# Brishing Court Farm, Brishing Lane, Boughton Monchelsea - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Terceiro - **Authority:** Maidstone (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007158 - **Application reference:** 25/505171/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of part of a former traditional orchard to residential and erection of a single-storey self-build dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.5 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), S5(4), S5(1)(j)(i), N2(2) - **Development plan policies:** Maidstone Local Plan Review 2021-2038 (2024) LPRSS1, LPRSP9, LPRSP14, LPRSP15, LPRQD4, LPRENV1, Boughton Monchelsea Neighbourhood Plan 2021 PWP3, PWP4, RH1, RH6, RH8 - **Main issues:** setting of Grade II* listed building, character and appearance, suitability of location, protected species - **Tags:** s5-4-exceptional, s5-1-j, infill-rejected, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-graded, self-build, self-build-unsecured, bng-exemption-not-shown, evidence-gap, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A self-build bungalow in a disused traditional orchard on the historic approach to Grade II* Brishing Court, outside any settlement near Maidstone. The inspector found moderate harm to the listed farmhouse's setting that one dwelling could not outweigh, significant localised landscape harm, a car-dependent location that was not "physically well-related" under S5(1)(j)(i), and no reptile survey. With no S5(1) category met and no exceptional circumstances, S5(4) failed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were invited to provide comments on the revised Framework" (DL ¶4). - **Heritage, HE6: HARM, moderate.** "the proposal would cause moderate harm to the significance of the Grade II* listed building, through development within its setting. Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶12). Benefits "attract substantial weight but given that the proposal relates to one dwelling only, the benefits are not sufficient to overcome the considerable importance and weight given to the harm" (DL ¶13). - **Character: HARM.** "significantly harmful effects, albeit localised, on the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶21). - **Location / movement: FAIL.** "the local road network largely includes narrow and unlit country lanes without formal footpaths, which would likely discourage future residents from walking or cycling, particularly outside daylight hours and in inclement weather" (DL ¶23); buses are infrequent and reached via those lanes (DL ¶23). - **S5(1)(e): FAIL.** "it would adjoin the former orchard on two of its boundaries, so it would not constitute infill development" (DL ¶42). - **S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL.** "Given the site’s countryside location and accessibility constraints in terms of walking, cycling and access to public transport, I find that the proposal would not be physically well-related to an existing settlement" (DL ¶44). - **Protected species, N2(2): FAIL.** No reptile survey; "these are matters that cannot be left to a condition" (DL ¶30). - **BNG.** Self-build exemption needs a planning obligation; none given, so the mandatory condition applies and the metric was incomplete (DL ¶34-36). ## Planning balance S5(4), after S5(1)(e) and (j) were rejected. Heritage, character, location and species harms against housing, self-build and other benefits. "as the proposal would deliver only one dwelling, the benefits associated with it would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶47). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶48). ## What made the difference Four independent harms, of which the Grade II* setting was the strongest. The accessibility facts also sank S5(1)(j)(i). A site within or adjoining Boughton Monchelsea, with a reptile survey and a signed self-build obligation, would have faced a very different test. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(j)(i) "physically well-related" can be failed on accessibility constraints: walking, cycling and public transport (DL ¶44). - Narrow unlit lanes without footpaths discourage walking and cycling "particularly outside daylight hours and in inclement weather"; a nearby infrequent bus reached via those lanes does not help (DL ¶23). - Compare trips against the lawful, actual baseline: an unmanaged orchard generates negligible trips, and an unlawful past horse use does not count (DL ¶24-26). - A house adjoining open land on two sides is not S5(1)(e) infill even if near a group of houses (DL ¶42). - Protected-species survey gaps cannot be conditioned away (DL ¶29-30); self-build BNG exemption needs a planning obligation (DL ¶34-35). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation stated (DL 11); moderate harm to Grade II* Brishing Court through loss of orchard on its historic approach (DL 7-8, 12) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "moderate harm ... Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL 12) - **HE4(2): fail.** HE4(2) stated; cart-shed precedent argument not "convincing justification" (DL 9, 11) - **HE6(4): fail.** housing, self-build, older-person design, orchard restoration, efficiency - "substantial weight" given supply, but one dwelling insufficient (DL 13) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** near a group of houses but adjoins orchard on two sides, not infill (DL 42) - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** not physically well-related - read through countryside location and walking, cycling and public transport constraints; scale limb met (DL 44) - **TR3: fail.** mapped: narrow unlit lanes without footpaths; nearby buses infrequent and reached via those lanes; car "safer and more convenient" (DL 23); TR3 not named, S5(4) sustainable-movement limb used (DL 45-46) - **DP3(1): harm.** mapped: "significantly harmful effects, albeit localised" on rural character and dispersed farmstead; orchard loss (DL 19-21); DP3 not named - **N2(2): fail.** no reptile survey despite PEA recommending one; cannot be left to condition (DL 28-31) - **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): fail.** self-build exemption needs a planning obligation; none submitted; full metric not provided (DL 34-36) - **S5(4): fail.** no exceptional circumstances; benefits of one dwelling do not substantially outweigh (DL 45-47) ## Key facts - Supply 4.5 years, agreed (DL 39) - Former commercial orchard, unmanaged since 2005; claimed 2008-2015 horse use not shown to be lawful or likely to resume; existing trips negligible (DL 24-25) - Cherry Barn appeal (APP/U2235/W/24/3357164, 1-bed dwelling allowed) distinguished - it replaced an existing building (DL 37-38) - BNG self-build exemption appeal relied on - APP/U2235/W/25/3364165 (DL 34) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007158 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2deea307-2660-42ec-bb1f-50086f18eb1c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007158.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.