Rear extension and roof at Pickleden Lodge, Wootton, Canterbury

“25/00723 – Listed Building Consent Application: Erection of single storey rear extension and replacement roof to rear addition (existing conservatory to be demolished). Remove and insert new internal partitions. Insert 1 window to west elevation and replace 1 window with door to south elevation. Replacement windows to external envelope…”

“The application relates to Pickleden Lodge, a grade II listed C19th lodge building. The single storey lodge building comprises a simple, compact, square plan form with pyramidal hipped slate roof structure and central chimney. The building has been altered through a flat roof rear extension and UPVc conservatory, the latter of which does not benefit from Listed Building Consent. In addition, windows have been replaced with UPVc units without consent.”

“The wider Pickleden Lodge site within the blue line includes a large and smaller barn building and granary to the rear, both considered to be curtilage listed. The large barn benefits from planning and Listed Building consent for its conversion to a dwelling.”

“DOV/25/00359 – Application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of a single storey rear extension and replacement timber windows (existing rear extension and conservatory demolished) – Refused DOV/25/00358 – Erection of a single storey rear extension and replacement timber windows (existing rear extension and conservatory demolished) - Refused DOV/24/00159 – Change of use of barn to dwelling, insertion of windows/doors, associated parking and conversion of former…”

“Overall, the proposed extensions and alterations would result in the loss of the subordinate form of the existing rear extensions and would poorly relate, overwhelm and diminish the principality of the historic core of the building with modern additions, detracting from the significance of the heritage asset and resulting in harm to the wider character and appearance of the area and National Landscape, which is not outweighed by public benefits.”

“The proposed extensions and alterations by virtue of their location, scale, form, design and material finish of the rear extension would result in the loss of the subordinate form of the existing flat roof rear extensions and would poorly relate, overwhelm and diminish the principality of the historic core of the building with modern additions, and would therefore fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the Grade II listed building.”

“Heritage Officer – the proposed extension by virtue of siting and detailed design would result in an incongruous addition, having the cumulative impact of overwhelming and dominating the Listed Building with modern development, detracting from the historic planform, resulting in harm to the special interest of the Listed Building for which no over-riding justification has been presented. The application is considered to result in…”

“The proposal is a vast improvement on the existing flat roof extension. • The proposal will be an improvement to this heritage asset. • It is important to be allowed to bring our heritage housing stock into practical use for this and future generations. • The proposal would be a big improvement to the character of the property and the general view of the landscape which is very visible to the public. • Must be allowed to correct previously badly designed structures.”

“Whilst the current proposal represented a reduction in the built form and was an improvement on the previous proposal, the existing structures already detracted from the listed building and any enlargement would further detract from it. The Senior Planner explained that the significance of the listed lodge building was derived from its very simple symmetrical and compact form topped with the pyramidal roof.”

“Councillor Kenton observed that this was a difficult decision as he was sympathetic to the applicant’s situation. However, although the existing conservatory was unsightly, he agreed that the proposed extensions and roof were over-complicated and would detract from the listed building. He believed there was a solution to the applicant’s situation but was not convinced that this was it.”