- Decision
- dismissed, 28 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: A Knight
- Authority
- Maidstone (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6010727
- Application reference
- 26/500136/FULL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Raising and remodelling the roof of a detached garage to create a first-floor home office with two front dormers and three rear roof windows, in the curtilage of a converted oast (non-determination)
- Site context
- conservation area, national landscape, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(1), HE6(4)
- Development plan policies
- Maidstone Borough Local Plan Review 2021-2038 (2024) LPRSP9, LPRSP15, LPRQD4, LPRHOU11, Kent Downs AONB Management Plan 2021-2026 SD8
- Main issues
- conservation area; NDHA; character and appearance including the National Landscape
Summary
Converting a modest garage beside a converted oast at Boxley into a two-storey outbuilding with dormers. The oast is a non-designated heritage asset whose view marks the entrance to the village and the Boxley Conservation Area, in the Kent Downs National Landscape. The enlarged garage would undermine that view, causing "greater than moderate" harm to the CA (DL ¶16). The benefits were unevidenced and minimal. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The main parties have been given the opportunity to comment on any implications for the appeal" (DL ¶4).
- Harm. The scheme "would harmfully undermine the primacy of the NDHA in those views, and intrude upon the existing visual relationship between it and the fields beyond" (DL ¶14).
- Degree. "With reference to Policy HE5 of the Framework, the scheme would result in a greater than moderate level of harm to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶16).
- Public benefits. "I attribute little weight to these arguments, and consider them to comprise minimal public benefits that do not outweigh the harm to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶17).
Planning balance
HE6(4) against minimal benefits, then a plan-led conclusion (DL ¶19). No S4 or S5 step, and no DP3 step for the character and NL harm.
What made the difference
The garage sits in the foreground of a CA appraisal's significant view, so a small building's extra bulk mattered.
Transferable points
- An outbuilding can cause more than moderate CA harm where it sits in a key view of a non-designated asset (DL ¶9, ¶14-16).
- Unevidenced claims that a scheme secures a building's upkeep or avoids a worse alternative earn little weight (DL ¶17).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE5(2) | harm | degree identified - greater than moderate harm to the significance of the Boxley CA; bulk undermines the primacy of the NDHA oast in a key view (DL 13-16) | |
| HE6(1) | harm | substantial | substantial weight to conservation stated at DL 5; HE6(3) not named |
| HE6(4) | fail | retention of the building and avoiding a larger building elsewhere unevidenced, little weight, minimal public benefits (DL 16-17) | |
| HE7 | harm | harm to the NDHA oast; no separate HE7(2) balance (DL 15, 18) | |
| N4 | harm | mapped - negative impact on views towards Boxley from the Kent Downs NL, contrary to management plan principle SD8 (DL 11, 15) |
Key facts
- Non-determination; Council would have refused on CA, NDHA, character and NL grounds (DL 2)
- Parties given the opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 4)
- CA appraisal identifies the view along Forge Lane to the site as significant (DL 9)
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.