Appeal 6003246

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council adopted the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan (LP) on 10 December 2025. The policies in the new Local Plan supersede all of the saved policies from the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 and the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010, which are referred to in the Council’s reasons for refusal. The appellant has had the opportunity to comment on these policies through the appeal process. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the development plan (LP).

Planning permission1 has previously been granted for the construction of four holiday lodges. Condition 6 imposed on this permission limits someone’s occupation to 6 weeks in any one instance, with the added proviso that they cannot come back to the site within three months. The appellant proposes to vary condition 6 to remove the occupancy time limits set out within the condition. 1 [name]: Ref 24/02686/FULL

Consequently, the main issue is whether the condition meets the tests of paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), having regard to the effect upon local tourism and to the location of the site in the countryside.

LP Policy ED7 supports the provision of new visitor accommodation where it increases the range and/or quality of tourist facilities.

The Framework sets out that planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

The Council granted planning permission for the holiday lodges on the basis that these units would support local tourism and contribute to the local rural economy. To this end, condition 6 seeks to ensure short stay visits only, by controlling changes of use and limiting the extent of occupation by individual persons.

Condition 6 must be interpreted based on a natural and ordinary meaning of the words used and in their context with the wider planning permission. In that regard, a reasonable reader construing the condition in the context of the permission as a whole, would likely understand that the condition places a limit on occupation by the same person for a period longer than six weeks and precludes that person from returning to the accommodation within three months of leaving it. [name] note the examples provided by the appellant, the intention of the condition is clear and precise in the context of the planning permission for holiday lodges, and I see no reason to conclude that the condition is unenforceable.

While condition 6 is not unreasonable in its existing form, I accept that there may be some scenarios it precludes, such as those suggested by the appellant. However, the lodges do not appear to be in operation and there is limited evidence before me to suggest that the condition hinders the site’s ability to operate successfully as a holiday let.

Irrespective, I am required to assess the condition as it has been put forward to me. In this regard, the condition suggested by the appellant does not set any time restrictions in terms of occupation by the same person. Therefore, it fails to ensure that all visits would remain transient and short-term, such that occupation would not go beyond what could reasonably be considered as holiday accommodation.

The appeal site is accessed from [site address] , a narrow country road. The Council advises that the creation of a residential dwelling in this location would be contrary to its spatial strategy, which is not disputed by the appellant. As set out above, I have found that the condition suggested by the appellant would not preclude occupation on a semi-permanent basis. Therefore, I cannot rule out that the development without any restrictions in terms of length or duration of stay would result in an independent dwelling being provided in the countryside.

The condition therefore serves a clear planning purpose relevant to the development it is also necessary to ensure that the development remains as visitor accommodation and does not make the lodges an established living arrangement, which accords with LP Policy ED7 and the Council’s spatial strategy. Moreover, the Framework supports sustainable tourism developments.

Thus, the condition meets the tests of paragraph 57 of the Framework, having regard to the effect upon local tourism and to the location of the site in the countryside. The proposal to remove the condition would therefore conflict with LP Policy ED7 and with the Council’s spatial strategy.

I have been provided with some decision notices pertaining to planning permissions granted for holiday let developments. However, these developments are located within other Boroughs, and I do not have full details of the circumstances that led to these proposals being accepted. Consequently, I cannot conclude that they represent a direct parallel to the appeal proposal, including in respect of development plan policy. Moreover, the examples supplied include conditions referring to the keeping of a register of guests using the holiday lets which is not the case with the scheme before me. Therefore, these examples are of limited relevance to the appeal before me.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.