The appellant claimed that the conversion would preserve local heritage by restoring a traditional oast. The inspector recognised the significance of traditional rural buildings in evoking the character and history of a locality typified by orchards. However, he judged that the appellant's claim was not borne out by what was actually put forward.
He opined that extensive glazing, roof windows and balconies would lead to an overly domestic appearance, undermining the oast's traditional character. The drawings showed no intention to restore the cowl at the top of the kiln, he noted. He also found the scale of the proposal objectionable, criticising a two-storey wing as disproportionately large. Adding so much new building would seriously impair the character of the original and destroy its essentially modest scale, he held.
DCS Number 100-058-194
Inspector Simon Gibbs; Written representations