Appeal 6004150

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The 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 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second stage (technical details consent) 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 (PiP) is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] (TDC) application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The appellant has provided a set of amended plans with their appeal. Having regard to the Wheatcroft judgment1 and to the appeals’ procedural guidance2, the submitted plans show a fundamentally different red line to that which was considered by the Council during the planning application. Therefore, the changes are substantive, and I am not satisfied that my consideration of the proposed amendments would cause no injustice to any party.

Given such, I have assessed the appeal scheme based on the location plan and phasing plan which were considered by the Council, but in view of the proposal pertaining to a PiP, I have treated these plans as illustrative. 1 [name] v Secretary of State for the Environment (1982). 2 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026.

My attention is drawn to two previous appeal decisions for residential development within the appeal site3. I have had regard to those decisions only insofar as it they are relevant to my assessment of the main issues in this case, but I have determined the appeal based on the evidence and the details of the proposal before me.

The appeal includes a draft planning obligation in the form of a unilateral undertaking. I will return to this later in my decision.

The main parties agree that the location of the proposal would be acceptable, and I have no reason to disagree. Therefore, the main issues are whether the land use and amount of the proposed development is acceptable, having regard to: • whether the proposal would preserve the setting of nearby [name] listed buildings [name] and The Stables; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including and veteran trees; and • the effect of the proposal on protected species.

[name] and The Stables are [name] listed buildings located near the appeal site. [name] is a former rectory building dating from the mid-18th century. The building is moated, and has been extended and altered, notable in the late 19th century when it was aggrandised. Alongside alterations to the main building, outbuildings including The Stables were built on site. The significance of the Stables therefore derives, in part, from the physical and historical relationship with [name].

In the late 19th century [address], a gatehouse, was built to northwest of the Vicarage with a drive connecting it with the house. [address] was created to ensure security and restrict access to the estate. In its latest evidence, the Council conceded that [address] cannot be considered a curtilage listed building. I have assessed this appeal on this basis.

The moat immediately adjoining [name] creates a strong physical separation of the building with its immediate and wider landscape. However, the appellant’s Appeal Heritage Statement explains that the land to the west of [name] would have formed part of the wider landscape of the house. As such, whilst there may not have been any ownership association between the site and [name] at the time of its listing, the appreciation of [name] and The Stables is in any event partly gained from the surrounding rural context, including the site.

While there is a degree of physical and visual separation between the site and [name], the access drive to this property runs between the site and the countryside beyond, which gives a feeling that the village is being left behind when travelling towards [name]. Consequently, due to its natural and largely undeveloped character, the site makes a positive contribution to the significance of 3 Appeal Ref: APP/U2235/W/15/3136916; Appeal Ref: APP/U2235/W/24/3354595 the listed buildings both in terms of its evidenced part of the historic estate, but also visually in the way it frames and offers an important rural context to the

[name] am mindful that my assessment is taking place at the initial PiP stage, the proposal would be on one side of the approach to [name], and the dwellings would likely be apparent when travelling towards this property. Therefore, the proposed residential use of the land and amount would inevitably urbanise the important rurality of the site. The semblance of the site as part of the former estate would be lost, and the proposal would lead to an incremental erosion of the setting of the listed buildings. This would amount to a moderate degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed buildings.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) informs us that great weight should be given to a heritage asset’s conservation and that any harm to heritage assets requires clear and convincing justification. Where less than substantial harm would occur, this should be weighed against the public benefits of a scheme.

In this case, that balancing exercise must take place within the context of s66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Inter alia, it states that when considering whether to grant PiP for a development which affects a listed building’s setting, the decision maker shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving that setting.

The proposal would provide additional housing, in an area with an acknowledged housing supply deficit. There is also a clear undersupply of self-build plots. The scheme would make important contributions to addressing both shortfalls. The site is well located in terms of its proximity to local services, and the proposal would contribute to the vitality of the rural community. It would provide short- and long-term local economic benefits and environmental benefits associated with any additional planting. The site is a small one so the development could be delivered quickly. These public benefits attract considerable weight but fall short of overcoming the great weight I give to the harm that would arise to the designated

Consequently, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the setting of the [name] listed buildings [name] and The Stables. It would conflict with the heritage related aims of Policies LPRSP14, LPRENV1 and LPRSP15 of the Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan Review 2021 – 2038 (2024) (LPR).

The site is located outside of the settlement boundary for Yalding and therefore it falls within the countryside for the purposes of planning policy. LPR Policy LPRSP9 states that development proposals in the countryside will not be permitted unless they accord with other policies in this plan and will not result in significant harm to the rural character and appearance of the area

The appeal site is a largely undeveloped area of land, containing a number of large mature trees along its boundaries, including some veteran trees. The boundaries of the site also include hedgerows and other vegetation, as well as parkland style railing.

Development on the opposite side of [address] is predominately linear and comprises housing in a mix of styles which are accessed directly off this road. The appeal site forms a green edge to Yalding, marking a transition from the built-up part of the village to the countryside beyond. Given its leafy and verdant appearance, the site makes an important contribution to the rural character of the area.

