Sevenoaks District Council Local Plan Consultation Statement

April 2019

Contents

Page

Introduction 1

Approach to Consultation 2

Bodies and Individuals Consulted 3

Preparation of a Local Plan (Reg. 18) 4

Evidence Base Gathering 5

Evidence Base Consultation 11

Call for Sites 24

Issues and Options Consultation (Reg. 18) 25

Draft Local Plan Consultation (Reg. 18) 32

Additional Potential Strategic Development Sites in the 39 Green Belt Consultation (Reg. 18) Supplementary Planning Documents (Reg. 13) 43

Publication of a Local Plan (Reg. 19) 45

Appendices 49 Introduction

The Local Plan sets out site allocations to meet district-wide development needs and development management policies to be used to determine planning applications. These policies and site allocations, once adopted, will replace the existing Core Strategy and the Allocations and Development Management Plan (ADMP).

As part of the Local Plan preparation process we undertook two Regulation 18 Consultations: Issues and Options (summer 2017) and the Draft Local Plan Consultation (summer 2018). We also undertook a Pre-Submission Consultation (Regulation 19) in December 2018.

Once adopted, the Local Plan will form part of the statutory development plan for Sevenoaks District.

Regulation 22 (of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012 requires Local Planning Authorities to produce a Statement which sets out the following information in respect of all the consultations carried out under Regulation 18 (preparation of a local plan) and Regulation 19 (publication of a local plan):

 Who was consulted (which bodies and persons the Local Planning Authority invited to make representations; See appendix H)

 How the community and local stakeholders were invited to make representations (See individual consultation pages)

 A summary of the main issues raised by the consultees at Regulation 18 stage (see appendices A, B, C, D and E);

 An explanation of how the representations made at Regulation 18 stage have been taken into account (see individual consultation pages); and 

 The number of representations submitted at Reg. 19 stage (in accordance with Reg. 20) and a summary of the main issues which were raised (see appendix G).

1 Approach to Consultation

Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 requires local authorities to notify consultation bodies of the subject of a local plan which they are proposing to prepare and invite them to make representations on what a plan of that subject should contain. Sevenoaks District Council (SDC) considers that it has met and significantly exceeded these minimum requirements, in accordance with its Statement of Community Involvement (SCI),

The adopted Sevenoaks Statement of Community Involvement (November 2014), ‘Community Involvement in Planning Policy’, sets out the range of approaches to consultation and participation that the Council will consider facilitating in preparing Local Plan documents. The appropriate consultation methods have been taken from this guidance and used in this consultation process. A copy of the SCI can be viewed on the District Council’s website.

SDC published a number of different documents for consultation as part of the preparation of the Local Plan. In addition, it went beyond the statutory minimum requirements for publicising these consultations and organised community engagement events to explain and publicise the proposals.

At ‘publication’ stage, Regulation 19 requires local authorities to make a copy of the proposed submission document available to consultation bodies, along with information on how representations can be made. Interested parties have submitted representations in accordance with Reg. 20.

2 Bodies and individuals consulted

‘General’ consultation bodies are defined in the Regulations as any voluntary bodies, bodies representing racial, ethnic, national or religious groups or disabled persons and bodies representing the interests of business in the area.

For all Regulation 18 (preparation of a local plan) and Regulation 19 (publication of a local plan) consultations, email and letter correspondence was sent to all organisations and individuals registered on the Planning Policy mailing list.

A full list of who was consulted throughout the Local Plan process can be found in Appendix H.

3 Preparation of a Local Plan (Reg. 18)

The following steps were taken to publicise consultations on the Local Plan 2015- 2035 and to invite people to comment for every consultation referred to in this section:

 Letters and emails were sent to all organisations and individuals on the Local Plan consultation mailing list. This includes all persons and organisations that have previously made comments on Local Plan documents or who have expressed a wish to be kept informed of the progress of the plan.

 A public notice was placed in Sevenoaks District Council’s InShape magazine informing the public of the consultation matters, the consultation period and the places at which the documents can be inspected i.e. online on the Council’s website, in libraries, at the Town and Parish Council offices and at the Council offices. This was delivered to every household in the District. The details of the consultation were released to the local press via a press release.

 A specific webpage for the Local Plan was set up on the Sevenoaks District Council website. This was kept up to date with new information, updates and documents throughout the Local Plan preparation process. 

 Flyers and Posters were produced to advertise the consultations, and these were provided to all Town and Parish Councils and Libraries within the District. Flyers were also handed out at Train Stations.

 Throughout the consultations, there was an extensive targeted Social Media presence and focused engagement with ‘hard to reach’ groups, such as young people, commuters and gypsies and travellers. 

In addition, a range of exhibitions, briefings and drop in sessions were held throughout the consultation periods.

4 Evidence Base gathering – 2015-2018

From 2015 to 2018 the Planning Policy Team at Sevenoaks District Council produced a number of Evidence Base documents to support the new Local Plan. The following documents helped inform the production of the Local Plan:

 Affordable Housing / Viability Study   Biodiversity Analysis  Economic Needs Study  Green Belt Assessment  Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment  Housing Strategy   Infrastructure Delivery Plan  Landscape Character Assessment and Sensitivity Study  Local Housing Needs Study   Open Space Sports and Leisure Study: - Initial Findings Document - Playing Pitch Strategy - Open Space Study - Sports Facility Strategy  Retail Study   Settlement Hierarchy  Sevenoaks District Tourist Accommodation Study   Survey of Employers’ Housing Needs  Strategic Flood Risk Assessment  Strategic Housing Market Assessment   Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment   Swanley and Hextable Master Vision  Swanley Transport Study   District-wide transport strategy

Viability Study The Viability Study updates the existing viability evidence base in order to inform the Local Plan. It forms a key piece of evidence in determining the viability requirements for the District and how the Council can continue to deliver affordable homes, CIL and other plan requirements.

