APPLICATION: MA/12/0447 Date: 9 March 2012 Received: 12 March 2012
|
APPLICANT: |
Mr & Mrs D Ritcie |
|
|
|
|
LOCATION: |
SCUFFITS, WATER LANE, HUNTON, MAIDSTONE, KENT, ME15 0SG |
|
PARISH: |
Hunton |
|
|
|
|
PROPOSAL: |
Erection of single storey garden room extension and raised flagstone patio area as shown on drawing numbers DHA/9222/01, DHA/9222/02, DHA/9222/03, DHA/9222/04, DHA/9222/05, DHA/9222/06 and DHA/9222/07, supported by a covering letter, all received 9th March 2012 |
|
AGENDA DATE:
CASE OFFICER: |
26th July 2012
Catherine Slade |
The recommendation for this application is being reported to Committee for decision because:
● it is contrary to views expressed by Hunton Parish Council
1. POLICIES
- Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000: ENV6, ENV28, H33
- South East Plan 2009: CC1, CC6, C4, BE6
· Government Policy: National Planning Policy Framework 2012, PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide
· Other: Residential Extensions SPD 2009
2. HISTORY
● MA/03/1674 - Erection of detached double garage with workshop/store – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
● MA/95/0003 - Demolition of existing outbuildings and conversion of oast and barn into detached five bedroom and four bedroom dwellings (respectively) including new window and door openings; conversion of bull pen to garaging; erection of new double garage - APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
● MA/90/0242 - Change of use from redundant oast house to class B1 (offices) – APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
3. CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Hunton Parish Council: Wish to see the application approved, and reported to Planning Committee. The Parish Council has not supplied any planning reasons for the reporting of the application to the Planning Committee.
3.2 Maidstone Borough Council Conservation Officer: Raises objection to the proposal on the grounds that it fails to preserve the character of the oast, and would destroy the form of and be unsympathetically related to the original building; harm would also be caused to the setting of an adjacent listed building. The Officer makes the following detailed comments:
“Scuffits is a converted oast formerly forming part of the farmyard group attached to Elphicks Farm. Elphicks Farmhouse is a listed building sited immediately adjacent to Scuffits and the proposal therefore has the potential to affect its setting. Scuffits itself is a fine example of a triple-kilned oast which in my opinion should be regarded as a non-designated heritage asset.
The proposed addition is of significant size and features fully glazed elevations on all three external sides as well as a glazed gable end. Scuffits at present is characterised by its symmetry, with three circular kilns arranged across the western end of a T-shaped stowage where the crossbar of the T projects equally on either side of the “upright”. By adding the proposed extension to one end of the crossbar, this symmetry will be disrupted and the visual prominence of the southernmost kiln will also be affected. Moreover, the design of the extension, with its extensive glazing, will be fundamentally out of character with the converted oast. The raised patio, with its surrounding fencing, would further detract from the setting of the oast by the introduction of an overly domestic character, particularly in this location in front of one of the kilns. The oast is an important contributor to the character of the setting of the listed farmhouse, and the damage to the significance of Scuffits itself would also cause harm to the setting, and therefore the significance, of the listed building.
In my view, therefore, the proposals would fail to preserve the character of the oast for the reasons stated above. They would be contrary to saved policy H33 of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan insofar as they would destroy the original form of the building and would be unsympathetically related to the existing dwelling. They would also be contrary to the Council’s approved guidelines for residential extensions where they relate to converted rural buildings.”
3.3 Kent County Council Biodiversity Officer: Raises no objection to the proposal.
4. REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 No representations were received in response to the publicity exercise.
5. CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Site Description
5.1.1 The proposal site is located in open countryside in the parish of Hunton. The site has no specific environmental or economic designations in the Local Plan. The site is an irregularly shaped plot located within a group of attractive rural buildings of varied appearance including Elphicks Farm, a traditional two storey farmhouse located to the east, and Goldings, a large oast with six kilns located to the south, both Grade II listed buildings. In addition, a converted barn, Elphicks Barn, is located to the north of the site. All of these buildings are in residential use.
5.1.2 Scuffits comprises the main dwellinghouse, a substantial detached converted oast located in the east of the site adjacent to the access. The oast was converted under MA/95/0003; condition 7 attached to the planning permission removed permitted development rights in regard to extensions and outbuildings in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the agricultural building, which is considered to be of architectural and historic importance, and as such to represent an undesignated heritage asset of value. A detached two bay garage is located to the north of the building (granted planning permission under MA/03/1674), and the western part of the site comprises a garden. The main oast building has previously been altered through the introduction of decking to the southern elevation and raised patio areas to the west elevation adjoining the kilns; these works were undertaken without the benefit of planning permission. The breach was not reported to the Council’s enforcement team, and as a result the matter has not been investigated to date. It is unclear at the current time whether the breach is immune from enforcement action; the immunity period would in this case be ten years, and the drawings submitted in support of MA/03/1674 do not show the structure as being in situ at that time.
