R (Patricia Shave) v Maidstone Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Holgate |
| Judgment Date | 15 July 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 1895 (Admin) |
| Date | 15 July 2020 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/202/2020 |
[2020] EWHC 1895 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
PLANNING COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
THE HON. Mr Justice Holgate
Case No: CO/202/2020
and
Ms. Kate Olley (instructed by Kingsley Smith Solicitors LLP) for the Claimant
Mr. Giles Atkinson (instructed by Mid Kent Legal Services) for the Defendant
The Interested Parties did not appear and were not represented
Hearing date: 07 July 2020
Approved Judgment
Introduction
On 13 December 2019 the Defendant, Maidstone Borough Council (“MBC”), granted planning permission to the Interested Parties, Mr and Mrs Body, for the change of use of land at Oakhurst, Stilebridge Lane, Marden, Kent, TN12 9BA for the stationing of 18 holiday caravans with associated works, including hardstanding and a bin store. The site lies to the east of Stilebridge Lane. The Claimant, Mrs Patricia Shave, is the owner of the dwelling known as Ellmacy, which lies about 40m from the south-western corner of the site.
The planning application was received by MBC on 18 January 2019 and included a Design Access and Planning Statement, a site location plan and a block plan. At that stage the application was for a change of use to “20 holiday lodges”. The application site comprised some 2.3 hectares of land situated to the south of the dwelling known as Oakhurst. It was laid to grass and divided into two paddocks, with the western paddock in use for the past few years as a site for caravan and camping, providing pitches for touring caravans and tents. The eastern paddock had been used for horse grazing.
Paragraph 4.2 of the Design Access and Planning Statement said that:-
“The actual final layout of the site and design of the facilities will be the subject of a separate application for a Caravan Site licence at a later date to ensure that it meets the relevant requirements in terms of health and safety and other relevant criteria. The purpose of this application is to establish the use of the land for this purpose.”
The licence referred to would have to be obtained under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (“the 1960 Act”).
Paragraph 4.3 of the Statement said that the “indicative site layout” illustrated how the lodges would be arranged within the site. The proposals also included “an indication of the type of lodges to be provided”. They would be clad externally with weatherboarding and a wood stained finish “to help to assimilate them into the surrounding countryside”.
Paragraph 5.2 of the Statement said that the proposal to use the land for “holiday lodges” would avoid trips to and from the site by traffic towing caravans or trailer tents, as generated by the current use of the land.
Paragraph 7.7. of the Statement said that the proposed holiday lodges would fall within the definition of a caravan as set out in the 1960 Act. They would each comprise “a twin unit with[in] [the] maximum dimensions.” Paragraphs 7.8 to 7.11 accepted that because the proposal was to provide accommodation for holidays and tourism it would be appropriate for a “holiday occupancy condition” to be imposed on the grant of any permission. Paragraph 7.11 stated that “the approach that is now generally adopted is a condition preventing occupation as a sole/principle (sic) dwelling coupled with a register of lettings. It is therefore considered that permanent residential occupancy could be satisfactory (sic) controlled without a condition requiring a seasonal break in occupation.”
Paragraphs 7.12 to 7.15 of the Statement addressed the sustainability of the development. Paragraph 7.13 described the public transport facilities available. Paragraph 7.12 explained that proposals of this kind are necessarily located in the open countryside and it was accepted that most visitors would arrive by car. However, there is a public house/restaurant within walking distance and opportunities for fishing in a nearby river and for walking and cycling in the nearby countryside. It would also be possible to walk or cycle to Marden where there is a range of public houses/restaurants.
Meeting of Planning Committee on 30 May 2019
The application was considered by MBC's Planning Committee on 30 May 2019. Section 3 of the Officer's Report identified relevant policies in the Maidstone Borough Local Plan (2017), including DM30, DM37 and DM38. Section 4 of the report summarised local representations which had raised objections and concerns regarding the proposal. Marden Parish Council had asked for the application to be refused. But a number of consultees responded that they had no objection to the proposal. They included the highway authority, the Environment Agency, MBC's landscape officer and Natural England.
Paragraphs 6.01 to 6.06 dealt with the main issues:-
“6.01 Local Plan policy SSl seeks to support small scale employment opportunities in appropriate locations to support the rural economy; and policy SP21 sets out that the Council is committed to supporting and improving the economy of the borough and providing for the needs of businesses, by (inter alia): Supporting proposals for expansion of existing economic development premises in the countryside, including tourism related development, provided scale and impact of development is appropriate for its countryside location, in accordance with policy DM37.
6.02 Local Plan policy DM37 also supports the expansion of existing businesses in the rural area provided certain criteria are met; and Local Plan policy DM38 allows for holiday caravan sites in the countryside provided they:
i. Would not result in unacceptable loss in amenity of area. In particular, impact on nearby properties and appearance of development from public roads will be of importance; and
ii. Site would be unobtrusively located and well screened by existing or proposed vegetation and would be landscaped with indigenous species.
6.03 The proposal is also subject to the normal constraints of development in the countryside under the Maidstone Local Plan. Local Plan policy SP17 states that new development in the countryside will not be permitted unless it accords with other policies in the Local Plan, and would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area or in terms of residential amenity. Local Plan policy DM30 states (inter alia) that new development should maintain, or where possible, enhance the local distinctiveness of an area; and ensure that associated traffic levels are acceptable.
6.04 Furthermore, Local Plan policy seeks new development to respect the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties; and avoid inappropriate development within areas at risk from flooding (LP policy DM1); and to protect areas of Ancient Woodland from inappropriate development and avoid significant adverse impacts as a result of development. Indeed, policy DM3 relates to how development should protect areas of Ancient Woodland from inappropriate development and to avoid significant adverse impacts as a result of development.
6.05 Please note that the proposal site could be used for camping (without restriction of numbers) for 28 days in total of any calendar year without requiring planning permission under Class 4, Part B of the GPDO.
6.06 The key issues for this application are considered to be what impacts the proposal would have upon the character and appearance of the area (including Ancient Woodland impacts); its highway safety and residential amenity impacts; flood risk; and what impact it would have upon the adjacent ancient woodland and biodiversity. Other material planning considerations will then also be addressed.”
Paragraph 6.07 to 6.11 of the Officer's Report dealt with visual impact:-
“Within the Maidstone Landscape Capacity Study: Sensitivity Assessment, the proposal site is in the Staplehurst Low Weald landscape character area (44) that is considered to be sensitive to change. This assessment also states that development in this area could support existing rural enterprises, although extensive, large scale or visually intrusive development would be inappropriate.
6.08 It is accepted that the proposal would change the character of what is an open field. However, the site benefits from a mature, well-established hedgerow to the roadside boundary; the southern boundary also benefits from a well-established hedge and several individual trees; and the eastern (rear) boundary is entirely enclosed by Ancient Woodland. To the north, the site is largely screened by Oakhurst and its associated outbuildings; existing hedgerows; and by more Ancient Woodland and Stilebridge Caravan Park. In general terms, the surrounding road network is also lined with hedges/trees; existing built development provides some screening; and no public footpath comes within 200m of the proposal site. As such, it is considered that views of the proposal would be limited to short range views, particularly when passing the site along Stilebridge Lane; and any medium to long distance views of the development from any other public vantage point would be glimpsed.
6.11 It is therefore considered that the proposal would not appear prominent or visually intrusive in a landscape that is sensitive to change, and would not result in significant harm to the appearance of the landscape and the rural character of the countryside hereabouts.”
The Claimant is particularly concerned about the effect of the proposal on the residential amenity of the occupants of...
To continue reading
Request your trial