Replacement conservatory at The Old Farm House, Hempstead, Gillingham
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Medway Planning Committee on 1 Jul 2026.
What was proposed
Listed building consent was sought to replace the existing rear conservatory with a wider, lower, glazed structure using black aluminium framing and a rendered plinth.
“This application seeks Listed Building Consent for the demolition of the existing rear conservatory and the erection of a replacement conservatory to the rear of The Old Farmhouse, 4 Harrow Road, Hempstead, Gillingham, a Grade II listed dwelling.”
“The existing conservatory is a modern uPVC addition located on the rear elevation of the property. The proposed replacement would comprise a single storey conservatory extension with slim profile black aluminium framing and a rendered plinth to match the host property. The replacement structure would occupy a similar position to the existing conservatory, with an increased width and a lower overall ridge height.”
Officer report
Earlier applications
Earlier applications included approved listed building works, extensions, garages and a change of use, while an application to demolish the building was refused.
“GL/65/168Q Listed building application for the modernisation of property including the demolition of single storey extension and erection of dormer extension. Decision: Approved Decided: 02.12.1987”
“GL/65/168J Listed building application for the demolition of the building Decision: Refused Decided: 14.01.1986”
Officer report
Why officers supported it
Officers considered removing the unsympathetic existing conservatory and installing a more recessive replacement would preserve and enhance the listed building.
“The existing conservatory is considered a modern addition of limited architectural merit that is not considered to contribute positively to the significance of the listed building. The existing structure utilises uPVC and is not reflective of the traditional materials or detailing of the host dwelling. Its removal therefore constitutes a heritage benefit, resulting in the loss of a conflicting feature that currently detracts from the character and appearance of the building.”
“In assessing the impact on historic significance, it is noted that the wider coverage of the rear elevation at ground floor level is offset by the improved design quality, reduced height, and more sympathetic materiality when compared to the existing conservatory. As such, the replacement structure is considered to be more subservient and better integrated with the host building.”
Officer report
Neighbour notification
The application was advertised on site and neighbouring property owners and occupiers were notified individually.
“The application has been advertised on site and by individual neighbour notification to the owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties.”
Officer report
The committee’s decision
The committee approved the application with conditions 1 to 3 for the reasons stated in the report.
“Approved with conditions 1 to 3 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.”
Minutes
Sources
- Medway Planning Committee minutes, 1 July 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Medway's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Medway Planning Committee
- Council
- Medway
- Date
- Wednesday 1 July 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- View application →
- All decisions
- Medway committee decisions →
This committee's year
65 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 6 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.