Planning Applications
Moto Truckstop: 21/02648/OAEA
Current Situation, as of 10.02.26
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE LIEVEN distributed her Judgement on Friday, 30th January and it is available for download on this page.
The Judicial Review of the Planning Inspector’s Decision to reverse TMBC’s decision to refuse the proposal was launched by Wrotham Parish Council (WPC) and supported by TMBC in the High Court of Planning and by Parish Alliance Members. On Friday, 30th January, the Judge decided that the decision should stand and that the proposal had planning consent in outline form.
The Planning Inspector had been carefully selected by the Planning Inspectorate because she holds an honour award for Services to Road Transport and believes that hauliers get a rough deal.
Just before the Inquiry started, and with just days to go, the government introduced the new concept of the Grey Belt, which removes all Green Belt protections. The Inspector justified her decision to consent to the proposal on Grey Belt grounds. The Grey Belt definition was qualified by a reference to the National Landscape and Heritage protections.
WPC and TMBC alleged that the Inspector had misinterpreted that aspect of protection, and that the definition’s wording appeared to support this assertion. Indeed, Moto’s barrister agreed with much of our case. So much so that the Judge stated the following:
“The fact that all the parties at the Inquiry adopted the Claimant’s interpretation is, with the benefit of hindsight, somewhat surprising. However, as a point of legal principle, it is irrelevant. The interpretation of planning policy is a matter for the Court and is not capable of being agreed between the parties.”
She basically said that all four barristers have misinterpreted the Grey Belt definition to some degree, but it doesn’t matter because what I say goes. She then agreed with the Inspector, and Moto remained consented.
A further point is that the Government has issued a new version of the planning guidance (NPPF) and has removed all references to National Landscape in the Grey Belt definition. Clearly, they recognised that the policy had been badly drafted.
It is clear to me that the current government is hell-bent on development growth at any cost, and certainly in the Green Belt. A Pro Lorry Planning Inspector was found, as well as an unsympathetic Judge. The permission is ‘outline’, so a detailed scheme will need consent before building out.
As a community, we have fought the Truckstop every step of the way, but the government is all-powerful and determined. We did our best as ‘David’, but ‘Goliath’ won.
Pete Gillin
WPC Chairman
Current Situation, as of 10.12.25
I spent Tuesday, 9th December in the Planning Court before Justice Lieven where barristers representing Wrotham Parish Council (WPC) stated our case that the Inspector representing the Secretary of State (SoS) had erred in law in consenting the 197 HGV Moto Truckstop in Wrotham Heath.
The SoS had 2 barristers defending their position and Moto had a 3rd. In addition, TMBC had their barrister supporting WPC’s position. So in total 5 barristers, 2 of them being King’s Counsel, all discussing the Moto Planning Consent.
At the end of the day and after much discussion of all aspects, Justice Lieven has taken comprehensive notes and will consider the case after the Christmas period and issue her judgment in January 2026.
We will inform all parties once we are notified of the outcome.
Cllr Pete Gillin
Chairman, WPC
Current Situation, as of 24.11.25
The Barrister acting for WPC has recently filed our skeleton case which outlines in detail the two grounds on which we contend that the Inspector erred in law. This will be presented to the Royal Court of Justice on the 9th December and Moto and the Planning Inspectorate will be represented by two KC Barristers who will disagree and defend the status quo. Tonbridge and Malling are also sending their Barrister who agrees with the WPC Ground 1 and did not consider Ground 2.
Read WPC’s, TMBC’s, Moto’s and the Secretary of State’s (SoS) Skeleton Arguments – Downloads at bottom of page.
Current Situation, as of 26.08.25
Wrotham Parish Council v Secretary of State for Housing & Communities
The Substantive Hearing in the above case has been listed on 9th and 10th December 2025 with a time estimate of 1½ Days. The time of the hearing will be published in the Cause List the day before the hearing (available on line from 2.30pm that day). Daily Cause List: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-rcj
The hearing will take place in person at the Royal Courts of Justice in accordance with the ordinary practice in the Administrative Court, King’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, WC2A 2LL Phone 020 7947 6655
Note: this is a legal intervention and not a planning appeal. It is determined by a Judge as to whether the Planning Inspector erred in law in consenting the Lorry Park. As such there is no opportunity for the public to comment. Currently we do not have a date for when the Judge will publish their ruling.
Tonbridge and Malling BC are supporting WPC and sending their own barrister as an ‘Interested Party’.
Current Situation, as of 23.04.25
WPC initiated the legal intervention that questioned the lawfulness of the Inspectors decision to reverse the planning refusal at appeal. There was a ‘Pre-Application Protocol’ letter from WPC.
A ‘Statement of Facts and Grounds’ from WPC
Both of these were contested by Moto as an ‘interested party’.
