Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 14 August 2013 ______
Application Number 12/01098/AS
Location Boughton Court, Church Lane, Boughton Aluph, Ashford, Kent, TN25 4EU
Grid Reference 03278/48207
Parish Council Boughton Aluph
Ward Boughton Aluph and Eastwell
Application Single and two storey extension to rear of house Description
Applicant Mr and Mrs Hugh Summerfield, Church Lane, Boughton Aluph.
Agent Mr Anthony De Moubray, De Moubray Arts and Architecture, Chesters House, Mountain Street, Chilham, Canterbury, Kent, CT4 8DQ Site Area 1.2 hectares
(a) 1/- (b) S (c) EH - R
Introduction
1. This application is reported to the Planning Committee at the request of the Ward Member, Councillor Michael, who is not a member of the Planning Committee.
Site and Surroundings
2. The site comprises a large two storey manor house occupied as a single dwelling located within the countryside outside of the village of Boughton Aluph within the North Downs AONB. Approximately 45 metres to the south east of the dwelling lies the Grade I listed Church of All Saints.
3. The manor house which is Grade II* listed is of late medieval origins and is built over a14th century rib-vaulted undercroft. It was reclad in the 19th century. It consists of a linear range with a series of shallow projecting rear wings, one of which is of recent construction. At the south western corner of the building is a modern conservatory. The first floor above the conservatory is one of the few parts of the of the building’s original form that remains visible from the rear. The first floor elevation above the conservatory has attractive paired dering windows.
6.1 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 14 August 2013 ______
4. The existing dwelling has a floor area of approximately 488m² laid out over 2 floors. The ground floor plan is shown in figure 2 of this report.
Figure 1: Site location plan
5. A site location plan is attached as an annex to this report. Proposal
6. Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a single and two storey extension to the rear of house. The single storey extension would act as a link between the main dwelling and the extension. The extensions would replace the existing glazed conservatory. The additional accommodation would provide an extra bedroom with separate bathroom facilities at first floor and a summer dining room at ground floor. A new opening is also proposed between the existing dwelling and the proposed extension which requires the benefit of listed building consent. This is being dealt with under the separate listed building application (see application reference 12/1099/AS on the agenda).
Figure 2: Existing ground floor plan
6.2 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 14 August 2013 ______
Figure 3: Existing rear elevation
Figure 4: Proposed ground floor plan
6.3 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 14 August 2013 ______
Figure 5: Proposed part first floor plan
Figure 6: Proposed rear elevation
Figure 7: Proposed side elevations
6.4 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 14 August 2013 ______
Planning History
The most recent relevant planning history is listed below:
04/01596/AS & 04/01595/AS – Planning permission and listed building consent granted for a rear single storey kitchen extension and rear double storey extension including dining room and bedroom. This has been implemented.
08/01663/AS – Listed building consent granted to demolish and rebuild the chimney stack.
Consultations
Ward Member: Requests that the application is determined by the Planning Committee.
Parish Council: Support
Neighbours: 1 neighbour consulted, 0 representations received.
English Heritage: Object. Comments are summarised below:
• Whilst not objecting to the removal of the conservatory, the form and detailing of the extension do not result in a successful relationship with the existing building.
• Whilst recognising that the decision has been taken to set the extension away from the existing building to minimise physical impacts and to preserve natural light from the existing first floor windows, the result is a ‘pavilion’ which, but for the single storey link is, largely disconnected from the main house and does not form a successful composition with it.
• Stylistically the combination of hipped and flat roof forms, along with dentil eaves and large arch-headed cast iron windows, do not harmonise with the existing building which is characterised by its vernacular detailing.
• The scheme would be harmful to the significance of the listed building and should therefore be considered in relation to para’s 132 and 134 of the NPPF, which require that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, that such harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the application.
• English Heritage would normally advise that new extensions to historic buildings continue the natural evolution of the building and are therefore fully engaged. Whilst not objecting in principle to a new extension to replace the existing conservatory, they consider that a single storey extension that 6.5 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 14 August 2013 ______
continues to allow the existing building and it’s first floor windows to be read is likely to lead to a more satisfactory design solution in this instance.
