TONBRIDGE AND MALLING BOROUGH COUNCIL

LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION

MATTER 1 : PROCEDURAL AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF TRENPORT INVESTMENTS LTD

Regulation 19 representor number : 00002948L

Page | 1

Introduction and Background

1. This statement to the Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan Examination has been prepared on behalf of Trenport Investments Limited (“Trenport”).

2. Trenport are a development company with a portfolio of sites in the residential and commercial sectors throughout the UK. Trenport have a history of close collaboration with the Council, having delivered two strategic sites in their area (Holborough Valley and Peters Village) accommodating over 2000 new homes in total.

3. Trenport own all of the land allocated in Policy LP27 of the draft Local Plan at Bushey Wood Phase 1 for development during this plan period amounting to approximately 900 units by 2031. Trenport also own part of the remaining “Area of Opportunity” identified in LP27 as having potential for a further 614 units beyond the plan period.

4. As at Peters Village, Trenport will act as ‘master developer’ at Bushey Wood, securing outline planning permission, implementing all necessary strategic infrastructure and disposing of serviced parcels to housebuilders.

5. Bushey Wood is the final strategic development within the Medway Valley within Tonbridge and Malling and forms part of a long term plan for development that has featured in successive Local Plans since the early 1990s. Trenport have been the promotor and master developer of all of these sites since their acquisition of a large portfolio of land in the Medway Valley from Blue Circle in 2000.

6. Trenport also own the land allocated at Bell Lane, Burham, identified in Policy LP25 of the Local Plan as allocation “j”.

7. In general, Trenport consider the Local Plan to be sound and believe that progressing the Local Plan to adoption is crucial to delivering future housing within the Borough in a properly planned manner and in the most sustainable locations.

8. Trenport have made representations at all stages of the preparation of the Local Plan including at Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 stages, as well as the post submission consultation held by the Council in December 2019.

Page | 2

Main Issue Whether the Council has complied with the Duty to Cooperate and other relevant legal and procedural requirements.

Duty to Co-operate and Plan Preparation

4. Are there any cross-boundary issues in relation to any of the proposed site allocations and any general policies and if so, how have they been dealt with through the Duty to Cooperate?

1. Trenport have raised no objection to the plan with regard to the Duty to Cooperate and legal compliance. Given Trenport’s detailed involvement in the plan making process we consider that the Council has pro-actively discussed strategic matters with adjoining authorities.

2. In terms of cross-boundary issues, the strategic site of Bushey Wood, allocated in Policy LP27, is located in the Medway Valley in the northern part of the Borough. Most of the east bank of the river is within Tonbridge and Malling, whereas the western side of the valley is partly within Tonbridge and Malling and partly in the administrative area of the adjoining authority of Medway Council. Medway Council is a unitary authority.

3. The boundary between the two authorities is in close proximity to Peters Bridge which provides access from the A228 on the west bank via the east bank road network to Bushey Wood. The roundabout on the west bank at the junction of Peters Bridge and the A228 is within Medway, as is the land north of this, with the river providing the boundary between the two authorities.

4. Throughout the various phases of development in the Medway Valley within Tonbridge and Malling over many years, there has been on-going cooperation with Medway Council. Indeed, Peters Bridge, an infrastructure proposal that was crucial to delivering development on the East Bank of the Medway (including Peters Village and the longer term plan for Bushey Wood) was subject to supportive planning policies in both the Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan (1998) and the Medway Local Plan (2003) given its location on the boundary between the two authorities. The subsequent planning application for the bridge was a cross-boundary application made to and approved by both authorities in 2005/2006. The development of Peters Village itself, whilst within Tonbridge and Malling, was also the subject of detailed discussions with Medway Council who raised no objection to the application. Moreover, when it came to delivery,

Page | 3

Medway Council resolved to use their Compulsory Purchase powers to assist Trenport in obtaining the necessary rights to cross third party land to construct the bridge, albeit in the event, exercising these powers was not necessary.

5. Accordingly, both Trenport and TMBC have consulted Medway Council as necessary over many years to ensure cross-boundary consideration of the development proposals for the Medway Valley and to ensure that potential changes in highway conditions within Medway as a result of strategic developments on the east bank have been fully considered .

6. It is noted that in their response at Regulation 19 stage, Medway Council commented that “The further development around Bushey Wood, Eccles is likely to generate additional traffic using the recently constructed bridge over the Medway, and with that the A228. We cannot identify specific evidence that shows how the potential impacts of strategic development in this location on the wider area have been considered.” The Strategic Transport Assessment for Bushey Wood that has been prepared in close collaboration with Kent County has also taken into account the junction of Peters Bridge with the A228 (in Medway) and no capacity issues arise. Similarly there will be no detriment to any junction northbound on the A228 from this junction. Further detail in this regard can be discussed if necessary at the site specific hearings into Bushey Wood.