Biodiversity Analysis

AECOM were instructed by Sevenoaks District Council to undertake an assessment and analysis of the biodiversity value of land within the District. The council identified the need to establish a robust biodiversity evidence base to support the choice of housing and employment allocations through the Sevenoaks District Local Plan

5 (2015-2015) and to potentially deliver net gain (e.g. through identifying lower value land for biodiversity which could be proactively enhanced through developer contributions). This document supported the evidence base by assisting in the site selection for the Local Plan. It also identifies sites that could potentially be subject to ecological enhancement.

Economic Needs Study

The Economic Needs Study was prepared by Turley, in association with Colliers International, on behalf of Sevenoaks District and Tunbridge Wells Borough Councils. The study contributes further to the evidence base on the objectively assessed needs (OAN) to help take forward revised Local Plans across both areas. As a key piece of evidence underpinning the Councils’ respective Local Plans, the ENS will also help to ensure that future employment policies respond to local economic needs and maximise opportunities for the sustainable economic growth of each area.

Green Belt Assessment

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd (Arup) were appointed by Sevenoaks District Council to undertake a Green Belt Assessment as part of the evidence base to inform the production of a new Local Plan for the District. The Green Belt Assessment assesses the Sevenoaks Green Belt against the purposes of the Green Belt as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other local considerations.

Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment

In December 2016, arc4 were commissioned by Sevenoaks District Council to undertake a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) to identify the housing needs of Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople from across Sevenoaks. The overall objective of the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment is to form a clear evidence basis to inform the development of planning policies relating to Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople.

The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment was presented to Planning Advisory Committee on Wednesday 19th April 2017, and it was endorsed as a robust evidence base from which the Local Plan Strategy would develop.

A Duty to Cooperate workshop was held on the 27th March 2018 with Kent County Council regarding Gypsy and Traveller sites, where general issues across Kent, and sites owned by KCC were discussed.

Housing Strategy 2017

The Housing Strategy is based on policies devised by the elected members of this Council combined with a comprehensive Local Housing Needs Study that has examined the housing needs of all of our residents. We are sure it will make a major difference to ensuring people are living in the best possible accommodation to meet

6 their needs, thereby promoting their overall health and wellbeing.

Infrastructure Delivery Plan

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan forms part of the evidence base to support the preparation of the Local Plan. It identifies any deficiencies in infrastructure across the District, who will deliver the infrastructure, any associated costs (if known), the timescales for delivery and is treated as a “live” document, allowing it to be updated when new information is made available to the Council. The IDP will also assist the review of the Council’s Regulation 123 List (where appropriate).

Landscape Character Assessment and Sensitivity Study

Sevenoaks District Council commissioned LUC in August 2016 to review and update the existing landscape character evidence base, and produce an updated landscape character assessment. It is intended to provide context for policies and proposals within the emerging Local Plan, inform the determination of planning applications, and inform the management of future change. This character assessment updates the District’s previous Landscape Character Assessment.

LUC also produced a landscape sensitivity assessment.

Local Housing Needs Study (2017)

The Sevenoaks District 2017 Local Housing Needs Study (Local HNS) provides the latest available evidence to help to shape the future planning and housing policies of the area. The study will help inform the production of the Council’s Local Plan and Housing Strategy. It considers the affordable housing needs of households, the aspirations/expectations of those households moving in the market, and the need for particular types of dwelling by virtue of age or disability. This research provides an up-to-date analysis of the social, economic, housing and demographic situation across the area.

Open Space, Sport and Leisure Study:

The Open Space, Sport and Leisure Study was presented to Planning Advisory Committee on Wednesday 19th April 2017. It was resolved that the initial findings of the document be supported as part of the robust evidence base from which the Local Plan strategy would be developed

 Initial Findings Document (2017)

Sevenoaks District Council (SDC) has developed an Open Space, Sport and Leisure Study, including a Playing Pitch Strategy and an Indoor Sports Facility report. The study helps us to plan effectively for the future provision of open space (typology, location and amount), indoor and outdoor sports facility provision, for current and future need, population growth and increased

7 participation.

 Playing Pitch Strategy – April 2018

Strategic Leisure and 4 global Consulting produced a Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) for the local authority, to provide an audit and set of strategic recommendations for outdoor pitch sports played in the District. The PPS is a strategic assessment that provides an up to date analysis of supply and demand for playing pitches (grass and artificial) in the local authority. In line with the relevant Sport England guidance this assessment focusses on four main pitch sports; Football, Rugby, Cricket and Hockey.

 Open Space Study

This assessment has undertaken a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the existing and future needs of the community for the following types of open space that exist within the Sevenoaks District; Parks and Gardens, Amenity Greenspace, Facilities for Children and Young People, Land Associated with Outdoor Sports Facilities, Natural and Semi-Natural Greenspace and Green Corridors, Allotments and Cemeteries and Churchyards. The assessment also includes information on the following non- pitch outdoor sports facilities; Golf, Outdoor Gym Equipment and Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGAs).

 Sports Facility Strategy

The Sports Facility Report helps us to plan effectively for future sports facility provision for current and future need, population growth and increased participation.

Retail Study 2017

Bilfinger GVA produced the Sevenoaks District Retail Study. The study provides an up-to-date evidence base on the existing and future roles and performance of the District’s Towns and Service Centres and assesses future demand for retail floorspace in the District over the period to 2035. The study has full regard to the expected levels of growth in Sevenoaks and neighbouring authorities, as well as recent and emerging changes in consumer behaviour.

8 Settlement Hierarchy

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to identify within their Local Plans, appropriate locations for development. These should account for social, economic and environmental opportunities and ensure that the location of development is sustainable. The Settlement Hierarchy is a useful tool to determine the role of settlements, according to a number of factors including population size, services available within a settlement, consideration of Green Belt boundaries and transport links.

Sevenoaks District Tourist Accommodation Study (September 2015)

The purpose of the Sevenoaks Tourist Accommodation Study is to provide a clear understanding of the future potential for hotel and tourist accommodation development in the Sevenoaks District. The study also provides understanding for the role that Sevenoaks District Council can play to realise this potential through its Planning Policy framework and the proactive interventions that it can take to accelerate tourist accommodation development in the District. The study builds on previous work that Hotel Solutions has undertaken to assess potential for hotel development in Sevenoaks District in 2004, 2007 and 2010.

