Planning appeal decision
Unit 1 and 2 The Homestead, Gravelly Bottom Road, Kingswood, Maidstone, Kent, ME17 3NU
Planning appeal 3280082 at Unit 1 and 2 The Homestead, Gravelly Bottom Road, Kingswood, Maidstone, Kent, ME17 3NU (Maidstone Borough Council) was dismissed on 18 November 2022 by Inspector Johnson W, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether or not the proposed development benefits from the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class ZA of the GPDO.
demolition of existing light industrial/commercial building and the erection of a three-storey block of 24no. flats with landscaping
- Authority
- Maidstone Borough Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Johnson W
- Postcode
- ME17 3NU
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether or not the proposed development benefits from the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class ZA of the GPDO
- whether the transport and highways impacts, provision of natural light for habitable rooms, impact to neighbour amenities, and the design and external appearance of the proposed building is appropriate in its context
What decided it
The remains on site following the arson attack did not constitute a 'building' for the purposes of Class ZA of the GPDO, as they lacked the essential characteristics of walls, roof, and permanence.
What the Inspector cited
- Judgments
- Hughes v SSETR & South Holland DC [2000] JPL 826; Trustees of Castell-y-Mynach Estate v SSW [1985] JPL 40; Iddenden v SSE [1972] 1 WLR 1433; [1973] JPL 38; St Peter the Great, Chichester [1961] 2 All ER 513; Cardiff Rating Authority v Guest Keens [1949] 1 KB 385; Barvis Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment [1971] 22 P & CR 710; Smolas v Herefordshire Council [2021] EWHC 1663 (Admin); New World Payphones Ltd v Westminster CC [2019] EWCA Civ 2250; Hibbit v SSCLG & Rushcliffe BC [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin); Ben R Palmer v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 2006; Carter and Another v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another EWC 1994 W.L.R. 1212
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Maidstone Borough Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2022
- Dismissed29 October 2026601053621 Tasker Close, Bearsted, Maidstone, ME15 8NZ
- Allowed27 October 20266015190Little Southernden, Southernden Road, Headcorn, TN27 9LL
- Allowed27 October 20266011721Loxley House, Gravelly Bottom Road, Kingswood, Maidstone, ME17 3NT
- Allowed27 October 20266011076Little Southernden, Southernden Road, Headcorn, TN27 9LL
- Allowed26 October 20266010539Land Rear Of 58 Church Street, Boughton Monchelsea, Maidstone, ME17 4HN
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®