# Land opposite Nash Cottage, Ashford Road, Brenzett

- **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Housden
- **Authority:** Folkestone and Hythe (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007677
- **Application reference:** 25/2053/FH
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of a commercial storage site to residential, demolition of garage/store and a self-build 3-bed chalet bungalow in open countryside
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, PDL, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S5(2), DP3(1), DP3(2)(d)
- **Development plan policies:** Folkestone and Hythe Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 HB1, NE3, Core Strategy Review 2022 SS1, SS2, SS3, CSD3
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, location outside settlement boundary, accessibility to services
- **Tags:** s5-1-d-pdl, s5-2-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, self-build, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, annex-a-weight-reduction, heritage-no-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A self-build chalet bungalow replacing a dilapidated concrete store in a field on the Romney Marsh, outside Brenzett. The site qualified under S5(1)(d) as previously developed land, but the house would harm the rural character and be car-dependent, conflicting with DP3(1) and DP3(2)(d). With no clear justification, the S5(2) trigger meant the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "I sought the views of the parties on the implications of the new Framework on the appeal" (DL ¶3).
- **Character.** "the proposal would nevertheless result in considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶8).
- **Access to services.** "Ashford Road is a rural unlit countryside road which I observed featured fast moving vehicles and narrow banks to the side of the carriageway." (DL ¶11). Walking or cycling "would not be comfortable, convenient or perceived as safe or realistic for future occupiers to walk or cycle to Brenzett to meet their daily needs" (DL ¶11). "The previous commercial use would therefore not mitigate or justify the introduction of a car-dependent residential dwelling." (DL ¶12).
- **Plan weight (Transitional(2)).** "Therefore, Policies SS1, SS2 and CSD3, insofar as they relate to restricting development is materially inconsistent with the Framework and the conflict with them therefore carries very limited weight." (DL ¶20). The inconsistency is reasoned from the lack of a five-year supply and HO7, not from S5's categories. SS3 is consistent with DP3(2)(d): "Given a car-dependent development would be introduced the conflict with this CS policy carries considerable weight against the proposal." (DL ¶21).
- **S5(1)(d): PASS** (DL ¶25).
- **DP3(3) / S5(2): FAIL.** The proposal "would also conflict with paragraph 2(d) of Policy DP3 as walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport is not prioritised through the introduction of a car dependent development." (DL ¶27). "There is no clear justification for the conflict with these paragraphs. In these circumstances, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Policy S5, the benefits of the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects." (DL ¶27).
- **Heritage.** No additional harm to the setting of Grade II Nash Cottage (DL ¶16).

## Planning balance
S5(1)(d) route, with the S5(2) trigger via DP3(3). Benefits: substantial weight to one home on brownfield land (DL ¶23); limited weight to biodiversity, economic benefits and removing the dilapidated building (DL ¶24).

## What made the difference
Car dependence was routed through DP3(2)(d) as a "should be refused" design principle, alongside the DP3(1) character conflict. Being brownfield under S5(1)(d) did not help once a DP3(3) failure engaged S5(2).

## Transferable points
- Car dependence can engage DP3(3) through DP3(2)(d) (walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport not prioritised) and hence the S5(2) trigger, even where an S5(1) category is met (DL ¶21, ¶27).
- An unlit rural road with fast traffic and no refuge makes walking and cycling to the nearest village unrealistic (DL ¶11).
- A dormant lawful commercial use does not justify a car-dependent dwelling; its trip pattern is not comparable (DL ¶12).
- The explicit clear-justification step is stated in one sentence and then fed into S5(2) (DL ¶27).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(d): pass.** parties agree redevelopment of previously developed land; inspector agrees (DL 25)
- **DP3(1): conflict.** larger bulky dwelling angled to the road on the field side, domestic curtilage in open field; considerable harm (DL 8) / significant harm (DL 27) (DL 6-8, 27)
- **DP3(2)(d): conflict.** car-dependent dwelling does not prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling or public transport (DL 21, 27)
- **DP3(3): fail.** explicit - no clear justification for the conflict with DP3(1) and (2)(d) (DL 27)
- **S5(2): fail.** DP3(3) failure routed through S5(2); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 26-27)
- **Transitional(2): neutral (very-limited weight).** SS1, SS2, CSD3 materially inconsistent insofar as restrictive, reasoned from the lack of a five-year supply and HO7; HB1/NE3 consistent with DP3 and N2 (significant weight); SS3 consistent with DP3(2)(d) (considerable weight) (DL 18-21)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling on brownfield land towards a deficient supply (figure not given) (DL 20, 23)
- **HE6: neutral.** setting of Grade II Nash Cottage; existing building detracts; no additional harm, significance preserved (s66) (DL 14-16)

## Key facts
- Ashford Road is a rural, unlit countryside road with fast-moving traffic and narrow banks; pedestrians and cyclists would use the carriageway (DL 11)
- Brenzett village has a shop and a bus service to Ashford and New Romney (DL 10)
- Lawful commercial use but site dilapidated and apparently unused; former use not comparable to residential trip-making (DL 12)
- Council accepts no five-year supply; figure not stated (DL 20)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007677
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/76ac2b88-5816-4c70-8280-6a6f98549eb5

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007677.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.