# Lower Fawke Farm, Bitchet Green Road, Fawke Common, Underriver

- **Decision:** allowed, 1 October 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Shearing
- **Authority:** Sevenoaks (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6004899
- **Application reference:** 24/03466/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Conversion and change of use of former agricultural buildings to a mix of B8 storage and distribution and Class E(g)(ii) and (iii) uses, after demolition of buildings unsuitable for conversion
- **Site context:** green-belt, national-landscape, open-countryside, rural-lane, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued)
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** N4, TR3, E4, S5(5)
- **Development plan policies:** Sevenoaks Core Strategy 2011 LO1, LO8, Allocations and Development Management Plan 2015 EN1, EN5, GB7 (local), T3
- **Main issues:** National Landscape, accessibility, highway safety
- **Tags:** national-landscape, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, rural-business, agricultural-building, barn-conversion, sustainable-location-pass, rural-lane-no-footway, heritage-no-harm, pd-rights-condition-refused, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Conversion of a farmstead in the Green Belt and the Kent Downs National Landscape to storage and light industrial units was allowed. Traffic would be similar to what the lawful agricultural use could generate, the storage and planting were contained within the farmstead, and the inspector read TR3 with E4 to accept a car-dependent location for a rural business reusing existing buildings. The scheme was not inappropriate in the Green Belt and passed the S5(5) balance with no adverse effects.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The main parties were invited to comment on the implications of the new Framework to the appeal and the responses received have been taken into account" (DL ¶2).
- **National Landscape, N4: PASS.** "the vehicle movements associated with the proposal would not represent intensified vehicular activity or cause a reduction in the relative tranquillity of the site or this part of the landscape" (DL ¶12). "the proposal would preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the KDNL" (DL ¶16).
- **N4(2): not major.** "Given the development is largely derived from the … conversion of the existing buildings and reconfiguration of external spaces, I agree that the development should not be considered ‘major’ for the purposes of policy N4(2) of the Framework" (DL ¶15; the break is a page break).
- **Accessibility, TR3 with E4: PASS.** "Users of the appeal site are therefore very likely to be reliant on private transport rather than using more sustainable means" (DL ¶17). "It goes on to acknowledge that development proposals that meet business needs in rural areas may need to be in locations not served well by public transport" (DL ¶18). "the proposal is not one likely to generate a significant amount of movement. Neither is it apparent that the site is one where opportunities to improve walking, wheeling, cycling or public transport reasonably exist" (DL ¶19).
- **Highway safety and rights of way: PASS.** "the proposal would not increase potential harm to pedestrian safety on Fawke Wood Road" (DL ¶21).
- **Green Belt: not inappropriate.** "The development therefore complies with one of the exceptions to inappropriate development given by policy GB7 of the Framework" (DL ¶24).
- **L2: not applied.** "Since the site is not previously developed land by definition, and since the acceptability of the proposal relies on the site otherwise being used effectively for agricultural purposes, I have not applied the substantial weight set out in policy L2" (DL ¶32).

## Planning balance
S3(1)(c) and S5(5), applying S5(2). Benefits: landscape and footpath enhancements, significant biodiversity enhancements, and a district need for storage and farm diversification given significant weight; "Overall, the benefits of the scheme attract substantial weight" (DL ¶32). "the proposal would not cause any adverse effects. Accordingly, the benefits of the proposal would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶33). No S5(2) trigger policy failed.

## What made the difference
The comparison with the lawful agricultural use: on the TRICS evidence the traffic would be similar in number and lighter in vehicle size, which answered tranquillity, highway safety and the TR3(1)(a) threshold together. E4(2) then explained why a car-dependent site was acceptable for a rural business reusing existing buildings. Evidence of materially more traffic than the farm use, or new buildings outside the farmstead, would have changed each of those findings.

## Transferable points
- TR3 is read with E4(2) for rural business proposals: a site with no footways, lighting or frequent public transport was "suitably located" for storage and light industrial reuse of farm buildings (DL ¶17–19).
- The TR3(1)(a) "significant amount of movement" judgement can be made against the movements the existing lawful use could generate (DL ¶19).
- Conversion of existing buildings and reconfigured yards is not "major" development under N4(2) (DL ¶15).
- L2 substantial weight does not apply to agricultural buildings: they are not previously developed land, and the land could otherwise be used effectively for agriculture (DL ¶32).
- A travel plan condition is not reasonable where it is unclear how the scheme could reduce car dependency (DL ¶38).

## Policy findings
- **N4: pass.** Kent Downs National Landscape; vehicle movements similar to the lawful agricultural use, storage confined to the farmstead, new hedgerow and tree planting; natural beauty preserved and enhanced (DL 5-16)
- **N4(2): not-engaged.** largely conversion of existing buildings and reconfigured external space, so not major development (DL 15)
- **DP3: accord.** integrates with and enhances its surroundings (DL 16)
- **TR3: pass.** no footways or lighting, fast roads, users reliant on private transport; but TR3 read with E4 (rural business sites may be poorly served by public transport), movements comparable to the existing use, not a significant amount of movement, and no reasonable opportunities to improve other modes (DL 17-19)
- **E4: accord (significant weight).** conversion of existing buildings for rural business; district need for storage; farm diversification (DL 18, 32)
- **TR6: pass.** access shared with a public footpath; movements not substantially different, smaller vehicles, slow speeds, verges and passing points give refuge (DL 20-21, 23)
- **TR8: pass.** public rights of way function acceptably; permissive paths offered but not necessary (DL 21, 23)
- **GB7: pass.** not inappropriate, agreed between the parties; the letter gives no limb, saying the change of use "would not cause substantial harm to the openness" (DL 24)
- **S3(1)(c): accord.** no conflict with any development plan or Framework policy (DL 30)
- **S5(5): pass.** not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed, applying S5(2); no adverse effects and no trigger policy failed (DL 31, 33)
- **L2: not-engaged.** site is not PDL by definition (agricultural) and the scheme relies on its otherwise effective agricultural use, so L2 substantial weight not applied (DL 32)
- **HE6: neutral.** mapped - site not part of the setting of four Grade II listed buildings (no intervisibility); Old Dairy not treated as an NDHA (DL 25-26)

## Key facts
- Existing agricultural use could generate 90 to 120 vehicle movements a day (TRICS); the proposal 75 to 116, with smaller vehicles (DL 9-10)
- Highway authority accepted HGV movements would be low for small units (DL 11)
- Site in the Sevenoaks Eastern Chart 10c landscape character area; public footpaths SR135, SR136 and byway SR136A pass the site (DL 6-7)
- Access along Fawke Wood Road is also a public footpath; informal passing bays retained (DL 15, 20)
- UU dated 5 February 2026 secures a 30-year biodiversity and habitat management plan (DL 3, 29)
- Travel plan condition refused as unreasonable given the location; no restriction on permitted development rights, citing the Framework (DL 38)
- Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004899
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8e8ac300-8790-4ab8-abde-bf0cfe4c386d

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004899.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.