# Land south of Woodview House, Perry Hill, Cliffe Woods

- **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Housden
- **Authority:** Medway (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6004691
- **Application reference:** MC/25/1361
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Permission in principle for 1-3 self-build dwellings
- **Homes:** 3
- **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge, rural-lane
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Housing land supply (years):** 3.1
- **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 60
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), S5(4), DP3(3), N2
- **Development plan policies:** Medway Local Plan 2003 S1, S2, BNE1, BNE25(i), BNE47, H11, Cliffe and Cliffe Woods Neighbourhood Plan 2023 SUSDEV1
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, S5 location, self-build need
- **Tags:** PIP, self-build, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, dp3-refuse-trigger, landscape-harm, housing-shortfall, self-build-shortfall, coalescence, local-policy-consistency, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Permission in principle for 1–3 self-build homes on an open green field off Perry Hill, north of Cliffe Woods. Medway has a 3.1-year supply, a 60% Housing Delivery Test result and a self-build shortfall of about 100 plots. The appeal was dismissed. The site is visually separate from the contained edge of Cliffe Woods, so it failed S5(1)(j)(i). With no S5 category met, S5(4) needed exceptional circumstances. Significant harm to rural character (DP3(3), N2) was not substantially outweighed by the housing and self-build benefits.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "I sought the views of the parties regarding the implications of the new Framework on the appeal" (DL ¶4).
- **Character — DP3 / N2: significant harm.** "a detrimental domestication of the appeal site where its distinct open, rural and undeveloped nature … would be lost … diminishing the clearly perceptible undeveloped open gap between the rural development within the countryside … and the edge of Cliffe Woods" (DL ¶9). Coalescence between Cliffe and Cliffe Woods was "only … a limited effect" (DL ¶10).
- **S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL.** "the first part of paragraph (j) is met. However … the appeal proposal is set away from the defined edge of Cliffe Woods which is visually contained to the other side of Merryboys Road. The development would visually appear away from the settlement and as part of the countryside with an access from Perry Hill, a distinctly rural road. The development would therefore not appear physically well-related to Cliffe Woods" (DL ¶15).
- **Consistency of local policies.** The character policies are "broadly consistent" with DP3 and N2, so "the conflict with these policies carries significant weight" (DL ¶24). An earlier inspector found BNE25 inconsistent only in its locational role, which is a different use from the character criterion (i) (DL ¶25).
- **Self-build.** The uncontested 93–109 plot shortfall is "a material consideration in favour" (DL ¶17). The UU was sound under DM6, with "significant weight" (DL ¶22).
- **DP3(3) refusal direction.** "Of particular note is paragraph 3 of Policy DP3 which advises that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1" (DL ¶28).

## Planning balance
S5(4) exceptional-circumstances balance. Benefits: HO7 "substantial weight" (DL ¶27), a small construction and occupier economic benefit, and the self-build shortfall. Harm: significant character harm and DP3/N2 conflict. "these benefits would not substantially outweigh the significant adverse effects to the character and appearance of the area … Exceptional circumstances as required by paragraph 4 of Policy S5 do not exist" (DL ¶29). The scheme conflicted with the development plan and material considerations did not indicate otherwise (DL ¶30).

## What made the difference
Visual separation from the settlement edge. Cliffe Woods is "visually contained" behind Merryboys Road, and the site faces a different, rural road (Perry Hill). A plot near a cluster of countryside dwellings (Woodview House) was therefore not physically well-related to the settlement, even though the supply shortfall, HDT and self-build shortfall were all severe. Once outside every S5 category, the bar flipped: benefits had to substantially outweigh harm, not the other way round, and significant landscape harm made that impossible. A site facing the existing built edge, or inside the contained settlement envelope, would likely have passed S5(1)(j) and been decided on the benefits-favoured S5(1) balance.

## Transferable points
- "Physically well-related" in S5(1)(j)(i) was judged visually and functionally. A site across a containing road and reached from a "distinctly rural road" fails even if it is close (DL ¶15).
- A severe shortfall (3.1 years, HDT 60%) plus a statutory self-build shortfall does not rescue a site that fails the well-related limb. The case then falls under S5(4), and exceptional circumstances were not shown (DL ¶26, 29).
- Local character and countryside policies that are "broadly consistent" with DP3 and N2 keep significant weight, even where the same policy was found out of date for locational purposes (DL ¶24-25).
- DP3(3) is cited as a refusal direction where development "would not integrate with and enhance its surroundings" (DL ¶28).
- Nearby clusters of countryside housing do not justify extending the pattern towards a settlement edge across an open gap (DL ¶9).
- For a PIP, an appropriate assessment is not needed if the appeal is dismissed (DL ¶16). A self-build UU at PIP stage can be given significant weight (DL ¶22).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** need limb met (3.1 yrs, HDT 60%) but site set away from visually contained edge of Cliffe Woods across Merryboys Road; reads as countryside off a rural lane — not physically well-related (DL 14-15)
- **S5(4): fail.** no S5 category met; benefits do not substantially outweigh; no exceptional circumstances (DL 26, 29)
- **DP3(3): fail.** would not "integrate with and enhance its surroundings"; DP3(3) refusal direction cited (DL 28)
- **N2: conflict.** loss of open rural field, encroachment towards Cliffe Woods; limited coalescence between Cliffe and Cliffe Woods (DL 9-10, 24, 28)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** HO7 substantial weight cited for 1-3 homes (DL 27)
- **DM6: pass (significant weight).** self-build UU (delivery details before commencement) meets DM6 tests; significant weight (DL 22)
- **DM4: neutral (very-limited weight).** emerging Medway plan, no evidence of examination progress (DL 5)
- **LP S1, S2, BNE1, BNE25(i), BNE47, NP SUSDEV1: conflict (significant weight).** character policies "broadly consistent" with DP3/N2, so not reduced under Annex A; BNE25 earlier found inconsistent only for its locational role (DL 12, 24-25)
- **LP H11: not-engaged (very-limited weight).** rural settlement strategy; council itself says inconsistent with Framework (DL 13)

## Key facts
- 5YHLS 3.1 years; Housing Delivery Test 60% (DL 15)
- Self-build shortfall 93-109 plots, uncontested; council failing statutory duty (DL 17)
- Green field fronting Perry Hill, a single-carriageway rural road; Cliffe Woods' edge contained on the other side of Merryboys Road (DL 8, 15)
- Three earlier appeals on the wider blue-line land (fronting Merryboys Road) dismissed on character grounds (DL 11)
- Earlier allowed appeal for three stables on the site not comparable (DL 18)
- Parties' views sought on the 2026 Framework (DL 4)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004691
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8e8a44f0-fdea-4ab2-8f30-ba4daffc0016

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004691.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.