Appeal 6002778

The appeal is dismissed.

With the appeal, the appellant has submitted a Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA) to address the ecology reason for refusal. What is considered at appeal should be essentially the same scheme that was considered by the local planning authority. I am satisfied that the additional report does not result in a substantially different scheme to that originally determined and that no party has been prejudiced giving rise to any procedural unfairness. As the PEA was submitted with the appeal documents, the Council would have had the opportunity to comment, although no further comments have been received. I therefore proceed to determine the appeal on the updated documents.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

With the appeal, the Council provided copies of policies from the Regulation 19 draft of the Medway Local Plan 2041. No draft polices were referred to in the reason for refusal. As the plan has not yet been adopted and there is nothing before me to indicate the adoption process to be in its concluding stages, its emerging policies carry limited weight. I shall consider the appeal on this basis.

Prior approval pursuant to Class Q of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) was granted in 2024, reference MC/23/2723 (2024 prior approval). It forms a material consideration in my determination of the appeal.

[name] visited the site, there was evidence of an existing slab/hardstanding. One roof truss was retained on site, supported by scaffold, with 4 further trusses stored in an adjacent field. It is not for me, under a Section 78 appeal, to determine the lawfulness of the site’s use, or reach a conclusion regarding the status of the site with respect to planning enforcement proceedings. My assessment is necessarily based on the development plan and other material considerations.

The main issues are: • whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed dwelling having regard to the Council’s strategy for the location of development and access to services and facilities; • the effect of the proposal on ecology; and, • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the countryside.

Policy S1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 (Local Plan) sets out the Council’s development strategy, which focuses on the Medway riverside areas and Chatham, Gillingham, Strood, Rochester and Rainham town centres. Policy S2, amongst other things, focuses on a sustainable approach to the location and mix of new development, and aims to provide communities with a range of local facilities.

The appeal site lies to the west of the settlement of [site address] and is within open countryside for the purposes of planning policy. Local Plan Policy BNE25 specifically relates to development within the countryside, setting out specific criteria with which a development would need to comply. Policy H004 of the [name] and Chattenden Neighbourhood Plan 2023-2040 (NP) supports the location of housing growth within existing settlements, the conversion of the upper floors of commercial properties and the conversion of agricultural buildings. The proposal would not fit with any of the locational criteria specified in either the Local Plan or NP.

The location of the appeal site is within walking distance to the services and facilities of [site address] . However, the appeal site is located on an unlit, undulating rural road with no footway or wide verge. The road would make walking to local services an unrealistic and unsafe prospect, particularly outside daylight hours or in inclement weather. Similarly, for these reasons, I do not consider cycling would be a realistic option for many. As such, the future occupants of the proposed dwelling would be reliant on private vehicles in practical terms to access most local services and facilities.

The appellant considers the proposal would comply with BNE25 (iv) insofar as it allows a re-use or an adaptation of an existing building. As the barn is no longer in place, with the exception of a slab and trusses mostly stored off-site, my view is that given the extent of proposed construction, the proposal could not reasonably be considered a re-use or adaptation of an existing building. Part (vi) allows the rebuilding of a dwelling. The evidence before me indicates the site had not been in use as a dwelling prior to demolition, as such I do not consider the proposal would comprise the re-building of a dwelling.

My attention has been drawn to several other housing developments within the countryside of the Hoo peninsula. There is little evidence before me regarding the circumstances under which the housing schemes were granted planning permission, including whether any were housing sites allocated in the local plan. The presence of other housing schemes within the countryside does not indicate that I should necessarily reach the conclusion that the location would be in line with the

In conclusion on this issue therefore, the location of the appeal scheme would conflict with the Council’s strategy for the location of development which aims to focus new residential development within the urban area and identified town centres and aims to have a sustainable approach to the location of new development. The proposal would conflict with Local Plan Policies S1, S2 and BNE25, and NP Policy H004, insofar as these policies seek to locate new residential development within the urban area and support residential development within the countryside in particular circumstances.

Amongst other things, Local Plan Policy BNE37 aims to protect important wildlife habitats and features. The PEA accompanying the appeal was undertaken prior to the demolition of the barn and is almost 3 years old; the PEA itself states that consideration should be given to the validity of survey data after a period of 12 months from the date of the survey, which was July 2023. Given the change in circumstances due to the demolition of the barn, without an updated PEA, the ecological effect of the proposal, or necessary mitigation, cannot be fully understood.

Even if I were to accept that the PEA was up to date, due to the presence of a waterbody in the surrounding landscape, the PEA concludes that the presence of great crested newts cannot be ruled out. The PEA clarifies a District Level Licence scheme operates in Kent. However, there is no indication that the appellant intends to pursue this option. Alternatively, the PEA recommends further surveys to determine the presence of great crested newts. The evidence before me does not suggest the recommended surveys have been completed.

Great crested newts are a European protected species protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Current advice (paragraph 99 of Circular 06/2005) states that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before planning permission is granted. I have also had regard to Natural England’s standing advice for great crested newts (January 2022 updated April 2025).

Even if I were to accept that the PEA was sufficiently up-to-date, and adopting a precautionary approach, there is insufficient evidence to show that there would be adequate mitigation to ensure the protection of great crested newts. Given the lack of clarity regarding any proposed mitigation, along with the advice I have referred to above, a planning condition would not be appropriate in this case in the absence of an understanding of the baseline position regarding the presence of protected species.

Reference is made to the landscaping approved under the discharge of condition 4 (reference MC/24/1509) of the 2024 prior approval. Whilst details of landscaping were required, amongst other things, this was for the reasons of appearance and visual amenity; it did not relate specifically to ecology or protected species.

