Appeal 6003030

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal has been considered by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (SI 571/2017). A screening direction has been issued which states that the proposal is not Environmental Impact Assessment development.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be in a suitable location for housing, having regard to local and national policy; and • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

The appeal site is located south of the village of [name]. It comprises open land covered with vegetation, with an outbuilding located at the southern site boundary and dense vegetation at the northern and eastern edges which partially screen views into and out of the site. The site is accessed via a steep access road off [site address] . Residential dwellings adjoin the site to the north, south and west.

The proposal involves the erection of a new residential dwelling, which would utilise the existing site access off [site address] .

Policy HOU3a of the Ashford Local Plan 2030 (adopted February 2019) (the Local Plan) applies to development within the built-up confines of specific settlements, which includes [name]. The built-up confines of a settlement are defined as: 'the limits of continuous and contiguous development forming the existing built-up area of the settlement, excluding any curtilage beyond the built footprint of the buildings on the site (e.g garden areas)'.

The Council has identified settlement boundaries for [name] which shows that the appeal site is not within the settlement, albeit it is immediately adjacent to it. This boundary does not form part of the adopted Local Plan, and there is no evidence that it has been subject to public consultation. Therefore, the boundary would only have limited weight in my determination of this appeal.

Even if this boundary was not relevant, the appeal site would not fall within [name] settlement based on the written definition in the Local Plan. There is a continuous and contiguous pattern of semi-detached and terraced housing that runs from the village centre south down [site address] , as well as several instances of detached dwellings within smaller plots. The boundary of [address], the property immediately adjacent to the appeal site to the north, forms a logical end point to the built-up confines. The development past this point, including [address] which is located next to the appeal site, comprises detached dwellings on much larger plots with larger gaps between buildings.

Due to the larger plots, the part of the appeal site adjacent to [address] is curtilage land, which is excluded from the definition of built-up confines set out in Policy HOU3a of the Local Plan. This therefore forms a break between the continuous and contiguous development along [site address] .

The extent of vegetation along the boundary of [address] and the appeal site also acts as a barrier, which adds to the sense of this being the end point of the built-up confines of the village.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a dismissed appeal from 2025 at ‘The Silvers’1, a site to the north of [name]. The inspector in this case concluded that the site was not within the settlement as it did not form part of a linear frontage development that was evident in this area. The appellant argues that the built-up confines near the current appeal site are not defined by a similar linear frontage, as there is evidence of buildings that are set further back within plots, and therefore the appeal site should not be excluded from the built-up confines on this basis.

The Inspector’s conclusion in the Silvers appeal was informed by the specific characteristics of that site and the surrounding area. While this decision does highlight that evident patterns of development should be taken into account when determining the built-up confines, its conclusions are not readily transferable to the current appeal given the different characteristics of the appeal site and its confines. The Silvers appeal therefore only has limited weight in my determination and does not alter my conclusions regarding the extent of the built-up confines.

The appellant has also drawn my attention to an application for a single dwellinghouse that was approved in [address], close to the appeal site. The appellant notes that the Council judged this proposal to be consistent with Policy HOU3a as it was surrounded on 3 sides by residential units. However, while this context is similar to the appeal site, I have not been provided with any information regarding the assessment that was undertaken in this case or any other specific details which set out how the decision was arrived at. The 1 Appeal Ref: APP/E2205/W/24/3340179 [address] permission therefore only has very limited weight in my determination of this appeal.

My attention has also been drawn to the emerging new Local Plan Regulation 18 draft, which suggests that the new plan may allow further flexibility for residential development within a wider range of settlements including [name]. However, even if this were the case, it is not clear what the extent of the [name] settlement would be in the new plan, and whether the appeal site would be included within the settlement boundary. Furthermore, the new plan is still at an early stage and has not yet been submitted for examination. Therefore, it would only have very limited weight in my decision.

