Appeal 6002566

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are whether the proposal would: • be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies, including the effect upon the openness of the Green Belt; and, • preserve the setting of the [name] listed buildings known as [site address] and [address].

The appeal site is within the Green Belt. Policy M12 of the Dartford Plan (2024) sets out that inappropriate development in the Green Belt will be resisted in accordance with national planning policy. Whilst the policy sets out a number of criteria upon which development will be assessed, the adoption of the Dartford Plan pre-dates the latest version of the Framework.

The Framework outlines several exceptions to inappropriate development at paragraphs 154 and 155. Specifically, paragraph 154 g) of the Framework outlines that the redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL) will not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt provided that it “would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt”.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the site meets the definition of PDL. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to reach a different judgement on this matter. It therefore falls to consider whether the development would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides advice on the factors that can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt, with openness capable of having both spatial and visual aspects.

The proposed cart barn would be larger than the existing store in broadly the same location. Nevertheless, the submitted plans detail that the proposal would lead to an overall reduction in the cubic area occupied by built form, when the elements of demolition are considered. These figures have not been disputed by the Council. If the appeal were to be otherwise allowed, demolition could be secured by condition. The reduction would be modest, but the proposal would still create a marginal positive effect on the spatial openness of the Green Belt.

The proposal relates to the erection of a single storey building. Given the scale of the building, and its positioning above the roadside, there would be some harm to the visual openness of the Green Belt arising from the proposal. Nevertheless, the level of harm in Green Belt terms would be relatively limited.

When taken as a whole, the proposal would not amount to substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. It would therefore fall within the exception outlined in paragraph 154 g) of the Framework and would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

I note that the main parties have referred to various other exceptions to inappropriate development including the extension or alteration of existing buildings, the replacement of buildings and development within the grey belt. However, given that I have found the proposal to be not inappropriate as the redevelopment of PDL, it is not necessary for me to consider these further.

In relation to the redevelopment of PDL, Policy M12 of the Dartford Plan refers to proposals not having a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Whilst the proposal would conflict with Policy M12 of the Dartford Plan, I have given this element of the policy limited weight as it is inconsistent with the threshold of harm within the Framework.

I have a statutory duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which requires special regard to be given to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. This is also referenced within Policy M5 of the Dartford Plan.

Whilst now both in separate residential use, [site address] and [address] are attached [name] listed buildings which derived their significance in part from their historical association with the hop industry. In the past, the fields surrounding the appeal site were used for hop growing and orchards which expanded over time as the hop industry grew.

[site address] , which is within the appeal site, retains two roundels which were originally used for the drying of hops. Insofar as is relevant to the proposal before me, the distinctive design of the building is a strong contributor to its overall significance, creating a key landmark in the immediate context, particularly given the positioning of the buildings at a higher level than the roadside.

Given in part the land level differences between the appeal site and the highway, the existing store building within the corner of the appeal site already appears conspicuous in the street scene, providing a distraction to the appreciation of the listed buildings.

The proposal seeks to demolish this building and replace it with a detached two bay cart shed with attached store in broadly the same position. In comparison to the existing store, the cart shed would have a greater footprint and overall height. Despite being predominantly open to the front, the rear and sides of the building would form solid expanses of walls and roof. Rather than having visual separation from the listed buildings, when experiencing the listed buildings from the north in particular, the cart shed would be a dominant and intrusive form of development which would negatively intrude, and cause harm to, the settings of the listed buildings.

I observed during my site visit that the surrounding area has a variety of sporadic outbuildings of varying design. However, due to the siting of these outbuildings they do not form the same distraction to the appreciation of the listed buildings that the appeal proposal would. Equally, the presence of soft landscaping features, even when accounting for future growth, would not mitigate the harm which I have identified to the setting of the listed buildings.

The appeal proposal also includes the part demolition of an existing garage structure, but this is some distance away from the positioning of the proposed cart shed. Even in the acknowledgement that the setting and character of heritage assets can evolve over time, the part demolition proposed would not justify the scale and appearance of the cart shed building in the location proposed.

Based on the above, I find that the proposal fails to preserve the setting of the [name] listed buildings known as [site address] and [address]. It would therefore be contrary to Policies M1, M5 and M6 of the Dartford Plan, all of which in part require appropriate regard to be had to heritage assets, recognising that designated heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource, which should be protected, conserved or enhanced as appropriate.

The appellant has referred to a previous permission for the conversion to four dwellings, each with a double garage. It is suggested that the permission has only been part implemented and consequently further development could come forwards at a later date.

However, I do not have details of the approved permission including plans to show the location of the development within the appeal site. I therefore cannot be satisfied that it would represent a more harmful form of development which would justify the appeal proposal before me. Even if that were to be the case, I have not been presented with any means of securing that the previous permission would not also be implemented.

Taking all of the above into account, I find the harm to the setting of the listed buildings to be at the lower end of less than substantial, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the development.

Through the part demolition of the existing garage, the proposal would create a wider highway access into the appeal site which may be beneficial to users. Nevertheless, this would largely be a private benefit rather than a public one.

Whilst it is suggested that the existing store building is in need of replacement, given my findings above, I cannot be satisfied that its replacement in the manner proposed would represent a public benefit.

I note the intention to incorporate an electric charging point for vehicles which would have environmental benefits which could be considered as public. Noting the scale of the proposal, the benefit would be extremely modest.

It is suggested that the proposal will lead to the release of a family home which will benefit the overall housing market. However, I cannot be satisfied that the nature of the proposed development would lead directly to this benefit and therefore I have attached it very limited weight.

The public benefits which I have identified are collectively at best modest, and therefore do not outweigh the harm to the settings of the [name] listed buildings known as [site address] and [address].

Despite my findings that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, I conclude that overall, the development fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 215 of the Framework, and it is not in accordance with the development plan, when read as a whole.

Material considerations do not indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, and having considered all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.