Appeal 6006493

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).

The appeal concerns a detached property located within countryside as designated in the Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan Review (LPR) 2021-2038 and originally built as a school hall serving as a classroom with an attached teacher’s house. The stone plaque on the building indicates that it dates from 1865. In the Appellant’s Heritage Statement (HS) it is explained that educational use continued until the 1950s since when it has been used solely as a dwelling. Although not recorded on a local list of designated heritage assets, consistent with the approach outlined within the Planning Practice Guidance, the Council identified the building as being a NDHA when considering a previous planning application to that the subject of this appeal.

It is indicated in the HS that education in the late 19th century was a mandatory element of upbringing regularised by the 1870 Education Act. This established a national framework for delivering equal education across the country. It is suggested that the date of construction of the property might indicate the need for a local school to facilitate this social reform.

The Council’s Conservation Officer indicates that the historic context suggests the school may have been built to replace an earlier school room at nearby [address], giving it greater significance. It is pointed out that many rural Victorian schools have been lost so that these have become quite special with few remaining intact and this is not disputed.

Both the house and attached former school hall have stone walls with brick dressings. The two storey house has a highly symmetrical main elevation. The hall has a noticeably linear and elongated plan form, reflected in the fairly extensive tiled roof. In consequence, these buildings have a particularly striking and distinctive appearance.

The house has been extended to the rear, firstly at ground floor then above this. This is a relatively large overall addition, with the ridge rising above that of the original property. However, the use of brick and hanging tile facing materials clearly distinguishes it so that the extent of the original parts remain readily apparent and legible. In all the above circumstances, I consider the historic and architectural significance of the NDHA to be higher than merely medium as suggested in the HS.

The proposed dormer addition in the east elevation of the former school hall would have its window entirely in the roof above eaves level. The existing dormer in this part has a fairly deep opening that only rises to a relatively modest degree above the eaves level. This reflects the intention that the new window would enable the introduction of first floor accommodation. In the context of the host roof and building, I consider that the roof addition would have an unduly domesticating effect significantly detracting from the appreciation of its former use.

Moreover, rather than being appropriately subordinate and reflecting the existing dormer, it would rise relatively close to the ridge of the roof. It would also be of a noticeably greater scale and bulk than the existing feature with an appreciably wider face. Despite aligning with the door below, the result would be an overly complicated and cluttered roofscape, unduly detracting from the simple, vernacular character of the building.

Other alterations in the overall proposal include the replacement of windows. The high level nature of the three windows in the east elevation with the amount of wall below are an attractive feature. Their elongation would further increase the sense of domestication and unduly detract from and compete with the importance of the window under the dormer.

The alterations to the window at the northern end of the former school hall would reasonably reflect that at the other end of the building. With the exception of the dormer addition and three windows in the hall considered above, all the other alterations would be acceptable. However, their effect on the character and appearance of the NDHA would be neutral.

The HS includes several photographs showing examples of school architecture. These buildings vary significantly in matters such as their scale, bulk and appearance. It is suggested that dormer additions are a common feature of school architecture. However, they are not found in all these buildings and where they are there is significant variation in the number of such features. In consequence, this matter lends no meaningful support to the appeal and tends to illustrate the reasonably unique nature of such buildings.

I saw at my site visit that the adverse impact of the dormer addition would be readily apparent over the frontage vegetation when looking towards the site from [site address] due to the elevated position of the building. There are no pavements on this road but also relatively little traffic and this constitutes a public viewpoint to which some weight should be afforded.

Due to the above factors, rather than there being a negligible impact the development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the building thus appreciably diminishing its architectural and historic significance.

The Appellant suggests that most of the alterations proposed could be implemented under permitted development rights. However, even if this included the three windows in the east elevation, the fallback position put forward by the Appellant would not include the unacceptable dormer addition. In consequence, the appeal scheme would have an appreciably more harmful impact than the fallback position.

The economic benefits from the construction of the proposal would be fairly modest given the nature and size of the development. There is no detailed evidence to show that the additional accommodation and alterations would remedy any significant deficiency or of there being any particularly adverse consequences were the appeal not successful.

In these circumstances and despite more efficient use being made of the site by an upward extension, which is supported by Paragraph 125 e) of the Framework, this matter is afforded relatively little weight. Mention is also made in the HS of improved thermal performance but this is not quantified. In the above circumstances, the harm that would arise clearly outweighs other considerations

There would be conflict with [name] ENV1, LPRSP14(B), LPRSP15, LPRHOU11 and LPRQD4. Among other things and taken together, these intend that development should achieve a high quality of design sympathetic to the existing building, have no significant adverse effect on the form and appearance of the building and conserve the significance of heritage assets. The tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework should be applied, including a balanced judgement in relation to NDHAs.

The proposal would also be contrary to the Council’s Residential Extensions, Supplementary Planning Document 2009, where it is indicated that extensions to dwellings in the countryside which have been converted from buildings originally in non-residential use will not normally be permitted where this would have an unacceptable impact on the original form and character of the building.

This is a case where harm would arise in relation to heritage matters and there would be conflict with the development plan. Moreover, there are no material considerations that would justify reaching a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.