Policy HOU5 of the Local Plan states that proposals for residential development adjoining or close to the existing built-up confines of specific settlements will be acceptable provided certain criteria are met. [name], the closest settlement to the appeal site, is not one of the specific settlements identified. Chilham is identified but the appeal site would not reasonably be considered as adjoining or close to Chilham, given it is located over 1 mile away.

Policy HOU5 goes on to state that residential development elsewhere in the countryside will only be permitted where it addresses at least one specific criterion from a range of criteria. Of these, only criterion 4, which relates to provision of a dwelling of exceptional quality or innovative design, could be relevant to the appeal. I have considered design matters as part of the assessment of character and appearance below, where I conclude that the proposal would not provide a high level of design quality. As a result, the proposal would not meet criterion 4 and would therefore not be acceptable development within the countryside.

In terms of the accessibility of the appeal site to services and facilities, while the appeal site is close to [name], access to the village centre is challenging due to the steep topography and the lack of pavements on [site address] for some of the route. Additionally, there is a lack of street lighting along [site address] which would make access more difficult outside of daylight hours and could give rise to safety concerns.

While there is a bus route that serves [name], it is very infrequent and, coupled with the aforementioned access issues, this means that public transport is unlikely to be a genuine alternative mode of travel for future occupiers of the appeal site. Chilham train station is located approximately 1 mile from the appeal site, and walking access would be via roads without pavements. Overall, the appeal site would not be accessible via sustainable modes of transport and would therefore be likely to increase reliance on private vehicles.

The appellant refers to an adopted site allocation located south of the appeal site and outside of settlement boundaries, which, they argue, establishes that development in locations reliant on private vehicles is suitable in principle where the development is helping to address housing need. However, the existence of an allocation in such a location does not justify further development in other similar locations.

The appellant argues that the proposal would be consistent with Policy HOU10 of the Local Plan, which concerns development of residential gardens. However, the policy criteria require, amongst other things, compliance with Policy HOU3a or HOU5. As the proposal is not in accordance with either of these policies, it would also fail to accord with Policy HOU10.

In conclusion, the proposal would not be in a suitable location for housing, having regard to local and national policy. Therefore, it would not be in accordance with Policies SP1 and HOU5 of the Local Plan, which together seek to focus development at accessible and sustainable locations, within or close to the existing built-up confines of specific settlements.

The proposal would also not accord with paragraphs 83, 84 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) which, amongst other things, seek to prioritise sustainable transport modes, ensure safe and suitable access to sites can be achieved and avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside which does not enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

The appeal site occupies an elevated position and is partially screened by vegetation. However, the siting of the proposed dwelling means it would be visible at several points from [site address] , as well as being a dominant feature within the site itself.

Local design guidance is set out in the Chilham Parish Design Guide (CPDG), which outlines key characteristic features of the [name] area. While the CPDG identifies a variety of design features that are evident in the area, there are a number of common features including consistent use of red brick, chimneys and similar fenestration.

The proposal adopts a distinctly contemporary architectural approach that would not reflect the established character of the site and surrounding area, due to the lack of any of the key characteristic features identified within the CPDG.

The proposed flat roof is especially uncharacteristic within this traditional village context and would appear as an overtly alien feature. [name] acknowledge that the overall height of the roof line broadly accords with other dwellings in the vicinity, these other dwellings incorporate traditional pitched roof forms which contribute positively to local character.

The excessive width and massing of the first-floor rectangular roof structure would result in a visually dominant and overbearing form. This exaggerated horizontal emphasis would give the building an unbalanced and squat appearance, which would be particularly jarring compared to other dwellings in the area which feature more balanced proportions.

The use of metal cladding at first-floor level would draw further attention to the roof structure as a discordant feature. It would introduce a harsh, industrial aesthetic that would not be characteristic of the prevailing vernacular, which is formed of more traditional materials.

The extensive use of light-coloured brick and render would further compound the effect of the harsh aesthetic. The proposed palette of materials would appear sterile compared to the warmer palette evident on other dwellings in the area, as detailed in the CPDG.

