Alteration alterations to existing established C3 Barn by rising the ridge. Improvements to the operational use of the facility

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 February 2026 by C Housden BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13th March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003787 4 Hare and Hounds Cottages, Hawkenbury Road, Hawkenbury, Kent TN12 0DZ • 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 Mark Mills against the decision of Maidstone Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/504079/FULL. • The development proposed is alteration alterations to existing established C3 Barn by rising the ridge. Improvements to the operational use of the facility. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The description of development as set out in the application form contains superfluous text and elements which do not specifically relate to acts of development. In these circumstances, in relation to the banner heading of my decision, I have deleted elements of the description which addresses the purpose and merits of the case, along with any detail and narrative that does not relate to acts of development. 3. Furthermore, whilst not in the description of development, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development also comprises an extension to the footprint of the building. It is clear from the Council’s officer report that it dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I. 4. The rear and righthand side elevation as depicted on the existing plans do not accurately reflect the situation on site. In addition, I also observed that the barn had a slight offset from the adjacent side boundary, rather than being set directly on it as depicted in the existing plans. Nevertheless, I have sufficient information before me, including my observations on site, to adequately inform my planning assessment. 5. The evidence shows that a certificate of lawfulness was granted for the use of the appeal building as an independent C3 dwelling. The red line of this application was drawn around the building and frontage of the site. The red line of the appeal before me covers this area, along with the garden associated with 4 Hare and Hounds Cottages. However, there is nothing in the evidence before me that suggests that this garden area is proposed to be incorporated to a wider curtilage of the appeal building as part of the appeal proposal, or has previously been done so. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis of how it has been applied for, that being alterations to the host building. Appeal Decision 6003787 2 Main Issues 6. The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; • the living conditions of the occupiers of 1 Tayfields (No 1) and 4 Hare and Hounds Cottages (No 4) with specific regard to outlook, privacy and overshadowing; • highway safety, with particular regard to the frontage parking provision; and • the living conditions of future occupiers of the appeal property. Reasons Character and appearance 7. The appeal site is situated within the countryside. The area features a ribbon of development set on one side of Hawkenbury Road, with fields bound by hedgerow and trees on the opposite side of the road. The properties within the area feature consistency being set in short terraces or in semi-detached arrangements, often with side facing gables and predominantly finished in brick. Whilst I note the independent residential use of the appeal property, it appears as a single storey garage style building, with a facing gable. It is set in front of a row of semi- detached properties and behind a short terrace. Overall, the area has a rural and countryside character and appearance, where the appeal property appears in keeping as an unimposing detached building. 8. Whilst it would remain set back into the plot and the materials would reflect the local vernacular, the proposed development would significantly enlarge the appeal building, resulting in a notably larger property with a tall front facing gable. The design would feature a roof overhang to the front of the property with a protruding balcony and supporting pillars along with extensive glazing. The specific design of the appeal proposal introduces architectural features to the building distinctly out of keeping with the surrounding rural environment and existing properties making it appear highly prominent and intrusive within the area. 9. Whilst I note that the appeal property has a lawful use as an independent dwelling which has changed the character of the use of the building, this would not mitigate or justify the specific design harms to the character and appearance of the area that I have identified. 10. The appeal proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies LPRSP9, LPRSP15, LPRQD4 and LPRHOU11 of the Maidstone Local Plan Review (2024) (MLPR). These policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that proposals do not result in significant harm to the rural character and appearance of the area, incorporates high quality design that relates sympathetically to the existing building and the rural area, without overwhelming or destroying the original form of the existing dwelling. Appeal Decision 6003787 3 Living conditions 11. No 1 comprises a long narrow plot with the dwelling itself set behind the appeal property. The side elevation of the existing single storey building is situated adjacent to the front garden area of No 1, whilst the rear elevation would be set facing towards part of the side garden of No 1. The existing roof of the appeal property pitches away from the shared side boundary. The proposed development would raise the eaves and extend the depth of the property along the shared boundary with No 1. Whilst the roof would continue to pitch away from No 1, the development would result in considerable additional bulk and massing above the shared boundary in close proximity to the frontage and side amenity area of No 1, resulting in an enclosing and overbearing affect to these areas which would be detrimental to the outlook of the occupiers of No 1. Similarly, in relation to No 4, the proposal would introduce additional bulk and massing directly adjacent to the rear conservatory and garden area which would also result in an enclosing and overbearing effect on these areas for the occupiers of No 4. 