Land west of 103 Tonbridge Road, Hildenborough (PIP, 5 to 7 homes): appeal 6010459 allowed

Decision: allowed, 29 September 2026
Decided by: Planning Inspector: C Shearing
Authority: Tonbridge and Malling (South East)
Appeal reference: 6010459
Application reference: 25/01693/PIP
Procedure: written representations
Development: Permission in principle for between 5 and 7 dwellings on Green Belt land partly within the Hildenborough Conservation Area
Homes: 7
Site context: green belt, settlement edge, conservation area, listed building setting, TPO
Green Belt: Yes (grey belt accepted)
Housing land supply: 2.89 years
Framework applied: August 2026 NPPF
Determinative policies: GB7(1)(g), HE6(4), S5(5), HO7
Development plan policies: Tonbridge and Malling Core Strategy 2007 CP3, CP12, CP14, CP24, Managing Development and the Environment DPD 2010 SQ1
Main issues: heritage (Hildenborough Conservation Area); whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt

Summary

Permission in principle for 5 to 7 homes on Green Belt land at the edge of Hildenborough, partly inside the conservation area, was allowed. The access would break a protected hedgerow that defines the conservation area's edge, causing harm at the lower end of the scale. The inspector ran HE6(4) first and found the homes and economic benefits outweighed that harm. The site was grey belt, GB7(1)(g) was met (with the Golden Rules assumed to be deliverable at the next stage), and the S5(5) balance favoured approval.

Issues and findings

Transition. "Both main parties have been given the opportunity to comment on its implications and I have taken the responses received into account" (DL ¶6).
Conservation area: HARM, lower end. The access "would necessitate a break in the vegetated boundary, diluting its consistent nature and weakening its contribution to the significance of the HCA" (DL ¶11). "This would be at the lower end of the scale of harm" (DL ¶18).
HE6(1) and HE6(3) stated. "the Framework requires that substantial weight be given to the asset's conservation irrespective of the level of harm and any harm is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶18).
HE6(4): PASS. "In giving substantial weight to the proposed new housing, whether that be 5 or 7 homes, together with the economic benefits of the development to which I give moderate weight, I find these outweigh the harm which would arise to the HCA" (DL ¶19).
Plan weight, SQ1. "Given this material inconsistency, and having regard to Annex A of the Framework, I give only limited weight to the conflict with policy SQ1" (DL ¶14).
Grey belt: PASS. "this is because the site does not adjoin a large built up area, form a substantial part of a gap between towns, or relate to a historic town" (DL ¶20).
GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS. "it is in a sustainable location being very close to services and facilities in Hildenborough as well as bus links providing onward public transport links" (DL ¶20).
Golden Rules: assumed. "Despite the absence of evidence on this matter, I see no strong reason that the required contributions could not reasonably be delivered by the scheme" (DL ¶21). "For the purposes of the green belt assessment at this stage I have therefore assumed they are capable of being met before full planning permission were granted" (DL ¶21).
Spatial strategy, CP12 and CP14. "Neither is that strategy delivering a sufficient supply of homes in accordance with the other aims of the Framework. For these reasons I give the conflict with those policies limited weight" (DL ¶23).

Planning balance

HE6(4) first: public benefits outweigh low-level harm (DL ¶19). Then S5(5), applying S5(2): no "should be refused" policy fails, and "Overall the benefits would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶29). The presumption is "a consideration of sufficient weight to determine the appeal other than in accordance with the development plan" (DL ¶29).

What made the difference

Three things. The heritage harm was confined to one break in a hedgerow that already has other breaks nearby, so it sat at the bottom of the scale. A supply of 2.89 years gave a handful of homes substantial weight. And the permission-in-principle stage let the inspector assume the Golden Rules contributions could be secured later, without evidence. On a full application the GB8 contributions and the access detail would have had to be shown.