Planning Policy
7. The Development Plan comprises the saved policies in the adopted Ashford Borough Local Plan 2000, the adopted LDF Core Strategy 2008, the adopted Ashford Town Centre Action Area Plan 2010, the Tenterden & Rural Sites DPD 2010 and the Urban Sites and Infrastructure DPD 2012.
8. The relevant policies from the Development Plan relating to this application are as follows:-
Ashford Borough Local Plan 2000
HG9 – Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside
Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008
CS1 – Guiding Principles
CS9 – Design Quality
Tenterden & Rural Sites DPD 2010
TRS17 – Landscape Character and Design
9. The following are also material to the determination of this application:-
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
SPG10 – Domestic Extensions in Urban and Rural Areas
Landscape Character SPD
Village Design Statements
Boughton Aluph and Eastwell Village Design Statement
Government Advice
National Planning Policy Framework 2012
6.6 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 14 August 2013 ______
10. Members should note that the determination must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. A significant material consideration is the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF says that less weight should be given to the policies above if they are in conflict with the NPPF.
Assessment
11. The main issues for consideration are:
• The impact of the development upon the character, appearance and setting of the listed building and the visual amenity of the wider rural landscape designated as the AONB.
• Justification for the development.
• Residential amenity
• Highway safety.
Policy Context
12. Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires Local Authorities when considering applications for planning permission for development that affects listed buildings to have a special regard to the desirability of preserving the building and any features of architectural or historic interest which it may possess.
13. This is further endorsed by recent Government guidance set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) which states that Local planning authorities should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should seek to conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. The Government also requires Local authorities when considering the impact of proposed development on the significance of a heritage asset to give great weight to the asset’s conservation as it recognises that significance can be harmed or lost through alterations. As such because heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. In addition it states that development that would result in substantial harm to heritage assets of the highest significance (such as Grade II* Listed buildings) should be wholly exceptional.
14. The NPPF (paragraph 133) advises that where a proposed development would lead to substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or the current use is unviable. 6.7 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 14 August 2013 ______
15. In addition to the national guidance the Council’s adopted supplementary planning guidance (SPG10) makes provision for modest extensions to rural dwellings provided that the development is sympathetic to the design and scale of the existing dwelling and would not result in a poorly proportioned or visually intrusive form of development.
16. Boughton Aluph and Eastwell also have a Parish Design Statement. In the design guidelines this states that locally distinctive details should be accurately matched to the chosen building form and the mixing of styles or historic references should be avoided.
Impact of the development upon the listed building and the AONB
17. The planform of this listed building is strongly linear but with two hipped roofs extending from the rear. Past alterations have created a large open plan kitchen, garden room and accommodation at first floor which with its hipped roof has strengthened the appearance of 'rear wings' projecting from the central core.
18. This application seeks to erect a further two storey extension but one which is completely different in detailing, form and orientation to the existing development resulting in a design which appears incongruous on the simple rear elevation. The mansard roof introduces a whole new roof form that sits uncomfortably in juxtaposition with the simple hipped and gabled roofs. The proposed large arch-headed cast iron Venetian style windows are overwhelming and are not considered to be appropriate references to the Dering windows. As such they would not harmonise with the existing building that is characterised by its vernacular detailing.
19. The extension is not orientated in the same manner as the earlier wings but runs adjacent to the older core which disrupts the rhythm of the rear elevation.
20. The desire to physically separate the proposed extension and protect the historic window by forming a single storey link, is noted however this separation contributes to the feeling of the extension being imposed on, rather than working with and sitting comfortably in relation to the listed building. The extension would be a bulky addition that would dominate the listed building both visually and in plan.
21. The proposed development would be harmful to the significance of the listed building and would neither preserve or enhance its character or appearance. These views have also been reiterated by English Heritage. As a result of this harm the development would in turn harm the visual amenity of the surrounding area and the designated AONB.