12. In relation to whether the proposal would overshadow both neighbours, I have not been provided with any technical evidence on this matter from either party. Due to the positioning of the appeal building in relation to No 4 and the path of the sun, along with the additional height, bulk and mass added by the appeal proposal, this would likely cause overshadowing throughout much of the day resulting in these areas feeling colder and uninviting, harming the living conditions of No 4. In relation to No 1, due to its location in relation to the appeal property and the path of the sun, the appeal proposal would be unlikely to cause an overshadowing effect to this neighbour. 13. In relation to overlooking, the appeal property already has a rear facing window with outlook towards No 1 set above the ground floor level. As such, the proposed rear facing window would not result in a materially more harmful situation than the existing. However, in relation to the side facing rooflights, whilst these are stated to be at a high level, there are no section plans submitted to show the internal floor level. Furthermore, there is insufficient detail on the floor plans to confirm what rooms the rooflights are proposed to serve. In these circumstances, the evidence does not demonstrate that obscurely glazing these windows would not adversely affect the living conditions of future occupiers of the development. It would therefore not be reasonable for me to impose such a condition. As such, the evidence does not demonstrate that overlooking would not arise to the respective front and rear garden areas of No 1 and No 4, resulting in a loss of privacy to the occupiers of these properties. 14. As such, the development would result in considerable harm to the living conditions of No 1 and No 4 by way of loss of outlook and privacy, and in addition to No 4 by way of overshadowing. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies LPRSP9, LPRSP15, and LPRHOU11 of the MLPR. These policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure proposals respect the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties and to not have a negative impact on neighbouring residential amenity including through the effect on privacy, overshadowing and overbearing. Appeal Decision 6003787 4 Highway safety 15. Presently, vehicles park in front of the appeal building. There is a narrow gravel parking space directly adjacent to No 4, and a hardstanding frontage directly in front of the appeal building. Whilst I have not been provided with a plan demonstrating how vehicles can currently manoeuvre within the site, the frontage currently has sufficient depth where a single vehicle could reasonably turn around within the frontage of the site to avoid reversing into or out of the drive, albeit this would likely take a number of manoeuvres to achieve. 16. The proposal would reduce the depth of the frontage making vehicle manoeuvres within the site significantly more restricted. In addition, it would encroach towards the gravel parking space where the Council highlights that some larger vehicles may be unable to wholly park within the site, owing to the constricted width and depth of this space resulting from the appeal proposal. Based on the evidence before me, I have no reason to reach a different conclusion. 17. As such, the proposal would likely result in additional reversing manoeuvres into or out of the appeal site, along with being unable to accommodate larger vehicles in the side parking space. I have no evidence before me which demonstrates that this would not result in adverse highway safety implications to future occupiers of the appeal site or other road users by way of increased risk of vehicle collisions. This is particularly pertinent given I observed the appeal site was in close proximity to a bend in the road with visibility blocked by the adjacent properties. The proposal fails to demonstrate that it would not conflict with Policy LPRSP15, which amongst other matters, seeks to ensure proposals safely accommodate the vehicular movements generated by the proposal through the site access. Living conditions of future occupiers 18. The Council highlights the front extension would result in the loss of an amenity area associated with the appeal property. However, from my visit it is clear that this frontage area is used as a parking area and is proposed to be retained for parking, rather than proposed as an external amenity space. As such, the reduction in this space would not result in harm to the living conditions of future occupants of the development. It would therefore accord with Policy LPRSP15 of the MLPR in this regard. This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure proposals provide adequate residential amenities for future occupiers. Other Matters 19. The appeal proposal would improve the living conditions of the occupiers of the appeal property by providing additional floor space. However, this is a personal benefit of the scheme, and it attracts limited weight in favour of the development. This would be insufficient to outweigh the harms that I have identified. Conclusion 20. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed. C Housden INSPECTOR