Roof alterations to create first floor and insertion of rooflights together with two storey rear extension with ground floor canopy and first floor balcony. Erection of a single storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 March 2026 by A Wright BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004416 Ridgeways, Cripple Street, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6DN • 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 and Mrs Leeson against the decision of Maidstone Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/504054/FULL. • The development proposed is roof alterations to create first floor and insertion of rooflights together with two storey rear extension with ground floor canopy and first floor balcony. Erection of a single storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host building and area; and • the setting and significance of the Loose Valley Conservation Area and the Bockingford Court grade II listed building. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling with brick walls and a hipped and half hipped tiled roof within a row of large residential properties of mixed styles and design. It lies in the countryside close to the Maidstone urban area with a hedge along the roadside boundary and fields opposite leading down to the Loose valley. The house has been considerably extended, but the additions are mostly lower than and subservient to the original dwelling. The large single storey side addition with the hipped roof of the original dwelling visible above gives the building a farmstead scale and appearance in some views from Cripple Street. 4. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) seeks to optimise the use of land and recognises the importance of good design. In this regard, it states that significant weight should be given to development which reflects local design policies or innovative designs so long as they fit in with the overall form of their surroundings. Further, where the scale of new development is very different to the existing place, the National Design Guide indicates that it may be more appropriate to create a new identity rather than to scale up the character of an existing place in its context. Appeal Decision 6004416 2 5. The guidance in the Council’s Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2009 (SPD) indicates that extensions in the countryside should be limited in scale, well proportioned, and present a satisfactory composition with the house. The SPD states that cumulatively such extensions should not increase the volume of the dwelling by more than 50%. Amongst other things, it outlines that the proportion and alignment of new windows should integrate with the existing house and that materials should respond to the character of the area. 6. A sitting room and conservatory would be removed, and the proposed scheme would extend above and beyond the existing single storey side addition to create a two-storey side extension. A single storey addition to the front and a rear flat roof canopy are also proposed. 7. The dwelling is within a sizeable plot, and the proposal would not considerably increase the ground floor footprint. However, much of the extension would be the same height as the dwelling and it would increase the length of the first-floor frontage by around 8.5m, approximately half its existing length and more than 80% of that of the original dwelling. Thus, it would significantly increase the volume of the already substantially extended building. In combination with the existing two storey addition on the other side of the house, due to its overall size and length the proposed extension would harmfully subsume the original building, giving the structure an excessively horizontal appearance. 8. The two-storey addition would project forward and significantly rearward of the house, creating an extension of considerable size and mass. Due to its depth, height and position, the proposed extension would be an overly bulky addition, at odds with the farmstead scale of the existing single storey side addition and harmfully removing side views of the original house from Cripple Street. 9. In addition, the two-storey extension would be largely finished in red/brown zinc cladding with a gabled roof including an asymmetrical high-level front window. Rather than complementing the building, its roof form, finishing materials and front fenestration would fail to reflect the more traditional design of the house, creating a visually jarring addition. Further, whilst the proposed single storey front extension would not project forward of the entrance atrium, due to its flat roof, siting and window position and size, it would appear discordant with the host building. 10. The roadside hedge would provide some screening of the proposed development, and a condition could ensure that planting is maintained. Nevertheless, the harmful scale, form and design of the extended property would be evident in glimpsed views through the access driveway, along other parts of Cripple Street and further away through gaps in hedges along Stockett Lane. 11. The site is within the Loose Valley Landscape of Local Value (LLV) where Policy LPRSP9 of the Council’s Local Plan Review 2024 (LPR) seeks to conserve and enhance the distinctive landscape character. The LPR indicates that the LLV is characterised by the Loose stream, mill ponds and springs with steep wooded valley sides, mature native woodland and traditional mill buildings and cottages. As the scheme would involve an extension to an existing house within a row of buildings in the LLV and would not involve any removal or pruning of trees or hedges, in this case it would not unduly harm the character of the LLV. 12. Overall, I conclude that the proposal would significantly harm the character and appearance of the host building and area. This would be contrary to Policies Appeal Decision 6004416 3 LPRSP9, LPRHOU11, LPRQD4 and LPRSP15 of the LPR. Amongst other things, these require proposals to not significantly harm rural character and appearance, with extensions to relate sympathetically to the existing dwelling and a high quality design which pays regard to scale, height, materials, mass and articulation. As I have found no unacceptable harm to the character of the LLV, the proposal would accord with the part of LPRSP9 which seeks to conserve this landscape. Heritage assets 13. The appeal site is located on historic land associated with the grade II listed Bockingford Court which lies further along Cripple Street, with the dwelling at Pine Shaw separating the appeal property from the listed building. The significance of Bockingford Court, in so far as it relates to this appeal, is derived from its evidential and aesthetic value as a grand mid-19th century building in a pleasant rural location overlooking the Loose valley. It incorporates architectural features which respond to its context, including a ground floor verandah with wooden trellis work. 14. The Loose Valley Conservation Area (CA) lies behind part of the appeal property and extends from Bockingford Court into the valley beyond. The special significance of the CA derives in part from the mills along Loose stream, together with the associated grander houses and workers cottages. The dominating buildings respond to the growth during the industrial revolution in the later 18th and early 19th century which used the river to power and supply water to the mills. 15. The Framework defines the setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which it is experienced. Bockingford Court and the CA are experienced in the context of the narrow country lanes, rural environment and traditional scaled buildings nearby. When travelling south east bound along Cripple Street, the farmstead scale and appearance of the extended building on the appeal site positively contributes to the setting of these designated heritage assets. 16. On approach from the listed building and CA, due to its siting and size the proposed two-storey extension would appear as a looming presence, harmfully competing with the grand scale of Bockingford Court. Much of the farmstead scale of the existing property would be lost, with the form and design of the original dwelling no longer being readily evident. Further, the zinc cladding materials, gabled roof form and the position and shape of the upper floor front window would appear incongruous against the more traditional brick walls, hipped and half hipped tiled roofs and window openings on the existing extended building. The position, scale and design of the proposed addition would starkly detract from the aesthetic value of Bockingford Court and the character of the CA. 17. For these reasons, the proposed development would not preserve the significance, in terms of the setting, of the listed building and the CA. Given its position relative to these heritage assets, this would be at the lower end of less than substantial harm. In such circumstances, Policy LPRENV1 of the LPR states that the relevant tests and assessments in the Framework will be applied. 18. The Framework states that less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposed development. The proposal would provide some employment for local builders during construction, but this would be of small scale and limited duration. Therefore, the public benefits of the development would not outweigh the great Appeal Decision 6004416 4 weight to be given to the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets caused by the proposed scheme. 19. Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the setting and significance of the Loose Valley Conservation Area and the Bockingford Court grade II listed building. This would be contrary to Policies LPRENV1 and LPRSP14(B) where they seek to conserve the quality of heritage assets, including their significance and settings. Other Matters 20. The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including living conditions, parking, highway safety, ecology and impacts on trees. However, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm is a neutral matter which does not carry weight in favour of the proposed scheme. Conclusion 21. For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed. A Wright INSPECTOR