Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 23 June 2010 ______

Application Number 10/00393/AS

Location Gate House, Swan Lane, Little Chart, Ashford, TN27 0PT

Grid Reference 94548/45813

Parish Council Little Chart

Ward Weald Central

Application Single storey extension for a kitchen breakfast room with Description glazed entrance link

Applicant Mr. A. Higgins, Gate House, Swan Lane, Little Chart, Ashford, Kent TN27 0PT

Agent Mr. Brackenbury, 29 Scotton Street, Wye, Ashford, Kent, TN25 5BU

Site Area 0.6738 Hectare

(a) 2/1S (b) X (c)

Introduction

1. This application is reported to the Planning Committee at the request of one of the Ward Members, Cllr. Mrs Bell.

Site and Surroundings

2. The application property is a detached grade II listed property that is located outside of the built confines of Little Chart within the countryside. It is described in the list description as

“L-shaped building with an early C19 exterior. Two storeys red brick with grey headers. Tiled roof. Two windows facing east, four windows facing north. Dering windows. Eaves cornice of brick cogging, 2 shaped Dutch gables facing east and one facing north, all with chimney attic windows. Similar gable end to the west.”

3. The property is also located within Little Chart Conservation Area. The site lies within the Greensand Fruit Belt landscape character area where the emphasis is on conserving the rural landscape. 9.1 - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 23 June 2010 ______

4. Site location plans are attached to this report as Annex 1.

Proposal

5. Planning permission is sought for the erection of an extension and glazed link to the south elevation of the property. The glazed link projects from the rear of the property by 2m and is 3.1m wide. The extension projects a further 6.2m from the glazed link and is 4.1m wide. The total projection of the extension from the listed building is 8.2m. The extension will be of a brick construction with a pitched plain clay tiled roof. The link will be glazed with a flat lead rolled roof and vertical boarded Oak door to the east elevation. An existing conservatory located to the rear elevation will also be removed.

Figure 1: Proposed

Figure 2: Proposed Elevations

9.2 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 23 June 2010 ______

Planning History

6. 2009 - Planning permission was refused by the Planning Committee for the erection of an orangery to the south elevation. This application was refused for the following reasons;

(i) The proposed orangery by virtue of its size, bulk, length, siting and design would result in a visually prominent and incongruous structure in relation to the listed building resulting in harm to its historic plan form and reading. This would in turn harm the character and appearance of the Listed Building to its detriment.

(ii) For the reasons set out in (1) above the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Little Chart Conservation Area.

7. 2005 - Planning permission was granted for a single storey extension to the south elevation to replace the existing conservatory although this permission has not been implemented.

Consultations

Ward Members: One of the Ward Members, Councillor Mrs Bell, has requested that the application be determined by the Planning Committee. No comments have been received from the other Ward Member.

Portfolio Holder – Development Management: made the following comments on the application:

“It seems to me at this stage that one important consideration for the committee will be whether the development causes substantial harm to the historic or architectural significance of the building, including its setting. I note that the official list description refers to the ‘L’ shape of the building and the east elevation including the Dering windows. It appears to me from the application plans that there will be a degree of change to the appearance of the east elevation, and the cat slide roof at the rear, as well as the historic form and shape of the building, and the setting of the listed building. The report indicates that the development will be visible from public positions. I note that the new development projects some 8m out from the existing rear wall of the house. I expect that the committee will have, amongst other matters, carefully to assess the scale of the impact arising from the development on the significant aspects of the listed building and its setting, whether the existing ground floor accommodation in the house appears adequate, and whether any harmful impact to the significant aspects of the listed building is convincingly justified.”

9.3 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 23 June 2010 ______

Little Chart Parish Council: raised no objection but wished for the arched windows on the extension to exactly match those on the rear of the main dwelling and that ABC had not fully considered justification given following the pre application advice.

