- Decision
- dismissed, 15 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Nicola Davies
- Authority
- Ashford (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6010238
- Application reference
- PA/2026/0333
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- First-floor side extension to dental practice for surgery and waiting room
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(4), HE9
- Development plan policies
- Ashford Local Plan 2030 SP6, ENV14
- Main issues
- character and appearance; conservation area
Summary
First-floor side extension to a dental surgery on a prominent corner in Kennington Conservation Area. The Inspector found harm to the CA and weighed it against NHS dentistry benefits under HE5, HE6 and HE9. The benefits were unsubstantiated and got only modest weight. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Revised Framework taken into account; no consultation mentioned (DL ¶2).
- Conservation area, HE9 route to HE5/HE6: HARM. "Policy HE9 of the 2026 Framework requires an assessment of a proposal's impact on the significance of the conservation area as a whole, and the effects of this considered in accordance with Policies HE5 and HE6" (DL ¶10). "I consider there would be harm to both the character and appearance of the CA. In accordance with Policies HE5, HE6 and HE9 of the Framework I must weigh the harm against the public benefits" (DL ¶11). The harm is not graded; there is no "less than substantial" label.
- Public benefits, HE6(4): insufficient. NHS dental access would be "clear social benefits", but "no substantiated evidence has been submitted that would demonstrate that these benefits would be delivered by this development. Alternatively, they could be delivered through a different less harmful scheme" (DL ¶12). "the public benefits carry modest weight and do not outweigh the harm" (DL ¶13).
Planning balance
HE6(4): ungraded harm to the CA against public benefits of modest weight. Harm prevailed, together with conflict with plan policies SP6/ENV14 and s72 (DL ¶14).
What made the difference
The benefits case was asserted, not evidenced. The Inspector also accepted that the same benefits could come from a less harmful design, which let modest-weight benefits lose to an ungraded CA harm.
Transferable points
- Under the 2026 Framework, CA harm can be found and weighed via HE9(2) → HE5/HE6 without being labelled "less than substantial" (DL ¶¶10–11).
- Public benefits under HE6(4) need evidence that this scheme will deliver them. If they could be had from a less harmful scheme, their weight is reduced (DL ¶12).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE9 | harm | bulky, undetailed first-floor side extension on prominent corner erodes spaciousness and first-floor/eaves detailing that give the CA its significance (DL 4-11) | |
| HE6(4) | fail | harm (unquantified — no "less than substantial" label) weighed against NHS dentistry benefits; benefits given "modest weight", unsubstantiated and deliverable by a less harmful scheme (DL 11-13) | |
| DP3 | fail | over-dominant at junction; featureless flank; does not respect building's detailing (DL 6-9) |
Key facts
- Claimed 3,000–4,000 additional NHS patients a year in an area of NHS dental deficiency, but no substantiating evidence
- Corner plot at crossroads within Kennington CA; host building makes a positive contribution
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.