Sevenoaks District Transport Study

The NPPF stresses the importance of considering transport issues at the earliest possible stage of plan-making, to address the potential impacts of development on transport networks and to examine the opportunities to increasing choice for sustainable transport options. The Sevenoaks District Transport Study examines the potential impacts of development upon the transport network across the District, including highways, public transport (i.e. bus and rail services), walking and cycling routes. The Study establishes the baseline scenario for different types of transport, how the mode is used (e.g. getting to work, school, day-to-day services), before assessing the potential development sites proposed and their cumulative impact. The Study also makes recommendations on potential transport improvements to mitigate the potential impacts of development.

Survey of Employers’ Housing Needs

The survey identifies employers’ housing requirements and whether the local housing market (in particular, the affordability of housing), is a challenge for the organisations’ recruitment and retention.

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 2017 document replaces the Level 1 SFRA originally published by Sevenoaks District Council in August 2008 and provides supporting evidence for the emerging Local Plan. This updated SFRA will be used in

9 decision-making regarding the location of future development and the preparation of sustainable policies for the long-term management of flood risk.

Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA September 2015)

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) considers housing need in Sevenoaks District and Tunbridge Wells Borough. It considers; Overall housing need, Need for different sizes of homes, Need for different types of homes, particularly from a growing older population. Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (July 2018):

The Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) is a technical assessment of the amount of land that is available and suitable to meet the District’s housing and employment needs. It is an important evidence base document that informs plan=making, but it does not determine whether a site should be allocated for development in the future, nor does it influence the likelihood of gaining planning permission on a particular site.

The Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment was presented to Planning Advisory Committee and was endorsed as a robust evidence base from which the Local Plan strategy would develop.

Swanley and Hextable Master Vision

A Swanley and Hextable Master Vision was produced which sets out a 20-year vision with ideas of how to regenerate Swanley town centre and the wider area, including a new garden village. The Council’s Cabinet Committee agreed to take forward the Master Vision but not to include the garden village or any building on the town recreation ground.

Swanley Transport Study – Stage 1 (May 2018) and Stage 2 (August 2018)

SWECO were instructed by Kent County Council (KCC) and Sevenoaks District Council (SDC) to undertake an integrated Transport Study of access into and through Swanley by all modes of transport to establish a range of measures and initiatives that will form an overall Transport Strategy for the town.

The integrated, all mode, study ensures that a comprehensive evidence base is assembled that provides clarity and an understanding of Swanley’s transport problems and opportunities.

10 Evidence Base Consultation

As part of the preparation process for the Local Plan Evidence Base, a series of consultation sessions were undertaken. Placemaking

As part of the Evidence Base process, the Planning Policy Team at Sevenoaks District Council ran a series of Placemaking Workshops. For the purpose of these workshops the district was split into 6 areas which share similar characteristics. This meant we could be more specific with discussions. These wider areas were:

 Sevenoaks Urban Area and Surrounds – Sevenoaks Town, Dunton Green, Riverhead, Seal and Sevenoaks Weald

 South – Edenbridge, Hever, Cowden, Chiddingstone, Penshurst and Leigh

 North East – West Kingsdown, Ash-cum-Ridley, Hartley, Fawkham, Horton Kirby and South Darenth

 North West – Hextable, Swanley, Crockenhill, Badgers Mount, Halstead and Knockholt

 Upper Darent Corridor – Westerham, Brasted, Sundridge and Chevening

 Darent Valley – Farningham, Eynsford, Shoreham, Otford and Kemsing

All Town and Parish Councils were invited to attend the Placemaking Workshops, as well as District Ward Members.

These sessions were held on:

 Tuesday 19th January 2016 – 7-10pm North East – New Ash Green Meeting Room Attendance: Representatives from; Ash-cum-Ridley Parish Council, Hartley Parish Council and Horton Kirby and South Darenth Parish Council District Members for; Ash and New Ash Green

 Tuesday 26th January 2016 – 7-10pm South – Edenbridge Town Council Offices Attendance: Representatives from; Penshurst Parish Council, Chiddingstone Parish Council, Leigh Parish Council and Edenbridge Town Council District Members for; Edenbridge North and East and Edenbridge South and West

11  Thursday 4th February 2016 – 7-10pm North West – Hextable Heritage Centre Attendance: Representatives from; Badgers Mount Parish Council, Knockholt Parish Council, Hextable Parish Council and Swanley Town Council District Members for; Halstead and Badgers Mount, Swanley Christchurch and Swanley Village and Swanley White Oak

 Tuesday 9th February 2016 – 7-10pm Upper Darent Corridor – Westerham Town Council Chamber Attendance: Representatives from; Brasted Parish Council, Chevening Parish Council and Westerham Town Council District Members for; Westerham and Brasted, Sundridge and Chevening

 Thursday 18th February 2016 – 7-10pm Darent Valley – Shoreham Village Hall Attendance; Representatives from; Shoreham Parish Council, Otford Parish Council, Eynsford Parish Council and Farningham Parish Council

 Thursday 25th February 2016 – 7-10pm Sevenoaks Urban Area and Surrounds – Sevenoaks District Council Conference Room Attendance: Representatives from; Seal Parish Council, Dunton Green Parish Council, Riverhead Parish Council and Sevenoaks Town Council District Members for; Sevenoaks Northern, Sevenoaks Town and St Johns, Seal and Weald

After being split into groups, attendants were given 3 topics to discuss specifically regarding their areas. These were:

1. Conserving the local character 2. Opportunities for the future 3. Challenges for your area

Findings

North East

Question 1 – Conserving the local character

 Horton Kirby and South Darenth – Conserve rivers/waterways, fishery and recreation ground  Horton Kirby and South Darenth – Village/community feel  Horton Kirby and South Darent – Good green infrastructure  Hartley – Preserve town/village centres

12  New Ash Green and West Kingsdown – Conserve open space

Question 2 – Opportunities for the future

 Hartley – Facilities for mums etc.  New Ash Green – Village centre to include housing  Fawkham – Public Rights of Way and Parking

