This meeting was recognised as a seminal event in the religious history of England, marking a return of Christianity and the beginnings of its foundation as the accepted faith of the Anglo-Saxon population.

Dismissing the appeal, the Inspector found that the proposals would:

i. Result in highly adverse effects on the significance of the Cross and the ability to appreciate its significance, falling within the upper range of less than substantial harm. This harm was not outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme, which included the delivery of 200 homes to address a persistent shortfall in the Council’s 5 year housing land supply.

ii. Fail to respect and respond to the character, key sensitivities, qualities and guidelines of the Landscape Character Area, or conserve and enhance Thanet’s local distinctiveness. Although the relevant landscape policy provided an exception for development proposals that were essential to meet the social and economic well-being of the area, and the provision of housing was generally essential in the local and national context, there was no essential need to provide it on the site or in accordance with the parameters proposed.

The decision is of particular interest because:

a)  It illustrates how the ‘time depth’ of a landscape setting can make an important contribution to the significance of designated heritage assets, even in the context of more modern development.

b)  It reiterates the importance of properly understanding the significance of designated heritage assets before developing the parameters for an outline proposal. In this case, the Inspector found that: the ‘heritage conservation zone’ appeared arbitrary – lacking any proper understanding or appreciation of place and setting; there was a failure to clearly demonstrate how design opportunities could be taken to successfully integrate the cross, conserve its significance, and sensitively shape the place; and the proposal to replant ‘St Augustine’s Oak’ appeared little more than a tokenistic gesture. Ultimately, he found that the “quality of evidence submitted to support the proposal is poor and the proposed parameters ill conceived, reflecting the lack of a detailed understanding of context, place and setting, and the role these play in the significance of the cross and its appreciation. This partly stems from a lack of proper front loading. Insofar as indicative proposals have been presented, these are tokenistic in their response, incoherent in terms of strategy and detail, and lacking in any clear vision or rationale”. Although it was an outline proposal, the Inspector found that these “fundamental design failings cannot be properly addressed by imposition of conditions deferring their resolution to a later stage”.

c)  It shows the application of important caveats in the 12 December 2024 Written Ministerial Statement, which the Appellant had placed heavy reliance upon in the context of the Council’s persistent housing shortfall. The Inspector noted that the national target of 1.5 million homes is not a green light for low-quality development, nor does it require an inherent trade-off between supply and quality.

d) Finally, the Inspector gave no weight to the Appellant’s reliance upon the recent press release from MHCLG dated 18 November 2025 that housebuilding around train stations will be given a default “yes” in future if certain rules are met. In doing so, he noted that the details of the proposal “remain unclear, and have yet to be consulted on, let alone adopted”. 

Alexander Greaves appeared for the local planning authority, Thanet District Council.

The decision can be found here.