Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 August 2023 by David Wyborn BSc(Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 August 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/U2235/W/23/3317508 Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent ME15 0BB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs Paula George against the decision of Maidstone Borough Council. • The application Ref 22/504469/FULL, dated 12 September 2022, was refused by notice dated 16 January 2023. • The development proposed is a new dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The appellant explains that the Pleasant Valley Farm site consisted of two separate dwellings until 1999. An aerial photograph is included within the submissions which shows a building within the front section of the site which it is explained was the second dwelling. However, this building no longer exists, and currently only the larger dwelling remains. While I have noted this planning background, there is only one dwelling on the site and this proposal seeks a new build, additional dwelling. I have considered the scheme on that basis.

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision Main Issues 3. The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, and • whether or not the development plan would support the proposal in this location, including having regard to the ability to access services and facilities by a range of transport modes. Character and appearance 4. The appeal property is accessed via Pleasant Valley Lane. This lane, from the junction with Dean Street, has initially a built-up feel with housing reasonably close together and on both sides. Moving east, the surroundings to the lane become more rural, with woodland to the south and more open and verdant land to the north. The buildings become more sporadic and the single width and unsurfaced finish to the lane becomes bound by trees and hedges. Pleasant Valley Farm is accessed off the end of the lane and, by that point, the area has a much greater affinity with the countryside than with the built-up character at the start of the lane. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U2235/W/23/3317508 5. Pleasant Valley Farm is a well proportioned dwelling and, with the rear, weatherboarded addition, is quite a sizeable property within generous grounds. The building is set back in its site and accessed via an internal drive which passes through an open grassed area. The building in its grounds, with the treed and hedged boundaries, and the wider verdant setting, contributes positively to the generally rural surroundings at this end of Pleasant Valley Lane. 6. The appeal site consists of a sizeable part of the open grassed area that lies to one side of the internal access drive. From parts of the lane there are partial views into the appeal site through the gate and through parts of the frontage planting. These filtered views from the lane, which is also a public right of way, allow the open grassed area to be experienced in the wider context of the rural surroundings, with a backdrop of the existing dwelling. 7. I note the Council’s evidence that a definitive right of way also passes through the grounds of Pleasant Valley Farm rather than the walked route that passes behind the fence to the side of the curtilage.

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision Regardless of the alignment of this particular route, the undeveloped appeal site within the Pleasant Valley Farm grounds can be appreciated as forming part of the rural surroundings. 8. The appeal scheme proposes quite a substantial property within the frontage grassed space. The property would be separated from the front of the existing dwelling and would form a sizeable new dwelling within a curtilage, and which would be likely to have the parking of vehicles and related domestic paraphernalia that an additional residential use would entail, over and above that from the existing property. 9. I have taken into account the Kent Farmsteads Guidance1, however, I am not satisfied that the new dwelling, of the size, design and position proposed, would be read as an outbuilding to the main house. The proposed building would be in an area to the front of the principal elevation, and would be of a bulk and length that would appear disproportionate to the scale of the front façade of Pleasant Valley Farm.

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision In combination with the likely domestic paraphernalia and activity from an additional dwelling, and the design with the number, size and position of the rooflights on the eastern elevation that would draw the eye, the overall appearance would be of an overly large and dominant residential development. 10. The development would be perceptible from outside the site and would erode the pleasant and spacious area to the front of the main house. The rural character and sporadic nature of development at this end of the lane would be harmed by the introduction of this dwelling creating a more intensive and more suburban-like use of the site. 11. Even if the frontage of the site was to be landscaped to such an extent that the new building and related curtilage activities would not be perceptible, I am not satisfied that the introduction of the appeal dwelling would create an acceptable pattern of development within the site that would be in harmony with the dispersed nature of other buildings in these rural surroundings. This is notwithstanding the historical position of a building in this general space.

