Coblands Nursery, Trench Road, Tonbridge

Decision

approved, 19 August 2026

Decided by

Council planning committee: Tonbridge and Malling Planning Committee (10 for, 1 against, 2 abstentions)

Authority

Tonbridge and Malling (South East)

Application reference

TM/25/01976/PA

Procedure

committee

Development

Outline (EIA), up to 350 dwellings (50% affordable), two accesses, open space, school parking, pedestrian/cycle link to sports ground

Homes

350

Site context

green belt, settlement edge, PDL

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt accepted)

Housing land supply

2.96 years

Housing Delivery Test

63%

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB7(1)(g), GB8, TR3, TR6

Development plan policies

TMBC Core Strategy 2007, emerging Local Plan Green Belt Assessment (TO-11, TO-13 'Provisional Grey Belt')

Main issues

grey belt; PDL openness; sustainable location; Golden Rules; highways capacity

Summary

350 homes (50% affordable) on a closed commercial plant nursery on the edge of Tonbridge, in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The site is mostly PDL, but the quantum would cause substantial harm to openness, so GB7(1)(e) failed. Officers instead found it grey belt and passed all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, with the Golden Rules met. The committee approved 10-1-2 two days after the new Framework took effect, on a supplementary report whose 2024→2026 comparison table was drafted by the applicant and endorsed by officers.

Issues and findings

• PDL limb (e): FAIL. "Whilst the majority of the site would be considered to constitute PDL, the extant and quantum of development proposed would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (Supplementary table, GB7 row).
• Grey belt: PASS. The Council's Green Belt Assessment puts both sub-areas as "Provisional Grey Belt" (Report ¶8.29). On purpose (a), officers adopted a recent appeal finding that in Tonbridge and Malling "London is the most relevant large built-up area and consequently the site does not contribute strongly to purpose (a)" (Report ¶8.30, citing APP/H2265/W/24/3347410). They also noted physical containment on three sides.
• Sustainable location: PASS. "the town centre is approximately 2km from the proposal site [but] there is a parade of shops … a Sainsbury's Local … Trenchwood Medical Centre … primary schools … within walking distance" (Report ¶8.65). Buses 218/219 run "twice an hour and operate every day of the week" to the town centre and station (¶8.66). KCC: "The surrounding highway has existing, lit, footway/cycleway" (¶5.125).
• Golden Rules: PASS. "Substantial weight should be given to the proposal's compliance with the Golden Rules as per GB8, part 2" (Supplementary).
• Highways. Members were "significantly concerned" about congestion, but the independent consultant found no severe impact. A monitoring condition sets trigger points (Minutes PL 26/52).
• S5 muddle. The supplementary table also says S5(1)(d) and (j) are satisfied. S5(5) disapplies S5 in the Green Belt, except as the balance once a scheme is not inappropriate. The error did not affect the outcome.

Planning balance

Not inappropriate, so the balance is the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" test. The supplementary report says: "It has been demonstrated that the benefits of the development would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects".

What made the difference

Treating London, rather than Tonbridge, as the relevant "large built-up area" removes purpose (a) from most outer-Metropolitan Green Belt edge sites. With the Council's own Green Belt Assessment labelling the land provisional grey belt, a 2.96-year supply and HDT at 63%, the remaining questions were technical. Members' infrastructure concerns could only be met by conditions.

Transferable points

• The large built-up area for purpose (a) can be read as London in outer Metropolitan Green Belt districts. Officers adopted this from the Wrotham appeal (Report ¶8.30). It is a strong argument for developers and one objectors should address head-on.
• A site on a town edge with a local parade, medical centre and schools within walking distance, and a bus twice an hour, passes GB7(1)(g)(iii) even with the town centre 2 km away (¶8.65–8.66).
• Watch for applicant-drafted comparison tables in supplementary reports. This one misapplied S5 to a Green Belt site.

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Former commercial plant nursery, ceased Dec 2025
• Supplementary report's NPPF 2024→2026 comparison table "provided by the applicant and has been checked by officers who agree with the conclusions"
• Supply 2.96 years (31 Mar 2026), HDT 63%
• Members' concerns were traffic on Trench Road, water supply, foul drainage — dealt with by Grampian condition and monitoring

Sources

• democracy.tmbc.gov.uk
• democracy.tmbc.gov.uk
• democracy.tmbc.gov.uk
• democracy.tmbc.gov.uk

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.