Swale council's campaign to clear travellers from a Hartlip field has been boosted by a High Court ruling.

The council has for years objected to the field, off Spade Lane, being used as a travellers' encampment, first refusing planning permission in 2013.

But, in December 2017, a government planning inspector said there was a "substantial shortfall" in authorised traveller sites in the area.

He granted a temporary, three-year, planning permission for eight traveller pitches, caravans and an access road to remain on the site.

The council is now challenging the ruling, insisting that it fully complies with government policy on provision of traveller sites.

It claims there is in fact an "over-supply" of traveller accommodation in the area and the inspector's finding was "unjustified".

This week the council leapt the first legal hurdle in its its bid to overturn the inspector's decision.

Opening the way for the authority to mount a full High Court hearing, judge Mark Ockelton said it was "arguable" the inspector got it wrong.

In his decision, the inspector considered the harm the encampment might cause to the character of the area.

Travellers living on the site were said to run contrary to local planning policies and would lead to the loss of valuable agricultural land.

By moving onto the site without planning permission, the travellers were said to have "intentionally promoted an unauthorised development."

But what tipped the balance was the inspector's finding of a shortfall of authorised sites suitable for genuinely nomadic travellers in the area.

He said there was "considerable doubt" about whether the authorised site at Brotherhood Woodyard meets the needs of those who live a nomadic lifestyle.

That site was currently "dominated by static caravans" with no room for touring caravans, he said.

If moved on, travellers living off Spade Lane, including a number of children, would face homelessness.

And, granting the three-year permission, the inspector said the children in particular needed a settled base.

Challenging the decision, the council argued it "more than met" government targets for a five-year supply of authorised traveller sites.

Ruling on the case, Judge Ockelton could find no fault in the inspector's conclusions relating to the Brotherhood Woodyard site.

But it was arguable that the inspector "erred" in finding that, when that site was left out of account, there was a shortfall in the five-year supply.

The council's challenge to the inspector's ruling will now proceed to a full High Court hearing, on a date that has yet to be fixed.