6.8 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 14 August 2013 ______
22. A more simple, single storey extension, which reflects the form and alignment of the other wings on the rear elevation could be an appropriate solution to this issue.
Justification for the development
23. The NPPF is quite clear that if alterations to listed buildings are to be considered acceptable they must be justified and any substantial harm or loss of significance should require clear and convincing justification.
24. The property is a substantially large house with a floor area of approximately 448 m². Whilst full first floor plans of the property have not been submitted, previous plans dating to the 2004 application show 5 existing bedrooms of reasonable size at first floor.
25. Whilst the applicant has stated that the extra bedroom and bathroom are required for the family this does not in my view fully justify the proposal as required by the NPPF. The justification put forward does not demonstrate why an extension of this size, which would clearly affect the inherent character and appearance of the listed building, is necessary. Furthermore the reorganisation of the current living arrangements that could be of benefit in providing the required additional bedroom accommodation does not appear to have been fully explored by the applicant. In addition English Heritage have stated that in principle they would not object to a new single storey extension to replace the conservatory.
26. It is not considered that sufficient justification has been demonstrated in order to overcome the significant harm to the character and appearance of this important listed building that has been identified in accordance with the clear guidance contained within the NPPF. The building itself is not suffering from a lack of space that could undermine or prejudice its future use and the development which would not provide any public benefits would consequently not be in accordance with central and local planning policy guidance and should be refused.
Residential amenity
27. The nearest neighbouring residential property is located over 240 metres away from the development to the north of the application site. The development would not be harmful to the residential amenity of the occupiers of this dwelling.
Highway safety
28. There is ample parking on the site to serve the dwelling in its extended form. No highway safety impacts are envisaged. 6.9 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 14 August 2013 ______
Human Rights Issues
29. 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).
Working with the applicant
30. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Ashford Borough Council (ABC) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. ABC works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner as explained in the note to the applicant included in the recommendation below.
Conclusion
31. The impact of the proposed extension on the listed building would result in substantial harm. The character and appearance of the Grade II* listed building would be compromised by the size, design and form which would not reflect the traditional vernacular proportions and design of the building. Insufficient justification has been advanced to override the substantial harm; therefore I recommend that the scheme is refused.
Recommendation
Refuse on the following grounds:
1. The proposed development would be contrary to policy HG9 of the 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), adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 10 entitled ‘Domestic Extensions in Urban and Rural Areas’, to Government guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and to advice contained within the Boughton Aluph and Eastwell Parish Design Statement and is therefore considered development harmful to interests of acknowledged planning importance for the following reasons:
a) The proposed extension, by virtue of its design, bulk and scale would not represent a sympathetic addition to this property and would therefore result in an incongruous and inappropriate addition. This in 6.10 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 14 August 2013 ______
turn would unacceptably harm the essential architectural and historic interest together with the reading of this important grade II* listed building.
b) Sufficient justification has not been put forward to override the harm identified.
c) as a result of a) above, the character of the surrounding rural landscape acknowledged of being of special importance through its designation as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty would neither be preserved of enhanced.
Note to Applicant
1. Working with the Applicant
In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Ashford Borough Council (ABC) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. ABC works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;
• offering a pre-application advice service,
• as appropriate updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application
• where possible suggesting solutions to secure a successful outcome,
• informing applicants/agents of any likely recommendation of refusal prior to a decision and,
• by adhering to the requirements of the Development Management Customer Charter.
In this instance;
• The applicant was informed/ advised how the proposal did not accord with the development plan, that no material considerations are apparent to outweigh these matters.
Background Papers
Consultation comments from English Heritage received 05 July 2013
Consultation comments from Boughton Aluph and Eastwell Parish Council received 10 December 2012. 6.11 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 14 August 2013 ______
Contact Officer: Alex Stafford - Telephone: (01233) 330248
6.12 ______AnnexPage1 of 1 to Report Planning Committee 14August 2013 Ashford Borough Council
12/1098 /AS
6 . 13