Appeal 6003085

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for the proposed development having regard to the development plan; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site includes an existing detached dwelling, one of a small number dispersed along the roadside of the A257 [site address] (the road), which connects the villages of Ash and Wingham. The area is largely agricultural, and the land around is mostly open and undeveloped.

The site is in the countryside and outside of any settlement boundary. The Dover District Local Plan (2024) (the Local Plan) only supports new dwellings in such locations in exceptional circumstances, as defined by a closed list in Policy SP4.

The proposal would not involve a heritage asset, the re-use of a redundant building, or the subdivision of an existing one. Criterions (ii) to (iv) are therefore not applicable, [name] shall address the appellant’s case in respect of design and visual impact in the following section, no argument has been advanced that the design is of such exceptional quality that criterion (v) applies. I see none for myself.

Criterion (i) is that there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside, and the appellant indicates an intention for the proposed dwellings to be occupied by employees of the nearby Wingham Wildlife Park.

Policy SP4 accords directly with paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); Indeed, the supporting text for the former is clear that applications for rural workers dwellings will be assessed in accordance with the Framework and the pertinent National Planning Policy Guidance (PPG). These require me to consider evidence of the necessity for a rural worker to live in close proximity to their place of work to ensure its effective operation; the viability of the enterprise in question, and; whether the need could be met through improvements to existing accommodation at the employment site.

I have little of substance from the appellant on these points. Whilst the appellant’s original planning statement tells me the wildlife park ‘has a need for essential staff to live close to the park for animal welfare including emergency response needs and operational reasons’, I have been provided with no further details or evidence. The observation in appellant’s original planning statement that the dwellings could be rented out to staff of the wildlife park (my emphasis) does little to assure me.

Whilst the appellant has indicated a willingness to provide further evidence if required, the need to do so is set out in the supporting text to Policy SP4. As such, the requirement was clear before the application was submitted. In the absence of that evidence, I see little reason to find that there is an essential need for a rural worker to live at [address]. As such, I find that none of the exceptions set out in Policy SP4 are evidently applicable to the appeal proposal.

The nearest settlements to the appeal site are each over a mile away. That is a distance some would be content to walk or cycle, and there is a pavement along one side of the road. At the same time, the pavement is narrow, largely unlit, and runs alongside fast-moving traffic through an area where there is little informal surveillance. Overall, it is likely that future occupiers of the proposed development would depend upon the private motor car. Whilst there are bus stops along the road I have little to show me that local services are sufficiently frequent or comprehensive to provide a realistic alternative.

The site has an existing residential dwelling, though the appellant describes it as being in a dilapidated condition and I have little to show me that it is likely to be brought back into residential use. The replacement of a dwelling is not one of the exceptions listed in Policy SP4. Given these considerations, it is not clear that the lawful use of the site weighs in favour of the proposed development.

Even if I were to presume that the existing dwelling will be brought back into use, the proposal still involves an increase in residential dwellings, and the observations I have made above would be no less pertinent to one new dwelling than to two. Overall, I attach only modest weight to the presence of an existing dwelling at the appeal site.

The appellant has drawn my attention to permission for residential development at a neighbouring site1, but has not contested the Council’s explanation that it involved only the conversion of existing buildings. I note that exception criterion (iii) in Policy SP4 is for the re-use of redundant or disused buildings. The limited evidence before me does not indicate that the appeal proposal and the approved 1 Application Ref DOV/22/01700). scheme relate to Policy SP4 in the same way, and I attach minimal weight to the latter as a result.

The site would not be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the development plan. The proposed development would fail to comply with Local Plan Policy SP4 where it sets out the requirements for new dwellings beyond a settlement boundary.

I saw a somewhat eclectic mix of dwellings along the road, and many of them were spread so far apart from each other that any recurring components of local character were not immediately striking. That is not to say, however, that there are none. Most of the more visible dwellings were oriented so as to front onto the road, a feature made noticeable by many local houses being placed towards the front of their respective plots. This gives the road a semblance of consistency from which it draws beneficial character, and which is made all the more valuable by how few other unifying features there are.

The appeal site is part of a small cluster of buildings, some of which have an agricultural or commercial appearance. There are three dwellings close to each other; Belview is nearest to the road, the appeal site dwelling is further back, and Landsview, a bungalow, is behind that. The dwellings vary significantly in design, detailing, size, and shape, and there is no suggestion of a coherent building line. That said, the dwellings are all oriented broadly parallel to the road. This provides a mild but discernible note of consistency across the cluster and connects it to the pattern of development in the local area.

The existing appeal site dwelling is unremarkable but has a broadly traditional design and shape not untypical of nearby dwellings. Any dilapidation is not immediately evident from the road, so the removal of the dwelling would not be a benefit in itself insofar as the character and appearance of the area is concerned.

The proposed development includes a pair of semidetached houses, oriented side-on to the road. This is not a common approach locally and, in that respect, the appeal proposal would be out of keeping with the pattern of development around it. Moreover, it would undermine what little consistency there is within the cluster, and the resulting connection to the wider area. The use of two gable ends at either end of the semidetached houses would exacerbate this by drawing attention to the orientation of the building from the road.

I see little reason to object to the proportions, materials, and finishes of the proposed dwellings, and note that the development would provide permeable surfacing, cycle storage, private gardens space and landscaping. These, however, are expectations of development rather than benefits and do not outweigh the harms described above.

The proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and would conflict in that regard with Local Plan Policy PM1, which requires development to demonstrate an understanding and awareness of the context of the area.

The proposal would yield a net gain of at least one new house towards the Government’s aim of significantly boosting supply. There would be temporary economic benefits associated with the construction phase and, thereafter, ongoing local economic and potentially social benefits relating to the occupation of the site, in which local facilities may benefit from increased demand and participation.

Nevertheless, given the relatively modest scale of the proposal and the small number of new residents brought about, these benefits would be minor and not outweigh the conflict with policy described above.

The submissions describe the proposed development as self-build or custom build, though how that aspect of the scheme would be ensured is not clear. I have considered whether I could impose a relevant condition in the event of allowing the appeal, but have little before me to demonstrate that such a condition would pass the tests within paragraph 56 of the Framework. No relevant legal agreement is before me. Even if I were to assess the proposal as a self-build scheme, I have no evidence of a local shortfall. Overall, the purported self or custom build element of the proposal does not outweigh the policy conflict.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

The appeal is dismissed.