Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 09 February 2011 ______

Application Number 10/01458/AS

Location Green Farm, Church Lane, Shadoxhurst, Ashford, Kent, TN26 1LS

Grid Reference 97130/37640

Parish Council Shadoxhurst

Ward Weald South

Application Change of use of land from agricultural to domestic, Description leisure use, construction of a new timber framed barn to serve as a domestic and equestrian outbuilding ancillary to the farmhouse

Applicant Mr and Mrs Richmond-Coggan, Green Farm, Church Lane, Shadoxhurst, Ashford, TN26 1LS

Agent Judith Norris & Associates, Wordsworth House. High Street, Ticehurst, East Sussex, TN5 7BQ

Site Area 0.1 hectares

(a) 3/4S,2+ (b) S (c) EH - X

Introduction

1. This application is reported to the Planning Committee at the request of one of the Ward Members, Councillor Mrs Hicks, who is a Member of the Planning Committee. Site and Surroundings

2. The site is located outside of the built confines of the village of Shadoxhurst for the purposes of Development Control. Part of the site is within the designated Shadoxhurst Conservation Area and all of it is part of the Shadoxhurst Wooded Farmlands Landscape Character Area whereby the planning guidelines seek to ensure the conservation and reinforcement of the special landscape character.

3. The site is adjacent to the applicants other land which includes the farmhouse and approximately 10 hectares of farmland and woodland. This was once part of a much larger farming enterprise however the original farmyard has been separated in ownership in recent years with the one remaining agricultural 6.1 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 09 February 2011 ______

building (a pole barn) having been removed from the site in 2009 by the applicants due to its poor state of repair. The proposed development would be located in the same position as this earlier building.

4. The applicants dwelling, Green Farmhouse which is located approximately 28 metres north of the site is a grade II listed building and is described in the listing as:

‘Formerly the King's Arms Inn. An L-shaped timber-framed building, refaced with red brick on the ground floor and with fishscale tiles above. Two storeys and attics. Tiled roof, the west front having 3 gabled dormers. The west front has 3 sashes without glazing bars. The north front has casement windows. Both fronts have a porch with a shaped Dutch gable in which is a cartouche with the crest of the Toke family, formerly of Godinton, Great Chart’.

5. The dwelling and the associated land around it (including the application site) are positioned in a prominent location being sited on the corner of Duck Lane and Church Lane. Given this, together with the relatively flat topography and the low level and somewhat transparent boundary treatments, the application site is significantly visible from public vantage points and the wider Conservation Area.

6. The Conservation Area is focused on the historic core of Shadoxhurst and is centred round the junction of The Street, Duck Lane and Church Lane. Apart from the Church itself, the buildings contained within the Conservation Area are dwellings within sizeable plots. Approximately half of the buildings are Listed. Given that Green Farm is in the Conservation Area and its once associated barn is just outside of the Conservation Area and very visible from it due to the open nature of the site, this site is considered to be sensitive, both in terms of the setting of the listed building, but also in relation to the adjoining Conservation Area.

7. Site location plans are depicted below.

Figure 1: Site Location Plan (scale 1:20,000) 6.2 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 09 February 2011 ______

Conservation Area boundary

Figure 2: Site Location Plan (scale 1:1250) Proposal

8. Full planning permission is sought for the change of use of land from agricultural to domestic/leisure use and the erection of a detached outbuilding. The building which would measure 26 metres x 7.3 metres with a 6 metre high ridge would be located on an area of recently constructed hardstanding. The building would be erected from timber frame and finished with a clay tile roof and horizontal oak boarding above a brick plinth.

9. A partially erected structure is already in situ on the site (some timber framing), this relates to a previously refused application for a barn applied for under the agricultural prior notification procedure (see application 10/00867/AS in the planning history section of this report).

10. The proposed new outbuilding would provide covered parking for two cars, a log store, domestic storage/workshop, stables, tack/ancillary equestrian storage, hay storage and a tractor and machinery store.

11. Plans of the proposed development are shown below.

6.3 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 09 February 2011 ______

Figure 3: Floor plan and elevation

Figure 4: Rear and side elevations

12. The applicant has submitted information in support of the scheme which can be summarised as follows: 6.4 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 09 February 2011 ______

• When the house was purchased by the applicants it was in a state or disrepair and neglect. Most of the Conservation Area looked like a dump site.

