Hatchgate, Mill Lane, Yalding, ME18 6AR

Hatchgate, Mill Lane, Yalding, ME18 6AR — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 April 2025 by N Perrins MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 May 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/U2235/W/24/3352429 Hatchgate, Mill Lane, Yalding ME18 6AR • 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 Jamie Shead against the decision of Maidstone Borough Council. • The application Ref is 24/502519/FULL. • The development proposed is the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in December 2024. The updated Framework does not raise any new matters that are determinative to the outcome of this appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the countryside. Reasons 4. The appeal site consists of a single-storey bungalow in a broadly rectangular plot. Access to the appeal site is provided via Mill Lane, leading to a front parking area.

Hatchgate, Mill Lane, Yalding, ME18 6AR — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision The ‘L’ shaped bungalow is positioned back from the road and sits centrally within the plot with garden areas to the rear and sides. On this section of Mill Lane, the character of the area is rural comprising mainly open fields, verdant hedgerows and agricultural buildings and uses. Built form around the site is limited to agricultural buildings to the north and west. To the south and east of the site are fields covered with plastic sheeted polytunnels. These features all contribute positively to the rural character and appearance of the area. 5. The site lies outside of a settlement boundary in countryside as designated in the Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan Review 2021-2038 (the Local Plan). Policy LPRSP9 of the Local Plan states that development proposals in the countryside will not be permitted unless they accord with other policies in the plan and would not result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. Policy LPRHOU11 of the Local Plan relates to replacement dwellings in the countryside and sets out criteria for proposals to meet. Amongst other matters, Policy https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Hatchgate, Mill Lane, Yalding, ME18 6AR — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U2235/W/24/3352429 LPRHOU11 requires that the mass and volume of the replacement dwelling is no more visually harmful than the original dwelling and for it to result in a development which individually or cumulatively is visually acceptable in the countryside. 6. The current property is a modest bungalow with a simple form and appearance that appears as a subservient and complimentary feature nestled within the surrounding agricultural buildings and uses. The proposed replacement dwelling, while still set back within the plot, would be significantly larger in terms of volume, scale, bulk, and mass. I note that the proposed volume of the property would be almost double that of the existing building, which is a significant increase in a location where development is normally restricted to protect the intrinsic beauty and character of the countryside. 7. The impact from the increase in scale, bulk and volume principally arises from the design at first floor level.

Hatchgate, Mill Lane, Yalding, ME18 6AR — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision Whilst I acknowledge that the design approach aims to limit the overall height by incorporating rooms into the roof, the mass and height of the first floor with its gable ends and complicated roof form would still result in a top-heavy, bulky and overly large first floor. In particular, the twin gable ends on the side elevation would appear as an overly dominant part of the roof that would result in a dwelling that markedly contrasts with the existing bungalow’s simple and unassuming appearance. Whilst I acknowledge that twin gables are a design characteristic of the wider area, in this case it would serve to unacceptably exacerbate the excessive scale and bulk of the development at first floor. 8. The adjacent agricultural buildings whilst large structures are typical of the type of development normally found in working agricultural areas in the countryside such as that around the appeal site. The proposed significant increase in scale and complex roof structure would result in an uncharacteristically large dwelling that would visually jar with the surrounding simple form and appearance of the agricultural buildings.

Hatchgate, Mill Lane, Yalding, ME18 6AR — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision Furthermore, the architectural styles of the nearest neighbouring properties in Benover to the south do not provide any support for the proposed development. This is because they are situated some distance from the site and exist within a very different context compared to this isolated dwelling location in the countryside. 9. In terms of landscape impacts, the site is located on the edge of the Beult Valley Landscape Character Area, which I understand has high overall landscape sensitivity. In this case, due to the established mature vegetation and presence of adjacent agricultural buildings and uses, visibility of the appeal site is relatively limited within the wider landscape character area. Views of the appeal site are, therefore, principally localised and restricted to those from the road. In these views, the existing dwelling is unassuming in the landscape due to being single storey and the presence of existing screening. 10. In contrast, whilst existing mature vegetation provides some screening and additional planting could be secured by condition, the proposed dwelling would still be unduly prominent from these localised views due to the significant increase in volume at first floor.

Hatchgate, Mill Lane, Yalding, ME18 6AR — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision The resultant dwelling would, therefore, be significantly more visible in the landscape than the one it would replace undermining the mainly open and rural character of the area. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the existing landscaping or proposed boundary reinforcements would effectively address the impact on the landscape and rural character due to the significant scale and bulk at the first-floor level. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Hatchgate, Mill Lane, Yalding, ME18 6AR — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision The resultant dwelling would, therefore, be significantly more visible in the landscape than the one it would replace undermining the mainly open and rural character of the area. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the existing landscaping or proposed boundary reinforcements would effectively address the impact on the landscape and rural character due to the significant scale and bulk at the first-floor level. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Hatchgate, Mill Lane, Yalding, ME18 6AR — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U2235/W/24/3352429 11. I acknowledge that the existing dwelling could be extended under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and volume increased accordingly without the need for planning permission. However, the limited information provided does not demonstrate that the permitted development fallback would result in a comparable building to that before me in terms of height, volume and bulk at first floor. As such, the permitted development fallback in this case does not justify the harm identified. Consequently, the appellant’s suggestion to remove permitted development rights does not provide any justification for the proposal. 12. I am aware that the proposal includes raised floor levels due to the site being in Flood Zone 3, which represents an improvement in flood risk terms compared to the existing dwelling, to which I attribute moderate weight. I also acknowledge that any replacement dwelling would need to raise floor levels to address flood risk, which is likely to result in an increase in ridge height if including accommodation at first floor.

Hatchgate, Mill Lane, Yalding, ME18 6AR — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, the information provided does not conclusively establish that the scale, volume and overall design of the first-floor development in this case are all directly derived from the requirement to raise floor levels. Therefore, the benefi ts related to flood mitigation do not outweigh the adverse impact on the countryside. 13. In conclusion, the proposed development would result in a dwelling that is materially larger and more prominent than the one it would replace. The resulting incongruous scale, bulk mass and appearance would, therefore, unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the countryside and surrounding landscape contrary to Policies LPRSP9, LPRSP15, LPRQD4 and LPRHOU11and of the Local Plan that require development in the countryside to not harm the rural character and appearance of the area. The proposal also conflicts with similar provisions set out in the Framework and guidance relating to landscape within the Maidstone Landscape Character Assessment 2013. Other matters 14.

Hatchgate, Mill Lane, Yalding, ME18 6AR — Maidstone Borough Council — Appeal Decision I acknowledge the other considerations presented by the appellant including principle of development, amenity to neighbouring properties, parking and highways, flooding, sustainability credentials and economic, social and environmental benefits. I note that the proposed development is acceptable in these other respects and will provide a dwelling that would meet the needs of its occupants. However, this should be the case for any development and as such they do not provide any support for the proposal that would outweigh the harm to the countryside identified. Conclusion 15. The proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would cause me to determine this appeal otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, and considering all matters raised, I conclude the appeal is dismissed.

Hatchgate, Mill Lane, Yalding, ME18 6AR — Maidstone Borough Council — N Perrins INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3