Tonbridge & Malling Borough Local Plan Examination

Matter 3 – The Metropolitan Green Belt (Policy LP3)

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council (TMBC) Response

In answering these questions, and in developing its strategy in respect of alterations to the Green Belt boundaries, the Council has been mindful of the principles which have been established concerning the test of “exceptional circumstances” in NPPF 2012, paragraph 83. It has had regard to a number of legal judgments in which these principles have been explained, including:

• Keep Bourne End Green v Buckinghamshire Council (formerly Wycombe District Council) [2020] EWHC 1984 [Keep Bourne End Green]

• Compton Parish Council & Others v Guildford Borough Council & others [2019] EWHC 3242: [Compton]

• Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council [2015] EWHC 1078: [Calverton]

• IM Properties Development Ltd v Lichfield DC [2014] EWHC 2440: [IM Properties].

In Keep Bourne End Green the Court helpfully distilled the relevant principles which had been established in the earlier cases as follows (para 146):

i. There is no definition of the policy concept of "exceptional circumstances". The expression is deliberately broad and not susceptible to dictionary definition. The matter is left to the judgment of the decision-maker in all the circumstances of the case;

ii. Whether a factor is capable of being an exceptional circumstance may be a matter of law, as an issue of legal relevance. But whether it amounts to such a circumstance in any given case is a matter of planning judgment;

iii. But the suggestion that a factor is legally incapable of amounting to an exceptional circumstance will generally require caution and judicial restraint. The breadth of the

1 phrase and the array of circumstances which may qualify as "exceptional" indicate that judicial emphasis is very much more on the rationality of the judgment made by the decision-maker than on seeking to define what can or cannot amount to "exceptional circumstances";

iv. "Exceptional circumstances" is a less demanding test than the "very special circumstances" test (as explained in paragraphs 87-88 of NPPF 2012 and now paragraphs 143-144 of NPPF 2019) used in development control in the green belt;

v. There is no requirement that green belt land may only be released as a last resort,

vi. There is no requirement to show that the assumptions upon which a green belt boundary was originally drawn up have been falsified by subsequent events; vii. Exceptional circumstances may comprise one factor or a combination of factors of varying natures; viii. General planning needs, for example general housing, are not excluded from amounting to exceptional circumstances. The need does not have to relate to a special form of housing or to a particular level of intensity.

Furthermore, the Council recognises that there is not a prescribed set of exceptional circumstance factors that need to be demonstrated for making alterations. The factors that make up, in combination, exceptional circumstances may vary in number and nature from location to location, as made clear in Compton (paragraphs 71 and 74):

“This phrase [“exceptional circumstances”] does not require at least more than one individual “exceptional circumstance”. The “exceptional circumstances” can be found in the accumulation or combination of circumstances, of varying natures, which entitle the decision-maker, in the rational exercise of a planning judgment, to say that the circumstances are sufficiently exceptional to warrant altering the Green Belt boundary.” [paragraph 71]

“The phrase “exceptional circumstances” should be considered as a whole, and in its context, which is to judge whether Green Belt boundaries should be altered in a Local Plan review. It is not necessary to explain why each factor or the combination is itself “exceptional”. It does not mean that they have to be unlikely to recur in a similar fashion elsewhere. It is sufficient reasoning to spell out what those factors are, and to reach the judgment. There is a limit to the extent to which such a judgment can or should be elaborated.” [paragraph 74].

2 In answering these questions, the Council has, where relevant, explained in general terms:

• The acuteness of the objectively assessed need for housing and the need for employment land

• The inherent constraints on supply/availability of land for sustainable development (housing and employment development)

• The consequent difficulties in achieving sustainable housing and employment development without impinging on the Green Belt

• The importance of Green Belt release to ensuring a sustainable spatial strategy

• The nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt (or those parts of it that would be lost)

• The extent to which the consequent impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be ameliorated or reduced to the lowest reasonably practicable extent.

Finally, the Council’s answers have drawn upon information from a range of evidence in the Local Plan Examination Library and from the Local Plan Examination Documents, including:

• Green Belt Study, Stage 1 [LG9]

• Green Belt Study, Stage 2 Report [LG8]

• Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances Topic Paper [ED10]

• Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), Main Report (March 2014) [HO7]

• SHMA Update Report [HO4]

• Housing Delivery Study [HO3]

• Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA): Call for Sites Final Assessments [HO11]

• A20 Corridor VISUM Assessments [TI3 & ED4]

• Transport Assessment and Addendum [TI7]

• Sustainability Appraisal [LPS18] and Sustainability Appraisal Addendum [ED13]

• Regulation 22(1)(c) Consultation Statement [LPS16 & LPS17]

3

4 Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council (TMBC) Responses – Table of Contents

The Council’s responses to individual questions can be accessed directly from this Table of Contents by clicking on the relevant page number listed below.

Question Page

What is the basis of the Green Belt Review and how have the conclusions informed the Local Plan? What methodology has been applied and is it soundly based? ...... 7

Does it reflect the fundamental aim of Green Belts, being to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open? ...... 12

Does it reflect the essential characteristics of Green Belts, being their openness and their permanence? ...... 13

Does it reflect the five purposes that Green Belts serve, set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF? ...... 15

Paragraph 83 of the NPPF is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Is the Council’s approach to the Green Belt set out in its Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances Topic Paper (ED10) robust and in line with national guidance? ...... 16

Do the exceptional circumstances necessary exist to warrant the proposed alterations to Green Belt boundaries, in terms of both removing land from and adding land to the Green Belt? ...... 17

What relationship, if any, is there between the exceptional circumstances leading to the alterations proposed to the Green Belt and the proposed spatial strategy/distribution of new housing? ...... 20

Do the decisions taken on Green Belt releases reflect the need to assist with urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land? Where is this evident? ...... 22

Has a comprehensive assessment of capacity within built up areas been undertaken? Where is this evident? ...... 23

Have all potential options on non-Green Belt land in the countryside been thoroughly assessed, including some of the land being proposed to be included in the Green Belt? Where is this evident? ...... 24

Have opportunities to maximise capacity on non-Green Belt sites been taken (including increasing densities)? Where is the evidence of this? ...... 29

Have discussions taken place with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified housing need? If so, where is the evidence of this? ...... 34

Are all the sites and their boundaries clearly and accurately shown on the proposals map? ...... 36

Is the approach to new infrastructure in the Green Belt justified? ...... 37

5 What land is safeguarded through this Local Plan and what land was safeguarded through the previous adopted Local Plan? Does the Local Plan make clear that safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time? Is all land previously safeguarded allocated for development in this Plan? ...... 41

Is it necessary to identify safeguarded land more widely in order to meet longer term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period? Without the identification of further safeguarded land, what reassurance is there that longer-term development needs can be met without further review of the Green Belt? ...... 43

Have the altered Green Belt boundaries been considered having regard to their intended permanence in the long term? Are they capable of enduring beyond the plan period? ...... 46

In terms of the land being included in the Green Belt through proposed boundary changes, what other options were considered and rejected, as a way of preventing harmful development in this area? Where is this evident? ...... 48

Has consideration been given to leaving this land outside of the Green Belt boundary in order to allow for some future development without the need to review the Green Belt boundaries again?...... 51

6 What is the basis of the Green Belt Review and how have the conclusions informed the Local Plan? What methodology has been applied and is it soundly based? TMBC Response to Q1:

What is the basis of the Green Belt Review?

1.1. The starting point was the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012), which makes it clear (1) that the preparation of a Local Plan is the appropriate time for considering whether Green Belt boundaries should be reviewed; and (2) that they can only be altered in exceptional circumstances.

1.2. The main functions of the Green Belt Review are:

• Stage 1 [LG9(a) – LG9(e)] –To provide a record of the current Green Belt extent; to assess whether TMBC’s Green Belt as currently defined fulfils the fundamental aim and purposes of Green Belt policy as set out within the NPPF (2012); to assess whether TMBC’s Green Belt as currently defined accords with NPPF paragraph 79, namely in terms of its openness; and to assess whether boundaries are defined and recognisable [LG9(a)/6/1.1.14].

• Stage 2 [LG8] – To explain the exceptional circumstances for amending the Green Belt boundaries. The focus is primarily on the strategic/borough-wide factors that contribute to the exceptional circumstances but it also considers some site specific factors too.

• Topic Paper [ED10] – To explain the exceptional circumstances for the alterations to the boundaries of the Metropolitan Green Belt falling within Tonbridge & Malling Borough, having set the scene with Stages 1 and 2 and key influences on the exceptional circumstances case, including [Calverton]. This includes alterations that have resulted in land being taken out of the Green Belt as well as land being put in the Green Belt.

How have the conclusions informed the Local Plan?

1.3. The Topic Paper [ED10] explains how the conclusions of the whole Review process informed the Local Plan, as well as the identification of alterations to the existing boundaries (see paragraphs 1.2.20-1.2.26). The preparatory work for Stage 1 [LG9] informed the Regulation 18 Plan [OLP4] whilst the findings of Stage 2 [LG8] informed the preparation of the Regulation 19 Plan (see Regulation 22 Submission Plan [LPS1]). The Topic Paper [ED10] details the process for each individual

7 intrusion into the Green Belt, explaining a number of factors set out at para 2.1.1. Those factors were the rationale for choosing the particular location; the availability of suitable and deliverable development sites; relationship of the site with the adjacent settlement; other evidence that had a bearing on the scale of development; and the nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt (or those parts of it that would be lost) as well as the extent to which the consequent impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be minimised (that is to say ameliorated or reduced to the lowest reasonably practicable extent).

1.4. The analysis and conclusions therefore apply the guidance from [Calverton] and the findings from a range of Local Plan evidence, as listed in the Introduction (above). This process is set out in detail in the Topic Paper [ED10]

1.5. The Council was mindful of the acuteness of housing need in the borough. Furthermore, the Council understood the consequent difficulties in achieving sustainable housing and employment development without impinging on the Green Belt, given the Housing Market Areas (HMAs) exerting an influence across the borough and the fact that their focal points for daily activities and movements, eg work and shopping, are mostly outside of the borough. As para 1.1.3 of [ED10] explains, that Paper needs to be read in conjunction with the Spatial Strategy and Site Selection Topic Papers. Part of the Council’s justification in exceptional circumstances relates to the importance of Green Belt release to ensuring a sustainable spatial strategy across the borough. It is notable that in [Compton] the judge thought that could be an important part of a case in exceptional circumstances. Such an approach is also consistent with the NPPF as set out further below.