5.1.3 The main dwellinghouse comprises a substantial triple-kilned oast with an unusual T-shaped stowage, regarded by the Conservation Officer as being “a fine example” of the kind. Whilst the T-shaped stowage is unusual, it is original to the building which overall displays a strong symmetry, the three circular kilns being arranged along the western elevation of the “T bar” of the stowage. Leaving aside the footprint of the building, the roof of the stowage has a traditional pitched form with half-hips to the north, south and east elevations, and it is constructed of ragstone with red brick quoins at ground floor level, with weatherboarding stained a mossy green at first floor level. The kilns are entirely faced with red brick, and all parts of the building are roofed with Kent peg tiles.
5.1.4 Notwithstanding the unauthorised additions and alterations referred to in the previous paragraph, the overall form of the stowage itself remains more or less intact with negligible alterations or disruptions to its simple form and clean lines. In particular, the arrangement of the openings remain in keeping with the agricultural origins of the building and are not overly domestic in terms of their scale, proportions, number or distribution.
5.1.5 The site is approached via Water Lane, a single track unclassified rural road, and is accessed via an existing vehicular access.
5.1.6 The site is located in a location recorded by the Environment Agency as being prone to fluvial flood (flood zone 3, functional flood plain), due to its proximity to the River Beult, which is located approximately 300m to the south of the site.
5.2 Proposal
5.2.1 The current application is for the erection of a single storey extension and an elevated flagstone patio area to the southern elevation of the oast.
5.2.2 The proposed extension would replace an existing elevated “sun deck” area which has been erected without the necessary planning permissions being in place. The extension would project 6.4m from the original south elevation of the building, and a width of 5m, resulting a footprint of 32m. The east elevation of the extension would be set back in relation to that of the original building by 300mm. The west elevation would be flush with the hypothetical west elevation of the stowage, which is in fact disrupted by the kilns. The extension would have a pitched roof form with a half-hip to the south elevation, mimicking the form of the stowages; the eaves of the addition would have heights of 3.2m, and the ridge a height of 5.9m. The base of the extension would be faced with a ragstone plinth with red brick quoins to a height of 1m, above this the structure would be extensively (virtually entirely) glazed to all three external elevations, with the glazing to the south elevation extending to the height of the half-hip (4.2m). The proposed extension would provide additional living accommodation in the form of a “garden room”.
5.2.3 The junction between the proposed extension and the original south elevation of the building would result in the removal of an existing pair of French doors, although part of the original south elevation would be retained in order to provide a sense of separation between the proposed garden room and the existing dining/breakfast room. The existing first floor window to the first floor of the south elevation of the original building would be removed in order to allow the provision of an internal first floor Juliet balcony which would provide light to the interior of the first floor of the original stowage and views of the interior of the garden room.
5.2.4 In addition to the extension, the proposal includes the introduction of a raised patio area to the west of the proposed garden room. This element of the proposal would comprise an area elevated by 1m which would provide a patio area which would compensate for the loss of the “sun deck” which is currently located on the proposed site of the extension. The raised patio would be faced in ragstone with red brick quoins, continuing the plinth of the extension, and its top would be finished in flagstones. The design includes 1m high railings enclosing the elevated surface and steps to its west elevation leading to the garden. The patio would have a curved south west elevation, which would replicate the rounded form of the kilns. This element of the proposal would infill the space formed between the proposed extension and the southernmost kiln.
5.2.5 The proposed development would be located at the southern end of the existing building, and therefore prominent in views of the site in the approach from Water Lane.
5.2.6 The proposal has been the subject of formal pre-application advice prior to the submission of the current application, at which time the applicant was advised in writing that an application for the proposed development was unlikely to be considered favourably in the context of the adopted planning policy framework.
5.2.7 The development as submitted has been modified in response to the pre-application advice letter in so far as a half-hip has been introduced to the south elevation. This elevation was originally intended to have a gabled roof form.
5.3 Planning Policy
5.3.1 The proposal represents the extension and alteration of a rural building considered to represent an un-designated heritage asset, which has been converted to residential use, located outside any village envelope or built up area and therefore in the open countryside as defined in the Local Plan.
