Planning appeal decision
White House, Stockbury Valley, Stockbury, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7QD
Planning appeal 3373010 at White House, Stockbury Valley, Stockbury, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME9 7QD (Maidstone Borough Council) was dismissed on 11 December 2025 by Inspector Smith J, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular reference to whether it would conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Kent Downs National Landscape.
Demolition of outbuildings, removal of mobile home and removal of areas of hardstanding. Construction of seven dwellings with landscaping, car parking, garages, woodland and orchard planting and provision of open space. Alterations to vehicle access from A249 Sittingbourne Road. Retention of the White House and detached outbuilding
- Authority
- Maidstone Borough Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Smith J
- Postcode
- ME9 7QD
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular reference to whether it would conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Kent Downs National Landscape
- the effect on highway safety
What decided it
The proposal would fail to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Kent Downs National Landscape, conflicting with the development plan as a whole, and the modest benefits of housing delivery and ecological enhancement could not overcome the great weight required to be given to landscape conservation.
the modest benefits of housing delivery, ecological enhancement and bringing previously developed land back into use were outweighed by the great weight to be attached to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the Kent Downs National Landscape
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy LPRSP9Policy LPRSP15Policy LPRQD4Policy LPAHOU1Policy LPRSP10(A)Policy LPRSP14(A)Policy LPRQD2Policy LPRTRA2
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 189Paragraph 190
- Judgments
- Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (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 2025
- 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.
®