What methodology has been applied?

1.6. At the inception of the Review, the Council was mindful of the expectations of national policy (NPPF 2012) and the planning practice guidance that supported it. National policy does not prescribe a specific methodology for undertaking Green Belt reviews so the Council had to take stock on what had been completed at that time.

1.7. The Methodology applied by the Stage 1 study is summarised in section 3 of [LG9(a)]. The Council drew upon work carried out for the Core Strategy and primarily focussed on the Urban Areas and Rural Service Centres that are partially or fully within a Green Belt designation, or directly abutting it. The reason for this focus is because these settlements lie at or near the top of the settlement hierarchy with good sustainability credentials. It therefore makes sense to focus attention on

8 these settlements because this is where development needs to be focussed if sustainable patterns of development are to be achieved.

1.8. The Stage One Study [LG9] then moves on to consider ‘Other Rural Settlements’, before providing a brief overview of those smaller settlements washed over by Green Belt, being Stansted, Snoll Hatch, Dunks Green, Shipbourne and Fairseat.

1.9. It was decided, having reviewed the Green Belt extents, to separate the Green Belt around Tonbridge into reasonably sized parcels. The approach to identification of parcels is set out at 3.1.8 of [LG9(a)]. In applying this approach Hadlow was split into two distinct parish ‘zones’, in order to study Golden Green separately and to provide clarity to the Study. Furthermore, the parish of Kings Hill includes a very small area to the east which was assessed under consideration of Wateringbury, given its close proximity and relationship with this area. Other settlements in the borough were reviewed as a whole. In some areas Green Belt only abuts one side of a settlement.

1.10. Given the extent of the coverage of Green Belt across the borough, this approach was considered to be clear, reasonable and proportionate and helped to make the Study comprehensible to a wide audience.

1.11. Where possible, parcels were defined through local context and by physical features such as roads, lanes and building lines, or natural features such as field boundaries and hedgerow demarcation for example. This methodology also involved an element of professional judgement on how best to prepare a Study that was clear, reasonable and proportionate as well as being comprehensible to a wide audience. For example, parish boundary lines have been used to ‘contain’ the assessment to each settlement area. This was because the Green Belt is so widespread in the borough that in most settlements there is no clearly definable outer edge or extent. Furthermore, it was considered to be at a logical scale that local communities and other parties could readily comprehend.

1.12. The outputs of the Stage One Study [LG9] did not identify any particular areas of Green Belt that were so poorly performing against the purposes set out in the NPPF that they triggered a need for a more fine grain analysis. The Study concluded that none of the areas analysed made little or no contribution across all of the purposes examined. Furthermore, the Stage One Study [LG9] did not rule out potential allocations that performed well against the purposes set out within the NPPF. On this basis the Council concluded there was scope to move forward to the Stage 2 Report [LG8] that looked at the exceptional circumstances case. The exceptional circumstances for each individual alteration are explained in detail in the Topic Paper [ED10].

9 1.13. In the absence of any national planning policy or planning practice guidance prescribing how to undertake such exercises, the Council considers this methodology to be clear, reasonable and proportionate.

Is the methodology soundly based?

1.14. Yes. The methodology is based on national policy (NPPF 2012), and the planning practice guidance that supported it, and the findings of local evidence.

1.15. The Stage One Study [LG9] analysed parcels of land at the boundaries of the Green Belt and assessed their performance against the identified relevant purposes as contained in the NPPF. This is a sound basis because it takes stock of the existing position and how this relates to national policy.

1.16. Section 8 sets out the potential options for the next stage of the Review. These options included a review of the Study in light of emerging evidence and outcomes of consultation exercises on the Local Plan.

1.17. The methodology is soundly based because the Review process took account of the findings from a range of Local Plan evidence, as listed in the Introduction (above), that are important for determining if the factors highlighted in [Calverton] apply in Tonbridge & Malling. It provided a consistent basis for assessing the identified parcels of land against the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.

1.18. In light of this evidence and taking account of the final paragraphs of [LG9], the Council concluded that there was sufficient justification for a Green Belt Stage 2 Report. This was published in August 2018 and is available from the Local Plan Examination Library [LG8]. This report complements the Stage 1 Study by establishing the exceptional circumstances for removing certain parcels of land from the Green Belt.

1.19. [LG8] explains how the findings from the range of evidence listed in the Introduction (above) led the Council to reasonably conclude that exceptional circumstances exist for intrusions into the Green Belt. The process was shaped by national policy on Green Belts as spelt out in para. 84 in the NPPF (2012), which states:

‘…When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary…’

10 1.20. This is a sound basis for this methodology, given the HMAs exerting an influence across the borough and the fact that the focus of movements for everyday activities such as work and shopping for each HMA lie mostly beyond the borough boundaries. The Council is mindful that the majority of the locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary in Tonbridge & Malling are located within the Maidstone HMA, the focal point of which is the Maidstone urban area in the neighbouring authority. Channelling development towards these locations would not address the need where it is generated within the Sevenoaks/Tunbridge Wells/Tonbridge HMA and would, therefore, promote unsustainable patterns of development, contrary to national policy.

1.21. Overall, the methodology deployed by the Council is soundly based. It is a process shaped by and consistent with national policy, and informed by local evidence. Fundamentally, the methodology takes account of the guidance in national policy that and applies it to the local circumstances using the evidence base. The evidence base indicated that the need to promote sustainable patterns of development had a particularly strong bearing on the use of Green Belt land for the Council.

1.22. In testing the soundness of the methodology the Council considers that certain principles established by the caselaw set out at the start of this statement have a key role to play. The Council does not repeat them here, but they include the principles (a) that there is no need requiring Green Belt release to be a last resort; (b) that there is no prescribed set of exceptional circumstances (and it is therefore a matter of planning judgment for the Council what could be considered for these purposes in each individual case); (c) seeking to promote a sustainable pattern of development can be important to a case in exceptional circumstances.

1.23. The methodology deployed in the Review has allowed the Council to set out what the factors are and the basis for the judgment that exceptional circumstances existed in each case.

11 Does it reflect the fundamental aim of Green Belts, being to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open? TMBC Response to Q2:

2.1. Yes it reflects that fundamental aim, but, as set out above, it recognises that alterations to the Green Belt boundary may be justifiable where exceptional circumstances exist. Section 2 of [LG9(a)] sets out the National Context and purposes of the Green Belt, followed by NPPF references including paragraph 79 ([LG9], para 2.1.4). Thus, the Council’s approach from the beginning stages of evidence gathering and plan-making recognised that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

2.2. This is reflected in part of the broader assessment of the parcels of land in [LG9]. As well as an assessment of each parcel against the relevant purpose of the Green Belt, including checking unrestricted sprawl, commentary is also provided on the impact on openness (see ‘Other Factors’) in accordance with the approach set out for the study [LG9], para 3.1.7. The impact on openness and how this can be ameliorated or reduced to the lowest reasonably practicable extent is explained in more detail for each intrusion in the Topic Paper [ED10].

2.3. However, in light of the strategic exceptional circumstances identified in the Stage Two Study Report [LG8], and being mindful of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development (NPPF, paragraph 84), there were no reasonable alternatives to taking some land out of the Green Belt to address assessed needs for development where those needs are generated. It was evident through the Stage 2 work [LG8], as explained in more detail in the Topic Paper [ED10], that the changes proposed to the Green Belt boundaries are not driven by Green Belt considerations alone but by other factors, important amongst them the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. As highlighted in the response to question 1 (above), these intrusions are primarily focussed adjacent to settlements at or close to the top of the settlement hierarchy. [ED10] sets out further detail on the key influences affecting the exceptional circumstances decisions in section 1.2 of that paper.

2.4. This is not to say that the impact of the removal of sites was ignored. This is addressed in the Topic Paper [ED10] which responds to [Calverton] by including, for each intrusion, an assessment of the nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt and the extent to which the consequent impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be ameliorated or reduced to the lowest reasonably practicable extent.

12 Does it reflect the essential characteristics of Green Belts, being their openness and their permanence? TMBC Response to Q3:

Openness

3.1. Yes, the Green Belt study reflects the essential characteristics of Green Belt land as identified above.

3.2. The issue of openness and how the Green Belt Review reflected this is set out in response to Matter 3, question 2 above.

3.3. As set out above, it is important to note that [LG9] showed that there were no areas of Green Belt which were particularly poorly performing against the purposes –so that this would provide a stronger case to focus development at that location – or particularly well – so that this would be a reason to avoid development at that location. The conclusion of the Review process was that alterations to the Green Belt boundaries are not driven by Green Belt considerations relating to the comparative serving of the Green Belt purposes, but in the local circumstances driven by exceptional circumstances to enable the Council to promote sustainable patterns of development.

Permanence

3.4. The Stage One Study [LG9] at the beginning (paragraph 2.1.4) reflects national policy (NPPF, paragraph 79), including the fundamental aims and purposes. Permanence is one of the essential characteristics of Green Belts. The approach to permanence is reflected in the national guidance that limits changes to the Green Belt to when local plans are reviewed, as well as the requirement to consider the Green Belt boundaries (including any new boundaries) having regard to the intended permanence, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period. The Stage One analysis incorporates such an approach into the Green Belt Assessment [LG9(a) paragraph 3.1.4, 3.1.5]

3.5. When the Review process moved to Stage Two [LG8] it was clear to the Council that strategic exceptional circumstances existed to justify alterations to the boundaries of the Green Belt, as set out above. Factors including the acuteness of housing need, the number and distribution of HMAs and housing need across the borough, along with the Government’s expectation that any review process should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development (NPPF, paragraph 84) meant that exceptional circumstances necessitating revision had been demonstrated [IM Properties].

13 3.6. In defining the altered Green Belt boundaries, the Council understood the need to demonstrate permanence. This is why the submitted Plan [LPS1] includes a ‘Safeguarded Land’ Policy (LP32) and an ‘Areas of Opportunity’ Policy (LP33). These policies make significant provision to address long-term development needs beyond the end of the Plan period, allowing the altered Green Belt boundaries to endure. They demonstrate that the Council, in preparing its Local Plan, considered the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period.