• Over the last two years the applicants have restored the house and taken a proactive approach to managing the holdings land which included the clearance of building materials, rubbish and weeds. The applicants are also starting to manage the woodland.

• During these extensive works to the house and land, the applicants became concerned about the condition and safety of the barn and took the decision to take it down. The barn would have been repaired rather than taken down had the applicants realised that there would have been doubt over its reinstatement. At the time the applicants were working on the house and didn’t have the time or focus to deal with the barn.

• The applicants originally felt that the rules around permitted development and barn buildings would allow for a barn (see 10/00867/AS). When this decision was issued by the Council stating that planning permission was required they were on holiday but had already lined up our builders, hence the barn had been started. Upon their return, the applicants realised that this barn was too big and imposing.

• Green Farm has no outbuildings which is impractical for day to day living.

• In total the applicants own 25 acres of pasture and woodland. This is being run as a smallholding.

• The site is the only area within the garden that isn’t in the Conservation Area and is the only sensible area to reinstate the barn.

• The field next to the residential curtilage has two public footpaths running through it. Farm machinery would therefore not be safe as there is a history of theft and other damage in the Shadoxhurst Area.

• Research has shown that historically there was a building or enclosure on the application site as long ago as 1838. An 1870’s map also depicts a building on the footprint of the proposed barn.

• The applicants own a tractor and topper and will be having hay next year. An amenity barn that fulfils all of these purposes and also provides garaging and workshop (for the house and the farm) is the right answer. The amount of hay storage reflects the requirements of 6.5 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 09 February 2011 ______

two horses through the winter. The hay would be made from the applicants own land and any excess would be sold

• The building’s timber structure and the nearby overhead lines and pond provide an ideal habitat to encourage the nesting of swifts and swallows which have been in recent decline. A bat enclosure would be included the northern end of the building which would allow for bats to roost.

• The building would not impact upon the significance of the house or the site in general but would enhance the setting of the listed building.

• The proposed external materials and design of the building are sympathetic to the setting of the listed building and in terms of shape and size, one larger building is better than two smaller buildings.

• The site although outside of the Conservation Area is highly visible from the street within the Conservation Area.

• The barn would provide a valuable screen of the view of the unattractive block and asbestos building (ex racing stables) behind the site. Planning History

The site’s most recent and relevant planning history is listed below:

09/00317/AS – Listed building consent granted for alterations to the house including the stripping and re-fixing of the roof and wall hanging tiles and insulation.

09/00318/AS – Listed building consent granted for the replacement of the ground floor with a new insulated concrete floor, damp proofing and under floor heating (part retrospective).

09/00367/AS – Planning application withdrawn for the restoration, refurbishment and remodelling of listed Grade II farmhouse to include 1 new window and replacement windows

09/00714/AS – Listed building consent refused for the re-instatement of oak boarding and framework along chimney stack wall, the construction of a new brick plinth and replacement the sole plate and the installation of a new oak post to the end of the existing dais beam.

09/00634/AS – Planning application disposed of as undetermined for the conversion of barn (previous pole barn) to B1 (office use), a small holiday let annex, garage with

6.6 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 09 February 2011 ______

workshop and stabling. The barn was demolished during the course of this application.

10/00867/AS – An application for agricultural prior notification refused for the construction of a new agricultural building. This building was proposed to be located in the same location as the building currently being considered. The application was considered unacceptable by virtue of the design and scale of the building together with the fact that no evidence was submitted demonstrating a genuine need for agriculture.

10/00966/AS – Listed building consent granted for the erection of a single storey extension to house heat exchanger. (Retrospective application)

10/01447/AS - Application for Lawful Development Certificate confirming planning permission would not be required for the proposed erection of a single storey rear extension.

10/01449/AS – Listed building consent granted for the erection of a single storey extension to the farmhouse. Consultations

Ward Members:

One of the Ward Members Councillor Mrs Hicks, who is a Member of the Planning Committee, has requested that the application be considered by the Planning Committee. The other Ward Member, Councillor Davison, is also a member of the Planning Committee.

