Mobile home at Wierton Hill Farm, Boughton Monchelsea

Decision

refused, 20 August 2026

Decided by

Council planning committee: Maidstone Planning Committee (12-1, contrary to officer recommendation)

Authority

Maidstone (South East)

Application reference

26/501191/FULL

Procedure

committee

Development

Replacement of lawful residential mobile home (27 sqm) with permanent self-build dwelling (151 sqm footprint, c.650 m3)

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, isolated

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

4.5 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(c), S5(1)(d), HO11

Development plan policies

Maidstone Local Plan Review 2024 LPRSP9, LPRSP15, LPRQD4, LPRHOU11

Main issues

replacement building disproportionate; PDL garden land; isolated homes; countryside character

Summary

A lawful residential mobile home in open countryside, to be replaced by a self-build house more than five times its footprint. Officers recommended approval. Their urgent update re-framed the case under S5(1)(c), replacement of a building "not disproportionately larger", and S5(1)(d), with garden land counted as PDL. Members refused 12-1. They found the replacement disproportionate and suburbanising, and an isolated dwelling with no essential need.

Issues and findings

• Officers (urgent update). "Whilst the replacement building footprint and volume is larger than the existing mobile, the overall height of the mobile (2.34 metres) and the roof eaves of the replacement dwelling (2.33 metres) are comparable. Residential garden land such as that on the application site is in the definition of 'previously developed land'" (Update, p.116). The benefits were "not 'substantially outweighed'".
• Members' reasons. "by way of its scale, massing, height and disproportionate enlargement would result in a domesticating, suburbanising addition … does not accord with … NPPF policy S5" (RfR 1). "The development would represent an isolated dwelling within the countryside. There is no essential need for a dwelling in this location, nor would the redevelopment of the building enhance the immediate setting" (RfR 2, citing S5 and "HR11", evidently HO11) (Minutes 78).

What made the difference

S5(1)(c) caps a replacement at "not disproportionately larger", measured against the building as it stood on the day the Framework was published (fn 25). Members judged a jump from 27 to 151 sqm disproportionate however the eaves compare. Officers' PDL route (garden land) would have bypassed the proportionality cap entirely. Members did not accept it and treated the house as a new isolated home under HO11.

Transferable points

• Members read S5(1)(c)'s "not disproportionately larger" by footprint and volume, not eaves height (RfR 1).
• Officers argued that residential garden land is PDL, so S5(1)(d) can support a larger replacement dwelling (Update). This route is contested and untested.
• Footnote 25: the existing building is assessed as it stood when the Framework was published.

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Existing lawful mobile home (LDC 25/501264/LDCEX), max height 2.34 m, footprint 27 sqm
• Proposed dwelling footprint 151 sqm, ridge 5.42 m, c.650 m3
• 1.6 km from Boughton Monchelsea (smaller village), 2.2 km from Maidstone urban edge
• Supply 4.5 years
• Officer urgent update re-ran the report under S5 (replacement and PDL limbs)

Sources

• meetings.maidstone.gov.uk
• meetings.maidstone.gov.uk
• meetings.maidstone.gov.uk
• meetings.maidstone.gov.uk

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.