14 Does it reflect the five purposes that Green Belts serve, set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF? TMBC Response to Q4:

4.1. Yes, the Green Belt Assessment reflects the five purposes that Green Belts serve. The Green Belt can serve up to five purposes. In the case of Tonbridge & Malling, the view was taken by the Council that the first four purposes listed in paragraph 80 are relevant, given the characteristics of the borough. This is explained in the Green Belt Stage One Study [LG9] and highlighted in paragraph 1.2.21 in the Topic Paper [ED10]. This is essentially because, in deciding which parcels of Green Belt to release, a comparative exercise is required. The fifth purpose was not considered to present a useful basis for meaningful comparative assessment in the local circumstances ([LG9(a)], paragraph 3.1.1).

4.2. The Council’s review does reflect the relevant purposes the Green Belt serves in Tonbridge & Malling because these purposes form the basis of the assessment, as highlighted in [LG9]: see in particular paragraph 3.1.11 – 3.1.14. The outputs of the Stage One Study [LG9] did not identify any particular areas of Green Belt that were so poorly performing against the purposes set out in paragraph 80 in the NPPF that they triggered a need for a more fine grain analysis. The Study concluded that no area made little or no contribution across all of the purposes examined. Furthermore, the Stage One Study [LG9] did not rule out potential allocations that performed well against the purposes set out within the NPPF. On this basis the Council concluded there was scope to move forward to the Stage 2 Report [LG8] that looked at the exceptional circumstances case. The exceptional circumstances for each intrusion into the Green Belt are explained in more detail in the Topic Paper [ED10].

15 Paragraph 83 of the NPPF is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Is the Council’s approach to the Green Belt set out in its Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances Topic Paper (ED10) robust and in line with national guidance? TMBC Response to Q5:

5.1. Yes. The Council’s approach to the review of the Green Belt during the making of the Local Plan was fully shaped by the national policies in the NPPF, including paragraph 83. The Council understood that any alterations to the boundaries can only be made if exceptional circumstances are justified. [ED10] expressly uses as its approach the “counsel of perfection” tests set out in [Calverton]: see paragraph 1.2.3. However, ultimately the touchstone was always whether exceptional circumstances existed for a site to be released.

5.2. As highlighted in the Council’s responses to questions 4 and 1 (above) the Stage One Study [LG9] concluded that no area of Green Belt made little or no contribution across all of the purposes examined. Furthermore, the Stage One Study [LG9] did not rule out potential allocations that performed well against the purposes set out within the NPPF. On this basis the Council concluded there was scope to move forward to the Stage 2 Report [LG8] that looked at the exceptional circumstances case.

5.3. Section 1.2 of the Topic Paper [ED10] details the key influences on the exceptional circumstances case. This list includes national policy and planning practice guidance, along with a range of local evidence. Furthermore, section 1.2 highlights [Calverton] which sets out factors that ideally would be considered in identifying exceptional circumstances. Paragraph. 1.2.4 is clear that the remainder of [ED10] responds to these factors in the explanation of the exceptional circumstances case for each intrusion into the Green Belt. This is considered to be a robust approach in line with national guidance. It allowed the Council to make reasonable planning judgments as to which parcels of land met the exceptional circumstances test, consistent with the guidance in [IM Properties], [Calverton] and [Compton].

16 Do the exceptional circumstances necessary exist to warrant the proposed alterations to Green Belt boundaries, in terms of both removing land from and adding land to the Green Belt? TMBC Response to Q6:

Removing land from the Green Belt

6.1. Yes. The approach taken by the Council to the review as set out in the Stage One Study [LG9], the Stage Two Report [LG8], and as detailed in the Topic Paper [ED10], demonstrates clearly that the exceptional circumstances necessary to warrant the removal of land from the Green Belt exist.

6.2. As highlighted in the Council’s responses to questions 1 and 5 (above) the outputs of the Stage One Study [LG9] did not identify any particular areas of Green Belt that were so poorly performing against the purposes set out in the NPPF that they triggered a need for a more fine grain analysis.

6.3. The Topic Paper [ED10] highlights the range of influences on the exceptional circumstances case. These start with the identified acute need itself, but also include the two HMAs exerting an influence across the borough and the acuteness of the housing need. The acuteness of need is demonstrated by the high and worsening housing affordability ratio. Another key influence is the capacity of local housing markets to absorb change, which is pertinent to the issue of deliverability, especially when assessing the consequences of channelling development towards areas beyond the outer boundary of the Green Belt. These influences, in combination, demonstrate that a strategic case exists in exceptional circumstances that warranted the removal of land from the Green Belt. This situation of housing need (and it being met by the plan) being the essential strategic support for alterations to Green Belt boundaries is commonplace and has been adopted by many inspectors at recent examinations. As [Compton] demonstrates, such need can be sufficient by itself to constitute exceptional circumstances.

6.4. Further, the Council understood the relevancy of a sound spatial distribution strategy to the Green Belt issues, and to exceptional circumstances in particular, as highlighted by [Compton] at paragraph 47. Channelling development towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary would have negative consequences for sustainable development, leading to an unbalanced, incoherent spatial strategy the deliverability of which would be questionable given the capacity of the local housing market to absorb change. This was a key influence on the overall approach. For similar reasons the Settlement Hierarchy was also a key

17 influence. Taking into account the Settlement Hierarchy also served to support and sustain communities across the borough.

6.5. Beyond the strategic case in exceptional circumstances set out above, the site specific cases were assessed as explained in detail in section 2 of [ED10].

Adding land to the Green Belt

6.6. The Council considers that the approach taken in the Stage Two Report [LG8], as detailed in the Topic Paper [ED10], demonstrates clearly that the exceptional circumstances necessary to warrant the addition of land to the Green Belt exist.

6.7. The effects of the addition on each of the purposes of the Green Belt, as they apply to Tonbridge & Malling, are analysed. Section 4 of [LG8] and section 3 of [ED10] conclude that the purposes would be strengthened by the alteration proposed in the submitted Plan [LPS1]. The case is a strong one because, in summary, it facilitates Green Belt protection of land in an area which now, as a result of previous and planned developments, serves all four of the Green Belt purposes analysed within the assessment, as well as allowing that land to remain permanently open and thereby restraining urban sprawl in an area that would otherwise be subject to intensive development pressure leading precisely to the kinds of damage Green Belt purposes seek to prevent. Importantly, as the discussion in [ED10] and the examination documents shows, its purpose is to do so without compromising the ability of the Council to meet its assessed needs.

6.8. In respect of the purpose ‘to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns’ it is important to note that the alteration will cover the eastern side of West Malling, which is a historic market town, having been in existence for over 900 years following the establishment of St Mary’s Abbey. The Abbey has the status of a Scheduled Ancient Monument in its own right, but includes eleven listed buildings, five of which are Grade I and two Grade II. These are assets of national importance. A recently dismissed appeal for development on land east of Lavenders Road, West Malling, (Appeal Ref: APP/H2265/W/19/3227034 – see Appendix A to Matter 3) recognises the importance of preserving the setting of West Malling Abbey (and the surrounding listed buildings), as well the special character of West Malling and its conservation area.

6.9. The proposed alteration will enable the setting of these assets of national importance, as well as the Broadwater Farm Conservation Area, to be protected for the foreseeable future. What the appeal case demonstrates is that there are development pressures on land affecting heritage assets of national importance at

18 this location and that the alteration to the outer boundary of the Green Belt can help to preserve the setting and special character of these assets.

6.10. As part of the Council’s consideration of where to alter the outer Green Belt boundary to, regard was had to the boundary alignment in the adjoining authorities of Maidstone and Medway. It makes sense to consider this bigger picture because this is the Metropolitan Green Belt surrounding London and a strategic perspective of the alignment of the outer boundary should be taken.

6.11. As highlighted by the delineation on the maps in Appendix B to Matter 3, the proposed alteration will result in an outer Green Belt boundary through the borough at this location that aligns more closely with the boundary in Maidstone borough to the south and Medway Unitary Authority to the north. This revised boundary makes more sense than the current boundary alignment. This is recognised in the Green Belt Stage Two Report [LG8].

6.12. The Council’s approach to the addition of land to the Green Belt, as set out in the Stage Two Report [LG8] and the Topic Paper [ED10] is considered to be robust because it is justified, reasonable and proportionate and in line with national policy. It produces an overall response to Green Belt alteration which is coherent, supports the achievement of sustainable development, and strengthens a local area of Green Belt which has demonstrated a case in exceptional circumstances for its protection in Green Belt terms.

19 What relationship, if any, is there between the exceptional circumstances leading to the alterations proposed to the Green Belt and the proposed spatial strategy/distribution of new housing? TMBC Response to Q7:

7.1. There is a strong relationship between the exceptional circumstances leading to the alterations proposed to the Green Belt and the proposed spatial strategy/distribution of new housing as explained in the Topic Paper [ED10] and highlighted in the Council’s responses to the questions above.

7.2. The decision on whether or not there were exceptional circumstances for removing land from the Green Belt was informed by key evidence on Housing Market Areas (HMAs), the distribution of housing need across the borough and the capacity of local housing markets to absorb change, as well as the availability of suitable and deliverable development sites. The Council took account of the findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) [HO7] that concluded that two HMAs exert an influence across the borough with focal points for daily activities such as working, schools and shopping far apart and that the distribution of need is evenly split across the two HMAs. This evidence can be found in the SHMA Main Report [HO7], the SHMA Update [HO4], the Housing Delivery Study [HO3] and in the Strategic Land Availability Assessment: Final Sites Assessments [HO11].

7.3. This same evidence informed the spatial strategy and distribution of new housing as explained in the Spatial Strategy Topic Paper [ED12], and the Site Selection Topic Paper [ED11].

7.4. As highlighted in the Council’s responses to Matter 3, questions 5 and 6, and explained in paragraph 1.2.25 in [ED10], if the Local Plan is to deliver a sound spatial distribution strategy that promotes sustainable patterns of development, which is an expectation of national policy (paragraph 84, NPPF),there is a need for intrusions into the Green Belt.

7.5. The Sustainable Appraisal (SA) process (see [NHE3], [LPS18] and [ED13]) confirmed that channelling development towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary (option 4) would not only have negative consequences for sustainable development but would also deliver the lowest overall growth of all of the spatial strategy options.

