Appeal 6004838

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of a detached bungalow with access and crossover at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/501570/FULL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

A completed planning obligation dated 28 April 2026 pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has been submitted which seeks to secure the proposed dwelling as self-build. I will return to this in due course.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of 3, 4 and [address] and [address], with particular reference to potential for noise and disturbance associated with traffic flows.

[address] is located in an urban residential area and predominantly consists of detached bungalows and chalet style properties.

The proposed development would include the creation of a new access which would adjoin the side elevation of [site address] and would be located close to the side elevation of [address]. There are two small windows on the side elevation of [site address] which serve a living room, are fitted with obscure glazing and are secondary windows to this room. There is one window on the side elevation of [address]; the evidence before me suggests that this serves a study.

Whilst the proposal would result in vehicular movements in close proximity to these dwellings and aforementioned windows, the amount of traffic generated from one dwelling, and any potential associated noise or disturbance, is likely to be limited and would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupants of 3 and [address]. Such a relationship would not be particularly unusual in an urban residential location such as the appeal site.

Whilst it is possible that the headlights from vehicles entering and leaving the appeal site may shine into the windows of 3 and [address], the number of vehicle movements that would take place during hours of darkness when headlights would be required is likely to be limited. In addition, it is likely that the occupiers of the dwellings would draw their curtains or use blinds at this time, and the windows on the side elevation of [site address] are fitted with obscure glass, which would help to minimise any effect that may arise from vehicle headlights. Furthermore, it is not unusual in an urban area such as this that there are circumstances where vehicle headlights will be briefly directed towards residential properties.

There would be generous separation distances between the proposed driveway and [address] and [address]. Therefore, the proposal would not result in an unacceptable effect through noise or disturbance to the occupiers of these neighbouring dwellings.

I conclude that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of 3, 4 and [address] and [address], with particular reference to potential for noise and disturbance associated with traffic flows. As such, it would accord with policies LPRHOU2, LPRHOU4 and LPRSP15 of the Maidstone Local Plan Review (2024). These policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure there would be no significant increase in unacceptable impact on amenity by noise or disturbance from traffic gaining access to the development.

I acknowledge the concerns raised by local residents in relation to loss of privacy and outlook. However, given that the proposal is for a single-storey dwelling and the separation distances between the appeal site and the neighbouring properties, there would be no unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants with reference to privacy or outlook.

The first-floor window openings on [address] would afford views over parts of the rear garden of the appeal site, however this is often unavoidable in an urban residential environment. Furthermore, the proposed boundary treatment including planting would provide some screening. Therefore, the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupiers in respect of privacy.

Concerns have been raised that the proposed boundary planting would adversely affect the light to [address] and its garden. However, there is no evidence before me to suggest that this planting would not be maintained to a suitable height.

Concerns have been raised regarding potential noise and disturbance during the construction period. However, due to the scale of the proposal, such disruption would likely to be short term and would not result in an unacceptable impact to the neighbouring occupants.

Concerns have been raised regarding the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. However, based on the evidence before me, and my site visit, I find no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusions on these matters.

I have no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the additional traffic from one dwelling would cause unacceptable congestion or highway safety issues, or that the proposal would result in an unacceptable effect on the local infrastructure.

I note the concerns raised regarding the effect on wildlife. However, I have no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development would result in harm to wildlife.

I have considered the comments that the grant of planning permission would set a precedent for other similar developments. However, no directly comparable sites to which this might apply have been put forward. Each application and appeal must be determined on its individual merits, and a generalised concern of this nature does not justify withholding planning permission in this case.

Whilst not in the description of development, the proposal is for a self-build dwelling, and on this basis an exemption from the biodiversity net gain condition was sought. The appellant has entered into a deed of unilateral undertaking under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to seek to secure the dwelling as self-build. It meets the requirements of paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), as it is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, is directly related to the development, and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

The Framework in paragraph 57 indicates that conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. The Council has suggested conditions, and I have considered these in relation to the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance, amending where necessary in the interests of consistency, precision and enforceability.

