- Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 10 November 2010 ______

Application Number 10/00979/AS

Location The Old Vicarage, Godmersham Park, Road, Godmersham, Canterbury, , CT4 7DT

Grid Reference 06238/50769

Parish Council Godmersham

Ward Downs North

Application Single storey side extension to northern elevation Description including conservation rooflight to roof

Applicant Mr & Mrs Sunley, The Old Vicarage, Godmersham Park, Canterbury Road, Godmersham, Canterbury, Kent, CT4 7DT

Agent Mr Barnes, Tanners Hill Gardens, Hythe Kent, CT21 5HY

Site Area 0.53 Hectare

(a) 3/- (b) - (c) -

Introduction

1. This application is reported to the Planning Committee at the request of the Ward Member, Councillor Mrs Marriott. Site and Surroundings

2. The application site comprises a detached dwellinghouse set between Godmersham Park and St Lawrence’s Church. The property is located outside of the built confines of Godmersham within countryside designated as both a Special Landscape Area (SLA) and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

3. The dwelling is set back from the road by approximately 30m within a generous sized plot and with mature screening to the front and side however, there are views of the dwelling from the accesses to the property. A Yew tree is located to the north of the dwelling and is visually prominent within the locality, particularly on approach from the north. This tree obscures views from the north. The site of the extension is particularly visible from one of the accesses down the drive (see photo below). 9.1 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 10 November 2010 ______

Figure 1 View of site down the drive

Figure 2 Rear view showing bay and existing small extension. This view also includes ranging poles showing the extent of the extension and the large tree adjacent

4. The two storey dwelling is Grade II listed flanked with 2 storey extensions and a bay to the rear. The dwelling has an 18th Century cottage frontage with symmetrical formal fenestration of sash windows. The rather squat 9.2 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 10 November 2010 ______

proportions confirm that it is the formalisation of an earlier building as stated in the list description. The rear elevation is dominated by a large two storey brick bay projection with mono-pitched roof two storey additions to the side perpendicular to the projection of the roof of the main body of the property.

5. The extensions to the side are narrow in width which minimises their visual dominance in comparison to the main house, maintaining a degree of symmetry and are an interesting part of the evolution of the house. The northern wing is 19th Century and the rear portion has walls which are as thick as the house suggesting that it is older than the front timber framed portion. The timber framed section appears as a curious addition as the fenestration, materials and detailing are at odds with the main house. This part is referred to in the listed description as “C19 half-timbered wing to left; red brick base, plain tile roof and 1 oriel window.”

Figure 3: Side elevation. The extension would attach to this end of the building obscuring the rear section of the side of the current extension to the main building The dwelling comprises accommodation over three floors and includes a lounge, dining room, study, kitchen, utility, playroom and WC to the ground floor, master bedroom with ensuite/dressing room, three bedrooms, two bathrooms and study to the first floor and two further bedrooms and bathrooms to the second floor.

6. Site plans are attached to this report as Annex 1.

9.3 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 10 November 2010 ______

Proposal

7. The application is for full planning permission and listed building consent for a single storey side extension to the northern elevation including the insertion of a conservation rooflight in the catslide roof together with internal alterations. The extension will be attached to the 19th Century half-timbered wing extending out for 4.5m with a low eaves level below the new sash window. The extension will be set back approximately 3m from the front building line and extending just shy of the remaining depth of the main footprint of the building. The accommodation will provide a games room to ground floor and extend a bathroom at first floor. The proposed rear and front elevation of the property are shown below.

Figure 3: Proposed Elevations 8. The proposed internal alterations, which require listed building consent but not planning permission (see Committee Report 10/00981/AS) include: • The relocation of three windows from the side of the existing northern wing into the side of the proposed extension, • Formation of a door in place of the central window to gain access to the games room, • Formation of remaining two windows into alcoves within the games room, • Removal of first floor section of stud wall and window and extension of bathroom into roof space, • Insertion of rooflight into the side of the new extension serving the extended bathroom.

