Inspectors overturned 10 of Ashford's 34 refusals from January to June, including 32 homes at Bethersden and a drive-thru coffee shop at Sevington.
Government planning inspectors overturned 10 of Ashford Borough Council’s planning refusals in the first half of 2026. They upheld the other 24.
The figures are in a report going to the council’s Planning Committee on Wednesday 21 October. It covers every appeal decision received between 1 January and 30 June 2026 (appeal decisions report, Planning Committee 21 October 2026).
The two cases councillors refused against their own planners’ advice both went to appeal. The council lost both. One of them was up to 32 homes in Bethersden.
The numbers
| Outcome | Appeals | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Dismissed (council’s refusal upheld) | 24 | 70.6% |
| Allowed (council overruled) | 10 | 29.4% |
| Withdrawn | 0 | 0% |
| Total | 34 | 100% |
The report leaves out one big case: the developer’s appeal to change the Section 106 agreement at Chilmington Green. It says the inspector dismissed most of the changes the developer wanted and allowed only a small number, so the decision does not count as a clean win or loss.
Of the 34 counted appeals:
- 30 were against refusals made by council officers under delegated powers. Inspectors allowed 8 of them, or 26.7%.
- 2 were against refusals by the Planning Committee, made against the officer’s recommendation to approve. Inspectors allowed both.
- 1 was against an enforcement notice, at Mai Barn in Romden Road, Smarden. It was dismissed.
- 1 was an appeal for non-determination, where the council made no decision in time, at Apple Tree Cottage, Boughton Aluph. It was dismissed.
The 32 homes at Bethersden
The bigger of the two committee cases was outline permission for up to 32 homes on land next to the Bull Inn, Bethersden, with access from Bull Lane (PA/2024/1442). Officers had recommended approval. The Planning Committee refused it.
The inspector agreed with the council on some points. The report says the inspector found the scheme would conflict with Local Plan policies on the countryside, because the field forms part of the setting of the village. The inspector also found “less than substantial harm” to the setting of nearby Grade II listed buildings.
Even so, the appeal was allowed. The report says the inspector gave substantial weight to the new homes because of the borough’s housing shortfall. It also lists:
- 40% affordable housing
- self-build housing
- 20% of the homes built to be accessible and adaptable
- more than 10% biodiversity net gain
Because of the shortfall, the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” applied. The inspector concluded that the harm did not “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits.
One part of the deal fell away. The inspector ruled that a contribution towards special educational needs places failed the legal tests. The report says 32 homes would not generate the need for one whole place, and Kent County Council had not explained how contributions would be pooled.
The housing shortfall is the same issue now driving the Kennington Road decision. Officers say the borough has only 3.16 years of housing land against the five years required, and are recommending up to 180 homes off Kennington Road, Willesborough, at the same meeting. We covered that case here.
The second committee case was a new driveway off an existing dropped kerb in Orpins Close, Brabourne (PA/2025/0822). The inspector found it would add parking for two cars at an existing home and would not harm neighbours or road safety.
The other eight the council lost
All eight were refused by officers. The report gives the inspector’s reasons for each:
- Drive-thru coffee shop, Ashford Retail Park, Barrey Road, Sevington (PA/2025/0026). The council argued for 18 to 24 parking spaces. The inspector accepted 16, because not every drive-thru customer parks. A condition will control deliveries so lorries do not block customers in.
- Land south of Chart Leacon Depot, Leacon Road, Ashford (PA/2025/0983). The inspector removed two conditions: a ban on overnight HGV parking and limits on operating and delivery hours. A noise-based condition replaces them. The council relied on its own 2022 Noise Technical Guidance Note. The inspector gave that note limited weight because it never went through formal consultation or adoption, and applied the British Standards instead.
- Up to six homes north of Smarden Road, Pluckley (PA/2025/1092), a permission in principle. The inspector found the site within reasonable walking or cycling distance of the village, Pluckley Thorne and Pluckley station.
- Six homes from three farm buildings at Mainey Farm, Pluckley Road, Smarden (NOT/2025/1086), under Class Q permitted development. The council said one building would need substantial rebuilding. The inspector disagreed.
- A barn conversion at Tatton Barn, Hamstreet Road, Hamstreet (NOT/2025/0970), also under Class Q. The site is in the Stour catchment, so it still needs a separate nutrient assessment before work can start.
- A garage converted to a separate home at Etchden Chase, Bethersden (PA/2025/1205).
- A stable converted to one self-build home at Belvedere Stables, High Halden Road (PA/2025/1498).
- A lawful development certificate for a house north of The Meads, Huntstreet, Crundale (PA/2023/2368). The inspector accepted evidence it had been lived in since June 2012.
Where the council won
Inspectors backed the council on 24 appeals. Among them:
- 10 flats replacing a house and garage buildings at Central Garage, High Street, Tenterden (PA/2025/0530)
- 8 homes at Parker Farm, Hamstreet (PA/2025/0996)
- 4 homes replacing one at Fairlight, Swain Road, Tenterden (PA/2025/0577)
- 3 homes replacing one at Lower Road, Woodchurch (PA/2025/1274)
- a dog walking field with parking at Ninn Lane, Great Chart (PA/2025/0502)
- a house split into two flats in Jemmett Road, Ashford (PA/2025/2364)
The rest were mostly single homes, barn conversions, extensions and listed building works.
Stodmarsh made little difference
Since 2020, new homes in the River Stour catchment have had to prove “nutrient neutrality” to protect the Stodmarsh lakes. The report compares housing appeals inside and outside the catchment:
| Housing appeals | Inside the Stour catchment | Outside the catchment |
|---|---|---|
| Allowed | 2 (25%) | 5 (28%) |
| Dismissed | 6 (75%) | 13 (72%) |
Still waiting
On 1 July the council was fighting 16 live appeals against planning decisions, and none against enforcement notices. Fourteen are being decided on written evidence, one at a hearing and one at a public inquiry.
What it means for you
- A refusal is not always the end. Roughly three in ten refusals that went to appeal were overturned in these six months, so a scheme you objected to can still be built.
- Councillors who go against officer advice face the highest risk. Both such refusals in this period were lost. That matters on 21 October, when officers are recommending approval for the Kennington Road homes.
- The housing land shortfall weighs heavily. While the borough is below five years’ supply, inspectors give housing schemes extra weight even where they find harm.
- You can follow live applications and appeals on our Ashford planning news page.
The report is for information only, so the committee will not vote on it. The meeting starts at 7pm in the Council Chamber and is streamed on the council’s YouTube channel (agenda, Planning Committee 21 October 2026).
Have your say