To build a swimming pool in the place of the existing above-ground swimming pool and a plant room for pool equipment

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 January 2026 by Jane Smith MA MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001112 Little Beacon Hill Farm, 15 Church Road, Kelvedon Hatch, Essex CM14 5TJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Mark Moseley against the decision of Brentwood Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/00757/HHA. • The development proposed is described as ‘to build a swimming pool in the place of the existing above-ground swimming pool and a plant room for pool equipment’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a swimming pool in the place of the existing above-ground swimming pool and a plant room for pool equipment at Little Beacon Hill Farm, 15 Church Road, Kelvedon Hatch, Essex CM14 5TJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00757/HHA, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no 3243/01 Rev B. 3) Notwithstanding the details indicated in the application, no development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the plant room, swimming pool and paved areas surrounding the pool hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4) No development shall take place until full details of the finished levels, above ordnance datum, of the swimming pool and the paved areas surrounding the pool, in relation to existing ground levels, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved levels. Preliminary Matters 2. In the banner heading above, I have taken the description of the proposed development from the application form, but in the decision I have omitted the words ‘to build’, which are superfluous. Appeal Decision 6001112 2 Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the setting of nearby Grade II listed buildings. Reasons 4. The appeal site includes a Grade II listed building known as Little Beacon Hill Farmhouse (the listed dwelling), several outbuildings and a spacious garden behind a roadside hedge. Outside but adjacent to the appeal site, on the other side of the driveway, is a timber framed barn, also Grade II listed, which is referred to on the statutory list as Barn 10 metres East of Little Beacon Farmhouse (sic) (the listed barn). The barn is partly collapsed, but it is nevertheless a distinctive feature, prominently sited alongside the dwelling, fronting the rural lane. 5. The reason for refusal alleged harm to the setting and significance of a single listed building, without specifying which. However, the evidence from both parties refers to both the farmhouse and the barn. Mindful of my statutory duty under s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have had regard to the effect on both listed buildings. 6. The heritage statement submitted with the planning application did not explicitly define the significance of the listed buildings, but it did describe their history and their relationship with each other, with some consideration of setting, largely focussing on how they are perceived in the street scene. There was further correspondence between the parties before the application was determined, expanding on the author’s qualifications and the approach taken. While I have noted the Council’s critique of the heritage statement, their evidence does not offer a contrary understanding of significance or setting. Having drawn on the evidence from both parties, details of both listed buildings on the statutory list and my observations on site, I am satisfied that there is adequate heritage evidence before me to inform consideration of the appeal, proportionate to the nature of the proposal, as required in Policy BE16 of the Brentwood Local Plan 2022. Significance and setting of heritage assets 7. The significance of Little Beacon Hill Farmhouse derives from its historic status as a dwelling dating back to around 1600, with parts of the building providing evidence of vernacular timber framed architecture of that era. According to the statutory list, there have been several later additions and alterations, notably an additional wing which was added in the 18th century, and much rebuilt after the 1939-1945 war, following bombing. The listed barn is broadly contemporaneous with the farmhouse, dating back to the 16th century, and its significance likewise derives from its considerable age and the evidence of timber framed construction dating back several centuries. 8. The statutory list specifically highlights the group value of the two listed buildings, which are seen together along the Church Road frontage. That relationship helps to reveal the historic relationship between the farmhouse and its associated farm buildings which in turn contributes to an appreciation of their significance as a rural dwelling with historic farmstead, within what remains a decidedly rural landscape. 9. Following the alterations and extensions mentioned, the listed dwelling is now an imposing detached house of some status. It is the most dominant feature on the Appeal Decision 6001112 3 site. As well as presiding over the remaining indicators of its historic farmstead, it stands within a generous garden in the western part of the site, where the proposed pool would be sited. The garden is of an overtly domestic character, with extensive lawns and smaller hard landscaped areas, along with garden furniture and children’s play equipment. It has a scale and character commensurate with the residential function and sizable proportions of the dwelling, and its open layout allows for uninterrupted views around all sides of the listed building. Effect on setting and significance 10. No demountable pool was present at the time of my site visit, implying that it is used only seasonally, if it still exists. That being the case, it is evident that any effect it had on the setting of the listed buildings was of a transient nature. 