Appeal 6001111

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising a maximum of 9 dwellings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02117/PIP, dated 25 July 2025.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council. This is the subject of a separate Decision.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has two stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second stage (technical details consent stage) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The PPG explains that, in summary, that a decision on whether to grant permission in principle to a site following a valid application must be made in accordance with relevant policies in the development plan unless there are material considerations, such as those in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and national guidance, which indicate otherwise.

The committee report states that the proposal seeks permission for the erection of dwellings with a minimum of 5 or a maximum of 9 net dwellings and associated 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] ancillary works. While the submitted plans illustrate nine dwellings, I have considered this as mostly indicative of the scale and form of development proposed.

The site address details provided in the application form differs slightly from the address referenced in the appeal form and the Council’s decision notice, which use the address shown in the banner heading. After visiting the site and reviewing the appeal documents, I am satisfied that this address is correct. The banner heading has been updated accordingly.

The appeal site is an L shaped area of land located within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Although the effect of the Green Belt is not disputed between the main parties, it has been raised as a significant concern by interested parties. Accordingly, it is considered necessary to address this issue.

Taking the above background into account, evidence from interested parties, and my observations onsite, it is considered that the remaining outstanding main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development’s location, land use and amount of development on highways safety and on the ability of future occupants to access services and facilities by a range of transport modes; and • whether or not the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies.

The appeal site is enclosed on two sides by existing highways. It incorporates varying land levels, and the frame of a barn is currently located on part of the site. The indicative plans indicate that seven of the proposed dwellings could be accessed from a section of the A20 [address] ( [site address] ) which is subject to a 40 mph speed limit. The remaining two dwellings could be accessed from [address], which is subject to a 60 mph speed limit.

Policy EN1 of the [name] and Development Management Plan 2015 (MP) confirms that proposals which would create high quality design and meet a number of criteria will be permitted. One of these criteria is the requirement to ensure satisfactory means of access for vehicles and pedestrians and provide adequate parking and refuse facilities.

Policy T1 of the MP confirms that new developments will be required to mitigate any adverse travel impacts, including their impact on congestion and safety, environmental impact, such as noise and tranquillity, pollution and impact on amenity and health. This may mean ensuring adequate provision is made for integrated and improved transport infrastructure or other appropriate mitigation measures, through direct improvements and/or developer contributions.

[name] has referred to the central island on the A20, which they consider is a location which has already been subject to fatalities due to limited visibility. Interested parties have highlighted that the local area is regarded as a vehicular accident hotspot, citing concerns relating to high traffic speeds, limited visibility, and a reported history of accidents and casualties. They also describe a culture of high-speed motorcycle activity in the vicinity, which they state has necessitated in an increased police presence due to dangerous riding practices. They also advise that this section of the A20 is, likely informally, referred to by some local residents as ‘[address]’, due to the speed of traffic and the number of fatalities. Interested parties also report that, over the past eight years, five deaths and eighteen serious casualties have occurred at or close to the appeal site across four separate incidents. They further claim that approximately 1,200 traffic offences have been recorded in this location within a six-month period. I acknowledge the seriousness of these concerns and have carefully considered the statements and statistics provided, with particular regard to the overall safety of the nearby highways.

In reviewing the evidence, I note that the appellant has not directly disputed the figures associated with these concerns or produced a supporting transport or safety report. However, there is also no substantiating evidence before me, such as verified collision data, police records or traffic enforcement logs, to directly confirm the accuracy of these specific figures or to demonstrate a direct causal relationship between the local highway conditions and the claimed number of offences or casualties. It is therefore unclear when the incidents occurred, their precise locations, or over what period the stated statistics were compiled. [name] have carefully considered the seriousness of the concerns raised, in the absence of objective and verifiable evidence demonstrating that the proposal would, in principle, result in an unacceptable highway safety impact, I am unable to give these safety concerns more than moderate weight.

Kent County Council Highways (KCCH) confirm that the proposed access onto [address] would be subject to restricted visibility and that the carriageway is narrow. They also note that the A20 [address] access may contain elements of highway layout overlap that could affect vehicle manoeuvring. [name] acknowledge that the proposal could lead to some intensification of use at both access points, they advise that the scale of development would be insufficient to generate a significant impact on the wider highway network. On this basis, and subject to the appellant demonstrating compliance with relevant highway standards at the technical details consent stage, KCCH do not object to the principle of development in this location. There is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the matters identified by KCCH could not be satisfactorily addressed through the detailed design process. From my own observations during the site visit, I could see no reason why an appropriate and safe access arrangement could not be achieved. I therefore attach considerable weight to the professional assessment of the statutory highway authority and am satisfied that a suitable highway design solution could be secured at the technical details consent stage.

It is not disputed that the appeal site lies in close proximity to multiple high scoring settlements for services and facilities which include Swanley, [name] and Farningham. In terms of access, it is also common ground between the parties that pedestrian access from the appeal site could be provided to Farningham via an existing pedestrian footway which runs along the A20. This established footway already benefits from street lighting and a pedestrian crossing, and its use would enable any future occupiers to walk approximately five minutes to [address]. While no such footway currently exists along [address], it is recognised that a new pedestrian route could be provided through the appeal site to connect those dwellings to the A20 footway. This would facilitate safer pedestrian movement through the appeal site itself, particularly for dwellings located on that side. Additionally, the appeal site lies a short distance from the nearest bus stop and within a short cycle ride of both Farningham and Eynsford. On this basis, KCCH consider that the trips of future occupiers would not necessarily be reliant on private vehicles. From my observations during the site visit, I could see no reason why an appropriate and safe access arrangement could not be achieved.

