®Planning appeal decision
Tanner Farm Park, Tanner Farm Goudhurst Road, Marden, Tonbridge, TN12 9ND
Planning appeal 3293458 at Tanner Farm Park, Tanner Farm Goudhurst Road, Marden, Tonbridge, TN12 9ND (Maidstone Borough Council) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 24 January 2024 by Inspector Higenbottam H, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the notice was served as required by section 172 of the Act (Appeal B ground (e)).
Without planning permission, the change of use of land to a recreational use (Sui Generis), on the land identified on the plan edged in red attached to the Notice
- Authority
- Maidstone Borough Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Change of use
- Inspector
- Higenbottam H
- Postcode
- TN12 9ND
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the notice was served as required by section 172 of the Act (Appeal B ground (e))
- Whether the way in which the southern field was utilised from 1991 onwards incorporated it within the planning unit of the Caravan Park such that its use was ancillary, or whether it was a separate planning unit and, if so, whether there had been a recreational use of that land for 10 years or more (Appeal A ground (d))
- Whether the permanent stationing of static mobile homes within the red hatched areas has continued in breach of the conditions for a continuous period of at least 10 years (Appeal B ground (d))
- Whether the requirements of the notice are excessive and whether lesser steps would overcome the objections (Appeal B ground (f))
What decided it
Neither the recreational use of the southern field nor the permanent stationing of static mobile homes within the specific areas identified in the notices was shown, on the evidence, to have continued for the requisite 10-year period to establish immunity from enforcement action.
What the Inspector cited
- Judgments
- Burdle and Williams v SSE and New Forest DC [1972] 1 WLR 1207; St Anselm v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 1592 (Admin); Royale Parks Ltd v SSHCLG [2021] EWCA Civ 1101; Fox v First Secretary of State [2003] EWHC 887 (Admin)
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 2024
- Quashed On Legal Grounds28 September 20263378504Pear View, Symonds Lane, Yalding, Kent, ME18 6HA
- Notice upheld17 July 20263377356Stephens Bridge Field, Water Lane, Headcorn, Ashford, Kent, TN27 9JP
- Planning permission granted22 June 20263377362Lenwood, Polhill Lane, Harrietsham, Maidstone, Kent, ME17 1LG
- Planning permission granted10 June 20263347386Land at The Meadows, Lenham Road, Headcorn, TN27 9LG
- Notice varied and upheld24 April 202633647405 Bower Place, Maidstone, Kent, ME16 8BG
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.