Question 3 – Challenges for the area

 Preservation of Green Belt  Community Safety  Preservation of Green Belt

South

Question 1 – Conserving the local character

 Chiddingstone – Retain and encourage rural tourism, retain historic part of village, protect sports field and pubs  Leigh – Conserve the green and surrounding view of historic houses, shops, playing field with tennis club, footpaths and cycle ways.  Edenbridge – 2 train stations are crucial, protect stone bridge, retain/upgrade marker in town centre  Hever – Protect cricket ground and sports field

Question 2 – Opportunities for the future

 Penshurst – Small rural hamlets, additional conservation areas and affordable housing provisions  Leigh – Sports facilities, station car park and affordable housing  Edenbridge – Tourism needed, Employment and hospital  Fordcombe – Parking  Chiddingstone – New homes to encourage downsizing  Hever – Potential expansion to causeway

Question 3 – Challenges for the area

 Chiddingstone – Negative impact of aviation on historic and tourist sites  Penshurst – Public transport, school places, and housing  Leigh – Traffic, parking problems, infrastructure and public transport

North West

Question 1 – Conserving the local character

 Badgers Mount – Important woodland screening and Design

13  Halstead – Relationship with neighbouring villages  Knockholt – Railway station and links  Hextable – Protect green areas and open space, village green, post office and shops  Swanley – Links to A20/M20, Retain community facilities, railway station

Question 2 – Opportunities for the future

 Badgers Mount – Bus Service and Village Design Statement  Swanley – Redevelopment of playing fields

Upper Darent Corridor

Question 1 – Conserving the local character

 Brasted – Protect listed buildings, green corridor between M26 and village, Heritage and history and diversity of retail and local services  Westerham – Maintain the centre of Westerham, Protect the primary school and retail and businesses  Crockham Hill – Historical buildings, village hall, school and pubs  Chevening – Protect Chevening Place and Chipstead common

Question 2 – Opportunities for the future

 Brasted – Maintenance of pavements, orchard next to allotments, pedestrian crossing, greater range of bus services, farmers market  Crockham Hill – Improve links to the village, smaller and more affordable housing

Question 3 – Challenges for the area

 Brasted – Diversity of business in the village  Crockham Hill – Car parking and flood control

Darent Valley

Question 1 – Conserving the local character

 Otford – Good local shops, station and links to London, playground  Eynsford – Footpaths, pubs and services, allotments and conservation area village  Shoreham – Aircraft museum, woodland

Question 2 – Opportunities for the future

 Otford – Vestry estate height limit

14  Eynsford – Tourism hub, village hall with car park, links to schools, footpaths, station parking

Question 3 – Challenges for the area

 Otford – Traffic needs to be reduced  Eynsford – Village hall  Shoreham – Traffic, commuting, social divide and balanced housing mix

Sevenoaks Urban Area and Surrounds

Question 1 – Conserving the local character

 Sevenoaks – Important green/open space to keep  Seal – Recreation Ground, conservation area, village identity, primary school, library, shops and services  Sevenoaks Weald – Village Green, Pub and cycle route  Sevenoaks Town Centre – Market town, green spaces in town centre, leisure facilities, schools  Dunton Green – Green Spaces, Footpaths, Village feel, community facilities/pavilion and shops  Riverhead – Park land, schools, village life, shops and services

Question 2 – Opportunities for the future

 Sevenoaks – Secondary shopping sites, medical facilities, redevelopment of Sevenoaks Quarry and greater/safer cycling routes  Sevenoaks Town Centre – Buses/Public Transport improvement to evening service, parking improvements and a dedicated area for market facilities  Sevenoaks Weald – Broadband improvements, traffic congestion at school times  Dunton Green – Improvements to footpaths, cycle paths and parking, buses, GP surgery  Seal – Broadband improvement, affordable housing and promoting community cohesion and engagement

Question 3 – Challenges for the area

 Different aspirations (local vs. planning)  Congestion  Parking issues  Resistance to change

15 Swanley and Hextable Master Vision

The key aim of the Swanley and Hextable Master Vision is to support the regeneration of Swanley and Hextable, in particular Swanley town centre and improvements in housing, retail and transport infrastructure and the replacement of Swanley’s leisure centre with a modern purpose built facility.

Swanley and Hextable Masterplan – Vision Consultation

The Planning Policy Team took the Swanley and Hextable Master Vision Consultation to Planning Advisory Committee {PAC} on Wednesday 20th July 2016. It was recommended by PAC and subsequently agreed by Cabinet members to open for consultation on Tuesday 9th August 2016.

Public consultation period – Wednesday 7th September 2016 – Wednesday 2nd November 2016

This public consultation was organised by the District Council’s Communities and Business Team. An extended consultation period of 8 weeks was undertaken to help provide sufficient opportunity for responses to be made. The focus of consultation was a public survey. The survey was shared with Members on 6 September 2016, prior to issue, in order to allow any concerns to be raised.

The survey was sent to 9,800 households and businesses in postcode areas BR8 7 and BR8 8 together with stamped and addressed return envelopes. Multiple returns could be provided from individual households as long as each return could be attributed to a different household member.

Hard copies of the Swanley and Hextable Master Vision were also available to view at the Swanley Library/Swanley Link and at Swanley Town Council/Hextable Parish Council offices.

Details of the consultation were provided as part of the Swanley and Hextable newsletter delivered to homes and businesses in the BR8 7 and BR8 8 postcode areas (Swanley, Hextable, Crockenhill and Swanley Village) from 12th to 16th September.

Half page adverts were taken out in Dartford and Swanley News Shopper on 14 and 21 September and a briefing was held with a News Shopper reporter on 2 September 2016. The consultation was promoted widely over social media including Twitter and Facebook.