7.6. The Council understood that if no alterations were proposed to the Green Belt, i.e. the existing boundaries are left permanent as they are, it would be unable to deliver a spatial strategy that promoted a sustainable pattern of development (NPPF, paragraph 84). Channelling development towards locations beyond the outer Green

20 Belt boundary would have negative consequences for sustainable development, leading to an unbalanced, incoherent spatial strategy the deliverability of which would be questionable given the capacity of the local housing market to absorb change.

7.7. It is therefore evident that there is a strong relationship between the exceptional circumstances leading to the proposed alterations to the Green Belt and the proposed spatial strategy/distribution of new housing. The inclusion of five strategic sites, including two involving intrusions into the Green Belt (see LP29 and LP31 in [LPS1]) makes for an effective Plan meeting the needs of the borough in a sustainable way. Allocating more sites to other rural settlements would risk eroding their character without achieving the social and transport benefits of the strategic sites, particularly Borough Green Gardens (LP29 in [LPS1]); further development beyond the Green Belt would risk exacerbating highway and air quality issues because of the balance of need across the borough and the level of development committed elsewhere.

7.8. It is clear that the effectiveness of the spatial strategy in delivering sustainable development, including strategic sites such as Borough Green Gardens with the major infrastructure that it can bring for the benefit of existing as well as new communities, can form part of the exceptional circumstances case, as highlighted by [Compton]:

“…The way in which a site can meet the need, not just in numbers but in location, and as part of a sound spatial distribution, with other uses, and help bring forward infrastructure, can all fall within the concept of “exceptional circumstances…” (paragraph 135)

21 Do the decisions taken on Green Belt releases reflect the need to assist with urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land? Where is this evident? TMBC Response to Q8:

8.1. The decisions taken on Green Belt releases during plan-making reflect national policy (NPPF) as far as is possible within Tonbridge & Malling Borough, reflecting the character of the area and the available opportunities.

8.2. The Council understands that this particular purpose of the Green Belt is focussed on making the best use of previously-developed sites within urban confines to support regeneration.

8.3. In order to assess how far the Council could deliver this particular purpose, it had to size-up the opportunities within the confines of urban areas, i.e. a comprehensive assessment of capacity within built-up areas. This exercise was completed at the beginning stages of plan-making, with the outcomes reported in Table 2 in the Regulation 18 Plan [OLP4].

8.4. This Table highlights the results for three ‘building blocks’ which are the foundation for the spatial strategy, as explained in sections 5.2 – 5.5 in [OLP4]. The source of this information is the Call-for-Sites exercise – see [HO11.1-HO11.8]. It is evident that the opportunities for assisting urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land are very limited. Building blocks A & C, which are relevant for this capacity assessment, have the potential to deliver between 500- 600 residential units in total which is a fraction of the net need for housing. Nevertheless, these opportunities were taken up and those sites assessed as suitable and deliverable in the Call-for-Sites exercise were carried forward as either housing allocations, eg policy LP25 (k), (l) and (m), or economic development allocations, eg policy LP36 (i), in the Local Plan.

8.5. In light of this outcome, the Council realised that in order for the Local Plan to respond positively to national policy by delivering sustainable development that addresses assessed needs, opportunities beyond existing settlement confines would need to be considered, assessed and, where appropriate, allocated.

8.6. Please also see the Council’s response to question 9 which is related to this issue.

22 Has a comprehensive assessment of capacity within built up areas been undertaken? Where is this evident? TMBC Response to Q9:

9.1. Yes, a comprehensive assessment of capacity within built-up areas has been undertaken. As highlighted in the Council’s response to question 8 (see above), the Council’s approach from the beginning stages of plan-making was to make the best use of opportunities within built-up areas to meet assessed needs for development.

9.2. The starting point was the responses to the Call-for-Sites exercise – see [HO11.1- HO11.8]. The outcome of this exercise was that there was a very small pool of suitable and deliverable sites falling within the built-up areas. These results are highlighted in Table 2 in the Regulation 18 Plan [OLP4]. This table illustrates the ‘building blocks’ which are the foundation for the spatial strategy, as explained in sections 5.2 – 5.5 in [OLP4]. These building blocks are a manifestation of national policy in respect of what should underpin strategies in Local Plans. Two of these building blocks (A and C) are focussed on the capacity of built-up areas to take additional development:

A. Meeting identified development need on brownfield land within the built-up confines of settlements, and

C. Meeting identified development needs on land at low risk of flooding within existing settlements.

9.3. Table 2 in [OLP4] highlights that the potential yield from building blocks A & C would not be significant (between 500-600 residential units in total) and would certainly not address the assessed net need for housing for the remainder of the plan period. In light of this outcome, the Council realised that in order for the Local Plan to respond positively to national policy by delivering sustainable development that addresses assessed needs, opportunities beyond existing settlement confines would need to be considered, assessed and, where appropriate, allocated.

23 Have all potential options on non-Green Belt land in the countryside been thoroughly assessed, including some of the land being proposed to be included in the Green Belt? Where is this evident? TMBC Response to Q10:

No test that Green Belt releases have to be a last resort

10.1. In responding to this question, the Council is mindful that there is no requirement that Green Belt land has to be released as a last resort. This is made clear in [IM Properties] at para. 91:

“…there is no test that green belt land is to be released as a last resort. It is an exercise of planning judgement as to whether exceptional circumstances necessitating revision have been demonstrated…”

10.2. Further, it is important to bear in mind that the Plan must be supported by a proportionate evidence base. There is no requirement in national policy that the evidence base should be greater than that. The reasonable alternatives to using non-Green Belt land have been assessed by the Council against a proportionate evidence base.

10.3. This approach is evident from the beginning stages of plan-making where the Council did consider and appraise an alternative strategy of addressing the assessed needs on sites beyond the outer edge of the Green Belt, including land in the countryside (spatial strategy option 4). The conclusion of the Sustainability Appraisal of option 4, as documented in the Interim Report [NHE3], was that this strategy would not result in a sustainable pattern of development because it would not address all of the assessed needs where they are generated, given that the area beyond the outer Green Belt boundary is located almost entirely within the Maidstone HMA. [NHE3] also highlights potential negative consequences for air quality of concentrating development in a relatively small built-up area of the borough.

10.4. The SA Addendum [ED13] highlights that option 4, in the opinion of the Council’s consultants, performs most weakly in respect of housing because it would deliver both the lowest overall growth and the least dispersed distribution of growth, the latter point confirming the conclusion in [NHE3]. At a strategic spatial level, concentrating development on sites beyond the outer Green Belt boundary, including land in the countryside as well as sites within the built confines, would not be the most sustainable option.

24 10.5. In terms of specific suitable and deliverable sites, the Council did consider additional potential options on non-Green Belt land in the countryside at the Regulation 18 stage of plan-making. The initial broad strategy that featured in the Local Plan consultation document [OLP4] also included - in addition to Bushey Wood, South Aylesford and Broadwater Farm - land east of Hermitage Lane1 (SLAA site refs 410 and 381), land west of Hermitage Lane (SLAA site ref: 304) and land at Aylesford Quarry (SLAA site ref: 278).

10.6. In determining whether the inclusion of all of these sites in the Regulation 19 Plan would represent the most appropriate strategy, the Council took account of the following pieces of evidence:

• Responses to the Regulation 18 Local Plan consultation – see the Regulation 22(1)(c) Consultation Statement [LPS16 – LPS17(h)] • Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Main Report [HO7] and Update [HO4] • Housing Delivery Study [HO3] • A20 Corridor VISUM Assessments (March 2018) [TI3]

10.7. Responses to the Regulation 18 Local Plan consultation - The Council received several comments during the Regulation 18 consultation (see [LPS16-LPS17(h)]) about the spatial distribution of the potential development strategy across the borough and, in particular, across the two HMAs that exert an influence on Tonbridge & Malling. One of the most significant concerns expressed was that a disproportionate amount of development was concentrated in the north-east part of the borough in the Maidstone HMA. This is highlighted in [LPS16] at paragraph 2.5.5. Given that the housing need is evenly distributed across the two HMAs, as highlighted by Table 14 in [HO4], the point was forcefully made that the distribution of development in the spatial strategy should better reflect this.

10.8. Housing Delivery Study [HO3] - This Study considered compound growth rates of dwelling stock that have been recorded locally and in other districts during the pre and post-recession (2008) period. This is important local and contextual evidence because it provides an indication of how much change the local housing markets have been able to absorb during good and bad economic times. The Study concluded that the quantum of development in the Maidstone HMA identified at the Regulation 18 stage was ambitious, given commitments and planned allocations in the same HMA in neighbouring districts such as Maidstone Borough Council. The compound annual growth rate in the medium-term up to the mid-2020s of 1.9% would be a level of growth that has not been recorded by any district in England

1 incorrectly referred to as west of Hermitage Lane at para. 7.11 in [ED19]

25 outside of London since the recession. The key findings are summarised in the Spatial Strategy Topic Paper [ED12] and the Site Selection Topic Paper [ED20].

10.9. Given the consultation responses and evidence [HO3], the Council was mindful that the development strategy needed to be rationalised, and that a different approach to the north-east part of the borough within the Maidstone HMA needed to be taken, if there was to be a realistic prospect of the strategy being delivered during the plan period.

10.10. A20 VISUM Study [TI3] - This focussed on 16 junctions along the A20 corridor from M20 junction 5 in the east to M20 junction 4 in the west. It modelled what would happen to their capacity and therefore ability to function once the development strategy is implemented at 2031, comparing this to the future baseline without the Local Plan in place.

10.11. With the consultation responses in mind, and taking account of the findings of [HO3], the Council modelled a refined version of the development strategy that excluded the majority of land east of Hermitage Lane (as referenced above). Table 3-2 in [TI3] sets out the results, highlighting the modelling results for 2031, the end of the plan period. This modelling factored in significant pieces of highways infrastructure that had been identified as part of the emerging development strategy, eg the link between Hermitage Lane and the A20 across the south Aylesford strategic site (LP28 in [LPS1]). The extract below highlights that the refined strategy, including the link road referred to above, would result in an improved functioning of the junction of Hermitage Lane with the A20 (junction 1) at 2031. However, the next junction on the A20 corridor to the west at A20/Mills Road/Hall Road was modelled to be over-capacity at 2031.