Although the full detailed design and extent of development would not be put forward until the TDC stage, were PiP granted, the introduction of residential development within the site would, irrespective of any design interaction, intrude into the countryside and erode the contribution that the existing green and natural attributes of the land make to the street scene.

The indicative layout shows a scheme that would be laid in a cul-de-sac arrangement. While the proposed plots would likely be spacious, such an arrangement would appear markedly at odds with the prevailing pattern of linear development in the vicinity. The proposed development would appear incongruous as a result. Furthermore, the formation of a new access would likely involve the loss of hedgerow to create visibility splays, and the introduction of a pedestrian access would alter the appearance of the existing rural and unobtrusive boundary treatment. The contribution that the boundary treatment makes to the character of the area would therefore be diminished.

The proposal would include soft landscaping, however given the potential scale of three residential plots, it is unlikely that planting would offer sufficient mitigation for the urbanising effects of the proposed development.

The evidence sets out that many of the trees on site are subject to tree preservation orders, including two veteran oak trees located near the proposed access points and associated hardstanding. These are large, mature trees which make an important contribution to the verdant character of this rural location.

Paragraph 193 of the Framework sets out that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats such as veteran trees should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.

The planning application was accompanied by an [name] to BS5837:2012 (September 2022) and by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (October 2024). However, both reports relate to different site areas and different developments, which severely hinders the relevance of their conclusions in relation to the scheme before me.

While the proposal is at PiP stage, given the extent of the red line as put forward by the appellant, it is unlikely that different access arrangements could be achieved on site. It appears that these elements of the proposal would not lie outside of the identified root protection areas and veteran tree buffer zone. Given the veteran status of the trees, in the absence of sufficient detail before me regarding the effect of the proposal upon their roots, I am not satisfied that the long-term viability of these trees would not be harmed because of the proposal.

Therefore, I am not persuaded that the proposal would not result in loss or deterioration of the veteran trees. While there would be public benefits associated with the appeal scheme, including those aforementioned, they would not constitute the wholly exceptional circumstances necessary to justify the development. Given such, the proposal would not accord with paragraph 193 of the Framework.

In light of the above, the proposed land use and amount of development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, including veteran trees. The proposal would conflict with [name] LPRSP9, LPRSP14, LPRSP15 and LPRQD4, insofar as these policies require development to not result in significant harm to the rural character and appearance of the area and seek to protect veteran trees from inappropriate development.

The evidence indicates the potential for the proposal to impact on ecological interests including great crested newts. However, a final design of the appeal scheme has not been settled. As set out in the PPG, consideration of duties owed to any protected species identified at the site would apply at the TDC stage. Development would not be able to commence until TDC had been obtained, were the appeal successful.

As such, the principle of the proposed development would not conflict with relevant provisions of [name] LPRSP15 and LPRSP14, where these seek to protect and enhance the natural environment.

A draft planning obligation in the form of a unilateral undertaking has been provided. This pertains to the provision of self-build and custom housing. There is no provision for a PiP to be subject to either planning conditions or planning obligations. However, the PPG states that local planning authorities can inform applicants that planning obligations may be needed at the TDC stage. As a result, I see no reason why the self-build nature of the proposal, as set out in the description of the development, could not be secured at the TDC stage. Accordingly, I have considered the self-build nature of the scheme in my assessment of the public benefits, as set out above.

The Grade II listed building [address] is a detached dwelling on the opposite side of [address]. Its significance derives, in part, from its simple domestic style and aesthetic with Gothic revival pointed arches. This property falls within a ribbon of houses and, given the amount of development that has taken place around this listed building, the proposal would preserve its setting.

I note the appellant’s position that part of the Borough is subject to policy constraints and the [name] output map. However, this does not provide adequate justification for the harm to the heritage assets and character of the area including veteran trees that would result from the proposed development.

The appellant has referred to a number of appeal decisions. However, my determination of this appeal relates to the site and its specific circumstances, including the relationship with the nearby heritage assets. Therefore, the characteristics and qualities of these other sites, which are located elsewhere including in other Boroughs, are unlikely to be directly comparable to the case before me. Moreover, the weight to be attributed to the benefits of any scheme is a matter for the decision maker which turns on the specifics of each proposal, and therefore the other decisions are of limited relevance in this regard.

I am referred to a previously refused outline planning application4 for residential development within the appeal site. The evidence provided regarding this application is limited, and therefore I cannot make any meaningful comparison between the proposal and this scheme.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other policies within the LPR, including LPRSS1 and LPRHOU9. While there is no evidence suggesting that the proposal would conflict with these policies, this would not outweigh the harm and policy conflict that I have identified above.

Given my findings above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. The Council asserts it can only currently demonstrate a 4.5- year supply of deliverable housing sites, while the appellant places the figure between 4.20-4.32 years.

Be as it may, whilst the absence of a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites draws me to Paragraph 11 of the Framework, I have already found that the harm to the setting of the [name] listed buildings and to veteran trees means that the application of the policies within the Framework relating to heritage and to irreplaceable habitats provide a strong reason to refuse the proposal. Paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework is therefore not engaged.

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. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.