Planning appeal decision
Land Adjoining Hazeldene, Pilgrims Way, Trottiscliffe, West Malling, ME19 5EW
Planning appeal 6007841 at Land Adjoining Hazeldene, Pilgrims Way, Trottiscliffe, West Malling, ME19 5EW (Tonbridge and Malling) was dismissed on 8 July 2026 by Inspector L Francis, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the site is a suitable location for housing with regard to whether the appeal site is grey belt land with particular reference to whether its location within the Kent Downs National Landscape would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting the proposed development.
development of site to provide 1no. infill dwelling
- Authority
- Tonbridge and Malling
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning
- Procedure
- Written
- Development
- residential
- Inspector
- L Francis
- Postcode
- ME19 5EW
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the site is a suitable location for housing with regard to whether the appeal site is grey belt land with particular reference to whether its location within the Kent Downs National Landscape would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting the proposed development
- whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies
- the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt
- whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the 'very special circumstances' required to justify the proposal
What decided it
The appeal site is not sustainably located within the meaning of Framework paragraph 155(c) because future occupants would be primarily dependent on car use to access everyday services and facilities, and the distance from public transport and the lack of pavements or street lighting would not make walking or cycling realistic options.
the substantial harm to the Green Belt arising from inappropriateness and loss of openness was not clearly outweighed by the limited socio-economic benefits and housing contribution of a single dwelling, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply because Green Belt protection provides a strong reason for refusal under Framework paragraph 11(d)(i)
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy CP3Policy CP7Policy SD3Policy SD8
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 85Paragraph 110Paragraph 115Paragraph 143Paragraph 153Paragraph 154Paragraph 155
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Tonbridge and Malling
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2026
- Dismissed18 June 20266004481Elpatos, Pilgrims Way, West Malling, ME19 5EP
- Dismissed24 March 20263374700Trench Farmhouse, Coldharbour Lane, Hildenborough, Tonbridge, TN11 9LE
- Dismissed3 March 20266002415The Lodge, 2 Yaldham Manor Drive, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN15 6FA
- Dismissed22 September 202533690315 Legge Lane, Birling, West Malling, Kent, ME19 5JH
- Dismissed6 August 20253365477Lea Croft Pilgrims Way, Wrotham, Sevenoaks, TN15 7NN
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®