigh the harm identified. The proposals would thus be contrary to the NPPF and to Policy ENV13 of the Local Plan, which states that development will not be permitted where it will cause loss or substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets or their settings, unless it can be demonstrated there are substantial public benefits.

My overall conclusion is that the proposal would conflict with the Framework and with the development plan as a whole. The appeal is dismissed.