Train Station – Postcard Distribution

As well as advertising the consultation in the ways listed above, flyers advertising the consultation and the dates of our drop in sessions were handed out at train stations to both outgoing and returning commuters. These were as follows:

16  Tuesday 20th September 2016 Swanley Rail Station, Station Approach, Swanley, Kent, BR8 8JD

 Wednesday 21st September 2016 Swanley Rail Station, Station Approach, Swanley, Kent, BR8 8JD

Drop-in Sessions

6 exhibitions/drop-in sessions for members of the public to discuss Swanley and Hextable Master Vision with members of the Planning Policy team were held on:

 Thursday 22nd September 2016 – 11am-4pm 38-39 Swanley Centre, London Road, Swanley, Kent, BR8 7TQ

 Friday 23rd September 2016 – 11am-4pm 38-39 Swanley Centre, London Road, Swanley, Kent, BR8 7TQ

 Saturday 24th September 2016 – 11am-4pm 38-39 Swanley Centre, London Road, Swanley, Kent, BR8 7TQ

 Friday 23rd September 2016 – 9am-9pm Hextable Village Hall, College Road, Hextable, Kent, BR8 7LT

 Tuesday 27th September 2016 – 11am-9pm White Oak Leisure Centre, Hilda May Avenue, Swanley, Kent, BR8 7BT

 Saturday 1st October 2016 – 11am-4pm White Oak Leisure Centre, Hilda May Avenue, Swanley, Kent, BR8 7BT

Following a request from Crockenhill Parish Council a further drop in session was arranged as follows:

 Tuesday 18th October 2017 – 6pm-9pm Crockenhill Village Hall, Stones Cross Road, Crockenhill, Kent, BR8 8LT

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheets anticipating the main enquiries likely to be forthcoming were made available to all staff and to those dropping in at these sessions.

17 Information about the consultation was also left at White Oak Leisure Centre (unmanned) until Wednesday 2nd November 2016.

School Presentations

As the Master Vision concerns Swanley and Hextable over the next 20 years, responses were particularly encouraged from younger age groups. To help enable responses from younger, harder to reach people a visit was made to the following:

 Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Orchards Academy, St Mary’s Road, Swanley, BR8 7TE

The survey questions, with simplified explanatory text, were completed by 107 pupils.

 Wednesday 19th October 2016 Downsview Primary School, Beech Avenue, Swanley, Kent, BR8 8AU

Business Breakfast

A business breakfast was held as follows

 Wednesday 19th October 2016 Swanley Town Council Offices, St Mary’s Road, Swanley, Kent, BR8 7BU

This provided an opportunity for the local business community to find out more about the Master Vision and to focus on issues of direct interest such as implications for employees, premises etc.

Specific Consultation Sessions

Stakeholders on the District Council’s database were invited to return more focussed comments around their particular areas of interest or expertise. This included Swanley Town Council and surrounding Parish Councils.

A separate stakeholder consultation was held as follows:

 Thursday 27th October 2016 Swanley Link, London Road, Swanley, Kent, BR8 7AE

Those attending were able to find out more and were encouraged to respond to the consultation.

A meeting of the Local Strategic Partnership on Thursday 29th September 2016 was given over to a workshop for the Master Vision and the results provide useful evidence behind the views of those stakeholders represented at the event.

18 Finally, a meeting was held on Monday 10th October 2016 with the Head Teachers and Governors of Orchards Academy and St Mary’s Primary School together with the Business Manager from Orchards Academy, KCC, the dioceses of Rochester and TKAT the Academy Chain of which Orchards forms part. Follow up discussions were then held at each school to encourage responses.

Results of the consultation

Sevenoaks District Council’s Planning Advisory Committee considered the results of the consultation on Wednesday 25th January 2017 and the Cabinet did the same at its meeting on Thursday 9th February 2017.

The Council’s Cabinet agreed to take forward the Master Vision but not to include a new garden village or any building on the recreation ground.

The Cabinet also agreed to carry out a full and comprehensive transport strategy plan to highlight how road infrastructure could be improved to reduce congestion, detailed feasibility work relating to the main elements of infrastructure and a financial assessment to better understand the scale of development required to deliver the improvements local people have said are necessary.

‘A new vision for Swanley & Hextable’ was delivered to homes and businesses from Monday 13th to Friday 17th February 2017 and included a summary of the survey results.

An external company, Lake, were employed to process the responses to the survey. This included quantitative assessment of responses to questions and more qualitative analysis of comments returned.

19 Open Space, Sport and Leisure Study - Placemaking

Town and Parish Consultation – Open Spaces

On Wednesday 2nd November 2016 a Placemaking Workshop was held in relation to the Open Space Study. Representatives from the following were present:

 Brasted Parish Council  Chevening Parish Council  Chiddingstone Parish Council  Dunton Green Parish Council  Edenbridge Town Council  Eynsford Parish Council  Hartley Parish Council  Knockholt Parish Council  Otford Parish Council  Seal Parish Council  Sevenoaks Town Council  Sundridge with Ide Hill Parish Council  West Kingsdown Parish Council  Westerham Town Council

At this Placemaking Workshop, the following questions were asked:

1. How important do you think it is to have green spaces for people’s mental, emotional and physical health near to where they live? 2. How would you rate the quality of open space in your area and across Sevenoaks District? 3. How would you rate the adequacy of open space by type (see below) in terms of quantity and accessibility in the District? 4. What improvements would you like to see to open space in your area and across Sevenoaks District? 5. What current playing field (formal sports pitches) provision do you currently have? 6. Is the current amount of provision adequate for the needs of the local residents? 7. Is the quality satisfactory? If not, what additional work is required to ensure sports facilities are up to scratch?

20 As part of the Open Space Study, the Council also undertook a Town and Parish Consultation. Letters for were sent to all Town and Parish Councils within Sevenoaks District on Friday 3rd February 2017 asking for details on open space designations within the parish boundary. In particular, each council was asked the following in relation to their open space sites:

1. Is the site correctly named? 2. Is the type of open space the most accurate description? 3. Is the site boundary shown on the map correct? 4. Are there any additional sites in your area which have not been identified? 5. Do you have any other comments or suggestions regarding the provision of open spaces in your area?

Councils were given until Wednesday 1st March 2017 to submit their responses.

