Appeal 6005197

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 (PiP) route has two stages: the first stage (or PiP stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle, and the second ‘technical details consent’ (TDC) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. Planning permission does not exist unless both are approved. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of considerations for PiP is limited to location, land use and the amount of development. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application if PiP is granted.

An applicant can apply for a range of dwelling numbers. In this instance, the application form confirms the net increase of dwellings being sought is a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 9. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location for housing in terms of its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, paying particular regard to: • its effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the Kent Downs National Landscape; and • the Council’s spatial strategy and its accessibility to local facilities and services.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of grazing land partly fronting [address], Sandling. The site is partially flanked by residential properties. To the north-east, these are predominantly detached dwellings set close to and facing [address], arranged in a uniform ribbon pattern with long, generous plots. This linear development continues along [address] until the appeal site, where it forms an open break between built form. To the south-west, plot sizes are more spacious with buildings set back further from the road, forming sporadic development as it transitions towards open countryside. To the rear, where the site extends behind the existing frontage development, it adjoins open fields associated with [address].

[address] is relatively narrow, bordered by grass verges, mature trees and established vegetation. Opposite the appeal site on the eastern side of the lane is the Kent Downs National Landscape1 (KDNL) designated for its landscape and scenic beauty. Here, development is sparse with the landscape opposite being open grazing land. These factors contribute to the verdant and distinctly rural character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appellant indicates that there is no reason why a PiP should be refused relating to the amount of development, as a TDC could come forward with just one dwelling. However, even though it would be possible for the TDC stage to advance a scheme for a lower number of dwellings including just one, in order to grant permission, I must be satisfied that the site is capable of accommodating the maximum number of dwellings applied for. This is particularly the case since it is not possible to impose conditions on a grant of PiP to limit the quantum of housing, a matter agreed at the Hearing.

The prevailing pattern of development in the area typically comprises ribbon development, a matter acknowledged by Character Area 12 ([name]) of the Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment (MLCA) revised in 2013. [name] have been invited to give this little to no weight by the appellant, it seems to me that despite its age, development in this area has not changed so significantly since its revisions for this to be afforded no weight as a decision-making tool.

Given the need to create a vehicular site access in from [address], the presence of established trees where the starting point is for their retention, and the limited site width, I am not satisfied based on the evidence before me that the maximum quantum of dwellings proposed would be able to have a direct frontage with the roadside. It is far more likely that development would need to be in tandem. Development in depth would be in stark contrast to the linear development in the area. At the edge of this part of Sandling, such an amount of development would have a high likelihood to appear out of scale and overly dense given that the site marks the transition to lower density, more sporadic development towards open countryside.

Although offering a low density of around 9 dwellings per hectare according to the appellant, I have not been provided with any indicative site layouts to demonstrate that this quantum of development could be achieved whilst still retaining the 1 formerly known as an Area of Outstanding Beauty prevailing character and appearance of the area. Rather, the likely site coverage and scale of the development, which encroaches into open farmland at its rear, leads me to find that this amount of development would be harmful to the general pattern of development in the area.

Although at the Hearing my attention was drawn to another development within Sandling, said to share similarities with the appeal site ([address]), this scheme for 9 dwellings was permitted over a decade ago under a now defunct Development Plan. Full details of this are not before me and it therefore does not alter my findings on this matter. - Kent Downs National Landscape

The appellant contends that the Council’s consideration of character and landscape issues go beyond the scope of the PiP regime. However, at the Hearing, the appellant accepted that the appeal site is within the setting of the KDNL. The statutory duty2 placed on decision makers require that in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in National Landscapes, relevant authorities ‘must seek to further’ the purposes for which these areas are designated.

The PPG confirms that this duty applies to development proposals that are situated outside National Landscape boundaries, but which might have an impact on their setting or protection. Furthermore, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.

This is also reflected in Policy LPRSP9(4) of the Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan Review 2021-2038 (adopted 2024) (Local Plan Review). Therefore, a fundamental question of whether the site is a suitable location for the development necessarily requires consideration of its effects on the wider landscape as a matter of principle.

The parties agree that the site lies adjacent to the Boxley Vale Local Character Area3 as identified within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2021-2026 (MP). This offers an overview of the KDNL at very high level. This suggests it is a rich landscape of components with special characteristics and qualities, distinguishing it as a landscape of national and international importance and underpin its significance and natural beauty. Components have been identified as dramatic landform and views, a distinctive landscape character, biodiversity-rich habitats, farmed landscape, woodland and trees, a rich legacy of historic and cultural heritage, the Heritage Coasts, geology and natural resources and tranquillity and remoteness.

There is limited evidence before me in relation to the specific landscape characteristics and qualities of the KDNL that would be affected by the appeal site. My observations noted the presence of grazed farmland opposite. The appeal site frontage is heavily overgrown. There are no views through the site or otherwise that have been drawn to my attention as being of significance. Even if the frontage were 2 (Section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, section 17A of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 and section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended by section 245 of the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023) 3 also known as [name] and Vale cleared, given the landform and positioning between dwellings, it is unlikely that views from within the appeal site would be important to its setting. As such, there is nothing to persuade me that the appeal site forms an important parcel of open space that contributes significantly to the setting of the KDNL.

