TONBRIDGE AND MALLING BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION

Written Statement MATTER 3 Metropolitan Green Belt

Representations on behalf of Wealden Homes Representor ID: 2018/0000224L

October 2020 AND MALLING BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION

WRITTEN STATEMENT - MATTER 03 METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT

REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF WEALDEN HOMES REPRESENTOR ID: 2018/0000224L

OCTOBER 2020

Project Ref: 29662/A3 Status Final Issue/Rev: 01 Date: 12 October 2020 Prepared by: RC/JF Checked by: JF Authorised by: JF

Barton Willmore 26 Avenue Kings Hill ME19 4AE

Tel: 01322 374660 Ref: 29662/A5/JF/RC Email: [email protected] Date: 12 October 2020

COPYRIGHT

The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Barton Willmore LLP. All Barton Willmore stationery is produced using recycled or FSC paper and vegetable oil based inks. CONTENTS

PAGE NO.

1.0 INTRODUCTION 01

2.0 RESPONSE TO MATTER 02 – METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT 02 Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Matter Statement has been prepared by Barton Willmore LLP on behalf of Wealden Homes. Wealden Homes is promoting two parcels of land at Church Lane, East Peckham – as allocated in the submitted Local Plan for 35no. dwellings (LP25 – t) and 23no. dwellings (LP25 – v) respectively.

1.2 Notwithstanding our Client’s interests, this Statement has been prepared in objective terms in accordance with the NPPF and PPG. With regard to Matter 03 MIQs, this Statement confirms:

- TMBC comprises c. 70% of Green Belt. - This includes most of the West Kent HMA of the Borough – a review of Green Belt is therefore essential to assess if needs can be met in full. - The methodology for the Green Belt Review is in compliance with the NPPF and identifies land suitable for development in least sensitive parts of the Green Belt. - Exceptional circumstances are demonstrated for Green Belt release in the Borough, including at land at Church Lane, East Peckham. In particular, there is not sufficient land available outside Green Belt to meet housing need (including in the West Kent HMA).

29662/A5/JF/RC 1 12 October 2020 Response to Matter 03 – Metropolitan Green Belt

2.0 RESPONSE TO MATTER 02 – METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT

QUESTIONS

Q.1 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? Q.2 Does it reflect the fundamental aim of Green Belts, being to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open? Q.3 Does it reflect the essential characteristics of Green Belts, being their openness and their permanence? Q.4 Does it reflect the five purposes that Green Belts serve, set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF?

2.1 Green Belt occupies up to 70% of the administrative area of TMBC, as broadly washing over the West Kent HMA area. A review of Green Belt is therefore of necessity in TMBC in order to establish if housing (and other) needs can be met in full.

2.2 TMBC’s Green Belt Review (GBR) methodology entailed a “two-staged approach” as follows.

GBR Stage 1 (2016)

2.3 In response to Qs. 2, 3 and 4, the Stage 1 GBR (LG9) undertook an assessment of land parcels across the Green Belt as divided into the various Parish areas within the Borough. Each Parish area was assessed against the purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF (para 80); namely:

• To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; • To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; • To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.

2.4 The GBR includes an assessment criterion as against each of the NPPF purposes (above) as including:

- “Performing well”; - “Performing moderately”; and - “Limited or no contribution”.

29662/A5/JF/RC 2 12 October 2020 Response to Matter 03 – Metropolitan Green Belt

2.5 All land parcels around East Peckham were assessed as follows:

Table 1 : Stage 1 GBR assessment of parcels around East Peckham NPPF Purpose TMBC assessment 1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas Performs well. 2. To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another Performs moderately. 3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment Performs moderately.

4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns Performs well.

2.6 Whilst we broadly support the above assessment of the wider/broader land parcels around East Peckham, we submitted a ‘Landscape, Visual and Green Belt Technical Advice Note’ (Barton Willmore - Appendix 5) to the Reg 19 consultation of the Local Plan (Oct 2018) to support the case for the release of the Church Lane sites from Green Belt (building upon the Council’s own evidence base).

2.7 The Technical Advice Note advises that allocation of the Site for residential development would not cause sprawl on the edge of East Peckham (and Hale Street) and would not cause encroachment into the open countryside. Whilst development at the Site would cause some reduction in the separation between Hale Street and East Peckham, this can be mitigated through reinforcement of the corridor of the Coults Stream. Importantly, the accompanying technical note reinforces that the Site can accommodate development without compromising the wider Green Belt and its functionality.

2.8 The Technical Advice Note provided within our Regulation 19 representations presented a number of opportunities which can be included as part of the Site development, including retaining and enhancing existing site boundaries, and utilising lower densities and softer edges at the southern and western edges of the site.