Responses were received from the following:

 Chevening Parish Council  Chiddingstone Parish Council  Eynsford Parish Council  Farningham Parish Council  Fawkham Parish Council  Hartley Parish Council  Hextable Parish Council  Otford Parish Council  Penshurst Parish Council  Riverhead Parish Council  Seal Parish Council  Sevenoaks Town Council  Shoreham Parish Council  Sundridge Parish Council  West Kingsdown Parish Council

Multi-Use Games Area (MUGAs) and Outdoor Gym Equipment

A letter was also sent out to all Town and Parish Councils asking for information on any MUGAs and Outdoor Gym Equipment within their parishes. The questions asked in this letter were:

1. Are there any Multi-Use Games Areas in the parish/town? By this we mean tennis courts, basketball courts, or areas set aside for ball sports. They generally have lines painted on, usually netting/fencing around and on hard standing. 2. Where are they? And what are they used for?

21 3. Are they informal i.e. anyone can use at any time or do they need to be booked in advance? 4. What types of people usually use it? 5. What is the quality like? Has it been recently refurbished? Any problems? 6. Is there an outdoor gym? 7. Where? 8. What is the quality like? Has it been recently refurbished? Any problems? 9. Any other informal outdoor sports facilities in the parish/town area?

Responses were received from the following:

 Chevening Parish Council  Chiddingstone Parish Council  Eynsford Parish Council  Hartley Parish Council  Hever Parish Council  Horton Kirby and South Darenth Parish Council  Leigh Parish Council  Otford Parish Council  Shoreham Parish Council  Swanley Town Council  Edenbridge Town Council

22 Duty to Co-operate

During the Local Plan preparation, Sevenoaks District Council participated in Duty to Co-operate meetings with the following Local Authorities:

 London Borough of Bexley  London Borough of Bromley  Dartford Borough Council  Gravesham Borough Council  Tandridge District Council  Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council  Tunbridge Wells Borough Council  Wealden District Council

Sevenoaks District Council also participated in Duty to Co-operate meetings with the following Statutory Consultees:

 The Environment Agency  Historic England  Natural England  The Mayor of London  The Civil Aviation Authority  Homes England  West Kent Clinical Commissioning Groups  Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley Clinical Commissioning Groups  Bromley Clinical Commissioning Groups  The Office of Road and Rail  Transport for London  Kent County Council  Highways England  Network Rail

For further information on Duty to Co-operate, please see the Regulation 19 Duty to Co-operate Statement.

23 Call for Sites

The Call for Sites opened on Thursday 17th September 2015 andclosed on Wednesday 31st October 2018.

Sevenoaks District Council launched a Call for Sites submission scheme where local residents, landowners, developers, businesses and other interested parties were invited to put forward sites for potential development within the Sevenoaks District that may be suitable for future development and inclusion in the new Local Plan.

The call for sites did not determine if a site should be allocated for development. It was a technical exercise aimed at identifying potential sites for development. All submitted sites have been assessed in the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) which has been used to inform the selection of suitable sites to be taken forward in the Local Plan.

The submission form was available on the Sevenoaks District Council website, and the opportunity was also given for a word version of the form to be emailed or posted to the Planning Policy team.

It was made clear that all submissions should include a form for EACH site being submitted, as well as a site location plan at an appropriate scale which clearly showed the extent of the boundaries of the site.

It was made clear that the District Council were interested in sites that:

 were available for development within the next 20 years; and  were capable of delivering 5 or more dwellings.

It was also made clear that sites were not to be submitted if they:

 already had planning permission for development unless it was being promoted for a different land use; or  were wholly outside the Sevenoaks District Council local authority area.

In total, Sevenoaks District Council received 548 during the Call for Sites.

24 Issues and Options Consultation (Reg. 18)

Public consultation period – Thursday 3rd August 2017 – Thursday 5th October 2017 (9 weeks)

The Planning Policy Team took the Issues and Options Consultation to Planning Advisory Committee {PAC} on the Thursday 22nd June 2017. It was recommended by PAC and subsequently agreed by Cabinet members to open for consultation on the Thursday 13th July 2017.

To publicise the Issues and Options consultation the Planning Policy Team worked closely with the Communications Team to create a Planning Policy Special Edition of the Councils magazine InShape which is delivered to every household in the District. This included a foreword from Cllr Piper, an overview of the Local Plan process and objectives, and information of Drop-in dates across the District and how to respond to the consultation.

The Issues and Options consultation consisted of a questionnaire which was delivered to every household within the District. It highlighted the main planning issues we are facing across the Sevenoaks District and options on how we should address these. It then included a short survey which aimed to determine the preferred solutions of our residents. We included a freepost envelope with each questionnaire. The questionnaire was also available to fill out online in an attempt to capture a variety of responses from harder to reach groups such as young people.

Family Fun Days

Our Issues and Options consultation coincided with the Family Fun Days that Sevenoaks District Council was running across the District. The Planning Policy Team attended some of these, and targeted harder to reach groups such as young families. We spoke to members of the public to inform them of our consultation and the Local Plan process as well as answering any queries. The sessions we attended were:

 Wednesday 9th August 2017 – 10am-2pm Seal Recreation Ground, Seal, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN15 0AE

 Friday 11th August 2017 – 2-5pm The Green, Leigh, Tonbridge, Kent, TN11 8QP

 Tuesday 15th August 2017 – 10am-2pm Recreation Ground, Woodlands Avenue, Hartley, Kent, DA3 7DB

25 Placemaking

As part of the Issues and Options Consultation, the Planning Policy Team at Sevenoaks District Council ran a series of Placemaking Workshops. For the purpose of these workshops the district was split into 6 areas which shared similar characteristics. This meant we could be more specific with discussions. These wider areas were:

 Sevenoaks Urban Area and Surrounds – Sevenoaks Town, Dunton Green, Riverhead, Seal and Sevenoaks Weald

 South – Edenbridge, Hever, Cowden, Chiddingstone, Penshurst and Leigh

 North East – West Kingsdown, Ash-cum-Ridley, Hartley, Fawkham, Horton Kirby and South Darenth

 North West – Hextable, Swanley, Crockenhill, Badgers Mount, Halstead and Knockholt

 Upper Darent Corridor – Westerham, Brasted, Sundridge and Chevening

 Darent Valley – Farningham, Eynsford, Shoreham, Otford and Kemsing

All Town and Parish Councils were invited to attend the Placemaking Workshops, as well as District Ward Members.