There is now a ‘Summary of Grounds of Resistance’, on behalf of the Secretary of State (SoS)
WPC has now been joined by TMBC as an interested party in opposing the planning grant.
PINS and MOTO have both appointed KC barristers and replied to our ‘Facts and Grounds Statement’ so, it will end up in Court eventually. Interestingly, PINS KC takes the view that it is correct for Inspectors to consider the type of development when considering the Greybelt definition. By extrapolation architects could design Greybelt development and cut out the planners, clearly perverse. Moto KC says the Inspector did misunderstand the Grey belt definition, but got the decision correct so it doesn’t matter. (That reduces 4 pages of legal arguments down to one line) The fact that 2 KC Barristers cannot agree, makes the WPC statement that the Inspector misunderstood the Greybelt definition and as a result erred in law, seem more sustainable.
We await further information of the forthcoming process.
Section 288 Legal Intervention
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE – KING’S BENCH DIVISION, ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, PLANNING COURT – AC-2025-LON-000898
KING’S BENCH DIVISION, ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, PLANNING COURT
IN THE MATTER OF A STATUTORY REVIEW UNDER SECTION 288 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
BETWEEN:
WROTHAM PARISH COUNCIL – Claimant
– and –
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOUSING,
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Defendant
– and –
- MOTO HOSPITALITY LTD
- TONBRIDGE AND MALLING BOROUGH COUNCIL Interested Parties
Some background information by Cllr Pete Gillin
The Inspector determined that the 24-hour illuminated Truckstop beneath the Golden Nob English Heritage Viewing Point would not cause damage to the views from the National Landscape. To me that is somewhat perverse. However, we cannot question that decision as that was a ‘planning judgement’ one that the planning inspector is entitled to make. At this stage all we can question is whether in making her judgement, she has erred in law. In that light we must now consider her judgement re Judicial Review.
Ground 1 – Misinterpretation of NPPF Grey Belt Test
WPC contends that the Inspector should have asked if development in general, adjacent to the National Landscape and beneath an English Heritage viewing point, would be harmful to views from the Golden Nob. Instead, she determined that the Moto development in particular would not be harmful. Although, she conceded there were localised harm to the NL She made the Greybelt decision development specific, rather than land specific as it should be. This is a miss-interpretation of the Greybelt definition in the NPPF Glossary. Consequently, we contend that harm to the National Landscape policy assessment should have resulted in the site remaining Greenbelt and the proposal becoming inappropriate development in planning terms.
Ground 2 – Character and Appearance- The Inspectors Failure to Consider Lighting Columns.
The Inspector did not consider the impact of the very high lighting columns themselves, only the harm from light spillage. The Condition she seeks to impose does not restrict the height, footprint or other physical features of the columns.
Had the Inspector not erred, the outcome may well have been different. The impact on the character and appearance of the area was a key issue in the appeal, not just in its own right but also because of the duty under the newly amended CROW Act 2000. The Act now requires relevant authorities to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Landscape. Given the Inspector’s finding that the proposal would not “fully accord” with this important duty, and that such a consideration attracted “great weight” in the planning balance, then finding additional landscape harm, the physical lighting columns themselves, may well have altered her decision.
Ground 3 – Flawed Interpretation of Department of Transport Circular 01/2022, a circular that defines the size and nature of Truckstops.
The extent of the need for the proposal was a central issue at the appeal. The Inspector stated in her Report as follows.
“The fuel station would be an essential part of the proposal and a mandatory requirement to comply with the Circular… I am therefore satisfied that the proposal is of the appropriate type to address the identified need for facilities on this part of the motorway network in Kent”.
The ‘mandatory requirement’ statement by the Inspector is manifestly wrong, the fuel station is not mandatory, nor is the overall size of the Truckstop.
Appeal Decision Hearing held on 9 and 10 January 2025.
Decision date – 13th February 2025 – Site visits made on 17 December 2024 and 14 January 2025 by S M Holden BSc (Hons) MSc CEng
Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission (all matters reserved except access) is granted for construction of a secure 24-hour truck stop facility for up to 197 HGVs incorporating fuel station; amenity building of up to 1100 sqm; creation of a new access to A20 via roundabout; landscaping and other associated works
https://wrotham-pc.gov.uk/moto-update/
23/00681/OAEA
Refused – 23 Feb 2024 – Then appealed at Planning Hearing – APP/H2265/W/24/3347410
21/02648/OAEA – Land Part Of Wrotham Water Farm Off London Road
Refused – 05 Apr 2022 – Outline Application: Construction of a secure 24-hour truck stop facility for up to 200 HGVs incorporating fuel station; amenity building of up to 1100 sqm; creation of new access to A20 via roundabout; landscaping, and other associated works.