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision That building no longer exists, and I attribute the historical information limited weight in favour of the proposal in this location. Furthermore, if a dwelling was 1 Kent Farmsteads Guidance – Part 1 – Farmsteads Assessment Framework 2013 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision That building no longer exists, and I attribute the historical information limited weight in favour of the proposal in this location. Furthermore, if a dwelling was 1 Kent Farmsteads Guidance – Part 1 – Farmsteads Assessment Framework 2013 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U2235/W/23/3317508 to be permitted simply because it was not visible beyond a site boundary then this could help to justify further residential development in this surrounding rural area that would ultimately further undermine the character and appearance of the countryside. 12. Drawing these matters together, while the external materials may be acceptable, the size, position and impact of this proposed dwelling with its related domestic curtilage would introduce an overly large and harmful residential development that would unduly diminish the character and appearance of this rural location. In this way, the scheme would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requirements that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. 13. As a consequence, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area.

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision Accordingly, the scheme would conflict with Policies SP1, SP17, DM1 and DM30 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (adopted 2017) (the Local Plan) which seeks, amongst other things, in terms of the design principles in the countryside, that the type, siting, design, mass and scale of development and the level of activity would maintain, or where possible, enhance local distinctiveness including landscape features. Location 14. Policy SS1 of the Local Plan sets out the spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy for the delivery of development across the plan area. The principal focus is to be an expanded Maidstone urban area, then Rural Service Centres and then the identified Larger Villages. Beyond those areas the land is designated as countryside and the Local Plan explains that it is important that the quality and character of the countryside outside of settlements in the hierarchy is protected and enhanced.

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision This supporting text also explains that, at the same time, in the countryside there should be allowed opportunities for sustainable development that supports traditional land based activities and other aspects of the countryside economy, and makes the most of new leisure and recreational opportunities that need a countryside location. 15. While Coxheath is identified as a Larger Village, the appeal site lies away from the settlement boundary and in land that is identified, in planning terms, as countryside. The proposal is for a new dwelling, and it has not been shown that the proposal would meet with any of the policy allowances for residential development in the countryside. The scheme would, therefore, be contrary to the Local Plan approach to the location of new residential development. 16. In terms of the accessibility to services and facilities for occupants of the proposed dwelling by a range of transport modes, the accommodation would be located at the end of the lane. To catch the public bus, it would be necessary to walk to the bus stops in Dean Street, which would be possible although not necessarily attractive at all times because the lane does not have a bound surface and is without street lighting.

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision The Council has set out the frequency of the buses and, in my view, the service is quite limited. I consider that this level of service would not provide a readily available and viable option for many occupants of the dwelling to access, for instance, employment or shopping on a day-to-day basis. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision The Council has set out the frequency of the buses and, in my view, the service is quite limited. I consider that this level of service would not provide a readily available and viable option for many occupants of the dwelling to access, for instance, employment or shopping on a day-to-day basis. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U2235/W/23/3317508 17. The walking routes to Coxheath are via public rights of way partly through a countryside area. These links could be used at times and would be reasonable for recreational walks. However, their surface, rural nature and distance would mean that, in all likelihood, they would not provide a reasonable option to access services and facilities in Coxheath on a regular basis. The routes would also mean that they would not be readily useable for all, such as for parents with small children in pushchairs, those with some mobility issues or after dark. 18. Cycling from the site may be an option on some occasions, although what appeared to me to be a reasonably busy road through Coxheath would not encourage all cyclists to access the services and facilities in this centre. 19. Consequently, it is likely that occupants of the proposed dwelling would be substantially dependent on the private vehicle to access services and facilities.

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision In terms of promoting sustainable transport, the Framework advises that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of objectives including that opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued. The Framework acknowledges, however, that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in decision-making. Given my assessment above, this site has reasonably poor credentials in terms of sustainable transport options both in itself and in comparison with other sites in the general area such as at Coxheath. Even taking into account the rural location, the proposed dwelling would not meet with the Framework approach to the location of development. 20. The appellant has highlighted a range of other decisions that are said to weigh in favour of the proposal in this and other respects. Three of the decisions2 that are highlighted are for dwellings located amongst or adjoining the built development alongside Pleasant Valley Lane and generally towards the junction with Dean Street.