These sessions were held on:

 Monday 4th September 2017 – 7.30-9pm North West Placemaking – Hextable Community Centre Present: Badgers Mount (Shoreham) Parish Council, Hextable Parish Council and Swanley Town Council.

 Tuesday 5th September 2017 – 7.30-9pm North East Placemaking – New Ash Green Meeting Room Present: Hartley Parish Council, West Kingsdown Parish Council and Horton Kirby and South Darenth Parish Council.

 Wednesday 6th September 2017 – 7.30-9pm South Placemaking – Edenbridge Rickards Hall Present: Edenbridge Town Council, Penshurst Parish Council and Hever Parish Council.

26  Thursday 7th September 2017 – 7.30-9pm Darent Valley Placemaking – Otford Memorial Village Hall Present: Eynsford Parish Council, Shoreham Parish Council, Otford Parish Council and Farningham Parish Council.

 Thursday 7th September 2017 – 7.30-9pm Sevenoaks Urban Area and surrounds Placemaking – Sevenoaks District Council Conference Room Present: Riverhead Parish Council and Seal Parish Council.

 Friday 8th September 2017 – 7.30-9pm Upper Darent Corridor Placemaking – Westerham Hall Present: Westerham Town Council.

After being split into groups, attendees were given a series of questions and topics to discuss specifically regarding their areas. These were:

 Priority issues identified for the placemaking area: - To what extent do you agree? - Can you identify any other priority issues?

 What do you think of our preferred approach to development? Clearly a shortfall in meeting identified housing need – any other approaches?

 What do you think of the potential ‘exceptional circumstances’ cases? What do you think would constitute exceptional circumstances in your area?

 What policies currently work in our Plan / what else would you like to see covered / format?

The Placemaking workshops highlighted the following areas:

 Infrastructure – concern about cumulative impact of development  Affordable Housing – homes must be genuinely affordable given local incomes and house prices  Green Belt – Support for building at higher densities and on brownfield land in order to protect the Green Belt.

School Presentations

The Planning Policy team attended three schools during the consultation, and gave a presentation explaining the Local Plan process, development strategy as well as the Issues and Options consultation. The presentation was tailored to the age groups and there was a mixture of year 7 to year 11 in attendance. These sessions were

27 organised and led by the Planning Policy Team and were supported by LAKE Market Research, who explained the response process. These sessions were held on:

 Wednesday 20th September 2017 – 10.30am-2.30pm Orchards Academy, St Mary’s Road, Swanley, BR8 7TE

 Monday 25th September 2017 – 4-6pm Sevenoaks School, High Street, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN13 1HU

 Wednesday 4th October 2017 – 9.30am-1.30pm Knole Academy, Bradbourne Vale Road, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN13 3LE

Train Station – Postcard Distribution

As well as advertising the consultation in the ways listed above, flyers advertising the consultation and the dates of our drop in sessions were handed out at train stations around the District. These were as follows:

 Tuesday 5th September 2017 – 7.30-8.30am Sevenoaks Railway Station, London Road, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN13 1DP

 Thursday 7th September 2017 – 7.30-8.30am Edenbridge Town Station, Station Approach, Edenbridge, Kent, TN8 5LP

 Tuesday 12th September 2017 – 7.30-8.30am Swanley Rail Station, Station Approach, Swanley, Kent, BR8 8JD

Drop-in Sessions

5 exhibitions/drop-in sessions for members of the public to discuss the Issues and Options document with members of the Planning Policy team were held on:

 Monday 11th September 2017 – 2-8pm Sevenoaks District Council Offices, Argyle Road, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN13 1HG

 Tuesday 12th September 2017 – 2-8pm Edenbridge Town Council Offices, Rickards Hall, Edenbridge, TN8 5AR

 Wednesday 13th September 2017 – 2-8pm Swanley Town Council Offices, St Marys Road, Swanley, BR8 7BU

 Thursday 14th September 2017 – 2-8pm Westerham Town Council Offices, Russell House, Market Square, Westerham, TN16 1RB

28  Friday 15th September 2017 – 2-8pm New Ash Green Village Association Office, Centre Road, New Ash Green, DA3 8HH

Agents and Developers Forum

The Planning Policy Team held an Agent and Developers Forum as follows:

 Thursday 17th August 2017 – STAG Community Arts Centre Agents and Developers Forum

At the Agents and Developers Forum attendees were split into tables and given a set of questions to discuss. These questions were as follows:

Objective 1 – Promote housing choice for all

 Our preferred strategic option for housing delivery is Approach 3 ‘Combination’ A) To what extent do you agree with and do you have any comments on this approach? B) Do you have any views on the potential ‘exceptional circumstances’ cases? C) Do you have any comments on the other approaches for housing delivery?

 Our current policy requires up to 40% affordable housing. Given the overwhelming need for this type of housing in the District we think that the Local Plan should continue to require the same amount, subject to an affordable housing viability assessment being undertaken. Do you agree?

 Our latest evidence suggests that we should include a small sites policy, to enable the Council to seek financial contributions on sites of 10 homes and under, where viability clearly demonstrates that on site provision is not feasible. Where financial contributions are sought, the Council could use this money to help provide affordable homes in the District or make best use of the existing affordable housing stock to better meet needs. Do you agree?

 We think that the Local Plan should consider new innovative types of affordable housing such as starter homes and modular housing in addition to the more traditional social/affordable rented and intermediate products e.g. shared ownership. We plan to retain an element of flexibility in setting requirements for the different types of affordable housing. Do you agree with this approach?

