Issue - meetings

Consideration of recommendations of the Area 1 Planning Committee in respect of an application for Permission in Principle for the development of between 5-7 residential dwellings as set out in Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended) located on Land at Tonbridge Road, Hildenborough.

The following documents are attached:

·         Report of Director of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services of 26 March 2026

·         Annex 1 – Report of Director of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services of 12 February 2026

·         Map

The associated legal advice, including an addendum report of the Director of Central Services and Deputy Chief Executive, is attached under Part 2 of the agenda.

Permission in Principle for the development of between 5-7 residential dwellings as set out in Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended) located on Land at Tonbridge Road, Hildenborough.

Permission in Principle for the development of between 5-7 residential dwellings as set out in Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended) located on Land at Tonbridge Road, Hildenborough.

Further to Minute AP1 26/10 of the meeting held on 12 February 2026, the Committee considered the above application with the report of the Director of Central Services and Monitoring Officer set out in Part 2 of the agenda (Minute AP1 26/19 refers).  Some Members continued to express significant concerns in respect of the potential impact of the proposed development on the open setting and the character of the Hildenborough Conservation Area as well as the designated heritage assets.

However, it was acknowledged that neither the Conservation Officer nor the Tree Officer had objected to the proposed development at this stage and that no expert evidence had been provided to demonstrate that the proposed reasons could be substantiated at any appeal.  Furthermore, the limited remit of Permission in Principle was clarified, confirming that issues such as drainage, water infrastructure, access detailing and tree impacts would be fully assessed only at the Technical Details Consent stage.

On the grounds of Members’ continued concerns regarding potential harm of the proposed development to the Conservation Area and the designated heritage asset, it was proposed by Councillor M Rhodes and seconded by Councillor K Barton that the application be refused, contrary to Officer’s recommendation, for the following reasons:

(1)          The principle of residential development at this location would result in a harmful erosion of the open setting of the Conservation Area, which contributes positively to its character.  The public benefits of 5 – 7 houses would not outweigh this harm and the proposal would also be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area, conflicting with policies CP24 of the TMBC Core Strategy, SQ1 of the Manging Development and the Environment Development Plan document, and paragraphs 210, 212, 213 and 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework; and

(2)          The principle of residential development at this location would result in conflict with footnote 7 policies relating to a designated heritage asset, and is therefore considered to be a strong reason for refusing development, due to the modest public benefits of 5 – 7 houses not outweighing the harm to the setting of the Conservation Area.  The development would therefore not meet the definition of Grey Belt and would not comply with paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  It would therefore be considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt in conflict with policies CP3 of the TMBC Core Strategy, and paragraphs 153 and 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Following a formal vote, the motion was carried with eight Members voting in favour and five Members voting against.  On the grounds that the above refusal reasons were not considered could be substantiated at an appeal and there was likely to be a risk of significant costs being incurred by the Council in defending any appeal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16

Permission in Principle for the development of between 5-7 residential dwellings as set out in Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended) located on Land at Tonbridge Road, Hildenborough.

Permission in Principle for the development of between 5-7 residential dwellings as set out in Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended) located on Land at Tonbridge Road, Hildenborough.

Due regard was given to the determining issues detailed in the report of the Director of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services, as well as points raised by the speaker.  Members expressed concerns regarding the location of the site falling within the Metropolitan Green Belt, while recognising there were unmet housing needs in the borough with regard to all types of development.

Members also noted that precise nature of the development would be assessed at the Technical Details Consent stage and that conditions could not be imposed on a grant of Permission in Principle, as the terms of such permission were limited to the site location, the type of development and the amount of development.

It was proposed by Councillor D King and seconded by Councillor M Rhodes that the application be refused, contrary to Officer’s recommendation, for the following reason:

(1)         by reason of the provision of five to seven dwellings, the proposed development would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt and result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt, and the benefits of the development would not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, contrary to Policies CP14 and CP3 of the Tonbridge and Malling Core Strategy 2007 and paragraphs 142 and 145 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Following a formal vote, the proposal was supported by majority of the Committee and on the grounds that the above refusal reason was not considered could be substantiated at an appeal, the vote taken was a recommendation only in accordance with Council and Committee Procedure Rule 15.24, Part 4 Rules of the Constitution.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the planning application be DEFERRED for a report from the Director of Central Services and Monitoring Officer on the risks arising from a decision contrary to the recommendation of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health* (as set out in Council and Committee Procedure Rule 15.24, Part 4 (Rules) of the Constitution).

[Speaker: Mr D Bedford (Agent on behalf of the Applicant) addressed the Committee in person.]

*The post title of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health was renamed to the Director of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services from 22 January 2026 and the relevant references within the Constitution were being updated accordingly.