Planning appeal decision
Warren Lands, Lenham Heath Road, Sandway, KENT, ME17 2PD
the demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a one bedroom bungalow. Refurbishment of existing hardstanding to enable standing of one static caravan and storage of two touring caravans to be ancillary to the dwelling. Refurbishment of existing access
- Authority
- Maidstone Borough Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Minor traveller and caravan pitches
- Inspector
- Murray D
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the principle of development accords with the strategy in the development plan
- The effect on the character and appearance of the area including the rural landscape
- Whether the site lies in a sustainable location with good accessibility to a range of services and modes of transport
- The effect on the character and appearance of the Sandway Conservation Area
- The effect on the Stodmarsh Marshes SAC through the additional overnight accommodation resulting in increased nutrient to this habitat and whether adversely affects its integrity
- The effect on protected species within the site and whether there would be a net gain in biodiversity
- The effect on highway capacity, safety and amenity
- The need for and supply of gypsy/traveller sites (Appeal B)
- The availability of alternative sites (Appeal B)
- The personal circumstances of the appellant and best interests of children
What decided it
The cumulative and lasting harm to rural landscape character, the conservation area, highway safety and the Stodmarsh SAC's integrity was found to outweigh the appellant's personal circumstances and the shortfall in gypsy/traveller site provision.
the harms to rural character, the conservation area, highway safety and the Stodmarsh SAC outweighed the benefits of providing settled accommodation and gypsy/traveller pitches together with the appellant's personal circumstances, so the conflict with the development plan and national guidance was not outweighed
Framework references: 109, 207, 208, 209
Plan policies cited: DM15, LPRHOU8, LPRSP9, CP1, LPRQD4, AT2(3), LPRSP14(B), LPRSP14(a), LPRTRA2
Judgments cited: Bishop v Westminster Council [2017] EWHC 3102 (Admin) 2017 WL 06597399
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.
®