The extent of fenestration proposed, and its asymmetrical placement, would be a further uncharacteristic addition that would jar with other dwellings in the area, which feature less extensive fenestration and have a more consistent rhythm and symmetry.

Taken together, the design features proposed would result in a highly incongruous development that would be visually incoherent and inconsistent with the established character of the area.

The appeal site is located close to the boundary of the Kent Downs National Landscape (NL). In line with the duty set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, I must seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area.

The Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in NLs, while Planning Practice Guidance states that land within the setting of NLs often makes an important contribution to maintaining their natural beauty, and where poorly located or designed development can do significant harm. This is especially the case where long views from or to the designated landscape are identified as important, or where the landscape character of land within and adjoining the designated area is complementary. Development within the settings of these areas will therefore need sensitive handling that takes these potential impacts into account.

The extent of development proposed as part of the appeal is limited and the siting of the proposed dwelling within the appeal site means that it would only have limited visibility from within the NL. The appeal site is currently residential curtilage and is located close to other existing residential development, which limits its existing value as land which complements the NL.

Taking these issues into account, I am satisfied that the proposal would further the purpose of the NL and would not harm the natural beauty of the area.

In conclusion, the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. Therefore, it would not be in accordance with Policies SP6, ENV3a and HOU5(f) of the Local Plan, which, amongst other things, seek a high level of design quality that has regard to the defining characteristics of the local area, including key landscape characteristics.

The proposal would also not accord with paragraph 135 of the Framework which, amongst other things, states that development should be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and be sympathetic to local character.

The appeal site lies within the catchment area of [name] which is subject to several European and national habitat site designations including a Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Ramsar site and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), where residential development has been identified to adversely affect nitrogen and phosphorus levels.

[name] were minded to grant permission, I would need to assess whether the scheme would adversely affect the integrity of these habitat sites, which would include consideration of proposed mitigation measures and whether they would be sufficient to address the harm likely to be caused by the development.

I note that a Grampian condition to secure proposed mitigation measures (payment of nutrient neutrality credits) was proposed by the appellant. In the event that an Appropriate Assessment had been undertaken, such a condition would not provide the necessary certainty that mitigation would be delivered, as it would lack detail regarding the level of contribution required and information about what specific measures the contributions would be put toward and when these would come forward.

In any event, even if there would be no adverse effects or where any such effects could be mitigated, this would constitute a neutral consideration rather than a benefit weighing in favour of the scheme.

Several matters were raised by an interested party, including the potential for impacts relating to privacy of adjacent occupiers and the impact of construction work. However, as the appeal is being dismissed for other reasons, these matters do not need to be explored in detail.

I have found there would be conflict with policy which seeks to locate new homes in sustainable locations and seeks to promote high quality design. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole.

The main parties identify that the Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year land supply of deliverable housing (5YHLS). The appellant identifies that the Council’s current supply position is 4.39 years, which has not been contested by the Council. This would be a moderate level of shortfall. Where a 5YHLS cannot be demonstrated, paragraph 11d of the Framework means that the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, and that permission should be granted unless the circumstances in paragraph 11d(i) or 11d(ii) apply.

In this case, there would be potential for paragraph 11d(i) to be engaged. The proposal is within the catchment area of [name], SAC, SSSI and Ramsar site, which would classify as habitats sites in line with the Framework, and therefore policies in the Framework may provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development.

Notwithstanding this, in circumstances where paragraph 11d(i) was not engaged, paragraph 11d(ii) states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to 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 proposal would assist in addressing the Council’s current housing land supply shortfall, therefore I ascribe moderate weight to the provision of 1 residential unit. Proposed enhancements to on-site biodiversity and sustainable design measures including solar panels would also be positive benefits that have weight in my determination of this appeal.

Irrespective of whether paragraph 11d(i) is engaged, the adverse impacts related to the location of the development and character and appearance of the site and surrounding area would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, paragraph 11d(ii) indicates that permission should not be granted.

For the above reasons, the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole. The material considerations identified do not outweigh the conflict or thus indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.