Replacement of existing detached asbestos garage and porch with new double garage, with porch link to dwelling
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Rural Impact
Policy Weight
Inspector’s Reasoning
https://www.gov.uk/planning -inspectorate
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 16 September 2025
by Stewart Glassar BSc (Hons) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 2nd October 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/V2255/D/25/3369424
The Lodge, Hawks Hill Lane, Bredgar, Kent ME9 8HE
• 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 Andrew Holbourn against the decision of Swale Borough Council.
• The application Ref is 25/501760/FULL.
• The development proposed is replacement of existing detached asbestos garage and porch with new
double garage, with porch link to dwelling.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement of
existing detached asbestos garage and porch with new double garage, with porch
link to dwelling at The Lodge, Hawks Hill Lane, Bredgar, Kent ME9 8HE in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/501760/FULL, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from
the date of this decision.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
drawings: HLB-0425-01 Rev A (Site Plan); HLB-0425-01 Rev A (Proposed
Floor Plans and Elevations)
3. The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those
used in the existing dwelling.
Preliminary Matter
2. I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice as it
more accurately describes that for which permission is sought.
Main Issue
3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and
appearance of the existing building and wider area, including the Kent Downs
National Landscape.
Reasons
4. The host property is one of a number of dwellings that form a ribbon of
development along this part of Hawks Hill Lane. The surrounding area is rural and
verdant and the landscape is one of a gently undulating pastoral character, with
fields separated by mature planting and wooded areas. This positively contributes
Appeal Decision APP/V2255/D/25/3369424
https://www.gov.uk/planning -inspectorate 2
to the scenic rural character and appearance of the countryside and the Kent
Downs National Landscape (KDNL).
5. The statutory purpose of a National Landscape is to conserve and enhance the
natural beauty of the area. The National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework) provides that great weight should be given to conserving and
enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes.
6. The appeal property is a modest, single storey dwelling of little architectural merit.
It has previously been extended to the rear and includes accommodation within
the roof. It is set back within a well sized plot but at a slight angle to the road. The
adjacent single storey asbestos garage is a functional building of utilitarian
appearance. Neither building is overly prominent within the landscape.
7. The garage and a modest entrance porch to the dwelling would be replaced with a
canted extension which would comprise a new porch and double garage. The
extension would utilise matching materials and styling to that of the host building.
The ridge of the garage roof would be set below that of the main dwelling to give it
a sense of subservience.
8. When seen from Hawks Hill Lane, the proposal would clearly extend the width of
built form on the site albeit the angled layout would help to mitigate some of the
impact. In certain fleeting views it would also be seen in conjunction with the
existing rear projection of the house.
9. As a result, the existing dwelling would no longer be seen as a modest bungalow
but as part of a larger, more noticeable building. However, it would still be possible
to discern the original building, and the new addition would not be so large as to
overwhelm the existing building nor be overly prominent in comparison to it.
10. Wider views of the building within the landscape would be limited. Where it could
be seen, it would be in the context of an established residential plot, sited within
the vicinity of other dwellings of varying sizes. Despite the greater visual
prominence, mainly from Hawks Hill Lane, the proposal would not be so intrusive
that it would spoil the landscape or visual qualities of the National Landscape. The
overall effect on the intrinsic character and scenic beauty of the KDNL would be
acceptable and no harm would be caused to other important aspects of this
designated area.
11. As a result, I am satisfied that the proposal would not cause harm to the character
and appearance of the existing building nor the wider area, including the KDNL.
The proposal therefore complies with Policies CP4, DM11, DM14, DM16 and
DM24 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2017. These policies require, amongst
other things, that development is of a quality that is appropriate to its surroundings
and that extensions are of an appropriate scale, mass and appearance that do not
harm the building or wider area.
Conditions
12. In addition to the standard time limit, a condition which lists the approved plans is
necessary in the interests of certainty. A condition ensuring the external finishes
match those of the existing dwelling is necessary to protect the character and
appearance of the building and wider area.
Appeal Decision APP/V2255/D/25/3369424
https://www.gov.uk/planning -inspectorate 3
Conclusion
13. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole,
along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal
should be allowed subject to the specified conditions.
Stewart Glassar
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.