In the interests of certainty and clarity, I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and the approved plans. I have made amendments to plan titles in the Council’s suggested condition, for the avoidance of any doubt on which plans are approved. I have also removed reference to the Design and [name], Tree Statement and photographs, as it is not necessary to reference these documents.

A condition requiring the submission and approval of ecological enhancement measures is necessary to improve biodiversity and to satisfy paragraph 193 d) of the Framework. I have removed the Council’s suggested ecological enhancements from the condition as this is not necessary.

A condition requiring the submission and approval of measures to incorporate a minimum 10% on-site renewables or low carbon energy production, is necessary in the interests of sustainability and in accordance with policy LPRQD1 of the Maidstone Local Plan Review (2024).

The Council have recommended a condition requiring the submission of a soft landscaping scheme. A soft landscaping scheme was submitted with the planning application which I find acceptable. Therefore, this condition is not necessary.

Conditions to secure that the approved soft landscaping and boundary fencing is in place before occupation of the dwelling and for retention thereafter, are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

A condition relating to the provision and use of the vehicular parking facilities is necessary to ensure that the development provides an appropriate level of parking.

To ensure that the dwelling has adequate refuse facilities, a condition requiring submission of refuse details is necessary.

In the interests of promoting sustainable transport a condition requiring submission of cycle storage is necessary.

A condition requiring a water consumption rate of no more than 110 litres per person per day, is required in the interests of sustainability and in accordance with policy LPRQD1 of the Maidstone Local Plan Review (2024). It is unnecessary to require the submission and approval of the related Building Regulations notice as this would be duplicating matters subject to other legislation.

A condition requiring the Building Regulations optional requirements for accessibility and adaptability as set out in building regulations Part M4(2) is required, in the interests of accessibility and adaptability and in accordance with policy LPRQD6 of the Maidstone Local Plan Review (2024).

I have not imposed a condition requiring that the development is constructed using the approved materials, as the materials are provided on the approved plans. Therefore, this condition is not necessary.

The Council has suggested a condition that would remove specific Permitted Development (PD) rights within Schedule 2, Parts 1 and 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015. Paragraph 55 of the Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national PD rights unless there is clear justification to do so. In this case, clear justification has not been provided.

I have not imposed a condition relating to external lighting as there is insufficient justification to demonstrate that it is necessary. In particular, the Council’s reason for the suggested condition refers to safeguarding protected species, but the evidence before me does not provide me with sufficient justification to demonstrate that protected species would be affected by the proposed development.

A condition to secure the dwelling as self-build, is not necessary as the planning obligation secures this.

For the above reasons, the proposal accords with the development plan. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings: • Site location plan • 25/125/02 proposed site plan and floor plan • 25/125/03 proposed elevations • 1.[address] boarded fence typical detail • New tree planting details • 1.2m high post and rail fence • Hard and soft landscaping schedule All received on 7 May 2025

No development above ground level shall take place until an ecological enhancement scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme prior to first occupation of the approved dwelling and, thereafter it shall be retained and maintained as such.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of measures necessary to incorporate a minimum 10% on-site renewable or low carbon energy production measured as a percentage of overall consumption has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of the approved dwelling and, thereafter it shall be retained as such.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the soft landscaping has been provided in accordance with the approved plans. All soft landscaping shall be carried out during the planting season (October to February). Within five years from the first occupation of the approved dwelling, any landscaping which is removed, fails to establish, dies or become so seriously damaged or diseased that their long term amenity value has been adversely affected shall be replaced in the next planting season with plants of the same species and size as detailed in the approved landscape scheme unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the boundary fencing has been provided in accordance with the approved plans and shall thereafter be retained as such.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with drawing no 25/125/02. Thereafter those spaces shall be retained for the parking of vehicles only, and access to them shall be retained.

Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, facilities for the storage, screening and collection of refuse bins shall be in place in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall thereafter be kept available for the storage and collection of refuse bins.

Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, facilities for secure bicycle storage, shall be in place in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall thereafter be kept available for the storage of bicycles.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the Building Regulations optional requirement of a water consumption rate of no more than 110 litres per person per day has been complied with.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the Building Regulations Part M4(2) requirements for accessibility and adaptability have been complied with. End of Schedule