Kent office secures temporary mobile home approval in the countryside

July 25, 2019 9:00 am Published by

Tetlow King Planning’s (TKP) Kent office, have secured the temporary change of use of land within the countryside for the stationing of a mobile home for residential purposes.

The application was submitted on the basis of a clear need for temporary accommodation for a resident sadly unable to remain within the family home for complex personal reasons. Due to these issues the mobile home was provided at the application site prior to the submission of any planning application.

Following working closely with the council’s enforcement officer to address the principle issues an application was submitted seeking temporary consent for the use. The application was supported by a personal statement on behalf of the occupant which was treated as private and confidential due to the information contained within it.

Despite some local objection the local planning authority were understanding of the particular personal circumstances and were happy to report it to the planning committee for approval. The case officer advised that a version of the personal statement should however be shared with the committee members in order that they could similarly understand the circumstances of the case in order to be able to support development that would otherwise be considered contrary to the relevant policies within the adopted development plan. Following submission of a redacted personal statement for use by committee members the application was approved at committee on the basis of a temporary 3 year consent.

Iain Warner, Director at TKPs Kent office stated:

“This is a prime example of how councils can work proactively with applicants to deliver good planning. Had a rigid approach to decision dates been followed and a lack of communication from the case officer we would not have been in the position to provide the redacted personal statement for circulation to the committee members and the likely outcome would have been the refusal of the application. This would have resulted in either needing to pursue a planning appeal (and the time delays that this would entail) or a re-submission of the application all the while the occupant suffers further distress due to the situation that they find themselves in.”