Neighbours: 2 neighbours directly consulted: 1 letter of support received stating that the extension would be a sympathetic extension to the existing house and minimise loss of original structure.

Planning Policy

8. The Development Plan comprises the Regional Spatial Strategy (The South East Plan, May 2009), the saved policies in the adopted Ashford Borough Local Plan 2000, the adopted LDF Core Strategy 2008 and the adopted Ashford Town Centre Action Area Plan 2010.

9. The relevant policies from the Development Plan relating to this application are as follows:-

South East Plan 2009

CC1 – Sustainable Development

BE6 – Management of the Historic Environment

Ashford Borough Local Plan 2000

GP12 – Protecting the countryside and managing change

EN16 – Development in Conservation Areas

HG9 – Extensions to dwellings in the countryside

Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008

CS1 – Guiding Principles

CS9 – Design Quality

10. The following are also material to the determination of this application:-

Tenterden & Rural Sites DPD

TRS17 – Landscape Character and Design

9.4 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 23 June 2010 ______

Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG10 – Domestic Extensions in Urban and Rural Areas

Government Advice

PPS1 – Delivering sustainable development

PPS5 – Planning and the historic environment

PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

11. Members should note that the & Rural Sites DPD should be given some weight when making a decision as it has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for examination but where the policy conflicts with the Development Plan, the Development Plan takes precedence unless this report advises otherwise.

Assessment

12. The main issues for consideration are:

• The impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the listed building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and wider rural landscape • Residential Amenity

Impact of the Development upon the Character and Appearance of the Listed Building and the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area and Wider Rural Landscape

13. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that:

“In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.”

14. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states:

“In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any powers under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the 9.5 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 23 June 2010 ______

desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.”

15. Paragraph HE9.1 of Planning Policy Statement 5 under policy HE9 states that:

“There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Once lost, heritage assets cannot be replaced and their loss has a cultural, environmental, economic and social impact. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional.”

16. The listed building has a strong linear plan form with three stories to the east, west and part of the north elevation emphasising the strong vertical proportions of the listed building. The listed building has an imposing cat slide to the rear elevation. The proposed extension and glazed link project from the middle of the rear elevation of the property by 8.2m and create a defined T shape to the property. This T shape would cause significant disruption to the strong linear plan form of the historic building and it introduces a form to the listed building that has never been present on the property.

17. The size, scale and bulk of the extension would result in an unsympathetic addition to the listed building. The extension projects significantly from the listed building and is sprawling. The incorporation of a link and outbuilding style structure results in the extension appearing unrelated to the listed building. A successful extension sits comfortably in juxtaposition with the listed building and linked extensions rarely achieve this aim. The extension would constitute an unnatural evolution of the historic building that is unsympathetic to the historic plan form/orientation of the listed building as the sole intention of a link is to limit the direct contact of the extension with the historic building, thus limiting loss of fabric. The linked outbuilding design has not been informed by the historic character of the existing building. The scheme introduces a new design element that is alien to this listed building.

18. The extension permitted in 2005 did not have the same impact as the proposed extension. The 2005 extension projected from the listed building by a similar length as a two story projection to the north elevation of the property which balanced the two projections on the property. This did not impact significantly the historic plan form of the property. The 2005 extension incorporated a cat slide roof from the hipped roof of the main dwelling which is a traditional feature of listed buildings in the area. The design of the extension 9.6 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 23 June 2010 ______

was sensitive to the property minimising its impact on the plan form of the property. While the permitted extension would have resulted in the concealment of a section of wall, the overall design had less impact on the plan form of the property and did not appear as a visually prominent and unsympathetic addition. I attach copies of the plans in appendix 2.

19. An existing conservatory is proposed to be removed from the property. This structure is more lightweight in appearance and with its limited projection does not deviate strongly from the plan form of the existing building. However its removal will provide a visual benefit as it is visible from the Conservation Area and unsympathetic in material and design.