9. The applicant has submitted information in support of the scheme which can be summarised as follows:

9.4 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 10 November 2010 ______

• The internal dimensions of the proposed games room have been selected to allow for a ¾ size snooker or table tennis table. • The Council’s advice under a pre application submission questioned why a games room is required following the grant of planning permission for a recreation room over the detached double garage in the 1990’s. This space is now used as a study/library and would not be suitable for housing a snooker or table tennis table. • The extension would not have considerable bulk and width in comparison with the main house or appear visually dominant as stated informally by the Council in pre-submission consultation. • The games room would be accessed internally from an existing lobby with adjacent WC to enable younger family members and friends to play snooker/table tennis in winter months with minimal disturbance to the household. • It is acknowledged that tile hanging and studwork in the historic north addition will be lost. The tile hanging is under lapped and the stud wall un- insulated causing the north end of the house to be cold in winter. The new roof would be insulated. Planning History

10. 2010 – (10/00981/AS) – Listed Building consent application for a single storey side extension to the northern elevation including conservation rooflight to roof and associated internal works. (next on this agenda)

1997 – (97/00776/AS) – Planning permission granted for alterations to the existing access gateways

1997 – (97/00615/AS) - Planning permission granted for a conservatory and covered way link to house.

1996 – (96/00619/AS) - Planning permission granted for a replacement outbuilding to main house to provide garaging, storage and games room. Consultations

Ward Member: Councillor Mrs Marriott is a Member of the Planning Committee and has requested that the application be determined by the Planning Committee.

Portfolio Holder – Development Management: comments:

“My initial views on these proposals at this early stage are as follows:

9.5 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 10 November 2010 ______

The development would appear to have a significant effect on the external appearance of the listed building on three elevations, and would appear to involve the removal of significant elements of the historic fabric of the listed building. Members of the committee will need to gauge the extent to which this causes harm to the building’s features of architectural or historic interest, and then consider whether such harm is justified. The officer’s reports advise that substantial harm would arise.

As to justification, the development is proposed in order to create a games room. There is already a games room provided over the garage pursuant to a planning permission from 1996 (although that games room is currently in fact used as a study). It is said that an additional, new games room is required to house a snooker table or a table tennis table. Although keeping an open mind, I am not presently, at this early stage, persuaded that these circumstances provide any justification for the development at all.”

Godmersham Parish Council: no comments received

Neighbours: 3 neighbours directly consulted: no representations received Planning Policy

11. 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 Area Action Plan 2010 and the & Rural Sites DPD 2010.

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

Ashford Borough Local Plan 2000 GP12 – Protecting the Countryside and Managing Change EN27 – Landscape Conservation EN32 – Important Trees and Woodland HG9 – Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside

Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008 CS1 – Guiding Principles CS9 – Design Quality

Tenterden & Rural Sites Submission Draft DPD TRS17 – Landscape Character and Design

9.6 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 10 November 2010 ______

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

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 10 – ‘Domestic Extensions in Urban and Rural Areas’ adopted June 2004 following public consultation.

Government Advice PPS1 – ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ PPS5 – ‘Planning for the Historic Environment’ PPS7 – ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’

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

15. The main issues for consideration are: • The impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the listed building • Justification for the development

Policy and Guidance Context

16. 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 a listed building, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building and any features of architectural or historic interest which it may possess (my underlining). In addition, 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.

17. The above is further endorsed by Central Government Guidance contained within PPS5 and its companion guide which sets out a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets such as listed buildings. This guidance states that whilst some listed buildings will be particularly important or sensitive to change others may be more capable of accommodating it. Local planning authorities must therefore take into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and of utilising their positive role of place shaping and sustainable communities. The guidance also states that new development should make a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment through design that has taken into account the character of the

9.7 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 10 November 2010 ______

building and the surrounding area and should not result in a loss of the building’s significance.

18. In addition to the above national guidance, policy HG9 and the Council’s adopted supplementary planning guidance (SPG10) makes provision for modest extensions to residential dwellings in the countryside provided that the proposed extension is justified, sympathetic to the design and scale of the existing dwelling and would not result in a poorly proportioned or visually intrusive form of development within the landscape. SPG10 also provides advice on appropriate design themes for extensions stating that they must be subordinate in size and scale to the existing dwelling.

The Impact of the Development upon the Character and Appearance of the Listed Building

19. Paragraph 178 (page 48) of the ‘Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide’ (companion to PPS5) advises that the main issues to consider in proposals for additions to heritage assets, are proportion, height, massing, bulk, use of materials, use, relationship with adjacent assets, alignment and treatment of setting and states that it would not normally be acceptable for new work to dominate the original asset or its setting in either scale, material or as a result of its siting.

20. The extension, whilst of a modest footprint, designed as a catslide roof will extend from the existing historic wing confusing the historic reading of the building as the resulting structure will be read as a single addition.

21. The combined structure given the steepness of the roof pitch will have considerable bulk and width and will therefore appear as an inappropriate visually dominant addition.

22. An extension of the historic wing, has the effect of unbalancing this side of the property when viewed from the front and rear elevations. This elongated development would considerably detract from the symmetry of the building and upset its existing compact plan form.

23. The style of the extension is inappropriate for this listed property. The external appearance and character of the property is that of a formal Georgian house whereas the extension compromises a vernacular style addition.

24. The catslide roof is dominant and contributes to the top heaviness of the extension. In this area catslide roofs are steeply pitched with Kent peg tile roofs. There are no slate catslide roofs as this material would only have been widely used in the area following the Industrial Revolution. In turn therefore, to mix slate with Georgian style sash fenestration would be odd. Whilst I can appreciate the repetition of existing fenestration from the main house, the use 9.8 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 10 November 2010 ______

of formal sash windows on a vernacular style extension confuses the architectural style. The extension would not therefore represent an appropriate alteration to the listed dwelling of Georgian character and appearance.

25. The relationship of the extension with the historic timber framed addition would further emphasise the incongruous relationship of the historic addition with the main house.

26. In my view the significance of the heritage asset is its interesting evolution being a formalisation of an earlier cottage style dwelling, that its compact plan form has remained relatively unchanged with symmetrical later additions and a curious timber framed addition and its visibility from the road. Whilst I understand the wish for additional rooms for recreation purposes, this is a desire of the applicant as opposed to any significant shortfall of accommodation within the building, particularly given the floorspace provided within the detached garage approved by the Council for this exact purpose. The nature and scale of these proposals do not make a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the heritage asset. Indeed, the proposed extension represents an entirely negative impact because of its bulk, form, design and detailing.

27. I consider that the proposal will lead to substantial harm to the heritage asset and there is no substantial public benefit that outweighs this harm or loss. In addition, neither the nature of the heritage asset nor its condition prevents its reasonable or viable use in the future.

28. Consequently the proposals do not comply with Policies in PPS5, in particular, but not exclusively, Policies HE7.5, HE.1 and HE10.1.

Justification for the Development

29. The application states that it is not accepted that the extension would have considerable bulk or appear visually dominant and that the aim is to create a games room of a size to house a ¾ snooker table or standard size table tennis table. The dwelling is a substantial house comprising accommodation over three floors, plus a triple garage permitted in 1996 with a games room in the roof. I understand that the space above the garage is not suitable for housing a snooker or tennis table, however, I am not sure of the function of the approved ‘recreation room’ above the garage if it is not for such facilities. Unless there is a structural reason why the space cannot be used for the purpose then the wish to have a new space is the desire of the applicant and their priority of the use of the available space. I therefore can see no overriding justification for the development particularly given the harm identified.

9.9 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 10 November 2010 ______

Impact of the Development upon Trees

30. The Yew tree overhangs the footprint of the extension which would be constructed within the Root Protection Area of the tree. In the absence of evidence to suggest to the contrary, the construction of the extension would result in harm to the roots of the tree and it is likely that it would also necessitate the reduction of the crown of the tree. The tree makes an important contribution to the visual amenity of the area which would be harmed if it was lost or its longevity compromised.