10.12. The Council and Kent County Council, as the Highways Authority for the borough, considered what needed to be done to help improve the functioning of the A20/Mills Road/Hall Road junction. This involved excluding the large parcel of land at the East Malling Research Station as an allocation for the Local Plan (now an Area of Opportunity – see Policy LP33 in the submitted Local Plan [LPS1]) and the development of a roundabout at the junction in place of the existing signals. The

26 results in the updated A20 VISUM Study (March 2019) [ED4 & ED4A] demonstrate that this would result in a much improved situation for the A20/Mills Road/Hall Road junction (see extracts below):

10.13. The results from the modelling indicate that the highway infrastructure would not be able to adequately support the development strategy put forward at the Regulation 18 stage [OLP4] involving a large number of sites on non-Green Belt land in the countryside. Significant rationalisation would be needed.

10.14. Rationalisation process - In deciding which sites to exclude from the submission Plan, the Council was mindful of cross-boundary issues, in particular the level of committed development taking place in the borough of Maidstone along and off Hermitage Lane to the south. These commitments have eroded the separation between the built-up areas of Maidstone and Tonbridge & Malling. The Council was mindful that in the interest of protecting the integrity and therefore identity of existing settlements, a degree of openness is needed between the committed developments in Maidstone and proposed allocations in the Tonbridge & Malling Borough Local Plan. The site east of Hermitage Lane abuts the shared boundary between Tonbridge & Malling and Maidstone. It is also adjacent to the strategic site at South Aylesford (LP28). With this in mind and taking account of the highways evidence [TI3], the Housing Delivery Study [HO3] and the distribution of need across the two HMAs, it was considered that a spatial strategy including land east of Hermitage Lane would not be the most appropriate.

10.15. The Council considers the spatial strategy in the submitted Plan [LPS1], which includes three strategic sites on non-Green Belt land in the countryside (Bushey Wood (LP27), South Aylesford (LP28) and Broadwater Farm (LP30)) as reasonable, deliverable and justified by the evidence.

27 10.16. In addition to this response, please also see the Council’s response to Matter 2, question 16, which explains how alternative strategic site options involving non- Green Belt land in the countryside were appraised.

28 Have opportunities to maximise capacity on non-Green Belt sites been taken (including increasing densities)? Where is the evidence of this? TMBC Response to Q11:

11.1. Yes, opportunities to maximise capacity on non-Green Belt sites have been taken to the extent that is (a) realistically deliverable and (b) consistent with promoting sustainable patterns of development.

11.2. It is, again, important to keep in mind that the Council’s approach was developed against and applied the NPPF 2012, rather than the NPPF 2019 (which does contain more developed and prescriptive guidance on the issues raised by this question in, for example, paragraph 137 and Chapter 11 (e.g. paragraph 122)). The NPPF 2012 has a much lighter touch in relation to density generally – see paragraph 47 bullet point 5.

11.3. Three of the five strategic sites are located on non-Green Belt sites (Bushey Wood (LP27), South Aylesford (LP28) and Broadwater Farm (LP30)). These three sites have the potential to deliver in excess of 2,700 units. Bushey Wood, which features as an area of opportunity in the adopted Development Plan, forms part of the Council’s long-term strategy to deliver sustainable development at non-Green Belt locations, in this case the East Bank of the River Medway. A key element of the East Bank Strategy - which is already underway - is the 1,000 home development of Peters Village north of Bushey Wood, part of which includes a new crossing of the River Medway to improve the connectivity of the East Bank. This is explained in more detail in the Council’s responses to Matter 2, questions 5 and 12. The yield from all of the proposed allocations on non-Green Belt sites is 3,496 units, which represents 51% of the total yield from the allocations in Policy LP25. The Council considers that in light of the local evidence and national policy, appropriate opportunities have been taken to maximise capacity on non-Green Belt sites to deliver sustainable development. This is explained in more detail in the Council’s responses to Matter 3, question 10 (see above) and to Matter 2, question 16. The remainder of this response explains why further growth on non-Green Belt sites would not be realistically deliverable and would not be sustainable (and thus would not amount to the most appropriate strategy).

Why additional growth on non-Green Belt sites would not be realistically deliverable

11.4. The key factors that determine what is realistically deliverable are: market capacity to absorb change; and the capacity of infrastructure, in particular highways, to support additional growth.

29 11.5. Market capacity to absorb change – The key piece of evidence here is the Housing Delivery Study [HO3]. As highlighted in the Council’s response to question 10 (above), [HO3] concluded that the quantum of development in the Maidstone HMA identified at the Regulation 18 stage was ambitious, given commitments and planned allocations in the same HMA in neighbouring districts such as Maidstone Borough Council. The compound annual growth rate in the medium-term up to the mid-2020s of 1.9% would be a level of growth that has not been recorded by any district in England outside of London since the recession. The key findings are summarised in the Spatial Strategy Topic Paper [ED12] and the Site Selection Topic Paper [ED20]. This led the Council to conclude that some rationalisation of the development proposed on non-Green Belt sites would be needed to ensure the spatial strategy in the Local Plan is realistically deliverable. This is what the Council did. [HO3] does not support additional growth on non-Green Belt sites.

11.6. Highways capacity – Development planned for in the Local Plan needs to be supported by local infrastructure, including highways. If the local infrastructure does not have the capacity to support the amount of development planned for, even with improvements, this would result in unsustainable development. To this end, the Council commissioned the A20 VISUM Study [TI3]. This Study focussed on 16 junctions along the A20 corridor from M20 junction 5 in the east to M20 junction 4 in the west. It modelled what would happen to their capacity and therefore ability to function once the development strategy is implemented at 2031, comparing this to the future baseline without the Local Plan in place. As highlighted in the Council’s response to question 10 (see above), the results from the modelling indicate that the highway infrastructure would not be able to adequately support the development strategy put forward at the Regulation 18 stage [OLP4] involving a large number of sites on non-Green Belt land in the countryside. Significant rationalisation would be needed, which is what the Council did. [TI3] does not support additional growth on non-Green Belt sites.

Why additional growth on non-Green Belt sites would not be sustainable

11.7. From the beginning stages of plan-making, the Council was mindful of the need to prepare a spatial distribution strategy that would deliver sustainable development in a sustainable pattern applying paragraph 84 of the NPPF.

11.8. Housing Market Areas (HMAs) – A key factor for determining whether or not a sustainable pattern of development would be achieved is the HMAs. The Government Planning Practice Guidance that supported the NPPF (2012) defined an HMA as: “…a geographical area defined by household demand and preferences for all types of housing, reflecting the key functional linkages between places where

30 people live and work…”. HMAs are relevant because their definition identifies a broad geographical area where there is a high degree of containment of movement in terms of work, using services, shops, education and the buying and selling of homes.

11.9. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment [HO7] identifies two principal HMAs exerting an influence across Tonbridge & Malling: the Maidstone HMA; and the Sevenoaks/Tonbridge/Tunbridge Wells HMA. The focal points of these HMAs are principally outside of the borough at Maidstone, and Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells, respectively. The SHMA Update [HO4] highlights that the housing need is distributed effectively evenly across the two HMAs. What this evidence ([HO7] and [HO4]) points to is that if a truly sustainable pattern of development is to be promoted through the Local Plan, there needs to be a degree of balance of the spatial distribution strategy across the two HMAs.

11.10. The need for a balanced strategy across the two HMAs is also supported by the Sustainability Appraisal process. The spatial strategy option of channelling development beyond the outer boundary of the Green Belt was appraised (option 4). The conclusion of the Sustainability Appraisal of option 4, as documented in the Interim Report [NHE3], was that this strategy would not result in a sustainable pattern of development because it would not address all of the assessed needs where they are generated, given that the area beyond the outer Green Belt boundary is located almost entirely within the Maidstone HMA. [NHE3] also highlights potential negative consequences for air quality of concentrating development in a relatively small built-up area of the borough. The SA Addendum [ED13] highlights that option 4 performs most weakly in respect of housing because it would deliver both the lowest overall growth and the least dispersed distribution of growth, the latter point confirming the conclusion in [NHE3]. At a strategic spatial level, concentrating development on sites beyond the outer Green Belt boundary, would not be the most sustainable option, and would not be the most appropriate strategy; especially bearing in mind that there is no requirement that Green Belt land should only be released as a last resort.

11.11. The balance of the spatial strategy promoted at the Regulation 18 stage [OLP4] was an issue raised by many representors during the consultation on the Plan. One of the most significant concerns expressed (see [LPS16-LPS17(h)]) was that a disproportionate amount of development was concentrated in the north-east part of the borough in the Maidstone HMA. This is highlighted in [LPS16] at paragraph 2.5.5. Given that the housing need is evenly distributed across the two HMAs, as highlighted by Table 14 in [HO4], the point was forcefully made that the distribution of development in the spatial strategy should better reflect this.

31 11.12. The evidence in the SHMA [HO7 & HO4], the Sustainability Appraisal [NHE3 & ED13], and the responses to the Regulation 18 consultation [LPS16-LPS17(h)] highlights that additional growth on non-Green Belt sites would not promote a sustainable pattern of development.

Increasing densities on non-Green Belt sites

11.13. There are two areas where this matter applies: (1) densities on non-Green Belt sites beyond the outer boundary of the Green Belt, and (2) densities on sites within the built-confines of settlements that are surrounded by the Green Belt but not washed over by the designation.

11.14. Sites beyond the outer boundary of the Green Belt – Increasing densities on these sites would result in additional growth in the Maidstone HMA. The deliverability of this would be questionable, in terms of the local housing market’s capacity to absorb change, especially given the short-medium term economic context and outlook. This is highlighted in the earlier part of the Council’s response to this question (above) and evidenced in [HO3]. Furthermore, the transport evidence [TI3] indicates that additional growth would result in unsustainable development because many of the highway junctions would not be able to support that level of growth. Finally, loading more development in the Maidstone HMA as a result of increasing densities on sites in this area, coupled with fewer or no Green Belt releases, would result in an unbalanced spatial distribution strategy which would not reflect the distribution of housing need. This could have the negative consequence of promoting an unsustainable pattern of development.