20. Owing to the position of the property in relation to the road the proposed link extension will be clearly visible from the public realm and will have a greater visual impact than the lightweight greenhouse structure owing to its bulk, size and orientation at right angles to the listed building. The proposed development would fail to preserve the character, appearance and reading of the listed building and the development would harm the visual amenity of the surrounding area and Conservation Area in which the property is located.

21. In terms of justification for the proposal the agent states that the scheme will provide additional space for which there is a great need, however the plans show the current kitchen to be within a space of approximately 21m2 whilst the extension would provide a new kitchen of only 19m2 (internal dimensions); the existing kitchen would then become a hallway. The shape of the existing kitchen is unorthodox and potentially awkward and the proposed extension provides a more user friendly rectangular space with flat walls, but I do not consider that a ‘need’ has been robustly justified; there is apparently sufficient space already provided by the existing building and the new kitchen would provide less floor area than the existing. Policy HE 9.1 of PPS5 clearly states that alterations which cause loss of significance require ‘clear and convincing justification’. I do not consider that this application has adequately demonstrated why the alteration is necessary for the continued conservation of the building.

Residential Amenity

22. The nearest residential property is located on the opposite side of the road from the application site. Therefore there are no residential properties in close proximity that are likely to be affected by the proposed development.

Human Rights Issues

23. I have also taken into account the human rights issues relevant to this application. In my view the “Assessment” section above and the Recommendations below represent an appropriate balance between the 9.7 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 23 June 2010 ______

interests and rights of the applicant (to enjoy his land subject only to reasonable and proportionate controls by a public authority) and the interests and rights of those potentially affected by the proposal (to respect for private life and the home and peaceful enjoyment of their properties).

Summary

15. The main issues in this case are:-

(a) The impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the listed building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and wider rural landscape (policies CC1, BE6, GP12, TRS17, EN16, HG9, CS1 and CS9). The scheme would result the creation of a T shaped extension to the property harming the exiting plan form of the property. The size, scale and bulk of the extension would result in an unsympathetic addition to the listed building. The glazed link and extension would appear unrelated to the listed building and has not been informed by the historic character of the existing building. The removal of the conservatory would provide a visual benefit however the link and extension would be clearly visible from the Conservation Area resulting in harm to it and the visual amenity of the area.

(b) Residential amenity (policy CS1). There are no residential properties in close proximity that will be detrimentally affected by the proposed development.

Recommendation

That for the following reasons the Planning Committee refuse this application:

Refuse

On the following grounds:

The proposed development is contrary to policies CC1 and BE6 of the Regional Spatial Strategy (The South East Plan, May 2009), policies GP12, EN16 and HG9 of the Ashford Borough Local Plan 2000, policies CS1 and CS9 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy July 2008, adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 10 entitled "Domestic Extensions in Urban and Rural Areas" and PPS1, PPS5 and PPS7 and is therefore considered development harmful to interests of acknowledged planning importance for the following reason:

1. The linked extension by reason of its size, bulk, length, design and position, being at right angles to the main body of the listed building, would result in a visually prominent and incongruous structure in relation to the listed building 9.8 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 23 June 2010 ______

resulting in harm to its historic plan form and reading. This would in turn be detrimental to the setting of the listed building and its special architectural and historic interest.

2. Insufficient justification has been presented to demonstrate that the existing building in its current form cannot provide the level of accommodation reasonably required.

3. For the reason set out in (1) above the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Little Chart Conservation Area.

Background Papers

Parish Council comments dated 21 April 2010 S. Rivolta comments dated 13 April 2010 Site location plan received 22 March 2010

Contact Officer: Doz Robinson Telephone: (01233) 330 266

9.9 ______Page 1ofAnnex 1toReport 10/00393/AS Planning Committee2010 June23 Ashford Borough Council

9.10

______Page 2ofAnnex 1toReport 10/00393/AS Planning Committee2010 June23 Ashford Borough Council

9.11