5.3.2 The publication of the NPPF is a material consideration in the consideration of planning applications. Annex 1 (implementation) sets out the status of the NPPF, and that of Development Plan policies, in the determination of applications for planning permission. The policies of the Local Plan were adopted in 2000, albeit that they were saved in 2007, and as such relevant policies are accorded “due weight”, greater weight being given to those with a high degree of consistency with NPPF policy (paragraph 215). Supplementary planning documents have been adopted since 2004; these include the Residential Extensions SPD 2009, which should be accorded full weight.
5.3.3 The NPPF sets out the national planning policy framework for the determination of planning applications, including those relating to historic assets, listing in paragraph 17 the conservation of heritage assets in order to allow their enjoyment by current and future generations and contribution to quality of life to continue as one of the twelve core planning principles which should underpin decision making, and more generally seeks to preserve, conserve and enhance heritage assets, whether designated or not; it should be noted that the definition of heritage assets in Annex 2 of the NPPF does not exclude non-designated assets from the scope of the term, and in this case, in view of the value of the existing building as a fine example of a traditional Kentish building, Scuffits is considered to fall within the scope of an un-designated heritage asset, including for the purposes of assessing the current application.
5.3.4 The NPPF goes on to expand on this in section 12 of the document, which states that Local Planning Authorities should recognise the nature of historic assets as irreplaceable resources and work to conserve them appropriately, this places a responsibility on the Local Planning Authority to consider the impact of proposals on the significance of non-designated heritage assets in the determination of planning applications (paragraph 135) as well as directly and on the setting of designated heritage assets, in this case the neighbouring listed buildings to the east (Elphicks Farm) and to the south (Goldings) which are Grade II listed (paragraphs 132, 133 and 134). The NPPF explicitly states in paragraphs 133 and 134 that where proposals would result in harm to designated heritage assets should be balanced against the public benefits of the proposed development; in the circumstances of this case the proposal is for a residential extension, there is therefore limited, if any, public benefit from the proposal.
5.3.5 Nationally, the NPPF was published in March 2012 had the effect of sweeping away the pre-existing framework of planning policy statements and guidance, including PPS5 Planning and the Historic Environment; notwithstanding this, the PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide was retained for decision making purposes at a national level and “remains a valid and government endorsed document” (English Heritage revision note June 2012), and therefore relevant to the application of the NPPF. The Practice Guide recognises in paragraph 93 that non-designated assets “can, singularly and collectively, make an important, positive contribution to the environment”, and goes on to state that the desirability of conserving them is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
5.3.6 In respect of local and regional planning policy, the application should be assessed against Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 policy H33 and guidance on extensions to residential extensions as set out in the Maidstone Borough Council Residential Extensions SPD 2009, and policy BE6 of the South East Plan 2009.
5.3.7 Policy H33 requires, in addition to other criteria as set out in the Local Plan policy, that extensions to residential dwellings in the open countryside should not overwhelm or destroy the original form of the dwelling or be poorly designed or unsympathetically related to the property to be extended.
5.3.8 The Residential Extensions SPD goes further, and specifically states in paragraph 5.14 that “extensions to dwellings in the countryside which have been converted from buildings in non-residential use, such as oast houses…will not normally be permitted where this would have an unacceptable impact on the original form and character of the building. Many rural buildings have a simple form…which fits well with their original function and the character of the countryside and others have an historic form and character which should be retained. Proposals to such buildings should not therefore destroy that form or character and will not normally be considered acceptable.” The document also provides guidance on glazing in paragraphs 5.36 to 5.42 inclusive, and states that the arrangement of the openings to an extension, including the ratio of solid wall to window, should reflect those of the original building.
5.4 Planning considerations
Design
5.4.1 As set out in section 5.1 above, the original building is considered to represent an excellent example of an oast with an unusual, but not inappropriate or untraditional, arrangement and relationship between the T-shaped stowage and triple kilns, with a simple (if substantial in scale) character and appearance, which demonstrates an attractive and characteristic symmetry in its form. The high value of the building in terms of its role as an example of a traditional Kentish building closely linked to historic agricultural practices in Maidstone is clear, and is reflected in the Local Planning Authority’s assessment of the building as an un-designated heritage asset, as stated above in paragraph 5.3.3, and the decision to grant planning permission for the conversion of the building. It was considered that the building represented an unlisted building of quality and traditional construction which contributed to the character of the countryside and exemplified the historic development of the Kentish countryside. In addition to which it is well grouped with and contributes positively to the setting of the neighbouring listed buildings. It is not considered that this assessment was inaccurate, or that, notwithstanding the unauthorised alterations to the building, the circumstances of the site have changed in any way for the importance of the building to have significantly diminished since.
