Extension of new two storey extension to main house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 October 2018 by R J Maile BSc FRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C1435/D/18/3209253 Ruggles Farm, Bicycle Arms Road, High Cross, Rotherfield, East Sussex, TN6 3QE.  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Julian Leefe-Griffiths against the decision of Wealden District Council.  The application ref: WD/2018/0849/F, dated 16 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 June 2018.  The development proposed is “Extension of new two storey extension to main house.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are: a) The effect of the proposed extension upon the character and appearance of the host building and that of the surrounding area. b) The impact of the development upon the setting of the neighbouring Grade II listed building (Old Thatch). Reasons a) Effect upon character and appearance. 3. Ruggles Farm comprises a large detached property of traditional construction, being one of three dwellings that are approached by means of a private drive off Bicycle Arms Road. The three houses are located within open countryside forming part of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (‘AONB’). There is a public right of way to the rear of the dwelling. 4. I note that planning permission was granted on 5 August 2013 for a similarly sited two storey extension that included full-height glazing at ground and first floor levels (ref: WD/2013/0997/F). However, that planning permission has lapsed, as confirmed in the Officer’s Report. 5. National policy at Chapter 12 of the Framework1 seeks to ensure that develop- ments are visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, 1 The National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018). Appeal Decision APP/C1435/D/18/3209253 2 including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting (paragraph 127). Chapter 15 requires planning policies and decisions to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment through, amongst other matters, protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. Paragraph 172, which refers to development within AONBs, requires that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of such areas. 6. Given the form and materials of the two storey extension paragraph 127 c) of the Framework is of particular relevance. It states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change. Paragraph 131 also requires great weight to be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings. 7. “Saved” Policy EN6 of the Local Plan2 requires development within the High Weald AONB to conserve or enhance the natural beauty and character of the landscape. “Saved” Policy EN27 states that the scale, form, site coverage and design of the development and the use of materials should respect the character of adjoining development and, where appropriate, promote local distinctiveness. The design, materials and landscaping should be of an appropriate high standard. Similarly, proposals for alterations to existing dwellings should normally be of an appropriate size and character relative to the original dwelling (“saved” Policy DC19). 8. In line with national policy at Chapter 2 of the Framework, Policy WCS14 of the adopted Core Strategy3 sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It confirms that planning applications which accord with the policies in the Local Plan will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 9. The original building has been the subject of earlier extensions that have been designed to reflect the property, which once formed part of Holme Park. Likewise, the recent planning permission dated 5 August 2013 involved a design solution that respected the form and materials of the original, whilst benefiting from the southerly aspect of the southwest elevation. 10. The current scheme adopts an innovative approach in terms of its design and choice of materials, neither of which would directly respond to the character and appearance of the host building. 11. The proposed extension would be screened in public views from the designated landscape by a 3m high wall to the rear of the property. I have also noted the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that Government policy in the Framework supports innovation in terms of design issues. Nevertheless, it is equally clear from the wording of paragraph 131 that development proposals should fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings. 12. Whilst such an innovative approach may be acceptable in certain circumstances I conclude that the proposed extension, by reason of its contemporary design 2 The Wealden Local Plan (adopted December 1998). 3 The Wealden District (Incorporating Part of the South Downs National Park) Core Strategy Local Plan (adopted February 2013). Appeal Decision APP/C1435/D/18/3209253 3 and use of non-matching materials, would fail to respect or fit in with the form of the host dwelling. 13. I have been referred in the grounds of appeal to a development at The Walled Garden, Argos Hill, Rotherfield, where modern designs were approved by the Council. However, that proposal related to individual, new build houses rather than an extension to a traditional building, as is the case here. 14. Accordingly, I find upon the first main issue that development as proposed would harm to the character and appearance of the host building, contrary to national policy at paragraph 127 of the Framework and “saved” Policies EN27 and DC19 of the Local Plan. That harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of permitting such an innovative extension. b) Impact upon setting of listed building. 15. The property abuts Old Thatch, which is a Grade II listed building. I have been provided with a copy of the listing of the property, which formerly comprised two cottages from the 16th Century or earlier. Alterations made during the 19th Century have been undertaken in Flemish bond brickwork to reflect the form of the original. 16. Given that Old Thatch immediately abuts the appeal site to the north, I have considered the proposal by reference to the statutory duty imposed upon me by virtue of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This requires me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting. 17. Similarly, national policy at Chapter 16 of the Framework states that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset, including from development within its setting, should require clear and convincing justification (paragraph 194). 18. The proposed two storey extension would not be visible from Old Thatch given its siting within the extreme southwest corner of Ruggles Farm. Moreover, the form and ridge height of the principal dwelling would provide a screen between the proposed extension and the listed curtilage. I also noted the existence of a substantial brick wall some 3m in height to the southwest boundary of Old Thatch, which provides further visual separation from the scheme before me. 19. I have therefore found in relation to the second main issue that development as proposed would not adversely impact upon the setting of the adjacent listed building, as required by section 66(1) of the 1990 Act and by national policy at Chapter 16 of the Framework. Conclusion 20. Notwithstanding my finding upon the second main issue, my concerns as to the harmful effect of the extension upon the character and appearance of the host building are paramount. 21. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should fail. R. J. Maile INSPECTOR