Two static units at Land At Smarden Road, Headcorn

What was proposed

The retrospective application sought two additional mobile units and a facilities block for gypsy and traveller use.

“The application seeks to add two additional mobile units and a utility block to an existing lawful Gypsy and Traveller site. The site has permission for 4 mobile units and if the current application is approved there would be a total of 6 mobile units, 6 tourers, 2 day rooms plus the facilities block.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is in open countryside east of Headcorn, beside an established gypsy and traveller site, with a public footpath nearby.

“The application site is on the north side of Smarden Road, in an area of open countryside approximately 1.4km east of the Headcorn settlement. A public footpath runs southwards from Smarden Road providing views of the site.”

“The site extends some 90 metres from the northern edge of Smarden Road and is approximately 50 metres in width. The southern boundary is defined by matured trees and vegetation, whilst to the west there is a neighbouring established Gypsy Traveller site.”

Officer report

Earlier permission and appeal

An earlier application for four static units was refused, but an appeal was allowed after the inspector found only modest landscape harm.

“24/500218/FULL - Change of use of land for the siting of 4.no static units each with associated day rooms for gypsy and traveller use. Refused 17.04.2024 for the following summarised reasons a) scale, design and appearance would have a detrimental impact on the character of the site and the wider area resulting in the urbanising and domestication of the current rural landscape b) substandard outdoor amenity provision and levels of privacy would fail to provide an…”

“24/500218/FULL appeal against refusal of permission allowed 21 May 2025 with the Inspector making the following summary conclusions: a) “...lead to modest harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site and its surroundings, but would not be at the significant level of harm set out in policy LPRHOU8 which requires development to not result in significant harm to the rural character and appearance of the area”.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the proposal acceptable because it would not cause significant countryside harm and was acceptable on highways, amenity, flooding and drainage grounds.

“The proposal is acceptable in relation to visual and landscape impact and two additional mobiles will not result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside at this location. The proposal is acceptable in relation to highways impact, sustainability, residential amenity, flooding and drainage.”

“The proposal is in accordance with policy LPRHOU8 which allows for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in the countryside. The proposal is in accordance with policy LPRHOU8 which allows for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in the countryside. The proposal is in accordance with policies HNP1 to 4. Whilst there isa degree of conflict with policy HNP5 much of the field pattern has already been lost.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council initially objected on countryside, cumulative impact, policy and housing-supply grounds, while environmental health raised no objection subject to conditions.

“Object on the following summarised grounds: • Cumulative impact • Lack of suitable sites leading to overcrowding in unsuitable areas like this. • Gypsy and Traveler housing need verses supply. • Development in the open countryside and paragraph 25 of the PPTS which states that Local Authorities should strictly limit Traveler site development in open countryside. • Lack of local plan policy support • Not in accordance with neighbourhood plan policies HNP1 to HNP5.”

“No objection subject to conditions on: • Foul Drainage • External Lighting • Potable Water Supply…”

Officer report

Who spoke to members

The Planning Applications Manager introduced the application, reported the parish council’s withdrawal of objections and proposed strengthening a renewable-energy condition.

The decision

Permission was granted subject to the report’s conditions as amended, with delegated powers for final conditions and informatives.

“That permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report as amended by the Planning Applications Manager when introducing the application.”

“That the Head of Planning and Economic Development be given delegated powers to be able to settle or amend any necessary planning conditions and/or informatives in line with the matters set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.”

Minutes