The Council contend that the undeveloped nature and openness of the appeal site contributes to its setting, with development towards the frontage of the site being of chief concern in respect of the KDNL. Whilst it has been stated that infilling the site with more ribbon development would harm its setting, the Council has not substantiated how that would cause specific harm, given that frontage ribbon development along [address] is already part of its character.

In this regard, I am satisfied that some limited residential development has the potential to come forward without causing harm to the KDNL. The effects from domestic paraphernalia, including external lighting, cars and parking areas are all matters that are best considered at TDC stage. Therefore, I find no harm in respect of Local Plan Review Policy LPRSP9 (5) which requires developments to not have a significant adverse impact on the setting of National Landscapes. - Character and appearance – conclusions

[name] find no harm to the KDNL, having regard to the amount of development proposed, I am not persuaded that it would be possible to bring forward a scheme for up to 9 dwellings without significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.

This brings the scheme into conflict with Policy LPRSP9(2) of the Local Plan Review which sets out that proposals in the countryside will not be permitted unless they accord with other policies in the plan and will not result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. It is also contrary to Local Plan Review Policy LPRSP15. Amongst other things, this requires proposals to respond positively to, and where possible enhance, the local, historic character of the area, with particular regard to matters including scale and site coverage.

It was agreed at the Hearing that Policies LPRSP9 and LPRSP15 are broadly consistent with the Framework insofar as they relate to character and appearance and the protection of the countryside. As such I attach substantial weight to these policies for the purposes of my decision making.

The Council’s spatial strategy is set out in Local Plan Review Policy LPRSS1. This sets out a settlement hierarchy that seeks to focus the majority of the borough’s housing towards the ‘Maidstone Urban Area’ which has the services, facilities and infrastructure to support growth. It names a number of ‘[name] as the secondary focus for housing, followed by ‘[name] expected to accommodate limited housing, consistent with the scale and role of those settlements. It goes on to say that smaller villages may have the potential to accommodate limited growth, contributing to ensuring that local services are supported and sustainable communities are maintained. It names thirteen smaller village locations. Sandling is not one of those identified.

At the bottom of the hierarchy in ‘[name], Policy LPRSS1 seeks to protect the rural character of the borough avoiding coalescence between settlements including Maidstone and the surrounding villages.

At the hearing it was agreed that the proposal would fall to be considered under ‘[name], that the proposal would not amount to coalescence between settlements and that Policy LPRSS1 does not place a blanket restriction on housing development from coming forward in rural areas. This stance is consistent with the findings of another appeal decision4 dismissed in April 2025.

Given that this policy accepts that ‘[name] may have the potential for limited growth, it is a reasonable assumption that development falling within the ‘[name] tier below would be expected to accommodate even less than limited growth, albeit limited growth is not specifically defined within the Local Plan, so falls to be considered as a matter of judgement.

It is common ground that the appeal site falls outside of any defined settlement boundary. As such, development also falls to be considered against Local Plan Review Policy LPRSP9 which relates to development in the countryside. Point 2 of this policy states that proposals will not be permitted unless they accord with other policies in the plan. At the hearing the appellant advanced that the proposal would, amongst others, accord with Policy LPRSP10 relating to housing delivery, by providing a deliverable site at a time when the Council cannot demonstrate the necessary five year housing land supply (5YHLS). Policy LPRSP10 (5) explicitly states that in a situation where the necessary housing land supply is not met then proposals will be supported on sites where they meet certain criteria.

Amongst other things, these criteria expect proposals to be broadly consistent with the plans overall spatial strategy, and of a scale and nature commensurate to the deficit in required housing and the Plan’s spatial strategy. Whilst the spatial strategy at Policy LPRSS1 doesn’t negate residential development from coming forward in the countryside, the inference is that it should be below limited growth level. Given its rural context and the scale and role of Sandling, in my judgement a scheme for 9 dwellings would go beyond below limited growth and consequently would undermine the spatial strategy. - Accessibility

The expectation that proposals support opportunities to improve walking and cycling connections is set out in Local Plan Review Policy LPRSP9. This is broadly consistent with the Framework which seeks to minimise the need to travel, prioritise sustainable transport giving priority first to pedestrians and cycle movements, and as far as possible, facilitate access to high quality public transport services to encourage its use.

Flanked partly by dwellings, the appeal site is not isolated, despite its countryside location. It is common ground that the appeal site is located around 700 metres from the edge of Maidstone, which has the facilities and services required for future occupants’ day-to-day needs.

A number of facilities have been drawn to my attention that are all said to be located under a mile away. These include a public house, a [name], 4 APP/U2235/W/24/3354595 – Land at [address], Yalding, Kent for the erection of 3 dwellings Sandling Village Hall, a gym, bar and restaurant at The Village Hotel and a golf course. Whilst some of these would be able to help meet future occupiers day-to-day needs, travel further afield would be necessary to fully meet all of them.