Other issues

The Impact of the Development upon the Visual Amenity of the Wider Rural Landscape Designates as an SLA and AONB

31. The site is set back from the road and given mature screening to all boundaries is not particularly visible except from the entrances. The impact of the development on the surrounding landscape will not in my view be severe. However, the impact on the Yew tree, referred to above, would open up views of the site. The works in the RPA of the tree could also shorten its life and its earlier loss in conjunction with opening up of views of this harmful development this would result in a wider adverse impact upon the character of the surrounding landscape, SLA and AONB.

Residential Amenity

32. The nearest residential property is located to the south at Stable Cottage. Given that this neighbour is located to the opposite side of where the extension is proposed, this neighbour will not be adversely affected by the development through overlooking or overbearing development. There are no neighbours in close proximity to the applicant’s property to the north. There would therefore be no harm to residential amenity. Human Rights Issues

33. 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

34. The issues in this case are:- 9.10 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 10 November 2010 ______

(a) The development would because of its bulk, width, form design and location result in an inappropriate, visually dominant and unsympathetic form of development that would fail to preserve the historic character and appearance of the listed building to its detriment (Policy PPS5).

(b) The proposed development would not be sympathetic to the design and form of the existing dwelling. The development would therefore fail to comply with criteria (c) of Policy HG9 of the Ashford Borough Local Plan (2000) and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 10.

(c) The proposed development would, as a result of the bulk, width, form design and location result in a poorly proportioned form of development that would be unjustified and would neither preserve nor enhance its important character and appearance. The development would therefore fail to comply with PPS5

(d) The proposed extension would be constructed within the Root Protection Area and under the crown spread of a Yew tree resulting in harm to the roots and the reduction in crown spread of the tree. The visual amenity of the locality would be harmed as a result of the loss of this tree. The development would therefore fail to comply with policy EN32 of the Ashford Borough Local Plan (2000).

(e) There are no immediate neighbours that would be adversely affected by the proposed development. There would therefore be no harm to residential amenity (Policies CS1, SPG10). Recommendation

Refuse

On the following grounds:

The proposed development is contrary to Policies GP12, EN27, EN32 and HG9 of the Ashford Borough Local Plan 2000, Policies CS1 and CS9 of the adopted Local Development Framework Core Strategy July 2008, Policy TRS17 of the Tenterden and Rural Sites DPD (Submission Document) 2010, adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 10 entitled "Domestic Extensions in Urban and Rural Areas" and PPS1 and PPS5 and therefore constitutes development contrary to interests of acknowledged planning importance for the following reasons:

1. The proposal by virtue of its width, form and subsequent bulk, together with design and architectural style together with the loss of historic fabric would not represent a sympathetic addition to this property and would therefore result in an incongruous and inappropriate addition. This in turn would unacceptably 9.11 Ashford Borough Council - Report of Development Control Managers Planning Committee 10 November 2010 ______

harm the historic character, appearance and reading of this grade II listed building.

2. Insufficient justification has been put forward to outweigh the substantial harm to the heritage asset that would result from these proposals.

3. The Yew tree to the north of the site is of visual amenity value. The proposed development would be constructed within the Root Protection Area of this tree, together with the need for a reduction in its canopy to accommodate the development. As a consequence, there is no evidence to suggest that the development could be constructed without damaging the roots of the trees resulting in its premature loss and subsequent visual harm to the amenity of the area.

4. The loss of the Yew tree would open up views of the site and given (1) and (3) above the proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the designated landscape.

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

9.12 Ashford Borough Council Planning Committee 10 November 2010 Page 1 of Annex 1a to Report 10/00979/AS ______

9.13 Ashford Borough Council Planning Committee 10 November 2010 Page 1 of Annex 1b to Report 10/00979/AS ______

9.14