5.4.2 Extensions to buildings such as this should, in accordance with Local Plan policy H33 and the Residential Extensions SPD, be modest and well related to the original building; local policy is clear in stating that extensions to dwellings which result from the conversion of former agricultural buildings should not have an unacceptable impact on the original form and character of the building.
5.4.3 In this case, the scale of the proposed extension, and its unacceptable form and relationship to the original building are such that it is considered that the principle of the extension is unacceptable in policy terms.
5.4.4 In respect of the detail of the proposal, it is considered that the extension would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the un-designated heritage asset. In particular, notwithstanding the set down of the ridge in relation to that of the original building of 2.5m, the overall scale and visual bulk of the proposed extension is such that it would be disruptive of the symmetry of the oast, and would serve to distort and unbalance the relationship between the stowage and kilns. This would undermine the historic and cultural importance and value of the building, which is a traditional characteristic which should be conserved and preserved. It was in part to this end that permitted development rights were restricted at the time of the grant of planning permission for the conversion of the building to residential use.
5.4.5 Furthermore, the introduction of a southern projection to the stowage would be detrimental to the overall appearance of the southern aspect of the original building by altering and reducing the visual role and prominence of the southern kiln. This impact would be reinforced by the introduction of the raised patio area, which also represents a development of an overtly domestic character and which fails to respect the agricultural origins and historic value of the building.
5.4.6 In addition, whilst an attempt has been made in the choice of the materials and in the use of a plinth in the design of the proposed structure, the extent of the glazing proposed would be contrary to established guidance as set out in the Residential Extensions SPD, and entirely out of keeping with the character and appearance of the original and existing building, and would be harmful to the historic character of the building.
5.4.7 Finally, as set out in the comments of the Conservation Officer, Scuffits is closely related to and an important contributor to the setting of the neighbouring listed buildings, in particular Elphicks Farm, and therefore the harm that would be caused to the form, character and appearance of the oast would be detrimental to the setting and therefore the historic significance of the adjacent listed buildings. In the absence of any public benefit that would accrue from the proposed development, the proposal should be refused consent in accordance with the NPPF.
Other matters
5.4.8 It is noted that attention is drawn in the application documentation to examples of extensions to agricultural buildings converted to residential use. Members will be aware that in the determination of planning applications, each application is considered on its own merits.
5.4.9 The applicant has also drawn attention to the example of Elphicks Barn to the north of the site under MA/11/1340. This permitted a modest single storey extension to the end elevation of the barn which was on the site of a pre-existing structure, furthermore, the extension in the words of the planning officer “would respect and maintain the existing linear form” of the building. These circumstances differ significantly from the current case, and as such it is not considered that this represents a precedent for a substantial extension to a distinctively formed building that would not constitute the rebuilding of a pre-existing structure and which would lead to visual harm by way of the disruption that would be caused to the visual balance and symmetry of the oast and the distortion of the relationship between the various elements of the original building.
5.4.10 It is not considered that the proposal would result in any harm to the residential amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings, and the existing access and on site off road parking provision would remain unchanged.
5.4.11 The Kent County Council Biodiversity Officer has confirmed that there is no objection to the proposal in terms of the potential impact of the development on ecological habitats or species.
5.4.12 Whilst the proposal site is located within a Flood Zone, the accommodation that would be provided by the development would not result in the provision of ground floor sleeping accommodation, and as such there is no objection to the proposal on these grounds.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 For the reasons set out above, the proposal is considered to be in direct conflict with local, regional and national policy which seeks to conserve and enhance the fabric and setting of designated and un-designated heritage assets, in representing an inappropriate extension to a building of historic and architectural interest which is poorly related and unsympathetic to the original building, and which, by way of the harm caused to the un-designated heritage asset would also be detrimental to the setting of neighbouring Grade II listed buildings.
7. RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the following reasons:
1. The proposed extension, by reason of its scale, siting, appearance and arrangement of fenestration would be an unsympathetic addition to a traditional building of architectural interest considered to represent an un-designated heritage asset, being poorly related to the original building and harmful to the simple symmetrical form of the oast. The harm caused would be detrimental to the setting of an adjacent Grade II listed building. For these reasons the proposal would be contrary to policies H33 of the Maidstone Borough-Wide Local Plan 2000 and CC1, CC6 and BE6 of the South East Plan 2009, guidance in the Maidstone Borough Council Residential Extensions SPD 2009 and Central Government planning policy and guidance as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide.