Case Reference: 3368863

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 30 September 2025
by G Dring BA (Hons) MA MRTPI MAUDE
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 24 October 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/K2230/W/25/3368863
Land adjacent to 35 Clarence Place, Gravesend DA12 1LB
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Gravesham Borough
Council.
• The application Ref is 20241133.
• The development proposed is erection of a 4 storey building comprising of 4no flats.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. Whilst it is identified in Section E of the appeal form that the description of
development has not changed, the one provided on the appeal form is slightly
different to that provided on the planning application form. As it more clearly
describes the proposed development, I have taken the description of development
above from the appeal form rather than the planning application form.
3. The appeal site is located within the Windmill Hill Conservation Area. As such I
have had regard to my duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires me to have special regard to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the
conservation area.
4. The Council has confirmed that following receipt of a completed Strategic Access
Management and Monitoring (SAMMS) Contribution Agreement, the second
reason for refusal relating to the impact on European sites and the lack of
mitigation measures is now resolved. I will therefore consider this as an other
matter rather than as a main issue in this case.
Main Issue
5. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character
or appearance of the Windmill Hill Conservation Area (CA), a designated heritage
asset.
Reasons
6. The appeal site forms part of the landscaped grounds that surround the Veteran’s
Club to the south of Clarence Place and is located within the CA. The Windmill Hill
Conservation Area Appraisal 2009 (CAA) identifies the character of the CA as a
residential suburb, containing a large number of buildings of architectural and
historic interest with open spaces that form a green and open character with
mature individual trees and tree groups present. Whilst the CAA is of some age,
with the survey work taking place in 2007, it remains a material consideration to be
taken into account alongside other relevant considerations in this case, including
what I saw during my site visit.
7. I witnessed that the built form along Clarence Place is comprised of paired villas
and stucco terraces. Development along the northern side of the street is more
continuous whereas along the southern side it is more varied, with more open
green spaces and mature trees visible in the streetscene. The significant majority
of buildings are set back from the pavement, behind front gardens. Front boundary
treatments generally consist of brick walls, railings and a combination of both, but
in most cases the front gardens remain visible adding to the spaciousness of the
streetscene.
8. The significance of this part of the CA is therefore largely comprised of the
spacious and open green spaces, the particular historic and architectural detailing
and materials of the buildings and how they are arranged, the layout of built form
including the set back of buildings from the street behind front gardens and the
characteristic front boundary treatments.
9. The open landscaped grounds around the Veteran’s Club, including the appeal
site, contributes to the pleasant verdant open and spacious character of the CA.
The front boundary treatment also reflects the characteristics of the prevailing
boundary treatments along the street. Adjacent to the east of the appeal site is
32-35 Clarence Place, which are residential properties of a paired villa
development type. The CAA identifies these dwellings as unlisted buildings which
have townscape merit given that they are good examples of relatively unaltered
historic buildings where their style, detailing and building materials provide the
streetscape with interest and variety. I agree that 32-35 Clarence Place make a
positive contribution to the special interest of the CA, because they reinforce the
local distinctiveness of built form in this part of the CA.
10. Whilst some of the landscaped area would remain, in particular to the front, rear
and west of the Veteran’s Club, the provision of a building on part of the open and
undeveloped space which provides a break in built form between 35 Clarence
Place and the Veteran’s Club would harmfully erode the open, verdant and
spacious character of this part of the CA.
11. The appeal proposal would result in a four storey building attached to the side
elevation of No 35 which is also a four storey building. The main part of the
proposed building would have both an eaves and ridge height that would be taller
than the main part of No 35. Whilst it would not be significantly taller, the difference
in height would appear at odds with the established paired villa that it would be
attached to.
12. The width of the proposal would cause visual unbalance, given it would alter and
erode the appearance and layout of the established paired villa development type.
The side elevation of the proposed building would become a more dominant
feature in the streetscene than the side elevation of No 35 in the current
circumstances, given the removal of the vegetation on the appeal site. Whilst
some vegetation would be retained, I am not satisfied that it would be possible to
provide a similar level of vegetative screening given the proposed positioning of
the building in close proximity to the Veteran’s Club. The replication of some
historic features which are common in the CA, such as the bay windows and the
lower side projections, would not overcome my concerns about the overall
proposed design.
13. The proposed dwelling would be set back from the street behind a front garden
area, in keeping with the general layout of Clarence Place. However, the
development would involve the removal of the front boundary wall and railings and
replacement with a dwarf wall with 1.6 metre high post and panel fencing on top.
This feature would enclose the front garden space, reducing the openness and
spaciousness of the site and it would appear significantly at odds with the
prevailing boundary treatments along the street.
14. For the above reasons, I find that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the
character or appearance of the CA. The proposal would therefore be contrary to
Policies CS19 and CS20 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy Adopted
September 2014 and Policy TC3 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review Saved
and Deleted Policies Version (September 2014). These policies seek, amongst
other things, that developments preserve, protect and enhance the historic
environment and that the significance of heritage assets, including conservation
areas, are taken into account.
15. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)
advises that, when considering the impact of development on the significance of
designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation.
Paragraph 213 goes on to say that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a
designated heritage asset from development should require clear and convincing
justification. Due to the scale and nature of the proposal, the harm to the heritage
asset would be less than substantial. In these circumstances, paragraph 215 of the
Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of
the proposal.
16. The proposal would provide four new flats on a small site in an area where future
occupants would have access to a range of services, facilities and public transport
provision. This would present a public benefit, particularly given the Council are
unable to demonstrate a sufficient housing land supply currently. There would be
economic benefits during the construction phase and after with future occupants
supporting the local economy. I note that a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal is
submitted which identifies that mitigation and enhancement measures could be
provided in respect of ecological matters and I note that it is asserted that
biodiversity net gain could be achieved using off-site measures. Nevertheless,
given the scale of the proposal these benefits would be limited.
17. Taking into consideration the great weight that should be given to the heritage
assets conservation, the public benefits are limited and do not outweigh the less
than substantial harm that would be caused to the significance of the heritage
asset. As such, clear and convincing justification for this harm has not been
identified.
Other Matters
18. In addition to a number of objections, some letters of support for the proposal were
received in response to the planning application, supporting the delivery of new
homes on an underutilised site and to help prevent anti-social behaviour at night.
Whilst I understand the points raised, I do not find that the site is underutilised
given it contributes in a positive way to the significance of the CA. I also do not
have any compelling evidence about the level of anti-social behaviour that
currently takes place on the appeal site. I have found that the proposal would
result in harm in relation to the CA, which would outweigh the benefits identified in
this case.
19. The appeal site is located within the zone of influence of the Thames Estuary and
Marshes Special Protection Area and Ramsar, which are designated as European
sites due to their importance for nature conservation and wintering wildfowl. The
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Regulations) requires
the decision maker to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) where there are
likely significant effects from the proposal, either alone or in combination with other
plans or projects.
20. I note that in response to the Council’s second reason for refusal a SAMMS
agreement has been submitted that identifies the Council has received a mitigation
payment in this respect. However, regulation 63(1) of the Regulations indicates the
requirement for an AA is only necessary where the competent authority is minded
to give consent for the proposal. Therefore, in view of my findings above, it has not
been necessary to address this in any further detail. This matter weighs neither for,
nor against the proposal.
21. The Council has identified that it cannot currently demonstrate a sufficient five year
housing land supply, confirming the current supply figure at 3 years. The Council
also confirms that it fell below 75% on the Housing Delivery Test in the most
recent calculation. However, with reference to footnote 7 of the Framework, the
harm I have found to the CA as a designated heritage asset provides a strong
reason for refusing the proposed development. As such, paragraph 11 d) ii. of the
Framework is not engaged.
Conclusion
22. The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no
material considerations of sufficient weight, including the Framework, which
indicates a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.
Therefore, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.
G Dring
INSPECTOR