Appeal 6000971

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit the drive and hardstanding parking area had already been constructed. However, retention as referred to in the application form and decision notice does not constitute an act of development. I have dealt with the appeal on the basis planning permission is sought for the drive and hard standing parking area.

During the appeal the Council adopted a new local plan (Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Local Plan). The appellants have had the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new local plan on the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL).

The appeal site comprises a field on the east side of [site address] and to the south of grade II listed buildings. An access road from [site address] provides access to the appeal site, the farmstead and its buildings, most of which have been converted into residential use. The surrounding area comprises a mix of sporadic residential development and agricultural land and is within the HWNL.

The appeal site is grassed and is accessed via a field entrance which has been widened through the removal of some hedgerow. A block paved drive and parking area has been constructed immediately adjacent to the field access. The appeal site is within the appellants ownership, but does not form part of its residential curtilage, although there is no boundary between the residential curtilage and the field.

Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. Section 245 of the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) places a duty on relevant authorities to further the statutory purpose of the National Landscape.

The natural beauty of the HWNL is derived from its landscape character created by historic and locally distinctive agricultural and forestry practices. However, the HWNL is particularly vulnerable to development which fails to respect its tranquil and rural characteristics.

The High Weald AONB Management Plan states that one of the top five issues relating to the degradation of the HWNL is the ‘Erosion of AONB character through the cumulative effects of suburbanisation, including... the extension of residential curtilage boundaries...hard surfacing.’ In response to this, public bodies are encouraged to ‘Seek to minimise erosion of AONB character through suburbanisation in rural areas, including smaller interventions such as new accesses, which have a cumulative effect’.

As a field which was lacking in built form prior to the development, the site positively contributed to the HWNL.

The development has created a large area of hardstanding to be used for parking in association with [site address] (a micro dwelling) which already has a single parking space adjacent to the dwelling. The development also involved the widening of the field access and removal of some hedgerow.

The hardstanding is not within the residential curtilage of the dwelling, is not linked to the dwelling by any form of pathway, is quite distant from the dwelling in terms of proximity providing no connection between the two and is disproportionately large in relation to the size of the dwelling, which already has parking. The appellant asserts the level of parking is insufficient for the dwelling, however, I have not been provided with substantive evidence that the level of parking provided with the dwelling is insufficient or that it would lead to an adverse impact on the highway network. The design and materials are also considered unsympathetic to the rural location.

The development is inappropriate in a field and has a visually harmful effect on the HWNL by urbanising otherwise open land. I note the appellant has suggested alternatives to the block paving which may soften the appearance of the development and could be controlled by condition, however, when cars are parked on the site this would urbanise its appearance in an otherwise rural setting. The proposed landscaping would also serve only to draw attention to the development. I note the proposal includes gates which the appellant notes may screen the development. However, I have not been provided with details of the gates, and their proposed position within the field would further urbanise the site.

The disconnect between the development and the dwelling would also be likely to lead to pressure for a pathway between the two, which would be likely to require lighting that would add additional urbanising features to the site.

Whilst the appellant notes there are numerous vehicular accesses within the surrounding area, often associated with driveways and parking, each case must be considered on its own merit and within the context of the site. In this instance the access leads onto a field, disconnected from the residential dwelling it would serve and therefore would not be comparable to a driveway and parking in close physical connection with a dwelling and within the residential curtilage.

The development does not conserve, enhance or further the purposes of the HWNL and is inappropriate within the context of its rural setting. The development is therefore contrary to Policies STR1, EN1, EN18, EN19, EN20 and TP3 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan which seek to limit built development outside settlements and ensure development would have a minimal impact on the landscape character of the locality and conserve and enhance the scenic beauty of the HWNL.

The appeal site lies within the setting of grade II listed buildings within the [site address] Complex ([name] and Cottages to south of [name], [address]). I therefore have a statutory duty under the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. The Framework states that any harm to, or loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset (including from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification.

The listed buildings lie within a rural setting of which the appeal site forms part, however, given the small scale nature of the development and its distance from the listed buildings, the development would not harm the heritage significance. The Council has not raised any concerns in this regard and I have no reason to take a different view.

I have been directed towards planning application reference 25/00333/FULL, however, I have not been provided with any information relating to this case. I would note however, that the description of the development is for a replacement dwelling and not the creation of a drive and hardstanding, therefore I do not consider the two cases to be directly comparable.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.