It is possible to reach these local facilities on foot by pavements and via dedicated cycle routes. These do not benefit from pedestrian facilities for their full extents. This would necessitate users to, in part, navigate narrow country roads and the routes are largely unlit. This would likely act as a deterrent to some, especially in poor weather and outside of daylight hours. However, I heard oral evidence from a local resident and landowner that the dedicated cycle routes tend to be a safer route for families with children given the separation from the busy roads, including the M20 motorway. Indeed, I was able to see this for myself at the site visit.

A bus stop (Footbridge) offering regular services between Gillingham and Maidstone, stopping at a number of transport hubs including a train station which offers links to London, is said to be around 0.7 miles (1.12km) away. Although this exceeds the 800 metres that is broadly considered to be a reasonable walking distance in rural areas, it nevertheless offers the opportunity to access alternative sustainable travel modes than the private car within 10 to 15 minutes on foot, which the Council accepted was at the upper limit of what was reasonable.

At the hearing it was agreed that the appeal site is located around 2.6km from [name] in the town centre, as the crow flies. The distances from the appeal site to the services most important to fulfilling the daily needs of future occupiers are not substantial. However, they are far enough away that it is unlikely future occupiers would regularly choose to walk or cycle to access them. Overall, there would be limited opportunities to reach services and facilities by sustainable modes, so the site is not well related to them and travel would likely be mainly by private car. - Conclusions on spatial strategy and accessibility

Bringing the above together, I have found that Local Plan Review Policy LPRSS1 does not restrict residential development as a matter of principle. However, it does set out a tiered approach to locating development in the most sustainable locations, with limited growth expected even in specifically named smaller villages. It follows that in other locations, where it is permitted, development should be below the level of limited growth. Whilst limited growth is not defined, I do not consider that a scheme of 9 dwellings could be considered as being below limited growth. Notwithstanding, this policy should be considered out of date given the Council cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS. This reduces the weight I attach to it and is a matter that I return to.

There is no blanket restriction on development in the countryside set out by Local Plan Review Policy LPRSP9 provided that, amongst other things, proposals accord with other policies in the plan and will not result in significant harm to the rural character and appearance. I find nothing in this policy to be inconsistent with the Framework insofar as is relevant to this scheme, and therefore I afford it substantial weight. Irrespective of whether the scheme gains support from other policies in the plan, as I have already found harm in respect of character and appearance, this brings the proposal into conflict with this policy.

In terms of accessibility, there would be limited opportunities for sustainably accessing the services and facilities necessary for occupiers’ day-to-day needs. I return to this in my planning balance.

As decision maker, I have a statutory duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that requires me to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings. Five listed buildings have been identified as being within the vicinity of the appeal site; the [name] listed Barn at Boxley Abbey5, [name]* listed [name] Chapel6 and [name] House7, and the [name] listed Abbey Farmhouse8 and 1-6 Abbeygate Cottages9.

The nearest listed building is around 90 metres away. Given the distances involved, it is common ground that the appeal scheme is capable of preserving the setting of these heritage assets. From what I have read and seen, I have no reason to disagree.

The site is located outside of the Boxley Conservation Area, which is over 170 metres to the east, intervened by significant landscape screening. Given this, I do not find the appeal site would form part of its setting and thus development at the appeal site would not have a harmful effect on it.

Having concluded that the spatial strategy is out of date by the inability of the Council to demonstrate a 5YHLS, this triggers the application of Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. I have already concluded that the effect on the KDNL does not constitute a strong reason for refusal as set out at Paragraph 11(d)(i) and footnote

Rather, Paragraph 11(d) (ii) applies. This means granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making efficient use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

I have found that locationally, the proposal conflicts with the spatial strategy of the Local Plan Review to a limited extent. However, in circumstances where the Council’s housing delivery policies have acted to unduly restrict the supply of homes, I do not find the site’s position, to be decisive to the outcome of this appeal.

Rather, when considered in the round, and recognising that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, the site’s location is within a relatively sustainable location given its rural context. Whilst most journeys would be by private car, journeys would be brief. Furthermore, future occupants would at least have the opportunity of accessing local services and facilities by other means.

I afford the boost to housing supply considerable weight, recognising that small and medium sites can make an important contribution to meeting housing the 5 [name]: 1086229 6 [name]: 1185580 7 [name]: 1086228 8 [name]: 1086234 9 [name]: 1336236 requirements of an area. Future occupants would also help to support local services and facilities through local spend once operational. This along with the temporary construction jobs it would create and the biodiversity net gain that would need to be secured at TDC stage, attract some but limited weight in favour of the scheme. The totality of the benefits are therefore considerable.

However, I am not satisfied that the site is capable of accommodating the maximum 9 dwellings without causing significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. The amount of development is a key consideration of a PiP. This harm weighs heavily against the scheme, especially as Paragraph 11(d)(ii) requires me to have particular regard to securing well-designed places, which I have concluded a proposal of this amount would not be able to achieve.

Given the relative benefits weighed against the harm and having had particular regard to relevant key policies, I find that the adverse impacts of granting permission in principle for the amount of development proposed, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out in paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is disengaged and the scheme should be considered under a normal planning balance. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

In this case, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be dismissed.