Appeal Decision Inquiry opened on 17 January 2017 Site visit made on 27 January 2017 by Olivia Spencer BA BSc DipArch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 28 March 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/U2235/W/16/3148213 Fant Farm, Maidstone, Kent The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Gleeson Developments Ltd against the decision of Maidstone Borough Council. The application Ref 15/509962/OUT, dated 30 November 2015, was refused by notice dated 18 March 2016. The development proposed is up to 225 dwellings (including affordable homes). Provision of public open space (including children’s play area and landscaping), associated infrastructure and necessary demolition and earthworks. The formation of 1no. new vehicular access from Gatland Lane and secondary pedestrian and cycle access from Gatland Lane. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matters 2. The application that led to this appeal was in outline with all matters except access reserved for later consideration. 3. The Inquiry was kept open to receive a response from Maidstone Borough Council (the Council)1 on the letter from Kent County Council (KCC) to the Local Plan InspectorRichborough dated 20 January 2017 2Estates , and subsequent correspondence on the same. The Inquiry was closed in writing on 3 February 2017. 4. A request for further clarification on transport matters was sent by the Local Plan Inspector to KCC. This letter and the response from KCC were submitted following the close of the Inquiry. The appellant, the Council and Save Fant Farm (SFF) were given the opportunity to comment. 5. Section 106 planning agreements were submitted at the Inquiry3. These provide for open space provision and contributions, NHS healthcare contributions, the provision of affordable housing, contributions towards education, youth services and library provision, highway works, highways 1 Submitted documents (Doc) 2 Doc 23 3 Doc 37 Appeal Decision APP/U2235/W/16/3148213 contribution and a travel plan. As result the Council withdrew reasons for refusal 2 and 3. Main Issues 6. The main issues are: the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area the effect on highway safety and local transport infrastructure housing land supply and planning policy Reasons Character and appearance 7. The appeal site is located on the upper slopes of the Medway valley outside the settlement boundary of Maidstone as defined on the Proposals Map of the Maidstone Borough Wide Local Plan (LP) 2000 and thus subject to LP Policy ENV28 which states that development in the countryside will be confined to a number of specified purposes. The proposed development would not accord with any of the specified purposes. 8. The site comprises two agricultural fields on the south-west edge of Maidstone. Residential properties in Cowdrey Close and Pitt Road adjoin the site to the north-east providing a direct connection between the appeal site and the urban edge of the town. Gatland Lane runs along its northern boundary and at its western end buildings on Terminus Road lie approximately 10m north of the site. Much of the eastern boundary and the entire southern boundary adjoin agricultural fields running down to the river. To the west the site is separated from Farleigh Lane by nursery and orchard land. 9. Gatland Lane has many of the characteristics of an urban road, it provides a link from the south-west residential areas of Maidstone to Farleigh Lane, it has street-lights, a telecom mast and accompanying boxes, and carries a significant amount of traffic. East of Public Right of Way (PRoW) KB17 its character and appearance reflects that of many English suburban residential streets with houses and gardens to each side. KB17 however marks a significant change. From west of the PRoW to Terminus Road long and wide views are available across the appealRichborough site to the far side of the MedwayEstates valley. 10. The fields that make up the site have lost their orchards and some of their historic field boundaries. The arable fields are nevertheless agricultural in appearance with the hedgerow vegetation and trees visible in the middle distance. Vegetation along the northern boundary of the site where it adjoins Gatland Lane is relatively sparse and views into and across the fields are thus readily available to users of the road, particularly pedestrians. The appellant is right to state that when in this part of Gatland Lane the viewer is very aware of nearby housing, the intrinsically suburban nature of the recreation ground to the north and the urban fringe location. What is readily apparent at this point also however is the particular and dramatic relationship of the town to the wide sweep of the Medway valley. 11. The application is in outline but an illustrative layout and design strategy have been submitted. These indicate housing set back from Gatland Lane beyond trees and planting with a view available from Gatland Lane along the tree lined 2 Appeal Decision APP/U2235/W/16/3148213 access road, through the development to the opposite side of the river valley. The indicative block view4 shows this as a relatively narrow sight-line between the trees and buildings lining the ‘boulevard’. And whilst the countryside on the upper southern slopes of the valley is shown at a distance beyond housing in this view, the near vista is enclosed and dominated by the buildings of the proposed development. If built, the scene would also include vehicles. The block view provides a clear indication that even with sensitive landscaping and a carefully orientated access route, residential development of the scale proposed would fundamentally alter the character and appearance of Gatland Lane and the experience of those who walk and travel along it. The open and broad sweep of the valley would be obscured and the sense of a direct connection with the rural valley setting of the town significantly diminished. 12. The site is visible from a number of points identified by the appellant and the Council on the southern side of the valley. From Station Hill and other low points in East Farleigh little of the site can be seen. In the view from St Mary’s church it appears as a wide though relatively shallow stretch of land at the top of the slope, above and beyond which is seen the edge of Maidstone. As such it makes some, but not a substantial, contribution to the rural landscape between East Farleigh and Maidstone in this view. 13. Viewpoints further east beyond the built up heart of the village provide a different aspect. From Forge Lane and PRoW KM335 which adjoins it, the two fields of the site and the hedgerows marking the route of KB17 are substantial features of the visible landscape. The built up area of Maidstone is seen on the valley side and up over the ridge in the east of the view, but its extent appears contained by the farmed slope of the valley. Whilst development can be seen extending across the top of the ridge beyond Gatland Lane, the appeal site extends to higher contours than that at which housing on Pitt Road and Cowdrey Close are built and as a result the land is seen to wrap around the town, and the valley open and broaden beyond the steeper slope running down to the river. 14. The same is true also of views between dwellings from Lower Road and to some extent Priory Close. Further east on the B2010 towards Tovil there are similar broad views through gaps in the road side vegetation although the highway has a footway only as far as the entrance to Priory Close and views beyond this point are essentially therefore only available to drivers. 15. As indicated inRichborough the Design and Access Statement Estates (DAS) it is intended that the proposed housing would be located at the northern end of the site extending no lower down the valley side than the 44m AOD contour which approximately represents the level of the south-west tip of housing in Pitt Road where it abuts the site. Trees on the southern edge of the proposed housing which could be planted at an early stage in the development would, as they mature, soften its appearance in the landscape. They would not however disguise it completely. Buildings and rooftops would still be visible, particularly in the winter months when deciduous trees are bare. The land would no longer be open agricultural field but perceptibly subsumed within the built-up area of Maidstone which would be seen to extend across the upper slope of the northern valley side. As a result, in these views from the south side of the valley, little if any distinguishable separation from Barming would remain and the broad rural valley setting to the south west of Maidstone would appear significantly eroded. 4 Design and Access Statement Fig 4.15 3 Appeal Decision APP/U2235/W/16/3148213 Whilst the orchard planting proposed would go some way towards restoring historic and characteristic land use on the site, it would not therefore outweigh the harm arising from the housing development proposed and would not in my view, even when mature, amount to a positive benefit to the landscape as suggested by the appellant. 16. PRoW KB17 bi-sects the site from north to south. PRoW KB13 and KB12 run east west along the valley floor to the south of the site. From Gatland Lane walking south, the character of KB17 is initially defined by the residential properties that border it to the east.