# Land adjacent to 4 Callis Way, Parkwood, Gillingham (bungalow on amenity open space)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 2 October 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Knight
- **Authority:** Medway (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009769
- **Application reference:** MC/26/0213
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Construction of a self-build two-bedroom bungalow on an area of amenity grassland
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Housing land supply (years):** 3.1
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HC7, S4(2)(a)(ii), DP3(3), S4(2)(c)
- **Development plan policies:** Medway Local Plan 2003 L3, BNE1, BNE2, H4
- **Main issues:** loss of open space, living conditions of future occupiers, character and appearance
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-a-ii, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, open-space, design-refusal, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, self-build, self-build-unsecured, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
A self-build bungalow on a small grassed amenity space in a Gillingham housing estate. The inspector held that HC7 protects the space unless an assessment clearly shows it is surplus, which nothing did. Because the whole space would be lost, the adverse impact was "substantial", engaging S4(2)(a)(ii). With a cramped layout that also engaged DP3's refusal limb, the modest benefit of one home against a 3.1-year supply was substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The main parties have been given the opportunity to comment on any implications for the appeal" (DL ¶4).
- **Open space, HC7: FAIL.** "I see no reason why the presence of the other spaces should make the appeal site surplus to requirements, as I have no evidence that the total amount of open space is an over-provision for the area" (DL ¶10). "None of this suggests, much less clearly shows, that the site is surplus to requirements as an open space. The scheme conflicts with Framework Policy HC7" (DL ¶11).
- **Living conditions: CONFLICT (local plan).** "A car parked on the proposed space would dominate both the outlook from the dwelling and the experience of being in the garden" (DL ¶17).
- **Character: CONFLICT.** "Altogether, the proposed development would appear harmfully at odds with the local setting" (DL ¶23).
- **Self-build and disability need: minimal weight.** "I have not been informed of any mechanism by which either aspect of the scheme could be ensured" (DL ¶25).
- **S4(2)(a)(ii) trigger.** "As the whole of the existing open space would be lost the adverse impact would, in that respect, be substantial" (DL ¶37).
- **DP3(3).** "Framework Policy DP3 states that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they do not respond to their context so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings" (DL ¶38).

## Planning balance
S4(1) with two S4(2) triggers. "I find that the modest benefits of the proposed development, even in the context of the housing land shortfall, would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶39). The letter sets out S4(2)(a)(ii) and S4(2)(c) at DL ¶36, then applies HC7 through the first and DP3 through the second.

## What made the difference
HC7 puts the burden on the applicant: an assessment must clearly show the space is surplus. Pointing to other open spaces nearby is not that assessment. And the loss was total, which made the impact "substantial" for S4(2)(a)(ii) however small the site.

## Transferable points
- S4(2)(a)(ii) is engaged by the complete loss of a small amenity space: the "substantial adverse impact" is judged against the space lost, not its size (DL ¶36–37).
- HC7(1)(a) needs an assessment that clearly shows the land is surplus; other open spaces nearby, low use, and a study saying small sites have limited recreational value do not meet it (DL ¶10–12).
- Under-used amenity land that residents walk dogs on and the council maintains is still existing open space for HC7 (DL ¶11).
- One home against a 3.1-year supply is a modest benefit and did not come close to outweighing two S4(2) triggers (DL ¶33, ¶39).
- Unsecured self-build and an unevidenced personal need get minimal weight (DL ¶25–26).

## Policy findings
- **HC7: fail.** loss of existing open space; only HC7(1)(a) potentially applicable; the presence of other open spaces, dog walking and Council maintenance do not "clearly show" the site is surplus to requirements (DL 9-13)
- **S4(2)(a)(ii): fail.** substantial adverse impact in relation to HC7 - "As the whole of the existing open space would be lost the adverse impact would, in that respect, be substantial" (DL 36-37)
- **DP3(3): fail.** DP3 stated as refuse "if, without clear justification, they do not respond to their context"; tight, congested layout at odds with the open estate; no justification finding made (DL 20-24, 38)
- **S4(2)(c): fail.** S4(2)(c) wording set out alongside (a)(ii); DP3 is the refusal policy relied on (DL 36, 38)
- **S4(1): fail.** modest benefits "even in the context of the housing land shortfall" substantially outweighed (DL 39)
- **P3: conflict.** mapped: Framework policy not cited for living conditions; a parking space in the centre of the rear garden splits the usable space and dominates the only outlook from the living area; confirms the conclusion (DL 14-19, 39)
- **HO7: benefit.** mapped: HO7 not named; one dwelling against a supply of about 3.1 years is "a positive contribution towards the shortfall, albeit a modest one"; benefits overall "modest" (DL 33-34)

## Key facts
- Housing land supply about 3.1 years (appellant's figure, not contested by the Council) (DL 33)
- Site is open grassland with pavements on three sides, two telegraph poles and a dog waste bin; the Council cuts the grass (DL 6, 11)
- A 2024 open space assessment says sites below 0.2 ha are likely to be of lesser recreational value, but not that they are surplus (DL 12)
- Self-build and use by a disabled person not secured by any mechanism; minimal weight (DL 25-26)
- Eight other approvals said to show inconsistency were distinguished; each met a different exception in local Policy L3 or had far greater benefits (DL 27-31)
- Costs application against the Council is the subject of a separate decision (DL 2)
- Parties given the opportunity to comment on the new Framework (DL 4)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009769
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/48824d17-1011-488b-83b4-a7592c8ab7d0

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009769.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.