Transferable points

Low-level harm to a conservation area can be outweighed under HE6(4) by 5 to 7 homes where the supply shortfall is significant (2.89 years) (DL ¶18-19).
The s66(1) and s72(1) duties apply to a permission in principle (DL ¶8).
A sub-10 home scheme on a site over 0.5 ha is major development under Annex B, so GB7(1)(g)(iv) and the Golden Rules apply (DL ¶21).
At permission-in-principle stage GB8 compliance was assumed, because obligations cannot be secured until technical details consent (DL ¶21).
A heritage or design plan policy with no balancing exercise is materially inconsistent with the Framework, but here got limited, not very limited, weight (DL ¶14).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Policy	Finding	Weight	Note
HE6(3)	harm	considerable	harm to the Hildenborough Conservation Area "at the lower end of the scale of harm"; the access would break the uninterrupted, TPO-protected hedgerow on the southern side of Tonbridge Road (DL 10-11, 13, 18)
HE6(1)	harm	substantial	substantial weight to the asset's conservation "irrespective of the level of harm" (DL 18)
HE6(4)	pass		5 to 7 homes (substantial weight) and economic benefits (moderate weight) outweigh the harm; balance run separately, before the Green Belt and S5(5) steps (DL 19)
HE9	harm		mapped: HE9 not cited; northern part of the site is in the conservation area; s72(1) and s66(1) duties applied to a permission in principle (DL 8)
HE7	neutral		mapped: HE7 not cited; no harm to the non-designated Foxbush Historic Park and Garden or other non-designated assets; no harm to the settings of Grade II Pembroke Lodge and Woodside Cottage (DL 15-17)
AnnexB:grey-belt	pass		does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d); site does not adjoin a large built-up area, form a substantial part of a gap between towns, or relate to a historic town; Arup Green Belt Assessment does not alter this (DL 20)
GB7(1)(g)(i)	pass		would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area (DL 20)
GB7(1)(g)(ii)	pass		evidenced unmet need; 2.89 years supply (officer report) and HDT "well below 75%" (appellant) (DL 19-20)
GB7(1)(g)(iii)	pass		passed in one sentence as "very close to services and facilities in Hildenborough as well as bus links"; no distances, route or frequencies given; TR3 not cited (DL 20)
GB7(1)(g)(iv)	pass		site exceeds 0.5 ha so is major development under Annex B; no evidence on the Golden Rules, but obligations cannot be secured at PIP stage, so GB8 contributions assumed capable of being met at technical details stage (DL 21)
GB8	pass		assumed, not evidenced or secured; deferred to the technical details consent stage (DL 21)
S5(5)	pass		not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed, applying S5(2); benefits not substantially outweighed (DL 28-29)
S5(2)	not-engaged		no failure of a national policy that says proposals should be refused (DL 29)
HO7	benefit	substantial	substantial weight "whether that be 5 or 7 homes", given acknowledged unmet need (DL 19, 29)
E2	benefit	moderate	mapped: E2 not cited; construction and occupier spending (DL 19, 29)
Transitional(2)	conflict	limited	SQ1 (local distinctiveness) not consistent with the Framework because it has no balancing exercise; CP12 and CP14 (development within rural settlement confines) inconsistent with the Framework and not delivering enough homes; conflict with each given limited weight, citing Annex A (DL 14, 23)

Key facts

Site is on the southern side of Tonbridge Road; its northern part is in the Hildenborough Conservation Area; the frontage hedgerow and trees are covered by TPO Hildenborough No.4 1981 (DL 8, 10)
Development would rely on a new access through the hedgerow; access details are for the technical details stage (DL 11)
Supply 2.89 years (officer report); the appellant cites a Housing Delivery Test score well below 75%, figure not stated (DL 19)
Application form gives a site area over 0.5 ha, so 5 to 7 homes count as major development under Annex B even though not major under the PIP regulations (DL 21)
No conditions or obligations can attach to a permission in principle; infrastructure contributions deferred (DL 26-27)
Costs application by the appellant against the Council is the subject of a separate decision; outcome not stated in this letter (DL 2)
Wildlife and highway safety deferred to the technical details stage; no substantive evidence of significant movements or a severe transport impact (DL 24)

Sources

Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.