11. The proposed pool would be larger and more disruptive in terms of the level of ground disturbance and new hard landscaping. It would also be close to the listed dwelling. Nevertheless, it would be of a domestic scale and not unduly dominant within the context of the extensive garden. The amount of hard landscaping around the pool would be limited and the proposed materials would be of subdued hue. Subject to ensuring that they are of a suitable specification, the surface treatments would not jar with the rendered elevations of the listed dwelling or existing hard landscaped surfaces in the rest of the garden. 12. The plant room would be small and sited unobtrusively at the end of the garden, against the boundary hedge and mature trees. The use of black stained weatherboarding would be consistent with the other, more prominent, outbuildings and it would have a subdued and inconspicuous appearance. 13. The value of the setting of heritage assets lies in what is contributed to their significance or an ability to appreciate that significance. In this case, the presence of formal landscaped elements in the garden is not inherently inconsistent with the way the former farmhouse has evolved over centuries into a large, rural dwelling presiding over a generous garden as well as the farmstead. Since the pool would be set into the ground, it would not prevent the listed dwelling being viewed in the round. Therefore, its architectural detailing, and the relationship between the original 1600s range and later additions, could still be clearly understood. 14. The substantial and well-established boundary hedge separates the garden visually from the adjacent rural lane, so neither the pool nor the plant room would be conspicuous in the street scene. The listed dwelling would still be readily understood as the most important feature of the site. Since it would be on the opposite side of the dwelling, the pool would neither interrupt nor intrude upon the relationship between the former farmhouse and its historic barn. Therefore, the group value of the two adjacent listed buildings could still be fully appreciated. 15. While the proposal would introduce an additional modern, hard landscaped feature, the historic and architectural significance of the listed dwelling could still be understood. The barn and dwelling in combination would continue to reveal the relationship between the dwelling and its farmstead. The appearance of the garden would change, but it would continue to make a similar contribution to the significance of the listed buildings. 16. I conclude that the effect of the proposal on the setting of nearby Grade II listed buildings would be neutral. The setting of the listed buildings and relevant features Appeal Decision 6001112 4 of special architectural or historic interest would be preserved. There would be no conflict with relevant requirements in Policies BE14 and BE16 of the Brentwood Local Plan 2022 which include that great weight will be given to the preservation of designated heritage assets and their setting, and that development proposals should retain existing features which make a positive contribution to the significance of heritage assets. Nor would there be any conflict with relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework or Planning Practice Guidance, with regard to the effect of development on designated heritage assets. Other Matters 17. There is a brief reference to a Conservation Area in the Officer Report, but no relevant Conservation Area was mentioned in the Council’s appeal questionnaire and there is no other indication in the evidence that the appeal site is within a Conservation Area. 18. Having concluded that the setting of the listed buildings would be preserved, there is no need to consider whether any harm to designated heritage assets is outweighed by public benefits. Conditions 19. The Council recommended conditions which should be imposed in the event that the appeal is allowed. I sought the views of both parties on amended wording of two of those, in the interests of precision. The appellant’s consent to the imposition of pre-commencement conditions has also been provided. 20. I have imposed a condition requiring compliance with the approved drawing, for clarity. However, that drawing does not detail the existing or proposed ground levels. While there is only a gentle fall across the garden, a completely level surface would be needed for the pool. Therefore, further details are necessary to demonstrate how that would be handled, to minimise any regrading and ensure that the pool is flush with the ground as intended. I have also imposed a condition requiring approval of the external materials. 21. Both conditions are necessary to ensure that the development preserves the setting of the listed dwelling. They are necessarily pre-commencement conditions so as to ensure that the initial excavations are compatible with the approved ground levels and that the surface materials can be agreed in good time, before those initial works are at an advanced stage. Conclusion 22. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. Jane Smith INSPECTOR