Land south east of Oaklands, St Clere Hill Road, West Kingsdown

Decision

allowed, 8 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: T C King

Authority

Sevenoaks (South East)

Appeal reference

APP/G2245/C/26/3377906

Procedure

hearing

Development

Enforcement appeal (ground (a)): change of use of agricultural land to residential (one mobile home + one tourer for a Gypsy/Traveller family), hardstanding, fencing, gate, CCTV pole, cesspit — temporary 3-year personal permission granted

Homes

1

Site context

green belt, national landscape, ancient woodland, open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt accepted)

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

AnnexB:grey-belt, GB7(1)(g), HO12, S5(1), N4, N6

Development plan policies

Sevenoaks Core Strategy LO8, Allocations and Development Management Plan EN5

Main issues

grey belt; traveller need; sustainable location; National Landscape; ancient woodland; best interests of the child; intentional unauthorised development

Summary

Enforcement appeal against a single-family Gypsy and Traveller pitch (one mobile home, one tourer) in the Metropolitan Green Belt and Kent Downs National Landscape, opposite ancient woodland. The inspector accepted the land as grey belt, noting that footnote 7 has been removed from the definition. On sustainable location, the inspector applied "some flexibility" under HO12 even though the site would have failed GB7(1)(g)(iii) as general housing. National Landscape harm and the policy balance pointed to refusal, but the children's best interests and the unmet pitch need justified a temporary 3-year personal permission, with ancient-woodland remediation and contamination conditions.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The Framework was published after the hearing and the parties commented (DL ¶7). HO12 now carries the PPTS content (DL ¶4–6).
• Footnote 7 removed: grey belt accepted. "This footnote has, however, been removed from the latest version … The removal means that land is classified purely on its Green Belt contribution, while individual constraints are still fully protected by standard national policies" (DL ¶9–10). The council agreed the site is grey belt (DL ¶13).
• Unmet need: significant weight. "a substantial level of unmet need, and I give this significant weight" (DL ¶15).
• Sustainable location: flexed for travellers. "Were this proposal for general residential development then it would not satisfy the Framework's requirements under Policy GB7(1)(g). However, in view of the particular need I have applied some flexibility here with reference to policy HO12" (DL ¶19). "the site cannot be considered as sustainable in terms of public transport provision" (DL ¶18).
• National Landscape: conflict. Hardstanding and light pollution; "would go against the general aims and objectives of protecting the natural character of the KDNL" (DL ¶22–24).
• Ancient woodland buffer. "the recommendation for a buffer zone is not planning policy nor a statutory requirement but rather guidance … development within a buffer zone does not automatically equate to harm" (DL ¶31). A retrospective impact assessment and remediation are required by condition (DL ¶34, 61).
• Intentional unauthorised development. The appellant "did not properly explain why no planning application was submitted" (DL ¶48). The inspector tempered this by the low-key single-family use (DL ¶49).

Planning balance

The development plan and environmental policies "suggest that the deemed planning application should be refused" (DL ¶52). Against that: the children's best interests (a primary consideration, Stevens), the need for a settled base, and the council's emerging GT1 allocations. Together these justified temporary personal permission (DL ¶53–54). The letter does not state an explicit VSC or S5 formula.

What made the difference

Family circumstances (two young children in local schools) and a large unmet pitch need, alongside an emerging plan that will allocate sites. Those justified a time-limited permission despite National Landscape conflict and a location that would fail limb (iii) for ordinary housing. A general housing scheme on the same site would have failed.

Transferable points

• Removing footnote 7 means protected-area designations (National Landscape, ancient woodland) no longer stop land being grey belt. The constraints are applied through their own policies instead (DL ¶9–10).
• For traveller sites, inspectors may apply "some flexibility" to GB7(1)(g)(iii) through HO12. But the same location "would not satisfy" (iii) for general housing (DL ¶17–19). That is a useful concession for objectors to open-market schemes on remote lanes.
• The ancient woodland buffer in Standing Advice is guidance, not policy. Harm is a matter of judgment, but works done without a baseline survey call for a remediation condition (DL ¶31–34).
• Temporary personal permissions remain available where need is unmet and a plan will allocate sites (DL ¶51–54).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• One mobile home + one tourer for a family with two young children at local school/nursery (DL 35)
• Sevenoaks 2025 GTAA — 192 pitches to 2042, 115 in first five years; no 5-year supply (DL 14-15)
• Site in Kent Downs National Landscape, opposite ancient woodland across a lane
• Inspector says the scheme would fail GB7(1)(g)(iii) if it were general housing (DL 19)
• Temporary (3-year) personal permission pending the emerging Local Plan GT1 allocations (DL 51, 54)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate casework portal
• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate casework portal

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.