The 81-home appeal at Staplehurst was allowed despite providing no affordable homes, after the Inspector accepted that the allocated mixed-use site could not viably deliver Maidstone’s 40% affordable housing target.
The 81-home appeal concerns land west of Lodge Road at Staplehurst, where Ilke Homes Land Ltd and Civils Contracting Ltd proposed 81 homes alongside an outline commercial unit of up to 1,000 sq m. Maidstone Borough Council had accepted the principle of development, but refused permission over the absence of affordable housing and the resulting tenure mix.
Inspector Ian Dyer agreed that the proposal conflicted with the development plan on affordable housing. He nevertheless allowed appeal 6008294 after giving very significant weight to the site’s allocated status, Maidstone’s 4.5-year housing land supply and the viability evidence showing that a policy-compliant scheme could not presently be delivered.
Need help with a planning issue?
81-home appeal turns on site-specific viability
The appeal site is allocated under the Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan Review for about 78 homes and around 1,000 sq m of employment floorspace. The appeal scheme broadly followed that allocation, with the residential element submitted in full and the commercial element in outline apart from access.
The council’s affordable housing policy places the site in a high-value housing zone, where the target is 40% affordable housing. The proposal contained a mix of two, three and four-bedroom market homes but no affordable dwellings. The Inspector found that this meant the development would fail to provide the housing mix sought by the local plan.
That policy conflict was not the end of the exercise. A Financial Viability Statement prepared for the application and updated for the appeal had been independently reviewed for the council. Although there were disagreements over detail, the parties agreed on the critical point: a scheme providing both the required employment element and 40% affordable housing would not generate a reasonable return and was not viable.
That mattered because the appeal was not simply seeking to dilute an otherwise deliverable scheme. The Inspector considered the circumstances of this particular allocated site, including changed economic conditions, rather than treating borough-wide affordable housing delivery as decisive.
If you are dealing with a viability dispute, Planning Geek has a separate guide to affordable housing planning, including the role of viability evidence and planning obligations.
Housing shortfall carried very significant weight
Maidstone could demonstrate only 4.5 years of housing land supply. Inspector Dyer described that as a sizeable shortfall. He also noted that the site was already identified for housing and was close to a railway station and bus services, with the development improving convenient routes for walking and cycling to the station.
This 81-home appeal decision is particularly useful because the Inspector did not pretend that the lack of affordable housing caused no harm. He found a clear conflict with the development plan and accepted that Maidstone had a significant affordable housing shortfall. The question was whether other material considerations justified a different decision under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
The answer was yes. The Inspector allowed the 81-home appeal because a policy-compliant development could not reasonably be expected to come forward at the site in the foreseeable future. Preventing the 81 homes would therefore leave an allocated strategic site undelivered and further weaken the council’s housing land position.
The section 106 agreement also contained a viability review mechanism. That created the possibility of affordable housing being secured later, although potentially off-site, if the development ultimately generated a surplus. The Inspector treated that as mitigation rather than as a substitute for the missing on-site homes.
Other benefits strengthened the balance
The scheme would deliver 20% biodiversity net gain on site, public open space and employment floorspace. The Inspector gave moderate weight to the biodiversity benefit and to the economic benefits of construction, future residents supporting local businesses and the commercial component. Public open space attracted more limited weight because other open space was available nearby.
Network Rail had raised concerns about increased use of a nearby level crossing. The scheme did not provide a direct link to the footpath crossing the railway, and boundary treatment could discourage access. That concern did not prevent permission.
The final planning balance was clear. The proposal conflicted with the development plan because it failed to provide affordable housing, but the benefits were not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies. The presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore pointed to permission.
Costs refused after the 81-home appeal succeeded
The developers also sought a full award of appeal costs. They argued that members had refused the application against an officer recommendation and without reasonable evidence.
The costs claim failed. Inspector Dyer explained that “The Members are not bound by the officer recommendation”, but the council still had to provide a reasoned argument. Although he disagreed with the committee’s ultimate planning balance, he found that Maidstone had produced substantive evidence at appeal and had not caused unnecessary or wasted expense.
That distinction is worth remembering. Winning an appeal does not establish that the original refusal was unreasonable. The merits decision asks whether planning permission should be granted. A costs decision asks whether unreasonable behaviour caused unnecessary or wasted expense.
What the Staplehurst decision means in practice
This 81-home appeal is not authority for ignoring affordable housing policy whenever viability is difficult. The Inspector had site-specific viability evidence accepted by both principal parties, an allocated housing site, a measurable five-year supply shortfall and a review mechanism capable of capturing improved viability later.
The practical lesson is that viability evidence needs to explain why the policy requirement cannot be delivered on the particular site and why withholding permission would produce a worse planning outcome. Here, the Inspector accepted both propositions.
The decision also shows why the development plan remains the starting point rather than the finishing point. The Inspector expressly found conflict with the plan, then identified material considerations strong enough to justify granting permission anyway.
Appeal 6008294, the 81-home appeal, was allowed on 5th October 2026, while the application for costs was refused. Read the appeal decision and the separate costs decision hosted on Planning Geek. The official appeal record is available online. Our wider planning appeals guidance explains how the appeal process works.
0 Comments