11.15. Sites within the built confines of settlements that are surrounded by the Green Belt – The Council was mindful that the Call for Sites exercise did not generate a large pool of suitable and deliverable sites that fell within this category (see [HO11.1- HO11.8]). This is partly reflected in Table 2 in the Regulation 18 Plan [OLP4]. The quantum of development that could potentially be delivered from sites falling within Building Blocks A and C is a small fraction of what the net need is for the remainder of the plan period. It is important to note that the numbers in Table 2 for Building Blocks A and C also includes sites within the built confines of settlements in the Maidstone HMA beyond the outer boundary of the Green Belt - many of which have been allocated – which highlights how insignificant the potential supply is from sites within the built confines of settlements that are surrounded by the Green Belt. This is unsurprising, particularly for the principal urban area of Tonbridge, where significant redevelopment and regeneration has successfully taken place over the past 15-20 years resulting in very limited remaining opportunities moving forward.

32 11.16. Increasing densities on the limited opportunities that exist within the built confines of places such as Tonbridge would not make a significant difference in terms of supply and would not negate the need for Green Belt releases, particularly strategic sites, within the Sevenoaks/Tunbridge Wells/Tonbridge HMA, in order to achieve a balanced spatial distribution strategy that promotes a sustainable pattern of development. Furthermore, the extent to which the densities could be increased would be checked by the Transport Assessment and by the Transport Assessment Addendum [TI7], which highlight that many junctions in Tonbridge are likely to be operating at or close to their theoretical capacity at 2031 with the existing development strategy. Increasing densities is likely to have negative consequences for the functioning of these junctions.

11.17. In considering the Council’s response to this question, please also have regard to the Council’s response to question 10 (above) and the Council’s response to Matter 2, question 9.

33 Have discussions taken place with neighbouring authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified housing need? If so, where is the evidence of this? TMBC Response to Q12:

12.1. During the early stages of plan-making, the Council was mindful not just of the constraints it faced within Tonbridge & Malling borough but also constraints encountered by neighbouring authorities, particularly Sevenoaks District Council and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council. Sevenoaks District is 93% Green Belt and 60% AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), whilst Tunbridge Wells Borough is 70% AONB (High Weald) and 22% Green Belt.

12.2. Furthermore, the Council understood that these two neighbouring authorities to the west were also facing an equally challenging housing need figure for their Local Plans to address. The Council was aware of the assessed need for the neighbouring authorities because all three authorities, along with Maidstone Borough Council and Ashford Borough Council commissioned GL Hearn to prepare the initial Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMA) for each authority.

12.3. On the face of it, there was no realistic prospect of these authorities being able to accommodate some of the Council’s identified need, in particular the need identified for the Sevenoaks/Tunbridge Wells/Tonbridge HMA part of the borough. This is why the Council did not formally ask Sevenoaks District Council and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council about whether they could accommodate some of the identified housing need. There was an understanding that it would be fruitless to hold these specific discussions because the outcomes were already known, based on evidence that was available to the Council. Much more detail about the overall body of evidence in that respect is contained in the Council’s Duty to Co-operate material. There is no requirement, in such circumstances, to seek an answer to a question when the Council knows full well what the substance of that answer will be: Barker Mill Estates v. Test Valley BC [2016] EWHC 3028 (Admin) at paragraph 59 (para 12 of the examiner’s report) and paragraphs 63-65.

12.4. In respect of the principal neighbouring authority to the east, Maidstone Borough Council, this authority was at an advanced stage of plan-making at the time Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council had begun drafting the initial Regulation 18 Local Plan. On 20 May 2016, Maidstone Borough Council submitted its Local Plan for examination. Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council published its Regulation 18 Plan [OLP4] for consultation in September, a few weeks before the Hearing sessions examining the Maidstone Borough Local Plan commenced (4 October 2016). This meant that Maidstone Borough Council was unable to consider whether

34 it could accommodate some of the identified housing need because they had prepared and submitted what they considered to be a sound Plan. This Plan has been adopted (October 2017), necessarily on the basis that it met the tests of soundness. With this in mind, the Council did not formally ask Maidstone Borough Council about whether they could accommodate some of the identified need.

12.5. The relationships with the neighbouring authorities to the north and north-west (Medway Council and Gravesham Borough Council) in terms of commuting and housing markets are not particularly strong, as demonstrated by the SHMA [HO7] findings. Being mindful of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and taking account of the fact that these authorities were either at the preliminary evidence gathering stage of plan-making (Gravesham) or were facing a very challenging housing need figure to address through their Plan (Medway), Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council did not hold discussions with these authorities about whether they could accommodate some of the identified housing need.

12.6. The Council understood the challenges and predicaments faced by neighbouring authorities at the time it was preparing the Tonbridge & Malling Borough Local Plan. There was no real prospect of any of the neighbouring authorities being able to accommodate some of the identified need which is why discussions on this topic were not pursued.

12.7. In light of this situation and taking account of the evidence on HMAs exerting an influence across the borough [HO7], the acuteness of housing need as demonstrated by the high and worsening housing affordability ratio (Table 1, [ED12]) and the availability of suitable and deliverable sites [HO11], the Council took the decision to prepare a spatial strategy that would meet in full the housing need plus some flexibility to adapt to rapid change within the borough boundaries. This is highlighted in the Spatial Strategy Topic Paper [ED12] at paragraph 2.2.4.

35 Are all the sites and their boundaries clearly and accurately shown on the proposals map? TMBC Response to Q13:

13.1. The amendments to the Green Belt boundaries are clearly and accurately illustrated on the ‘Proposed Changes to the Policies Map (updated OS base map)’ document, Volume 8 (see [ED22H]). The one exception is the proposed amendment in the submitted Local Plan at Platt. This is explained in the Topic Paper [ED10] at paragraph 2.2.11 and illustrated by the blue circle on Figure 2, replicated below.

36 Is the approach to new infrastructure in the Green Belt justified? TMBC Response to Q14:

14.1. It is the Council’s understanding from [ED46] that “new infrastructure in the Green Belt” refers to both to land which is to be retained in the Green Belt from adoption of the Local Plan and land that is currently in the Green Belt which is proposed for removal in the submitted Local Plan.

Borough Green Gardens (LP29) Relief Road & Education Provision

14.2. The relief road and education provision required by the Borough Green Gardens strategic site policy (LP29 in [LPS1]) is the only clear case in the submitted Plan of the Council proposing new infrastructure in the Green Belt. The majority of the relief road is on land currently in the Green Belt which is proposed for removal as part and parcel of the overall strategic allocation. The southern section of the western extent of the relief road from the A25 up to the developable area is proposed to be retained in the Green Belt from adoption of the Local Plan. The education provision is expected to take place on land currently in the Green Belt which is proposed for removal.

14.3. There is the potential for education provision associated with the South-West Tonbridge strategic site (LP31 in [LPS1]) to take place on land currently in the Green Belt which is proposed for removal, but a significant proportion of this strategic site currently lies outside of the Green Belt as safeguarded land in the Council’s adopted Development Plan. This means that there is still the prospect of the education provision taking place on land that is not currently in the Green Belt.

14.4. With this in mind, the response focusses on the justification, in terms of paragraph 182 NPPF 2012, of the Borough Green Gardens site and the approach taken by the Council to new infrastructure.

Bringing forward infrastructure – an exceptional circumstance

14.5. An allocation that not only addresses housing need as part of a sound sustainable strategy but also brings forward infrastructure can demonstrate exceptional circumstances for either or both of those reasons, as confirmed by [Compton]:

“…The way in which a site can meet the need, not just in numbers but in location, and as part of a sound spatial distribution, with other uses, and help bring forward infrastructure, can all fall within the concept of “exceptional circumstances.”…” (paragraph 135)

37 Approach to new infrastructure on land currently in the Green Belt which is proposed for removal

14.6. The Council considers the approach taken to the Borough Green Gardens relief road is justified in light of the proportionate evidence ([TI7(a)-(c)], [ED8B] and [ED10]), and having regard to [Compton].

14.7. The need for some form of relief road or by-pass at Borough Green has been long established in development plans and local transport plans dating back many years, as detailed in [ED8B]. It has, through those documents, long established support on the public record. This is significant evidence demonstrating a need for additional highway infrastructure at this location. What has frustrated delivery is the lack of an effective delivery mechanism. The development of the Borough Green Gardens strategic site provides this mechanism, as explained in [ED10]. Not only can the new infrastructure proposed in the Plan deliver the previously safeguarded scheme but deliver a true relief road for the centre of Borough Green, relieving pressures on junctions at and around the settlement and along the A25.

14.8. The Transport Assessment and Addendum [TI7 (a)-(c)] compare the effects of the allocated development including the relief road with the future baseline (2031) of no Local Plan in place. The Addendum [TI7(c)] focusses on those junctions where mitigation was identified in the Transport Assessment and models these with the mitigation in place. This mitigation has been captured in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan [TI1]. Some 11 junctions were identified for assessment, including two new junctions of the relief road with the existing highway network. One junction was not modelled (junction 27 - High Street, Maidstone Road A25, Sevenoaks Road A25) because at the time the modelling was undertaken, traffic data was not available. The two new junctions did not have comparative data. This means that eight existing junctions at and around Borough Green were modelled with and without the Local Plan (including the relief road) in place.

14.9. The results highlight that of these eight junctions, the majority (six) are modelled to operate better, within capacity, at 2031 with the Borough Green Gardens development (including the relief road) than without the Local Plan in place (future baseline). Three of these junctions achieve the improved, desirable outcome without the need for mitigation. The other three achieve the desirable outcome with mitigation in place. The reduced flows of traffic at junctions in and around Borough Green, as a result of the relief road, will also benefit air quality as the number of vehicles in queues is anticipated to be lower.

14.10. It is evident that the relief road would achieve significant net gains in and around Borough Green. Without the relief road and Local Plan development, i.e. the future

38 baseline, all of the junctions are modelled to operate worse or the same as the base date of the modelling (2017). The benefits of the relief road are also highlighted in the Topic Paper [ED10].

14.11. However, as highlighted in [ED10], the full relief road will not happen without the development. Equally, the development of Borough Green Gardens cannot acceptably happen without the relief road, it being an integral part of the scheme. With this in mind and taking account of the proportionate evidence ([TI7 (a)-(c)] and [ED10]) along with the established principle that some form of by-pass is needed (see [ED8B]), the Council considers its approach to the relief road on land currently in the Green Belt which is proposed for removal is justified. As highlighted above, the way in which a site can bring forward infrastructure as part of a sound spatial strategy can fall within the concept of exceptional circumstances [Compton]. The Council has presented this case in the Topic Paper [ED10].

