Erection of a single storey detached outbuilding

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 September 2026 by L Gardner MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010455 Weavers, Exted Hill, Elham, Kent CT4 6YG • 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 James Johnson against the decision of Folkestone and Hythe District Council. • The application Ref is 26/0296/FH. • The development proposed is the erection of a single storey detached outbuilding. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The appeal site lies within the Kent Downs National Landscape (KDNL). I am required, under Section 85 of The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 as amended, to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes when performing my function in determining this appeal. 3. I understand that a revised plan1 was received during the application, amending the position of the proposed outbuilding in relation to the site boundary. The evidence before me confirms that the Council was in receipt of this plan prior to making its decision. I have therefore considered the appeal on the same basis. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the landscape character and scenic beauty of the KDNL. Reasons 5. The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling, accessed from Exted Hill. The dwelling has a long rear garden, bounded in part by fencing but also areas of dense and mature landscaping. There is an existing public right of way which crosses the southern corner of the appeal site. 6. Development in the surrounding area is sporadic, in the immediate surroundings comprised of a small cluster of dwellings which includes the appeal site, otherwise surrounded by open countryside. Consequently, the surrounding area has a distinctly rural character. 1 Site and Location Plans reference 260217-L-001 Appeal Decision 6010455 2 7. The proposed outbuilding would be positioned towards the end of the rear garden, a considerable distance from the host dwelling. Notwithstanding this distance, due to the scale and design of the outbuilding, which would be more akin to an agricultural building than an ancillary residential building, the proposal would fail to achieve a degree of subservience to the host dwelling. Instead, it would compete with the primacy of built form within the site. 8. I am not persuaded that a building of a more domesticated design would be more visually obtrusive in this location, but in any case, the harm which would arise from the proposal would be from a combination of the design, height and footprint. Collectively these factors would lead to a prominent and incongruous form of development relative to its domestic setting, which would lead to the disruption of countryside views. 9. The appeal site is more sensitive to visual receptors given the proximity of the adjacent public footpath, allowing users of the footpath to experience the visual harm of the development in close range. Whilst I accept that existing vegetation would offer some screening of the outbuilding, it would not fully mitigate the visual and landscape effects of the proposal. 10. The precise material finish of the proposed outbuilding could be subject to agreement through condition. However, the material finish alone would not successfully mitigate against the harm arising from the overall design, height and scale of the proposal. 11. Policy NE3 of the Folkestone & Hythe District Places and Policies Local Plan (2020) (the Local Plan) sets out that the impact of individual proposals and their cumulative effect on the KDNL, and its setting, will be carefully assessed. It goes on to state that planning permission will be granted subject to several criteria, including that the natural beauty and locally distinctive features of the KDNL, and its setting, are conserved and enhanced. 12. Based on the above, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the landscape character and scenic beauty of the KDNL. It would therefore conflict with Policy NE3 of the Local Plan. It would also fail to accord with the relevant provisions of Policies HB1 and HB8 of the Local Plan, particularly as they relate to development making a positive contribution to its location and surroundings and reflecting the scale and proportions of original buildings. 13. Although I find the harm to the KDNL to be localised, the statutory duty is to seek to conserve and enhance such areas, which is a high threshold. For these reasons, I have attributed considerable importance to this harm. Other Matters 14. Whilst I observed the presence of an outbuilding towards the end of the rear garden of the neighbouring property, the scale and form of this outbuilding is not comparable to the appeal proposal in its footprint, design or height. The presence of neighbouring outbuildings therefore does not alter my above conclusions. 15. Equally, the examples given of other forms of residential outbuildings which have been approved in the District2 are not directly comparable to the appeal proposal 2 Appendices 6 and 7 of the appellant’s statement Appeal Decision 6010455 3 in either their design or positioning relative to the host dwelling. I have therefore afforded these examples very limited weight in my determination of the appeal. 16. I accept that no concerns were raised in relation to several matters, including the effect on neighbouring living conditions and trees. However, these factors do not specifically weigh in favour of the appeal. 17. There is a suggestion that an outbuilding could be erected through permitted development rights within the rear garden of the dwelling. However, it is clear that the proposal itself would be beyond the extent of development permissible through permitted development rights both in relation to its size and position relative to the dwelling. Based on the evidence, I cannot be satisfied that a building erected under permitted development rights would be more harmful than the appeal proposal. I have therefore not been presented with a reasonable or comparable fall-back position which would lead me to alter my overall conclusions. 18. I understand that the purpose of the proposed outbuilding is to allow for the storage of a ride on lawn mower and other associated residential paraphernalia. Although the outbuilding would offer benefits to the appellant in respect to additional storage, these would be private benefits which would not outweigh the harm which I have identified above. Conclusion 19. I conclude that the proposal would be contrary to the development plan when read as a whole, and material considerations do not dictate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. L Gardner INSPECTOR