I conclude therefore that there is insufficient information before me to provide any certainty over how protected species may be affected by the proposal. This is due to the age of the PEA and the lack of clarity regarding mitigation for the potential presence of protected species. The appeal proposal conflicts with Local Plan Policy BNE37 insofar as it seeks to protect important wildlife habitats. Paragraph 193(a) of the Framework is clear that where significant harm to biodiversity from a development cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated then planning permission should be refused.

The appeal site is located adjacent to [name] and a single storey building the Council describes as an annex. It is separated from these buildings by a belt of trees and vegetation. With the exception of these adjacent buildings, the site is surrounded by open, undulating countryside. The site sits in a elevated position relative to the surrounding fields.

The proposed dwelling would be similar in appearance to that of the 2024 prior approval. However, the ridge height would be higher than the former barn. There would be various domestic flues projecting from the roof. There would also be a large area of hardstanding to enable parking and manoeuvring.

Whilst the building as proposed would be more prominent than the former barn given the proposed ridge height, I do not consider this would be appreciable in views across the landscape to a degree which would be materially harmful to the surrounding countryside. In more localised views, the dwelling would be seen in the context of the adjacent dwellings and trees.

I attach significant weight in my assessment to the existence of the 2024 prior approval which would have given the site a domestic character had the barn been converted to a dwelling. I note that the drawings provided by the appellant for the discharge of conditions 3 and 4 of the 2024 prior approval show the same extent of hardstanding, parking and manoeuvring space as contained in the appeal scheme. The details of the windows, roof sheeting, timber weatherboarding, rainwater goods, vent and pipe flues, boundary treatments and landscaping were all approved by the Council under the terms of condition 4. Given that the scheme before me is substantively similar in design detail to that already approved, I do not consider that the appeal scheme would cause harm to the rural landscape by introducing a more domestic character to the appeal site.

Consequently, on this main issue I conclude that the scheme would be acceptable in terms of its effect on the character and appearance of the countryside. It would be in line with the aims of Local Plan Policies BNE1 and BNE25 and NP Policy H006 insofar as they require the design of development to respect the scale, appearance and location of buildings, spaces and the visual amenity of the area, along with being designed to complement Hoo’s historic and rural character.

The appeal site falls within the Zone of Influence of the [name] and Marshes Special Protection Area and Ramsar and the North Kent Marshes Special Protection Area and Ramsar sites. Any new residential development has the potential to cause disturbance to European designated sites and must therefore provide appropriate mitigation. The Council is satisfied that had the proposal been considered acceptable in other respects, appropriate mitigation could have been secured. [name] am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I shall not pursue this matter further because it would not lead me to a different conclusion.

The Grade II listed [name] lies to the south of the appeal site, separated by a belt of trees and an intervening modern single storey dwelling. Its significance is derived from its age and vernacular architecture dating back to the early 16th Century. Its agricultural setting has been somewhat compromised by the adjacent single storey dwelling. It is principally experienced in views from [site address] .

I have had regard to the statutory duty set out in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) with respect to the desirability of preserving the setting of [name]. There would be some intervisibility between the appeal site and the listed building. However, given the location of the appeal proposal behind the belt of trees and adjacent dwelling, I consider the proposal would preserve the setting of the listed building and the contribution the setting makes to its significance.

The Council is satisfied with matters including the layout and standard of accommodation proposed, effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, parking and highway safety. I do not have substantive evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Council in these matters, so I see no reason to disagree. Nevertheless, the absence of harm means these are neutral considerations in my determination of the appeal.

Set against the harm identified, the proposal would deliver a net gain of one new family sized dwelling. It would support the Government’s aim of significantly boosting the supply of homes, particularly on small and medium sites. However, the addition of a single dwelling would provide a limited contribution in this context and I attach limited weight to this benefit. The appeal scheme is said to be a self-build dwelling, for which there is particular support within the Framework. I have however attached limited weight to this benefit as no mechanism for guaranteeing self-build has been put forward.

There would be temporary and ongoing economic benefits from the development through construction and future residents’ use of local shops and services, but given the single additional dwelling, those benefits would also be limited.

There would be the potential for some limited ecological enhancements including the provision of native species planting and the potential for bird/bat boxes.

The proposal would re-use some of the former barn’s infrastructure including the access, along with some materials and structural elements including the roof trusses. The scheme would offer energy efficiency features including the use of an air source heat pump and electric vehicle charging. I attach moderate weight to these benefits.

Paragraph 232 of the Framework makes it clear that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. The Framework aims to achieve sustainable travel and to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. It does not contain any policies which specifically prohibit development outside towns and villages, and I consider that insofar as they relate to the location of development, Local Plan Policy BNE25 and NP Policy H004 take a more prohibitive approach than that contained in the Framework. As such, the conflict between the proposal and these policies should be given modest weight.

Paragraph 193(a) of the Framework is clear that where significant harm to biodiversity from a development cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated then planning permission should be refused. Consequently, I attach significant weight to the conflict with Local Plan Policy BNE37 insofar as it seeks to protect important wildlife habitats.

The Council’s 2023 [name] result stands at 72%, indicating that the delivery of housing was substantially below the requirement over the previous three years. In these circumstances paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework is applicable. Footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed out-of-date. Consequently, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard for key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The existence of the 2024 prior approval is a mitigating factor relative to the harm that I have identified arising from the conflict with the aims of the development plan concerning the location of housing growth. However, taken together with the harm that I have identified to ecology and protected species, the overall harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.