14.12. In terms of education provision, the Council has reflected the position of Kent County Council as the Education Authority for Tonbridge & Malling borough. Given the potential developable areas of Borough Green Gardens - having considered the landscape constraints and impacts - as well as the importance of primary education provision being easily accessible by more sustainable means of travel to families living in new developments, there are no genuine alternatives to providing the two new primary schools on land currently in the Green Belt which is proposed for removal. On this basis, the Council’s approach is justified.

Approach to new infrastructure on land which is to be retained in the Green Belt from adoption of the Local Plan

14.13. The Council considers the approach taken to the Borough Green Gardens relief road on land which is to be retained in the Green Belt from adoption of the Local Plan is justified in light of the proportionate evidence ([TI7(a)-(c)], [ED8B] and [ED10]).

14.14. The justification for the relief road is set out in the earlier part of the Council’s response to this question (see above). The element of the proposed relief road that lies on land which is to be retained in the Green Belt is relatively small, falling beyond the developable area to the west. However, it is an important element because it provides the connection of the relief road with the A25, thereby creating a genuine relief road for the rural service centre. Without it, traffic approaching from the west along the A25 would have to travel through the centre of Borough Green to access the development, i.e. there would be no relief.

39 14.15. The Council has not proposed to remove the land covered by this part of the relief road from the Green Belt because it falls beyond the developable area of Borough Green Gardens, i.e. it falls beyond that part of the proposed allocation where the housing and community facilities are planned for. This means that the only form of development proposed to take place in the Green Belt at this location would be the relief road. This form of development alone would not erode the openness of the Green Belt. It is important to note that the location of this stretch is similar to the area safeguarded for the Borough Green by-pass in the adopted Development Plan2. This means that this broad alignment has already been examined and found acceptable through an existing development plan process. Furthermore, the principle of a relief road at this location in the Green Belt has been long established, as detailed in [ED8B].

14.16. When all of these factors are taken into consideration, the Council is of the view that there is no justification for removing the land covered by this stretch of the relief road from the Green Belt.

2 Policy S1(c) in the Development Land Allocations DPD (April 2008): www.tmbc.gov.uk/developmentplan

40 What land is safeguarded through this Local Plan and what land was safeguarded through the previous adopted Local Plan? Does the Local Plan make clear that safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time? Is all land previously safeguarded allocated for development in this Plan? TMBC Response to Q15:

Land safeguarded through this Local Plan

15.1. Policy LP32 in the submitted Local Plan [LPS1] identifies safeguarded land. This is illustrated in the Proposed Changes to the Policies Map (updated OS base map) Vol.5 [ED22E].

15.2. Land safeguarded in this Local Plan comprises:

• Land north-east of Borough Green (Phase 1C of Borough Green Gardens Strategic Housing Allocation (LP29)).

Land safeguarded through the previous adopted Local Plan

15.3. Land safeguarded in the Council’s adopted Development Plan is set out in Policy CP4 in the Core Strategy (Adopted September 2007)3.

15.4. Land safeguarded in the adopted Development Plan comprises:

• North of Lower Haysden Lane, Tonbridge; • North of Dry Hill Park Road, Tonbridge; • Carpenters Lane, Hadlow; and • Land at Howlands Allotments, Wrotham.

Land safeguarded through this Local Plan – not allocated for development at the present time

15.5. Paragraph 1 in Policy LP32 makes it clear that the identified land is safeguarded to help address future longer-term development needs beyond 2031, i.e. it is not allocated for development at the present time during the plan period.

15.6. Paragraph 2 needs to be read in conjunction with paragraph 1 in Policy LP32. This element of the policy is focussed on how, and not when, development on safeguarded land should be brought forward. It makes it clear that when development takes place on the safeguarded land – which will be beyond the plan

3 See the adopted Development Plan: www.tmbc.gov.uk/developmentplan

41 period as made clear in paragraph 1 - it needs to do so in a way that complies with the requirements of Policy LP29.

15.7. The Council considers the intent of Policy LP32 is clear; it does not support development taking place on safeguarded land during the plan period. The Council can see that given the existence of Policy LP29, paragraph 2 in LP32 may be viewed as superfluous. However, the Council is mindful of the potential for a planning application seeking to bring forward this land at an earlier stage contrary to paragraph 1; and if that were to be permitted based on other material planning considerations, the Council would still wish to be able to rely upon the approach in paragraph 2.

Land previously safeguarded – allocated for development in the Local Plan

15.8. All land safeguarded in Policy CP4 in the Council’s adopted Core Strategy is allocated for development in the submitted Local Plan [LPS1].

15.9. The land is allocated in Policy LP25 as follows:

• North of Lower Haysden Lane, Tonbridge – part of LP25(ac) & LP31; • North of Dry Hill Park Road, Tonbridge – LP25(ab); • Carpenters Lane, Hadlow – LP25(u); and • Land at Howlands Allotments, Wrotham – LP25(ai).

42 Is it necessary to identify safeguarded land more widely in order to meet longer term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period? Without the identification of further safeguarded land, what reassurance is there that longer-term development needs can be met without further review of the Green Belt? TMBC Response to Q16:

16.1. In addition to the Council’s response below, please also see the Council’s response to Matter 2, question 5.

16.2. It is important when considering safeguarded land that the Council’s policy on ‘areas of opportunity’ is also taken account of because this is the equivalent policy for those parts of the borough beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. The ‘areas of opportunity’ Policy (LP33) has a similar intent to the safeguarded land Policy (LP32) in that its purpose is to make provisions to help address longer-term development needs beyond the time horizon of the Local Plan (2031). These policies provide substantial reassurance that longer term development needs can be met without further review of the Green Belt. However, it is not reasonably possible to altogether exclude that, by 2031, circumstances may have changed (and primary legislation and/or guidance may have changed) so that the strategy then recognised as the most sustainable may require further Green Belt release.

16.3. The importance of considering both policy responses alongside each other is brought into focus by the distribution of the two HMAs across the borough and how this relates to the coverage of Green Belt. That part of the borough which lies beyond the outer Green Belt boundary falls within the Maidstone HMA, the focal point of which is the urban area of Maidstone in the neighbouring borough. In the interest of promoting sustainable patterns of development, it is appropriate for the Local Plan to make similar provisions to safeguarded land, i.e. ‘areas of opportunity’, for this area of Tonbridge & Malling to help address long-term development needs.

Is it necessary to identify safeguarded land more widely in order to meet longer term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period?

16.4. The Council does not consider it is necessary to identify safeguarded land more widely in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period because of the provisions of Policies LP32 and LP33. The combination of the significant amount of land safeguarded at Borough Green with the areas of opportunity – the equivalent of the safeguarded land policy for areas outside of the Green Belt – at Bushey Wood and East Malling Research Station means there is

43 no pressing need to identify additional land to address development needs beyond 2031. This is a proportionate approach to take at this time.

16.5. During plan-making the Council was mindful that approximately 30% of the borough lies beyond the outer Green Belt boundary and that this is located in the Maidstone HMA. This meant that in order to support sustainable patterns of development beyond 2031 a balanced policy response would be required to address longer-term needs. This is why the areas of opportunity policy is included, which has a similar intent to the safeguarded land policy.

16.6. The areas of opportunity is not a new policy approach, it has been long established and supported by inspectors in successive development plans including the Tonbridge & Malling Borough Local Plan (1998) and the Core Strategy (2007). Bushey Wood, which now features as a strategic site in the submitted Plan (see LP27 in [LPS1]), is an example of a previous area of opportunity. Land at Bushey Wood was identified in the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Local Plan back in 1998 as a broad area of opportunity for future development. It featured again in the Core Strategy (Policy CP16) for the same purpose. It forms part of the Council’s strategy for the East Bank of the River Medway which dates back to the 1980s. The East Bank Strategy envisages the creation of two major new communities concentrating on damaged land at Peters Pit, also known as Peters Village, near Wouldham and Bushey Wood, near Eccles. Peters Village has secured planning permission (1,000 units) and is in the process of being delivered. This includes the construction of a new bridge across the River Medway which is operational and has improved accessibility to the area. Bushey Wood is the next phase of this strategy.

16.7. In addition to the remainder of Bushey Wood, the Council has also identified a significant area of opportunity at the East Malling Research Station in the Local Plan. These two large areas, along with the safeguarded land at Borough Green, represent a proportionate policy response to the issue of addressing longer-term development needs. The Council recognises that 2031 is a considerable time into the future and that the first review of this Local Plan will result in new evidence and new opportunities that can be assessed and considered to address the future development needs of the borough, alongside the provisions of Policies LP32 and LP33.

Without the identification of further safeguarded land, what reassurance is there that longer-term development needs can be met without further review of the Green Belt?

16.8. The potential yield that could be achieved on the safeguarded land (LP32) and the areas of opportunity (LP33) – the equivalent of safeguarded land for areas beyond

44 the outer Green Belt boundary – is of a sufficient size to provide reassurance that the longer-term development needs can be met without further review of the Green Belt.

16.9. The total area identified to address longer-term development needs amounts to over 300 hectares. It should be noted that not all of this would be considered developable, and constraints would need to be taken account of. At this stage, it is estimated that these sites could yield the following number of dwellings (see below). These should be treated with a degree of caution because they will need to be subject to further detailed assessment as and when the sites are needed to be brought forward:

• Borough Green Gardens, Phase 1C: 900 units

• Bushey Wood Area of Opportunity: 614 units

• East Malling Research Station: approximately 1,000 units

16.10. These sites could yield in the region of 2,500 units. To put this into perspective, the allocations in the submitted Plan for the period up to 2031 amount to 6,834 units. This means that the land identified to address the longer-term development needs could yield over a third of the development strategy set out in the submitted Local Plan [LPS1].

16.11. The Council considers this to be a reasonable, proportionate approach to take at this time. Given this significant headroom, the Council is satisfied it is not necessary for the Local Plan to identify safeguarded land more widely or identify additional areas of opportunity on land beyond the outer Green Belt boundary in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period. This is a planning judgement made now, based upon the available evidence and within the context of national policy.

45 Have the altered Green Belt boundaries been considered having regard to their intended permanence in the long term? Are they capable of enduring beyond the plan period? TMBC Response to Q17:

Have the altered Green Belt boundaries been considered having regard to their intended permanence in the long term?