Sustainability Appraisal

6. Are the likely environmental, social and economic effects of the Local Plan adequately and accurately assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal (SA)?

7. Does the SA work assess reasonable alternative spatial strategy options, levels of housing and employment need and options relating to other policies in the Local Plan?

8. Is the Local Plan the most sustainable strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives?

7. To some degree, the extent to which the Sustainability Appraisal is ‘fit for purpose’ in guiding the Local Plan strategy is inter-related with the suitability of the spatial strategy and the Settlement Hierarchy which will be considered under Matter 2.

Page | 4

8. We consider that the likely environmental, social and economic effects of the Local Plan are adequately assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal and that various strategy options were considered and the preferred option identified in a transparent manner.

9. The identification and appraisal of the various spatial strategy options, including the identification of the preferred option, are explained in the Interim Sustainability Appraisal Report (September 2016), Sustainability Appraisal Environmental Report (September 2018), and the SA Report Addendum (April 2019).

10. The guiding principles set out in the Regulation 18 plan have been consistently applied in order to make decisions about the development of land beyond that identified as a Building Block, Safeguarded Land or an Area of Opportunity at that time. It is noted that for each of the options considered in the SA, the land at Bushey Wood is a constant. The justification for this is the identification of the Bushey Wood site early in the plan-making process as a Building Block, given its inclusion in the current Core Strategy as an Area of Opportunity (effectively safeguarded land). Indeed, the Core Strategy (Policy CP16) identified the land as appropriate for development post 2021 or earlier if the there was a significant short-fall in strategic housing provision. We consider this to be a reasonable approach to the SA and do not consider, for example, that an option that excluded Bushey Wood in an option would have been ‘reasonable’ given its current status.

10. Have the Council complied with the requirement of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 with regards to Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)?

11. Has the assessment taken account of the EU Court of Justice Judgement (People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (Case C-323/17) 12 April 2018) and the updated PPG? Have any concerns been raised about the HRA and are there any outstanding concerns from Natural England?

11. Trenport’s particular interest in the HRA is to ensure that the impact of the development at Bushey Wood has been properly assessed in relation to impacts at SPAs and SACs in the Borough. Trenport’s ecological consultants, Bioscan UK, have undertaken a thorough review of the HRA. This review was submitted as part of our representations to the post Regulation 19 consultation. In essence, we consider that the conclusions of the HRA with respect to the impact of Bushey Wood on SACs and SPAs in the area are robust and demonstrate no Likely Significant Effect (LSE).

Page | 5

12. The closest SAC to Bushey Wood is Peters Pit SAC (also owned by Trenport and managed on their behalf by Kent Wildlife Trust). We support the Stage 1 screening conclusions reached regarding the absence of potential for the Bushey Wood strategic site to give rise to LSE on this designation via direct or indirect effects other than in respect of in-combination effects from air quality and recreational pressure.

13. In respect of air quality, we agree with the overarching conclusion from the Air Quality Stage 2 appropriate assessment appended to the HRA that the predicted levels of airborne nitrogen deposition of all the strategic sites acting in-combination will only marginally retard the background improvements anticipated to arise over the Plan period. Taken together with the extremely limited scope for traffic-generated airborne NOx to affect the qualifying interest feature of this SAC anyway (great crested newts), we agree with the assessment that there would not be any perceptible impact upon the Peters Pit SAC.

14. We also agree with the conclusion that the Peters Pit SAC is unlikely to be favoured for recreational use by the future residents of the Bushey Wood strategic site. The Peters Village SAC (owned by Trenport) is largely fenced with no public access and is managed for its nature conservation importance by Kent Wildlife Trust. Whilst there is a public footpath through the Peters Village SAC the use of this is unlikely to materially change , in large part due to the more proximal availability of alternative recreational options accessible from the PROW network around Bushey Wood. These will offer more or less the same (and arguably an enhanced) recreational experience at locations more on the doorstep of the new residents. The existing network of PROWs in the vicinity of Eccles/Bushey Wood is extensive, as can be seen from the KCC Definitive Map is shown below in Figure 1.

Page | 6

Figure 1 : PROWs in the vicinity of Eccles/Bushey Wood Strategic Site

15. Moreover, Peters Pit SAC lies immediately adjoining the new development of Peters Village and there is no evidence of recreational pressures effecting the SAC given it is largely inaccessible to the public.

16. Since no mitigation is required to protect the integrity of any relevant sites, the principles in relation to the People Over Wind case are not engaged.

Page | 7