Meadow Cottage, Church Lane, Ashford, Kent, TN26 1LY

Meadow Cottage, Church Lane, Ashford, Kent, TN26 1LY — Ashford Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 March 2024 by Stewart Glassar BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th April 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/E2205/W/23/3322963 Meadow Cottage, Church Lane, Shadoxhurst, Kent TN26 1LY • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Nutley against the decision of Ashford Borough Council. • The application Ref is PA/2022/2704. • The development proposed is the replacement of the existing commercial kennels with 1no dwelling including parking and landscaping. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice and appellant’s appeal form, as it more succinctly describes that for which permission is sought. 3. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published by the Government after the determination of the planning application. It does not raise any new considerations in relation to this appeal. Where I have referred to specific paragraphs of the Framework, the numbering used is that of the December 2023 version. Main Issue 4.

Meadow Cottage, Church Lane, Ashford, Kent, TN26 1LY — Ashford Borough Council — Appeal Decision The main issue is whether or not the proposed development would accord with local and national policies regarding the location of housing. Reasons 5. Policy HOU5 of the Ashford Borough Local Plan 2019 (ABLP) addresses ‘residential windfall development in the countryside’. The first part of the policy allows for residential proposals ‘adjoining or close to the existing built up confines’ of listed settlements. The second part of the policy concerns residential development ‘elsewhere’ in the countryside and this limits such development to 5 specified exceptions. 6. The policy is broadly consistent with the Framework in terms of allowing villages to grow and thrive. It is also consistent with Paragraph 84, which provides for similar exceptions to allow ‘isolated homes’ in the countryside. 7. Shadoxhurst, which is the nearest settlement to the appeal site, is listed in the first part of policy HOU5. However, given the distances involved, the appeal https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Meadow Cottage, Church Lane, Ashford, Kent, TN26 1LY — Ashford Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E2205/W/23/3322963 site could not reasonably be regarded as being ‘adjoining or close’. As a result, the proposal could only be allowed if it met one of the 5 exceptions set out in the second part of the policy. 8. The proposal is not for a rural worker, would not be enabling development to secure the future of a heritage asset, is not of an exceptional or innovative design, is not a replacement dwelling and would not involve the reuse of a redundant or disused building. The proposal would therefore not accord with the exceptions set out in the second part of Policy HOU5. 9. Nevertheless, the appellant suggests that the sentiment of the final exception to HOU5, the re-use of redundant or disused buildings, could apply to the proposal. Whilst the existing buildings may be redundant, the proposal does not propose their reuse. The proposed dwelling is in a similar position to the existing buildings but is set further forward and is a larger structure in terms of its overall height and width. Although the Council’s decision notice does not raise any concerns with the design of the appeal proposal per say, it is clearly different to what currently exists.

Meadow Cottage, Church Lane, Ashford, Kent, TN26 1LY — Ashford Borough Council — Appeal Decision It would therefore fall outside the terms of the Framework and Policy HOU5. 10. As an alternative, it is suggested that the site represents previously developed land. Whilst there is broad policy support for the reuse of brownfield sites, Policy SP1 of the ABLP does not necessarily support such redevelopment in every instance, requiring them to be suitable opportunities and in accessible and sustainable locations. 11. Whilst the Framework supports the effective use of previously developed land, I am mindful of the advice in Paragraph 124, that substantial weight to the reuse of brownfield land applies in settlements, which is not the case here. Furthermore, the Framework expects such redevelopment, amongst other things, to be accessible, prioritising pedestrian and cycle movement. 12. The site is part of a ribbon of development, in a location where it does not seem easy to make regular journeys on foot, by bike or by using public transport. Furthermore, whilst there are some services available in Shadoxhurst and Stubbs Cross, they appear very limited. 13.

