Erection of garage to rear with associated landscaping

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 June 2026 by T Morris BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008031 1 Pebsham Farm House, Pebsham Lane, Bexhill, East Sussex TN40 2RZ • 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 Miss Karen L Davies against the decision of Rother District Council. • The application Ref is RR/2025/952/P. • The development proposed is erection of garage to rear with associated landscaping. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area with specific regard to the setting of a grade II listed building. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site comprises part of the grade II listed Pebsham Farmhouse, located on the edge of Pebsham in a semi rural area. It is adjacent a rural business centre which comprises a group of industrial style buildings. The Council also indicate that the site is located in the Combe Valley Countryside Park and the strategic gap between Bexhill and Hastings/St Leonards, where I observed that the nearby fields, trees and ponds contribute positively to the rural character of the locality. 5. The listed building is a former farmhouse which has been converted to dwellings. Despite some modern alterations, the building’s generally consistent gable roof forms and facing materials including brickwork and tiles contribute positively to its visual coherence and thus its significance. Its significance is also derived from its mostly unaltered elevation which faces the countryside to the east, with the evidence before me indicating that this was the original front elevation of the building which dates from the seventeenth century. 6. The land where the proposed garage would be located is on the east side of the listed building and thus adjacent its significant and mostly unaltered elevation. The garden and driveway in this area are predominantly open and free of any substantial structures. The verdant features on this side of the building including the large tree at the end of the garden, as well as the grass, hedges and planting add Appeal Decision 6008031 2 positively to the building’s rural setting. Overall, the open space allows for the notable elevation on this side of the listed building to appear visually prominent from the garden and thus complements its appearance. Accordingly, these elements of the setting of the listed building make a positive contribution to its significance. 7. Even considering its location away from the listed building, the height of the garage would appear substantial, with the plans indicating it would sit just below the canopy of the large tree at the end of the garden. Furthermore, and as a result of its considerable scale, the garage would appear as a bulky and conspicuous addition to the rear garden area in the setting of the listed building. Its half-hipped roof form, rooflights and cladding would also detract from the generally coherent appearance of the listed building. 8. Consequently, the garage would appear as an incongruous addition which would undermine the open and verdant character of this part of the building’s setting, in proximity to its important elevation. Even though the garage would occupy a lower ground level than the listed building, this would not be sufficient to overcome its bulky appearance. Nor would the presence of the industrial buildings nearby, given that these are on the opposite side of the building compared to the garage and would not be viewed in the same immediate context. For these reasons, the proposal would be harmful to the setting of the listed building and as a result, it would unacceptably diminish the historic and architectural qualities of its significance. 9. Notwithstanding the above, due to a ground level change, the site is visually elevated from the surrounding fields and ponds. The garage would therefore be viewed as part of the site, rather than within the surrounding countryside. The visual harm of the proposal would thus be primarily localised to the site rather than to the open countryside. In coming to this view, I observed the site from the surrounding public footpaths and the nearby Pebsham Lake, where it was clear that any visibility of the outbuilding in the landscape would be limited to glimpsed views only. In these circumstances, the proposal would not be harmful to the rural character and appearance of the Combe Valley Countryside Park, and its scale and location would not undermine the strategic gap between Bexhill and Hasting/St Leonards. 10. I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building. In that regard, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to preserve, and would thus harm the setting of the listed building, and therefore its significance. The proposed development would also be contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, and that when considering the impact of a development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This includes their setting. 11. Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial or less than substantial harm to its significance. Appeal Decision 6008031 3 12. Having regard to paragraph 215 of the Framework, I find that the proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. Given the limited extent of the development, and that its adverse impacts would be relatively localised to the appeal site, the harm would be at the lower end of the scale of less than substantial harm. Nevertheless, this is a matter to which I give considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 13. In that regard, the appellant states that the proposal would reinforce the character of the site and bring order to an area used for informal parking. However, I have seen no sufficiently compelling case why such an improvement (if there needed to be one) could not be achieved by less harmful means. Furthermore, even if the proposal was amended following a previous refusal by the Council and even though the Council confirmed that listed building consent is not required, these are not benefits which weigh in favour of the appeal. 14. With the above factors in mind, I conclude that there are no public benefits from the proposed development of sufficient weight, either individually or cumulatively, to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed building. 15. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies EN2, RA1 and RA2 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) (CS) and Policy DHG9 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (2019) (LP), in consideration of the effect on listed buildings and their settings. Amongst other matters, these policies require that developments respect the character and qualities of historic buildings and their settings and conserve built heritage. The Council also refer to Policies EN1, HF1, OSS3 and OSS4 of the CS, as well as Policies DEN1, DEN3 and DHG8 of the LP. However, as none of these seem to be directly concerned with listed buildings and their settings, I find no conflict with these policies. Other Matter 16. In its second reason for refusal, the Council state that the garage is not in the curtilage of the listed building and that the application is a change of use which requires full planning permission. This is despite the Council having validated and determined a householder application. On my site visit, the land was enclosed by the boundary fence which alluded to a physical connection to the building and the rear garden. The Council’s evidence does seem to show that a change to the appearance of the land subject of the appeal has occurred. From the evidence before me, I cannot be certain either way. In any case, whether or not the land is in the curtilage would not have changed the outcome of the appeal, since I have concluded that the proposal would be harmful to the setting of the listed building. Conclusion and Recommendation 17. The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no other material considerations which would outweigh this conflict. Consequently, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. T Morris APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision 6008031 4 Inspector’s Decision 18. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR