Planning appeal decision
Land North East Of Ballinderry House, Folkestone Road, Dover, CT15 7AB
change of use of land to Gypsy/traveller site for the siting of 2 static caravans, and 2 touring caravans, the erection of 2 dayrooms and the creation of an access, with associated hard and soft landscaping (part retrospective)
- Authority
- Dover District Council
- Appeal type
- Planning
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- caravan-gypsy
- Postcode
- CT15 7AB
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the landscape and scenic beauty of the Kent Downs National Landscape
- the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with particular regard to visibility and the provision of strategic road network infrastructure
- the effect of the proposed development on biodiversity, with particular regard to protected species
- whether the proposed development would provide suitable living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to the provision of day rooms and private amenity space
- the effect of the proposed development on groundwater sources
- the effect of the proposed development on flood risk
- whether other material considerations, including the need for and supply of pitches and personal circumstances of the appellant outweigh any harm identified such as to justify the development
What decided it
The cumulative harms of a very high order — principally to the landscape and scenic beauty of the Kent Downs National Landscape and to highway safety, compounded by unresolved harm to biodiversity, groundwater and living conditions — were not outweighed by the modest benefits of pitch provision and the personal circumstances of the occupants.
the harms of a very high order, including great weight harm to the KDNL's landscape and scenic beauty and significant weight harm from highway safety and other policy conflicts, were not outweighed by the modest public benefit of two pitches, moderate weight personal circumstances, and great weight given to the best interests of the children, so the appeal was dismissed
Framework references: 11, 116, 135, 187, 189
Plan policies cited: Policy NE2, Policy SP13, Policy H4(e)-(f), Policy SP12, Policy H4(c), Policy TI2, Policy SP14, Policy CC8, Policy H4(h), Policy NE5, Policy H4(i), Policy CC6, Policy H4(j), Policy SP3, Policy H4(a), Policy H4
Judgments cited: SCDC v. SSCLG and Julie Brown [2008] EWCA Civ 1010
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.
®