Portfolio Holder – Development Management: comments

“My initial thoughts at this early stage are as follows. This site should be regarded as very sensitive in my view, given the presence of the listed building and the conservation area. The building proposed is I think very large. It would appear it seems as a domestic outbuilding and not like an agricultural building. I share officers’ concerns about the quality of the design. Overall, I think that very strong justification would have to be provided to permit this building, and I struggle to see at this point in time that such justification is present in this case.”

Parish Council: Supports the application provided that the barn is for the personal use of the owners of Green Farm only.

Environmental Health Manger: No objections subject to a condition relating to manure storage and removal.

6.7 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 09 February 2011 ______

Neighbours: 3 neighbours consulted, 4 letters of support received and 2 general comments stating the following:

• The building would hide the breeze block stables behind it.

• The applicants need somewhere to store machinery because to leave it out would be potentially dangerous to children, close to footpaths and temtping for thieves.

• The development would look good.

• There has always been a barn on the site.

• No objections to the erection of a barn but any external lighting should not stray onto nearby properties and cause a nuisance.

• ‘Baffled’ that planning permission is required as the barn is exactly what was there before. Planning Policy

13. 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, the adopted Ashford Town Centre Area Action Plan 2010 and the Tenterden & Rural Sites DPD 2010.

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

South East Plan 2009

CC1 – Sustainable Development

BE6 – Managing the Historic Environment

Ashford Borough Local Plan 2000

GP12 – Protecting the Countryside and Managing Change

EN16 – Development in Conservation Areas

Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008

CS1-Guiding Principles

6.8 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 09 February 2011 ______

CS9- Design Quality

Tenterden & Rural Sites DPD

TRS17 – Landscape Character and Design

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

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 9 – ‘Domestic Garages and Outbuildings in Urban and Rural Areas’ (adopted 2004).

Landscape Character Areas SPD (consultation draft December 2010)

Government Advice

PPS1-‘Delivering Sustainable Development’

PPS5 – ‘Planning for the Historic Environment’

PPS7 – ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’

16. Members should note that the determination must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Assessment

17. The main issues for consideration are:

• The principle of the proposed development

• Design quality and the visual impact upon the character of the area, the Conservation Area and the setting of the listed building.

• Justification

• Neighbour impact

The principle of the proposed development

18. The legal definition of a Conservation Area is set out in Section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as being:

‘an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’ 6.9 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 09 February 2011 ______

19. The desirability of protecting the setting of important heritage assets is well established in national statute and policy guidance. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, refers to settings of listed buildings stating:

‘In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority … 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.’

20. Central Government Guidance contained within PPS5 sets out the Government’s policies for conserving heritage assets through the spatial planning system in a manner appropriate to their significance. Indeed as Policy HE9 of the above document confirms, the significance of a designated heritage asset can be harmed or lost through development within its setting. Furthermore a key principle of PPS1 states that design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted.

21. Although the building proposed is not solely for domestic purposes, it is mainly to be used for purposes ancillary to the house. Consequently Supplementary Planning Guidance note 9 is of relevance. This guidance entitled ‘Domestic Garages and Outbuildings in Urban and Rural Areas’ allows for reasonable levels of householder related development such as domestic outbuildings as a matter of principle. The guidance however clearly states that the development should express a coherent design form which is appropriate to the context of the existing built development, be visually subservient to the dwelling it would serve in terms of size, scale and bulk and not result in a poorly proportioned or visually intrusive form of development within the street scene or the wider landscape.

22. In light of the above, whilst the erection of a suitably designed, located and justified outbuilding could be acceptable in principle, the key issues for consideration remain the impact upon the visual amenity of the area, the setting of the Conservation Area, the setting of the listed building (Green Farmhouse) and the impact upon residential amenity.

The impact of the development upon the visual amenity of the area, the Conservation Area and the setting of the listed building

23. The building proposed would have a height of 6 metres and a floor area of 182 m². This would result in a substantial outbuilding, wider than the house itself, and would not represent a subservient outbuilding in relation to the dwelling that it would serve. The erection of a building in this location would however go some way to screen the poor quality former stable building to the south west boundary of the site. 6.10 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 09 February 2011 ______

24. In terms of design the two pediments proposed are inappropriate for this style of building, being formal architectural features in contrast to the intended agricultural design. In addition whilst the pitch of the roof has been lowered from the previous application (10/00867/AS) in an attempt to reduce the impact of the building, it is now proposed at a pitch 35º, which is too shallow for traditional clay tiles. Any increase in pitch would further increase the bulk of the building which would be unacceptable.