2.9 Wealden Homes controls residual land west of the allocation parcel (LP25(t)). This is identified at Appendix 1 of our Reg 19 Consultation representations and demonstrates how the recommendations set out within the Technical Advice Note can be incorporated into any eventual development scheme.

2.10 We support the Site’s strategic release from the Green Belt for residential development through the Local Plan, yet as set out in response to Question 13 below, consider that the allocation could be further extended westwards.

Q.5 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

29662/A5/JF/RC 3 12 October 2020 Response to Matter 03 – Metropolitan Green Belt

Belt set out in its Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances Topic Paper (ED10) robust and in line with national guidance?

Q.6 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?

2.11 The Stage 2 GBR (LG8) sets out the “exceptional circumstances” for sites selected for Green Belt release. These sites were drawn from the outcomes of the earlier Stage 1 GBR as well as from other evidence base documents including the iterative SLAA and SA.

2.12 The Stage 2 GBR methodology for assessing “exceptional circumstances” was derived from Calverton (2015)1, which at the time provided the most recent and relevant definition of exceptional circumstances. It is considered that the Stage 2 GBR (Section 3 of the document) provides a robust assessment of the exceptional circumstances for the removal of land from Green Belt, which with reference to Calverton, is based on the following elements:

a) Promoting sustainable patterns of development; b) Identifying the OAN for housing need; c) Meeting assessed need outside the Green Belt; d) Meeting unmet need elsewhere in the Borough beyond the outer Green Belt boundary or in neighbouring authorities; and e) Addressing housing affordability and providing opportunities to deliver affordable housing.

2.13 The objective of the Topic Paper (ED10) is to set out/explain the exceptional circumstances for the alterations to GB boundaries/allocations of sites in the Green Belt. In terms of the approach taken, the Topic Paper correctly refers to Calverton as above and the factors to be considered in demonstrating exceptional circumstances.

2.14 More recently, the Compton Judgment (04 Dec 2019)2 has been handed down which includes an additional factor in defining “exceptional circumstances”, relating to if there is scope to export housing needs to neighbouring authorities.

1 Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council and others [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) (21 April 2015) (Court of Justice) 2 Compton and Ockham Parish Councils v. Guildford Borough Council and Secretary of State, CO/2173/2174/2175/2019

29662/A5/JF/RC 4 12 October 2020 Response to Matter 03 – Metropolitan Green Belt

2.15 In this context, there are significant challenges with Sevenoaks (circa. 85% of which is Green Belt) meeting its own needs, with Tunbridge Wells BC (circa. 25% of which is Green Belt with circa. 70% AONB) also seeking to meets its own needs and unable to meet needs from TMBC. It is therefore considered that needs from the West Kent HMA cannot be exported to either Sevenoaks or Tunbridge Wells. It is therefore considered that taking this into account and the conclusions of the Topic Paper ED10 the exceptional circumstances exist to warrant the proposed alteration to the Green Belt boundary at Church Lane, East Peckham.

Q.7 What relationship, if any, is there betw een the exceptional circumstances leading to the alterations proposed to the Green Belt and the proposed spatial strategy/ distribution of new housing? 2.16 We consider there is a clear relationship between the exceptional circumstances leading to the

alteration to the Green Belt and the proposed spatial strategy/distribution of new housing (as including the allocation of land at Church Lane, East Peckham).

2.17 This is because housing need in TMBC arises across two HMAs (a unique requirement to TMBC), which therefore entails a need to distribute development across both HMAs. In the West Kent HMA, which is broadly washed over by Green Belt, this results in the necessity for Green Belt release including at Church Lane, East Peckham.

Q.13 Are all the sites and their boundaries clearly and accurately shown on the proposals map?

2.18 As set out in Q.1 above, Wealden Homes controls residual land west of the allocation parcel (LP25(t)) as identified at Appendix 1 of our Reg 19 Consultation representations. This land has been submitted to TMBC during the Local Plan process and we consider it should be released from the Green Belt for development as part of the Local Plan allocations.

2.19 This land was included within the ‘Landscape, Visual and Green Belt Technical Advice Note’ provided at Appendix 5 of our Reg 19 consultation representations. In summary, the Technical Note identified that there are no technical reasons why the additional/residual Wealden Homes land should not also be released from the Green Belt for development as part of the Local Plan allocations.

2.20 We therefore request that the Green Belt release plan is re-drawn to include this additional parcel of land within the same field parcel as emerging allocation LP25(t). This would be acceptable in Green Belt terms and would maximise the efficiency of the Wealden Homes land to deliver much needed homes in the Borough.

29662/A5/JF/RC 5 12 October 2020 bartonwillmore.co.uk TOWN PLANNING MASTERPLANNING & URBAN DESIGN ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE PLANNING & DESIGN INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING HERITAGE GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATIONS & ENGAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

This product is printed on stock and in a process that conforms to the PEFC standards for sustainably managed forests.