Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 23134

Received: 16/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs J Field

Representation Summary:

Mrs Field objects to the proposed Policy BEX7 specifically (ii) which says the existing dwelling, Moleynes Mead, is retained.

Mrs Field disputes that Moleynes Mead is "considered" to be a non-designated heritage asset. Historic England concluded that the building would not be added to the statutory list.

In dismissing the appeal for 35 dwellings the Inspector noted the Council considered Moleynes Mead to be a heritage asset but no mention of the building was made in the SHLAA assessment which considered the site suitable for 40 dwellings.

Additional supporting information was supplied which can be viewed here:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28028



Full text:

Mrs Field is the owner of Moleynes Mead.

Mrs Field objects to the proposed Policy BEX7 specifically (ii) which says the existing dwelling, Moleynes Mead, is retained, for the following reasons.

Mrs Field disputes that Moleynes Mead is "considered" to be a non-designated heritage asset. Historic England considered whether the building merited listed status and an Advice Report on 14 July 2015 concluded (followed by formal notification by Historic England on 24 July 2015 that the building would not be added to the statutory list).

Conclusion

After examining all the records and other relevant information and having carefully considered the architectural and historic interest of this case, the criteria for listing are not fulfilled. For this reason Moleynes Mead is not recommended for listing.


REASONS FOR DESIGNATION DECISION

Moline's Mead, 11 Ellerslie Lane of 1924 by G Blair Imrie for Dr H E Leigh Canney, is not recommended for listing for the following principal reasons:

* Architectural interest: in scale and ambition a relatively modest example of the Domestic Revival style, with few interior features of note:
* Date and innovation: the domestic planning and architectural design are not innovative for their date, and the design had no influence in the field of domestic architecture;
* Historic interest: While Dr Leigh Canney is of note as an early C20 medical reformer, he is little-known outside this specialised field and cannot as such be considered nationally important;
* Alterations and historic setting: the infilling of the loggia and remodelling of the garage have compromised the overall appearance of the building, while the erection of garages, stabling and other ancillary building in the grounds have had an impact on the historic setting of the house.

In the preamble to the policy it is suggested a dismissed appeal accepted the principle of development on the site but the "reasons of refusal focused on poor design and layout and loss of a heritage". In dismissing the appeal for 35 dwellings on the site on 13 July 2015 prior to the findings on the building's suitability for listing the Inspector noted the Council considered Moleynes Mead to be a heritage asset but no mention of the building was made in the SHLAA assessment which considered the site suitable for 40 dwellings. Paragraphs 29, 30 and 35 of the decision letter are relevant and are reproduced below.

Additional supporting information was supplied which can be viewed here:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28028