25. As a result of its size, mass, bulk and design the development would not be read as a traditional garden outbuilding but rather a confused mixture of a domestic building and a historic agricultural building.

26. The building as a result of its architectural detailing, size and bulk would relate poorly to the listed building harming the character, appearance, and reading of this building and its setting. It would appear as a visually prominent and incongruous structure that would be highly visible from the adjacent Conservation Area, harming its setting. It would also be detrimental to the appearance of the countryside and visual amenity of the area.

Justification

27. The previous pole barn on the site was erected to serve an agricultural purpose in relation to a much larger agricultural holding. The building which was no longer used for agriculture has been removed from the site and the fact that there was a building here can be given little weight. The dwelling was once a farmhouse, but has now been separated from the historic farmyard. Whilst I note these previous uses, I do not consider that this justifies the reinstatement of a building of the same size without sufficient justification.

28. The site is also no longer used in connection with an agricultural trade or business and agricultural justification has not been put forward to justify a building of this size and design. An appropriately sized, located and designed garage building serving the house may be acceptable within its curtilage. Similarly a separate stable building in the paddock may be justified. A substantial building of the hybrid design proposed lacks justification and results in the harm set out in the previous section of this report.

Impact upon residential amenity

29. The nearest neighbouring dwelling is located over 50 metres away from the development. Given this separation distance, I do not consider that the development would adversely impact on the residential amenity of neighbours.

6.11 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 09 February 2011 ______

Human Rights Issues

30. I have also taken into account the human rights issues relevant to this application. In my view the “Assessment” section above and the Recommendation below represent an appropriate balance between the 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

31. The main issues in this case are:-

(a) The size and bulk of the proposed development would not represent a subservient outbuilding to the dwelling that it would serve. In addition the design would not represent either a traditional domestic outbuilding or a simple agricultural building. The development would harm the character, appearance, reading and setting of the listed building. The development would appear as a visually prominent and incongruous structure that would be highly visible from the adjacent Conservation Area to the detriment of its setting. The development would be harmful to the visual amenity of the rural area. (Policies CC1, BE6, GP12, EN16, CS1, CS9, TRS17, PPS1, PPS5, PPS7 and SPG9)

(b) Insufficient justification has been provided to justify a building of the proposed size, scale and design to outweigh the harm identified. (Policies CC1, BE6, GP12, EN16, CS1, CS9, TRS17, PPS1, PPS5, PPS7 and SPG9)

(c) The development would not harm the residential amenity of the occupiers of nearby dwellings. (Policies CS1 and CS9) Recommendation

Refuse on the following grounds:

1. The proposed development would be contrary to policies CC1 and BE6 of the South East Plan 2009, policies GP12 and EN16 of the adopted Ashford Borough Local Plan 2000, policies CS1 and CS9 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008, policy TRS17 of the Tenterden and Rural Sites Development Plan Document 2010, Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 9 entitled ‘Domestic Garages and Outbuildings in Urban and Rural Areas’, and to Government advice contained in PPS1, PPS5 and PPS7 and 6.12 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 09 February 2011 ______

therefore constitutes development contrary to interests of acknowledged planning importance for the following reasons:

(a) The proposed development with no overriding justification having been demonstrated would, by virtue of its size, bulk, siting and design appear visually prominent and incongruous within the landscape. It would also be highly visible from the adjacent Conservation Area. The development would subsequently fail to either preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Area and would detract from the visual amenity of the area.

(b) As a result of the proposed size, bulk, siting and design the development would result in an unsympathetic and incongruous feature that would relate poorly to the listed building harming its character, appearance, reading and setting to its detriment.

Background Papers

Support comment from Mr and Mrs A Hooker received 13 January 2011

Support comment from Mr R Young received 16 January 2011

Support comment from Mr and Mrs Polyblank received 24 January 2011

Support comment from J Ripley received 21 January 2011

General comment from J Boothroyd received 10 November 2010

General comment from J Boothroyd received 10 November 2010

Consultee response from Shadoxhurst Parish Council received 18 November 2010

Consultee response from Ashford Borough Council Environmental Health Manager received 27 October 2010

Contact Officer: Alex Stafford – Telephone: (01233) 330248

6.13