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision These sites do not have the same locational characteristics as the appeal site which is away from this grouping of dwellings. Furthermore, two of these decisions were in 2007, before the present Local Plan was adopted, and the other the Council indicate was for a replacement dwelling. These planning circumstances appear to be materially different to the present situation and, consequently, I afford these decisions limited weight in support of the present appeal. 21. The other proposal at land to the north of Pleasant Valley Lane3 for a single dwelling was, in accordance with the Council’s evidence, separated from the present appeal site and more towards the housing to the west. It was refused because of the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the subsequent appeal was dismissed on that basis. It does not appear that the Council raised objection to the scheme on accessibility grounds and this scheme was refused by the Council in August 2020.

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision The transport sustainability aspects of this location at land north of Pleasant Valley Lane are 2 Planning application 22/505340/FULL - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a detached four bedroom chalet bungalow with associated access, parking, amenity and landscaping - Chapel Nursery, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Maidstone Kent ME15 0BB, Planning application 07/0350 - Erection of single dwelling house - Land Adj to Carpenters Cottage, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Maidstone, ME15 0BB, and Planning application 06/2333 - Erection of one new dwelling - Horseshoe Villa, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Maidstone, ME15 0BB 3 Planning application 20/502111/FULL – Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a single detached dwelling with associated parking, access and landscaping works – Land north of Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh ME15 0BB - Refused 12 August 2020 and dismissed at appeal on 21 May 2021. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U2235/W/23/3317508 better, in terms of the ability to walk to the bus stops than the present appeal site, but those bus services are in any case quite limited. I consider that this decision provides moderate support to the appellant’s case in respect of the accessibility arguments. 22. Taking all these matters together, the proposed dwelling would be located, in planning terms, in a countryside area, and would not be supported by the settlement hierarchy and the policy approach for the distribution of housing. In addition, the location would be fairly poor in terms of the ability for occupants to access services and facilities other than by the private vehicle, even taking account of the decision at land north of Pleasant Valley Lane. It follows that I conclude that the development plan would not support the proposal in this location and, in particular, it would be contrary to Policy SS1 of the Local Plan and the Framework which set, amongst other things, the approach to development in the countryside. Planning Balance and Conclusion 23.

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise4. 24. In terms of the benefits of the scheme, the proposal would provide a small boost to housing supply on a windfall site, making effective use of the land. There would be economic and social benefits to the area during construction and in subsequent occupation. The site is sufficient in size to ensure that there could be a meaningful increase in biodiversity net gain and the building could incorporate renewable energy systems to minimise carbon usage during occupation. The application form indicates that the development would be for a self-build and custom home, although there is no clear mechanism before me to ensure that the dwelling could be delivered to meet this specification. The scheme is supported by East Farleigh Parish Council. 25. Despite the views of the Council, the site forms part of the garden area of a property in the countryside and the appeal site can, therefore, be considered in terms of the Framework definition to be previously developed land.

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision The Framework, on this issue, is generally supportive of the use of such land for development. 26. These would all be worthwhile benefits of the proposal, however, as only one additional dwelling would be provided, I attribute the cumulative benefits limited weight in support of approval. 27. On the other hand, the Council is able to demonstrate a Framework compliant supply and delivery of housing. Consequently, policies for the supply of housing, such as Policy SS1 of the Local Plan which sets the spatial strategy and the related settlement boundaries, are not hindering the delivery of the identified need for housing and I attach them full weight in the circumstances of this appeal. 28. As I have found above, the scheme would harm the character and appearance of the area and be located so as to conflict with the settlement strategy and distribution of development across the plan area. The location of the site would 4 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U2235/W/23/3317508 be fairly poor in terms of the ability to access services and facilities by transport options other than the private vehicle. These are matters which, taken together, should afford substantial weight against the proposal. They are such that the scheme would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. 29. It follows from the above that the harm and policy conflict, which should be afforded substantial weight, would not be outweighed by the benefits, which I attribute limited weight. 30. There are no material considerations of such importance that indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Pleasant Valley Farm, Pleasant Valley Lane, East Farleigh, Kent, ME15 0BB — Maidstone Borough Council — David Wyborn INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6