In reaching this view, I have considered that the appeal site is separated from Farningham by the A20 and that the proposal would result in the increased use of the existing pedestrian crossing. Although interested parties have raised concerns about the safety of this crossing, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that it is inherently unsafe, poorly located, or that any increase in its use could not be appropriately mitigated through detailed design solutions secured at the technical details consent stage.

In summary, I have considered the highway safety concerns raised by interested parties. [name] have attributed moderate weight to these concerns, I afford considerable weight to the professional assessment of KCCH as the statutory highway authority. My own observations during the site visit support this view. [name] acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the accessibility of the site, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposed development would result in significant harm. Instead, the evidence indicates that future occupants would be able to access services and facilities by a range of transport modes. There is nothing before me to suggest that the appeal site is in an unsustainable location or that the development would lead to an unavoidable dependence on private vehicles.

On this basis, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not give rise to an unacceptable highway safety impact. Following mitigation, there is no persuasive evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios. The proposal therefore accords with paragraph 116 of the Framework.

Accordingly, I conclude that the scheme, by reason of the location, land use and amount of development, would not result in undue or adverse harm to highways safety or to the ability of future occupants to access services and facilities by a range of transport modes. Rather, it is considered that the scheme could ensure satisfactory means of access for vehicles and pedestrians, and any adverse travel impacts could be appropriately mitigated at the technical details consent stage. It would therefore comply with Policies EN1 and T1 of the MP.

The Framework explains that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The proposal should be assessed against the presumption that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

The construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to a number of exceptions set out in paragraph 154 of the Framework. There is no evidence before me that the parties consider that the proposed development would meet any of these exceptions, and I have found no reason to come to a different conclusion.

The Framework also states that the development of homes within the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where the proposal meets all the criteria set out in paragraph 155 of the Framework. The first criterion requires that the development utilises grey belt land and does not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan.

For the purposes of decision-making, grey belt land is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land (PDL) and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of the purposes (a), (b), or (d) set out in paragraph 143. It also excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

The Framework defines PDL as land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed). While part of the appeal site, which includes the steel-framed barn, appears to constitute PDL, the remainder of the site appears to be undeveloped. Additionally, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the appeal site has been lawfully developed or used in a manner that would bring it within the definition of PDL. Accordingly, I cannot be satisfied that the whole appeal site meets the definition of PDL.

Paragraph 143 of the Framework states that the Green Belt serves the following purposes; a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Farningham is a village and in accordance with guidance set out in the PPG, it therefore does not fulfil either purpose a) or b). There is no indication that the setting of any historic towns would be affected, so it would not serve purpose d). Furthermore, there is no evidence before me that the appeal site would be subject to the application of policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) that would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. As such, the appeal site is considered grey belt land.

Regarding the other criteria set out under paragraph 155 of the Framework: (a) I am satisfied that the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; (b) the parties agree there is a demonstrable need for the proposed housing; (c) the site appears to be in a sustainable location, as access would be available to existing roads, with safe and suitable access likely achievable for all users. No concerns have been raised regarding the potential for prioritising sustainable transport to the appeal site, and detailed design matters such as access and parking could be addressed at the technical details consent stage. Given the scale of development, significant transport impacts are considered unlikely; (d) I am satisfied that the proposal doesn’t meet the ‘[name] requirements, as it does not constitute major development, providing fewer than 10 homes on a site of less than 0.5 hectares.

[name] recognise that interested parties have raised concerns regarding the effect of the proposed development on openness and the need to maintain established settlement boundaries, the proposed development satisfies all the criteria in paragraph 155. Accordingly, it should not be regarded as inappropriate development and there is no need to consider any other issues regarding development in green belt land.

Interested parties, including local residents as well as Farningham Parish Council and [name] and South Darenth Parish Council, have raised a wide range of concerns. These include matters relating to the provision of affordable housing, whether local housing needs would be met, the lack of detail regarding the type and size of the houses proposed, the effect of any artificial external lighting on protected species, impact on natural habitats, effect on boundary trees, noise levels for any future occupiers, land contamination risk, the effect of construction nuisance, the potential for archaeological finds, the effect on the adjacent Kent Downs National Landscape, antisocial behaviour from motorbike gatherings, junction misuse from [address] and the effect on utilities such as foul drainage.

However, the issues raised are technical in nature and, at this stage, there is nothing before me to indicate that the proposed development could not be designed to address them satisfactorily. These matters would need to be fully considered and demonstrated at the [name] stage, where the detail of the proposal would be further assessed. It is therefore not necessary for me to consider these matters in further detail.

The Council has indicated that it cannot meet its 5-year housing land supply targets. Nonetheless, as the proposal accords with the development plan and no material considerations indicate otherwise, the absence of an established housing land supply position does not weigh against the scheme.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.