17.1. Yes, the altered Green Belt boundaries have been considered having regard to their intended permanence in the long-term. The Council was mindful of the national policy and its expectations when the alterations were considered and assessed.

17.2. As highlighted in the Council’s response to Matter 3, question 16 (see above) the Local Plan takes a positive approach to making provisions to address longer-term development needs beyond the lifetime of the Plan. This positive, balanced approach takes account of the HMAs exerting an influence across the borough and what this means for the distribution of housing need and sustainable patterns of future development.

17.3. It is important when considering safeguarded land that the Council’s policy on ‘areas of opportunity’ is also taken account of because this is the equivalent policy for those parts of the borough beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. The ‘areas of opportunity’ Policy (LP33) has a similar intent to the safeguarded land Policy (LP32) in that its purpose is to make provisions to help address longer-term development needs beyond the time horizon of the Local Plan (2031).

17.4. A significant amount of land is either safeguarded (Policy LP32 in the submitted Plan [LPS1]) or designated as an area of opportunity (Policy LP33). Policy LP32, in effect, addresses the longer-term development needs that are likely to be generated within that part of the borough covered by the Sevenoaks/Tunbridge Wells/Tonbridge HMA whilst LP33 addresses the longer-term development needs in that part of the borough falling within the Maidstone HMA beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.

17.5. In combination, these sites could potentially yield in the region of 2,500 homes which would represent a significant proportion of any future need identified during the review process. To put this into perspective, the allocations in the submitted Plan for the period up to 2031 amount to 6,834 units. This means that the land identified to address the longer-term development needs could yield over a third of the development strategy set out in the submitted Local Plan [LPS1]. This

46 significant amount of headroom supports the longevity of the altered Green Belt boundaries.

Are they capable of enduring beyond the plan period?

17.6. Yes, the altered Green Belt boundaries are capable of enduring beyond the plan period, given the provisions of Policies LP32 and LP33 (as explained above). The headroom provided should limit pressures for further alterations in the period post- 2031. The Council considers this to be a reasonable and proportionate approach to take at this time, in light of the evidence and within the context of national policy. The Council is mindful that at the time of the first review of the Local Plan the policy context might be different and evidence, in terms of need and opportunities, might well have changed.

47 In terms of the land being included in the Green Belt through proposed boundary changes, what other options were considered and rejected, as a way of preventing harmful development in this area? Where is this evident? TMBC Response to Q18:

Other policy options considered and rejected

18.1. The other policy options that were considered and rejected, as a way of preventing harmful development in this area, are summarised in the Council’s response to the Inspectors’ initial questions [ED19] at paragraphs 6.22-6.30. Other options included a local landscape designation and a strategic gap. These were rejected early on because of a lack of support in national policy for the options and because of their limited focus, certainly in respect of a local landscape designation.

18.2. The local landscape designation option was considered to be too narrowly focussed and would not be sufficiently robust to counter development pressures in this area and the impact this may have on the integrity and character of local settlements. A local landscape designation would only afford limited protection. It was concluded that this did not represent a reasonable alternative policy option for preventing harmful development in this area.

18.3. The strategic gap is an anti-coalescence policy that exists in the Council’s adopted Development Plan [Core Strategy, CP5]. However, the Council was mindful that the foundation for this existing policy, Policy CC10b of the South East Plan (SEP), ceased to exist when the SEP was revoked in 2013. With the revocation of the SEP, there is now no regional policy-hook to hang such a policy approach on at the local level. Furthermore, there is no support in the Government’s NPPF (2012) for the designation of strategic gaps in Local Plans. As a result, it was concluded that this did not represent a reasonable alternative policy option for preventing harmful development in this area.

Including land in the Green Belt – Other options considered and rejected

18.4. Given the development pressures in the area, as highlighted by the recently dismissed appeal for development on land east of Lavenders Road, West Malling, (Appeal Ref: APP/H2265/W/19/3227034 – see Appendix A to Matter 3), and the fact that there are no reasonable policy alternatives (see above), the Council considers that the most effective policy option is an alteration to the outer boundary of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

18.5. In addition to the proposed alteration in the submitted Local Plan [LPS1], two alternative options were considered and assessed. Details can be found in the

48 Regulation 18 Plan [OLP4], the Green Belt Stage Two Report [LG8], the Topic Paper [ED10] and the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum [ED13].

18.6. A228 Ashton Way - The first option involved extending the outer boundary to the A228 Ashton Way. This featured in the Regulation 18 Plan [OLP4] which was consulted upon during the autumn of 2016. The Council proposed this option because the A228 Ashton Way represents a clear physical feature that is readily recognisable and permanent. The Ashton Way did not exist when the existing outer Green Belt boundary was defined. The principle of altering the outer boundary of the Green Belt received significant support, as highlighted in the Regulation 22 (1) (c) Consultation Statement [LPS16] (see section 2.5). However, the majority of the representations were of the view that the alteration should extend further east, including as far as Kiln Barn Road.

18.7. Kiln Barn Road and Wateringbury Road - The Council responded to the feedback received during the consultation on [OLP4] by identifying and assessing two further options: altering the outer boundary to Kiln Barn Road, and; altering the outer boundary to Wateringbury Road. The merits of each of these options are highlighted in the Topic Paper [ED10] (paras 3.2.8 – 3.2.16). The merits of the Wateringbury Road option, which is the proposed alteration in the submitted Plan [LPS1], are also set out in the Green Belt Stage Two Report [LG8]. The exceptional circumstances case for including this land in the Green Belt concluded that it would serve all four of the purposes analysed (for the comparative analysis) in the Green Belt Study. That conclusion underlines the appropriateness of this land for inclusion within the Green Belt.

18.8. [ED10] identifies that the Kiln Barn Road option would pose a risk to certain elements of the development strategy in the Local Plan for addressing assessed needs as well as being a physical feature that is not as readily recognisable as the other options (para 3.2.12).

18.9. Sustainability Appraisal (SA) – Each of these options was appraised. The outcomes of this process are documented in the SA Addendum [ED13] (sections 3 and 4). The process found that in terms of the SA objective for housing, the extension of the Green Belt does not raise significant concerns “given good potential to compensate through increased housing delivery within other parts of the Borough”. In respect of natural and heritage assets and land use, the process found that the Green Belt extension supported these SA objectives.

49 Conclusions

18.10. There are no genuine reasonable policy alternatives to an alteration to the outer Green Belt boundary to prevent harmful development in this area. The policy alternatives assessed would carry limited weight and are, in some respects, too narrowly focussed. They would be ineffective.

18.11. In light of national policy, the response to the Regulation 18 Plan consultation [LPS16], the SA process [ED13], and being mindful of natural and heritage assets that exist in the area as well as the proposed spatial strategy in the Local Plan, an alteration of the outer Green Belt boundary to Wateringbury Road is reasonable and justified. This alteration would achieve the objectives of protecting the individual integrity and character of local settlements and important heritage assets (see Council’s response to Matter 3, question 6) and the character of the local area without prejudice to the short, medium and long-term spatial strategy in the Local Plan. Furthermore, as highlighted in the Council’s response to Matter 3, question 6, the alteration of the outer Green Belt boundary to Wateringbury Road results in a delineation that relates more closely with the outer boundary in Maidstone borough to the south and Medway Council to the north (see Appendix B to Matter 3 for maps). This makes more sense than the current alignment, as recognised in the Green Belt Stage Two Report [LG8]. As also recognised within [LG8] the land, once included, would serve all four of the Green Belt purposes analysed in the Green Belt Study.

50 Has consideration been given to leaving this land outside of the Green Belt boundary in order to allow for some future development without the need to review the Green Belt boundaries again? TMBC Response to Q19:

19.1. In answering this question, it is important to first consider the exceptional circumstances case for the proposed alteration to include this land inside of the Green Belt.

19.2. The Council’s response to Matter 3, question 6 (above) is clear that the exceptional circumstances necessary to warrant the inclusion of this land in the Green Belt exist. This is evidenced in the Green Belt Stage Two Report [LG8] and the Topic Paper [ED10]. The response to Matter 3, question 5 confirms that the approach taken by the Council to this exercise is robust and in line with national guidance. Given the strength of the exceptional circumstances case, as highlighted by the Council’s responses to Matter 3, questions 5 and 6, it would be inappropriate to consider leaving this land outside of the Green Belt boundary in order to allow for some future development.

19.3. When deciding the appropriate alignment of the outer Green Belt boundary, the Council was committed to finding an outcome that did not compromise the ability of the Local Plan to help address development needs now and in the long-term. This is evidenced in the Green Belt Stage Two Report [LG8] (paragraphs 4.6 and 4.11) and highlighted in the Topic Paper [ED10] (paragraphs 3.2.10-3.2.16 and 4.1.6). The Council’s approach to addressing long-term development needs beyond the plan period is embodied in the safeguarded land Policy (LP32) and the areas of opportunity Policy (LP33) – please see the Council’s responses to Matter 3, questions 16 and 17 (above). Furthermore, the Council understood during plan- making that it would not be justified to include land in the Green Belt which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open in light of the acute housing need.

19.4. An alternative option to that proposed in the submitted Plan [LPS1] of extending the outer Green Belt boundary to the east to Kiln Barn Road was assessed (see [LG8]). The Council concluded that this alternative option would be inappropriate because it would be prejudicial to the spatial strategy and would include swathes of land which, considering the high housing pressure experienced in the borough as highlighted by the significant and worsening housing affordability ratio, is unnecessary to keep permanently open.

19.5. In light of the evidence [LG8 & ED10] and taking account of the significant commitment to addressing long-term development needs in the submitted Plan

51 [LPS1] (see Policies LP32 and LP33 and the responses to Matter 3, questions 16 & 17) the Council is confident that it has given due consideration to leaving this land outside of the Green Belt boundary in order to allow for some future development without the need to review the Green Belt boundaries again. The Council concludes that it would be appropriate to make the alteration to the Green Belt boundary because of the strength of the exceptional circumstances case. Furthermore, the Council concludes that the alignment of the altered outer Green Belt boundary would not be prejudicial to the short, medium and long-term spatial strategy in the Local Plan and would, therefore, not result in a pressing need to review the Green Belt boundaries again. This is a planning judgement made now, based upon the available evidence and within the context of national policy.

52