# Land between Copper Lodge and The Cloth Hall, Water Lane, Smarden - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Bayliss - **Authority:** Ashford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006475 - **Application reference:** PA/2025/0824 - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** 35 dwellings (14 affordable) with landscaping and infrastructure - **Homes:** 35 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, conservation-area, listed-building-setting, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.16 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), HE4, HE6, HE9, DP3, N2 - **Development plan policies:** Ashford Local Plan 2019 SP6, HOU5, HOU15, ENV3a, ENV5, ENV13, Residential Space and Layout SPD 2011 - **Main issues:** designated heritage assets, landscape character, living conditions - **Tags:** s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, grade-i-setting, landscape-harm, design-refusal, housing-shortfall, local-policy-consistency ## Summary 35 homes (40% affordable) on a field on the western edge of Smarden, beside the Grade II* Cloth Hall and the conservation area. Dismissed after hearing. Despite passing S5(1)(j) (3.16-year supply, agreed well-related), cumulative harm to five designated assets (unjustified under HE4/HE6), serious landscape harm and a suburban design with poor privacy "substantially outweigh" substantial housing and affordable benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The hearing was re-opened for a period of time to provide the main parties an opportunity to make comments" on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3). - **Heritage — HE4, HE6, HE9: FAIL.** Setting is not only visual: "buildings that are in close proximity but are not visible from each other may have a historic or aesthetic connection" (DL ¶14). The Cloth Hall "would become an historic farmhouse without adjoining farmland" (DL ¶32). "Given that three of the listed buildings are of the highest significance, this amplifies the level of weight" (DL ¶38). "there is no clear and convincing justification for the harm to the significance of those assets" (DL ¶59). - **Landscape — N2 / DP3: FAIL.** "a substantial, adverse effect on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area … an incongruous and visually intrusive encroachment into an open area which forms an important setting to Smarden" (DL ¶44). - **Living conditions — DP3: FAIL.** "a significant design failing on a new development" (DL ¶48). - **Local policy consistency.** Appellant argued HOU5 imposes more onerous tests than the 2026 Framework; rejected: "Policy HOU5 remains consistent with the broad thrust of the Framework" (DL ¶66). - **L3 density.** "this policy is not just about maximising development capacity" (DL ¶67). ## Planning balance HE6 heritage balance first (benefits "insufficient", DL ¶59), then S5(1)(j) balance: benefits overall substantial weight (DL ¶63); harms together "very substantial weight" (DL ¶65). "the harmful effects, in particular those arising from the heritage impacts, substantially outweigh the benefits of the scheme when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework, including Policy S5" (DL ¶68). ## What made the difference The site's historic functional link to a Grade II* farmhouse-turned-cloth-hall and its role as the legible rural approach to the conservation area, plus a Grade I church in view. Historic England objection weighed. Generic suburban layout and privacy failures compounded it. A site without that heritage relationship would likely have passed given the shortfall and agreed accessibility. ## Transferable points - Passing S5(1)(j) plus substantial weight to both market and affordable housing (3.16 yrs) can still be "substantially outweighed" by heritage harm to high-grade assets (DL ¶68). - HE4 "clear and convincing justification" is applied as a separate requirement alongside the HE6 balance (DL ¶59). - Setting harm can arise from loss of historic functional relationship with no intervisibility (DL ¶¶14, 18–20). - Local design/heritage policies are not rendered out of date by S5's "broader and less prescriptive" wording (DL ¶66). - L3 efficient-use arguments do not override historic environment policies (DL ¶67). - Inspectors refuse amended plans that would change the quantum or were not consulted on (DL ¶¶8–9). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** agreed well-related to Smarden; scale accommodated; 3.16-yr supply (DL 61) - **HE4: fail.** no clear and convincing justification for harm (DL 13, 59) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm to Grade II* Cloth Hall (former farmhouse losing its farmland) and to CA; lesser to Grade I church, Grade II oasthouses, Grade II* Hartnup; weight amplified by asset grade (DL 37-38, 59) - **HE9: fail.** loss of legible rural approach to conservation area (DL 29, 34-35, 59) - **N2: conflict (substantial weight).** substantial adverse effect on landscape character (Beult Valley Farmlands LCA) (DL 44) - **DP3: fail.** suburban estate layout at odds with village grain; overlooking <15 m between pairs — liveability (DL 42, 48-49) - **N3: conflict.** cited with DP3/N2 (DL 44) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 35 homes, 3.16-yr supply (DL 55) - **HO8: benefit (substantial weight).** 14 affordable, separately substantial weight; council not meeting affordable need (DL 55) - **L3: neutral.** efficient use of land must account for other Framework policies (DL 67) ## Key facts - Agreed supply about 3.16 years - Field formerly part of the Grade II* Cloth Hall's farm holding; Historic England objected - Grade I church tower glimpsed across the site on Water Lane approach - Amended plans refused as appeal is not the place to develop a scheme (DL 8) - Hearing re-opened after 17 Aug 2026 for comments on the new Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006475 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c2023c35-b7fd-49d6-ba3f-178f5cb96283 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006475.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.