For the formation of a new vehicular access and driveway to serve Plot 1, including permeable block paving, adjustment of kerbs, post and rail fencing, hedge and tree relocation to accommodate the new access

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 August 2026 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012398 Plot 1 (2 Meadow Gardens), Land to the South of Cross Keys, Bearsted, Kent, ME14 4FP. • 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 Ramac Group Ltd against the decision of Maidstone Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/500516/FULL. • The development proposed is for the formation of a new vehicular access and driveway to serve Plot 1, including permeable block paving, adjustment of kerbs, post and rail fencing, hedge and tree relocation to accommodate the new access. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the formation of a new vehicular access and driveway to serve Plot 1 (2 Meadow Gardens), including permeable block paving, adjustment of kerbs, post and rail fencing, hedge and tree relocation to accommodate the new access at Plot 1 (2 Meadow Gardens), Land to the South of Cross Keys, Bearsted, Kent, ME14 4FP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/500516/FULL, subject to the conditions set out at the end of the decision letter: Procedural Matters 2. Meadows Gardens is a new residential development currently under construction. The appeal site formally Plot 1 is now known as Number 2 Meadow Gardens (No2) with the neighbouring property to the south identified as Number 4 Meadow Gardens (No4). For the purposes of this appeal, I will refer to the current addresses rather than the previous plot numbers. 3. As I saw on the occasion of my site visit the access to No’s 2 and 4 has not been built in accordance with the approved design and differs from the proposal the subject of this appeal. I have, nevertheless, considered this appeal based solely on the previously approved design and that the subject of the planning application Ref: 26/500516/FULL. Main Issue 4. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene. Appeal Decision 6012398 2 Reasons 5. This residential development is currently still under construction. However, the detached houses, No’s 2 and No 4 are substantially complete, including driveways, boundary treatments and soft landscaping. 6. As originally approved No’s 2 and 4 would share a single crossover access from the estate road, the driveway would then branch off to serve that No 2. 7. The appellant proposes that No’s 2 and 4 would have separate crossovers with No 2 having an enlarged hardstanding in front of its garage. It is further proposed that the tree currently shown to be located to the north of the existing single crossover would be repositioned on a small island of land between the two new driveways. 8. The Council considers that the revised layout would diminish the quality and overall planned design of the wider development, resulting in a harsher, more urban appearance of the site, being a prominent key feature in public views that acts as part of a visual gateway into the southern part of the development. Consequently, it asserts that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the street scene. 9. No 2 is a substantial dwelling located on a prominent corner plot and is particularly prominent when approaching the development along Lilk Meadow Way, as well as from Meadow Gardens itself. 10. From my observations on site, given the number of crossovers currently serving the development I am not persuaded that an additional separate crossover here would, in itself result in a hasher more urban appearance. The enlarged parking/turning area in front of the garage to No 2 would add to the total area of hardstanding and thereby diminish to a small extent the overall area of soft landscaping. However, it would mean that visitors/trades peoples vehicles would be parked closer to the house rather than on the proposed narrow driveway, and therefore less prominent in the landscape. 11. On balance I do not consider that the formation of a second crossover or the alterations to the driveway would in themselves result in harm to the character and appearance of the street scene. 12. However, I do believe that due to the narrowness of the area of land between the two driveways, given the surrounding area of hardstanding it may be difficult for the tree to flourish in the proposed location. I also consider that, if it does grow here there may well be pressures in time from the residents to have the tree removed as it may impact on the access, parking, etc. I therefore judge that this would not be an appropriate location for the tree. Nevertheless, there would, with a well- considered planting scheme be the opportunity to soft landscape this area to minimise any urbanising effect of two driveways. Accordingly, if I were minded to allow the appeal it would be necessary to condition a scheme of landscaping. 13. I conclude therefore that subject to an appropriately worded landscaping condition the proposed alteration to the access drives to No’s 2 and 4 would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the street scene. 14. The proposal would therefore accord with the objectives of Policies LPRSP15 and LPRHOU2 of Maidstone Borough Council’s Local Plan Review 2021-2038 (Adopted March 2024), the Council’s Residential Extensions Supplementary Appeal Decision 6012398 3 Planning Document (Adopted May 2009), in particular Pars. 4.68 and 6.22 and page 34, as well as the National Planning Policy Framework as they relate to, amongst other things, the need for development to respond to the location of the site and sensitively incorporate natural features thereby creating a high-quality public realm. Conditions 15. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council in light of the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. In the interests of precision and enforceability, I have amended the Council’s suggested wording where appropriate. 16. To ensure a satisfactory appearance I shall include a landscaping condition. Further, I will require the submission of details of proposed ecological enhancements. 17. I will also impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans. Conclusions 18. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR Conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, drawings: PL01-C and PL02-B 3) No development shall take place until full details of the ecological enhancements proposed to mitigate against the increased area of hard surfacing and loss of potential habitat for wildlife have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. 4) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include hard surfacing materials; alterations to boundary treatment; planting plans; tree planting; and, schedules of plants noting species. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the Appeal Decision 6012398 4 development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.