Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Planning permission granted17 March 20233210851

Land to the R/O the Meadows, Lenham Road, HEADCORN, TN27 9LG

Authority
Maidstone Borough Council
Appeal type
enforcement · Enforcement Notice
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
caravan-gypsy · Major traveller and caravan pitches
Inspector
Lewis D

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • The effect of the development on landscape character and the appearance of the land and the surrounding countryside (both as an individual site and cumulatively)
  • The effect on the local settled community, including the amenity of neighbouring landowners
  • Whether any identified harm may be suitably mitigated through compliance with planning conditions
  • The existing level of local provision and the need for traveller sites
  • The personal need for a site by the appellants and the current occupiers, taking account of their personal circumstances, human rights (including the best interests of the child), protected characteristics and the availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation
  • Whether the period for compliance stated in the enforcement notice is reasonable and proportionate (ground (g))

What decided it

The balance between the significant landscape harm from the scale, siting and intensification of each site and the substantial need-related and personal/Article 8 considerations of current occupiers, which was tipped in favour of permission only where the site could be reduced to a smaller, better-integrated form.

For EN1 the limited landscape/visual harm was outweighed by unmet Traveller need and personal circumstances, so full permission was granted; for EN2 and EN3 the harm across the whole sites was not outweighed and a further temporary permission was rejected, but on reduced parts of each site (Plots 4 and 5 on EN2; Plots 8A, 8B and 9A on EN3) the reduced harm was outweighed by need, social/cultural well-being benefits and Article 8 rights, while the harm on the remaining land was not outweighed and permission was refused there.

Framework references: 11, 56

Plan policies cited: Policy SS 1, Policy SP 17, Policy DM 15, Policy DM 30, Policy GT1, Policy DM16

Judgments cited: Smith v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Others [2022] EWCA Civ 1391; Smith v FSS and Mid Bedfordshire Borough Council [2005] EWCA Civ 859

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.