Appeal 6005438

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the countryside.

The appeal site is a parcel of land adjoining a dwelling known as Petworth, which is within the same ownership. Petworth is a modest property set within modest grounds. The appeal site is distinct from Petworth’s garden, as it is located at a significantly higher level and accessed via steps located to the rear of the dwelling. The appeal site is primarily bordered by dense hedging, with the exception of a gated vehicular access from [site address] , a narrow sunken country lane which is lined by tall hedgerows.

The appeal site was subject to an enforcement case and subsequent planning appeal1 in 2017. This related to the change of use of the land from agriculture to a mixed use for the stationing of three caravans all in residential use; the storage of caravans, and various motor vehicles and equipment all unconnected to agriculture as well as the carrying out of facilitating operational development such as the installation of a septic tank. The appeal was dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld.

At the time of my site visit there was a caravan, trailer and various machinery present on the appeal site. I understand that the appellant bought Petworth and 1 Council Ref: EN/13/00073 and [name]: APP/E2205/C/16/3160268 the appeal site in 2025 and intends to continue the restoration of the land in order to comply with the enforcement notice. The vehicular access and agricultural buildings on the site which were not the subject of the enforcement notice are to remain.

The appellant indicates that the proposal would not involve the appeal site becoming part of Petworth’s residential curtilage. This is not disputed by the Council. Neither would the proposal involve built development on the site. However, the retained buildings on site would be repaired.

The appellant’s Statement of Case2 outlines that occupiers of Petworth would use the land for amenity and leisure purposes which could include open space, landscaped areas, or a garden area that is designed to enhance the living conditions, privacy, and outlook of the adjoining residential property. Indeed, a small recreational area is proposed for ‘kick around’ football. At the time of my site visit there was a football goal as well as a small area of children’s play equipment present.

Whilst this use may be fairly low-key, it seems to me that the change of use would be likely to result in the introduction of additional domestic paraphernalia on the site which would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the countryside. The appellant indicates that the appeal site is within the Mersham Farmlands Landscape Character Area, within area B7-[address]. Whilst the appeal site’s boundaries are primarily dense hedgerows, the opening at the vehicular entrance allows relatively wide views into the appeal site. The associated domestic paraphernalia would result in a notable encroachment of residential land upon the surrounding landscape. This would negatively contrast to the prevailing agricultural landscape of the area. Whilst not especially prominent in public views from other viewpoints, this factor is not decisive as the National Planning Policy seek to protect the countryside for its own sake.

The appellant advises that staggered native hedgerows will be double planted to strengthen the perimeter of the site, albeit the vehicular access would be retained. A traditional fruit tree orchard would be planted and an ephemeral pond for wading birds and insects would be created. However, these do not form part of the appeal proposal which relates solely to the change of use. Furthermore, any planning permission would run with the land and therefore I have no means of knowing how a future owner may choose to use the area, once the change of use has been established.

I have given consideration to the option of imposing a planning condition to limit the introduction of further domestic trappings. However, the Council would have no effective means of controlling other aspects of the domestic use – barbecues, seating and washing lines being obvious examples, but this list is not exhaustive. Accordingly, the development could not be made acceptable through the use of a

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the countryside. It would conflict with Policies ENV3a and ENV5 of the Ashford Borough Local Plan (2019) insofar as they require proposals have regard to local landscape characteristics. Their objectives are consistent with paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2 Section 6 of Statement of Case (February 2026) which states that planning should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

The removal of the scrap material, vehicles and machinery will also enable a restoration of the habitat in this area and would improve the effect of the appeal site, as existing, on the character and appearance of the area. However, this clearance is necessary to comply with the enforcement notice at the site. Accordingly, I afford this limited weight.

It has been put to me that the land is no longer viable for farming. Be that as it may, I have no substantive evidence to demonstrate this, and therefore afford this factor limited weight. Accordingly, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified.

The concerns expressed regarding the Council’s conduct during the processing of the planning application are outside the remit of this appeal decision.

For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.