Town Planner Pro
Free trial
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed10 March 20233305441

Land at Firswood Lodge and Jays View, Ashford Road, Harrietsham, Kent, ME17 1BL

Planning appeal 3305441 at Land at Firswood Lodge and Jays View, Ashford Road, Harrietsham, Kent, ME17 1BL (Maidstone Borough Council) was dismissed on 10 March 2023 by Inspector Pipkin R, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development, having regard to the spatial strategy.

outline planning application (with all matters reserved except for access) for the demolition of existing residential properties and other buildings and erection of up to 109 residential dwellings including affordable housin g with the provision of vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access onto Ashford Road (A20) alongside public open spaces, sustainable urban drainage systems, landscaping, infrastructure and earthworks

Authority
Maidstone Borough Council
Appeal type
major · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
residential · Major dwellings
Inspector
Pipkin R
Postcode
ME17 1BL

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development, having regard to the spatial strategy
  • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area
  • whether there are any other material considerations, including the housing land supply situation and benefits of the proposal, which would indicate that the proposal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the development plan

What decided it

The proposal's conflict with the development plan's spatial strategy combined with the significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside was not outweighed by the scheme's benefits, resulting in overall conflict with the development plan as a whole.

the cumulatively moderate benefits of the scheme (including significant weight for housing and affordable housing delivery) did not outweigh the harm from conflict with the spatial strategy and the significant harm to character and appearance, so the balance tipped against the proposal and it conflicted with the development plan as a whole

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
Policy SS1Policy SP5Policy SP17Policy DM5Policy DM1Policy DM30Policy SP6Policy LPR1
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 11Paragraph 74Paragraph 219
Judgments
The King (oao Thurston Parish Council) v Mid Suffolk District Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1417; Wavendon Properties Ltd vs SSCLG and Milton Keynes Council [2019] EWHC 1524 (Admin); Bloor Homes Ltd v SSCLG [2014] EWHC 745 (Admin); Gladman Developments v SS & Central Bedfordshire Council [2019] EWHC 127 (Admin); Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Development Ltd [2017] UKSC 37; Tewkesbury Borough Council v SSHCLG [2021] EWHC 2782 (Admin), PTSR 340; St Modwen Developments Ltd v SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 1643

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 applied

The 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.

Appeals plan, £15 a month

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

41 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision
An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in Maidstone Borough Council

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2023

  1. Dismissed29 October 20266010536
    21 Tasker Close, Bearsted, Maidstone, ME15 8NZ
  2. Allowed27 October 20266015190
    Little Southernden, Southernden Road, Headcorn, TN27 9LL
  3. Allowed27 October 20266011721
    Loxley House, Gravelly Bottom Road, Kingswood, Maidstone, ME17 3NT
  4. Allowed27 October 20266011076
    Little Southernden, Southernden Road, Headcorn, TN27 9LL
  5. Allowed26 October 20266010539
    Land 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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.