Parish council fails in legal challenge to truck stop permission amid dispute over ‘grey belt’ definition

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council refused the original application by Moto Hospitality, which then appealed to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The appointed inspector allowed the application and Wrotham Parish Council appealed in a case heard by Mrs Justice Lieven.

Moto planned in addition a filling station, amenity building and a new access route to the A20.

The parish council argued that the inspector misinterpreted the definition of grey belt in the December 2024 version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) by treating it as requiring consideration of whether ‘Footnote 7’ policies provided a strong reason for refusing or restricting the specific development, and not development generally on the site.

Footnote 7 states the policies in the NPPF concerned with environmental designations of various kinds.

Wrotham further argued that the inspector erred in multiple respects in her treatment of Government Circular 01/2022 on the Strategic Road Network and the delivery of sustainable development.

The court heard the site is undeveloped land within the Green Belt, near to the Kent Downs National Landscape. The southern boundary partly abuts a slip road to the M26.

Tonbridge & Malling refused the original application on the basis of inappropriate Green Belt development, impact on the area’s appearance and harm to the downs landscape.

The inspector had concluded that some harmful effects on the downs could not be avoided, but these could be mitigated, that there would be less than substantial harm to heritage assets and the truck stop would provide important public benefits supporting the freight and logistics industrial sector.

These benefits were found to carry very substantial and significant weight, outweighing the cumulative harms to the downs, heritage assets and local area.

Wrotham submitted that the Grey Belt definition focuses on the land and not on the particular development applied for.

It said there was no distinction drawn in that definition between the planning policy stage and the development control stage, and it therefore followed the same approach should be taken at both stages, to consider the impact of development generally.

Lieven J said: “In my view the inspector was correct to apply the footnote 7 test to the development that was the subject of the application and not to all development, or any hypothetical development.”

She continued: “Firstly, the claimant takes a highly linguistic analysis, which essentially turns on the fact that the word ‘the' is not included at the end of the Grey Belt definition.

“The caselaw is clear that although the interpretation of policy is a matter for the court, it should not be interpreted as if it were a statute or a contract.”

Lieven J continued: “It would in my view be an odd and difficult exercise for a development control decision-maker to be trying to assess the impact of hypothetical developments on footnote 7 policies.

“For development control purposes the acceptability or otherwise of that impact will fundamentally turn on the impact of the development applied for. This is particularly clear with heritage and habitats impacts, where some developments might have minimal impact, while others provide a strong reason for refusal.”

Turning to the policy purpose of the Grey Belt, Lieven J noted this was to allow the release of less important Green Belt land where there is no strong reason for refusal by reference to Footnote 7.

“It is obviously intended to lead to the release of some additional Green Belt land to meet development needs,”she said.

Lieven J said the inspector interpreted the policy properly and was correct to assess the Footnote 7 impacts against the development applied for, and not development in general.

She also dismissed a second ground which argued the inspector misdirected herself on the need for the proposal, and whether the fuel station was necessary.

The fuel station was a mandatory requirement under a Department for Transport circular dealing with the distance between such facilities on the strategic roads network there was no requirement on the inspector to consider the need for each element of the proposal separately.

“Her reasons are both clear and wholly rational,” the judge said. "She concluded that the fuel station would avoid the situation of lorries stopping at the facility but then having to enter a different facility in order to refuel. That would create both on-site conflict with smaller vehicles at the other sites, and additional unnecessary vehicle movements on the [network].

“This was a conclusion that was open to the inspector as a matter of planning judgement,” Lieven J concluded.

Mark Smulian