Meadow Cottage, Church Lane, Ashford, Kent, TN26 1LY — Ashford Borough Council — Appeal Decision The Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and it would be unrealistic to expect occupiers of rural sites to rely completely on walking, cycling or public transport journeys to access normal day-to-day services and facilities. Nevertheless, the practical reality appears to me that if future occupants owned a car, they would be highly likely to rely on it as the most convenient means of carrying out their day-to-day activities. This is a useful indicator as to the unsustainability of the appeal site’s location. 14. On this main issue, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not comply with local and national policies with regard to location. In particular, it would be contrary to Policy HOU5 of the ABLP, which amongst other things seeks to limit development in the countryside to limited exceptions, none of which are satisfied in this case. Similarly, it conflicts with the Framework, which encourages sustainable patterns of development. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Meadow Cottage, Church Lane, Ashford, Kent, TN26 1LY — Ashford Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E2205/W/23/3322963 Other Matters 15. The proposed dwelling is said to be likely to generate less traffic than the kennels. However, the proposal is predicated on the basis that the kennels are unviable and failed to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic. It therefore seems that the kennels are in reality, unlikely to generate traffic levels that would weigh significantly in favour of the proposal. 16. Although it is intimated that an alternative commercial use could replace the kennels, there is nothing to indicate that this would be a more viable commercial option than the kennels or that there is any real prospect of an alternative use occurring. It is also not clear whether such a change would require alterations to the land/building and the extent to which these would be acceptable. Based on my observations of the site and the evidence before me, an alternative commercial use taking place at the site seems at this stage to be no more than a theoretical possibility. 17. There may not be any objections regarding a number of issues including highways/parking, arboriculture, the loss of a commercial use, the design of the dwelling, the living conditions of neighbours.

Meadow Cottage, Church Lane, Ashford, Kent, TN26 1LY — Ashford Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, these largely represent compliance with policy, which is to be expected for any development to be considered acceptable and so are neutral in any overall balance. 18. I also note that the Parish Council has not objected to the scheme. Nevertheless, this does not absolve me from making an assessment as to the effects of the proposal in regard to the main issue of the case. 19. The site is not within the Stour catchment area and does not raise issues regarding nutrient neutrality. The appellant considers this is a matter to which significant positive weight should be attached, given the difficulties sites within the catchment area are experiencing. However, whilst this might assist with the deliverability of the site, it would represent a lack of harm which, by definition, would be incapable of weighing against harm. Accordingly, it would be neutral in any balance. 20. The proposed dwelling would have energy reduction properties. Although such measures are becoming more common, they nevertheless can be given a small amount of positive weight. 21. It is intimated that the proposal would be likely to have a high degree of custom build.

Meadow Cottage, Church Lane, Ashford, Kent, TN26 1LY — Ashford Borough Council — Appeal Decision The Government attaches importance to the supply of self-build and custom build housing. However, I have not been provided with any details regarding the supply or demand for such housing in the area. Furthermore, there are no details as to how it would be secured were the appeal to be allowed. Planning Balance 22. At the time of its decision, the Council was unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land. There is nothing before me to indicate that this situation has changed in the intervening period. Accordingly, Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged. 23. The proposal would contribute to boosting the supply of new housing on previously developed land and provide some associated social and economic https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Meadow Cottage, Church Lane, Ashford, Kent, TN26 1LY — Ashford Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E2205/W/23/3322963 benefits. There would also be benefits to local services during the construction and occupancy phases. 24. The provision of a new dwelling would make a minor numerical contribution to the supply of housing. However, as a small site, it is likely that the development could be delivered quickly and any additional provision would be helpful in meeting the Government's objectives in an area which is not meeting its targets. 25. Conversely, the support in the Framework for new housing is not at the expense of ensuring that all development is appropriately located. The Framework encourages patterns of growth that identify and pursue opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport. While some limited day-to-day needs of future residents could be met more locally, others, particularly those related to employment, health, education and leisure facilities, are likely to require longer journeys, most which would be more conveniently undertaken by car. 26. Consequently, the adverse effects of locating a house on the appeal site would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when considered against the policies in the Framework as a whole.

Meadow Cottage, Church Lane, Ashford, Kent, TN26 1LY — Ashford Borough Council — Appeal Decision The presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore does not apply in this case. Conclusion 27. The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Meadow Cottage, Church Lane, Ashford, Kent, TN26 1LY — Ashford Borough Council — Stewart Glassar INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4