Objective 2 – Promote well designed, safe places and safeguard and enhance the District’s distinctive high quality natural and built environments

29  Do you think our existing Green Belt policies are working and is the Green Belt SPD useful?

As well as these, we also gave some general questions to every table. These were as follows:

 We are looking to be more innovative with our new Local Plan. As one of the main users of the plan we are interested in your views on the following: 1) Which Core Strategy and ADMP policies work and which ones don’t? 2) Should the new Local Plan be hosted online in an accessible way, or be in the traditional paper format? 3) Should the policies map be hosted online and be interactive, or be produced in the traditional paper format? 4) Would you prefer a small number of longer policies (covering strategic and development management issues), or a larger number of specific and detailed policies? 5) Would you prefer more generalised and flexible policies, or more prescriptive and detailed policies? 6) How should we signpost linked policies and supporting evidence to make the plan easy to read and navigate?

We had lots of suggestions from this meeting, the main findings being:

 Queries regarding the ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ approach, case law and legalities  Be more proactive in locating Brownfield land within the District  More of a focus was suggested on farming and rural economy

Representations on the Issues and Options Consultation

Representations were received from 15,375 organisations and individuals and a total of 221,613 comments were made. This equates to a response from approximately 30% of households in the District, which is the largest response we have ever received to a Council-run consultation.

The objectives which generated the most responses were:

 Objective 4, Question 8 Our approach to protecting our existing town centres – 15163 responses

54% strongly agree and 37% agree 6% neither agree nor disagree 2% disagree and 1% strongly disagree

30  Objective 1, Question 1 We should continue to protect the Green Belt by building new homes on land which has been previously built on? I.e. Brownfield land – 15139 responses 73% strongly agree and 20% agree 3% neither agree nor disagree 3% disagree and 2% strongly disagree

 Objective 1, Question 4 We should promote affordable housing and smaller private homes to meet the needs of all of our residents – 15136 responses

47% strongly agree and 36% agree 8% neither agree nor disagree 6% disagree and 3% strongly disagree

 Objective 2, Question 5 All new buildings and developments include the good connections to public transport, pedestrian link and local facilities that schemes are safe and secure – 15108 responses

64% strongly agree and 31% agree 4% neither agree nor disagree 1% disagree and 1% strongly disagree

 Objective 3, Question 6 We should make more efficient use of existing employment sites and redevelop suitable brownfield land to meet the need for more employment land – 15108 responses

57% strongly agree and 35% agree 5% neither agree nor disagree 2% disagree and 1% strongly disagree

Representations received as part of the Issues and Options Consultation, were used to develop the strategy for the Draft Local Plan.

31 Draft Local Plan Consultation (Reg. 18)

Public consultation period – Monday 16th July 2018 – Monday 10th September 2018 (8 weeks)

The Planning Policy Team took the Draft Local Plan to Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) on Tuesday 19th June 2018. It was recommended by PAC and subsequently agreed by Cabinet members to open for consultation on Thursday 12th July 2018.

Consultation had already taken place on Issues and Options (see above) and the objective of this consultation was to obtain views and comments on the initial proposals for the Local Plan sites and policies. It was also an opportunity for additional land or sites to be submitted for consideration in respect of housing, gypsy and traveller provision, employment land, open space and for minor amendments to Green Belt boundaries.

Interactive Map

As a new feature for this Consultation, the Planning Policy team worked closely with the GIS team to launch an Interactive Map of the district. This enabled people to search by area, postcode or site reference and view the proposals in their area, as well as comment specifically on each site. It also allowed the public to view all other comments submitted on a site as they were being validated, both during and after the consultation closed.

Consultation Responses and Validating Process

Each comment made via our Interactive Map, Inovem, by email or post was validated by a member of the Planning Policy team before they were made publically available. This included removing sensitive information such as a current address, contact details, age or profession as well as any reference to other individuals. This process also removed any comments that were considered libellous, racist, abusive or offensive.

Train Station – Postcard Distribution

As well as advertising the consultation in the ways listed above, flyers advertising the consultation and the dates of our drop in sessions were handed out at train stations around the District. These were as follows:

 Tuesday 24th July 2018 - 7.30-8.30am Dunton Green Station, Station Road, Dunton Green, Kent, TN13 2YD

 Wednesday 25th July 2018 – 7.30-8.30am Sevenoaks Railway Station, London Road, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN13 1DP

32  Friday 27th July 2018 – 7.30-8.30am Longfield Train Station, Station Road, Longfield, DA3 7RD

 Thursday 9th August 2018 – 7.30-8.30am Edenbridge Town Station, Station Approach, Edenbridge, Kent, TN8 5LP

 Tuesday 28th August 2018 -7.30-8.30am Swanley Rail Station, Station Approach, Swanley, Kent, BR8 8JD

 Monday 3rd September 2018 - 7.30-8.30am Sevenoaks Railway Station, London Road, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN13 1DP

As part of the Draft Local Plan consultation members of the Planning Policy team attended staff briefings within Sevenoaks District Council to give a short presentation on the purpose of the Local Plan and the stage we were at.

Document Distribution

The Draft Local Plan document was sent to all Town and Parish councils within the District, as well as posters and flyers advertising the consultation Drop in sessions (listed below) and response forms for the consultation. This enabled town and parish councils to advertise the consultation within their local area in an attempt to generate a greater response.

A copy of the Draft Local Plan document was sent to each library within the District, along with a full set of Appendices and Site Appraisals, posters and flyers. We also included response forms for the consultation. This made all the documents more accessible to members of the public who may not have accessible internet facilities.

Frequently Asked Questions Video

For the Draft Local Plan, the Leader of the Council produced two videos which aimed to advertise the consultation, and answer frequently asked questions that were likely to arise at Drop-in Sessions. These were distributed on both the Council’s Facebook and Twitter pages.

These can be viewed at https://www.facebook.com/sevenoaksdc/videos/vb.203387983122762/1648019 685326244/?type=2&theater and https://www.facebook.com/sevenoaksdc/videos/vb.203387983122762/2097098 287220454/?type=2&theater

SeeLocal Social Media Campaign

A new feature for the Draft Local Plan Consultation was a Social Media campaign with See Local, with a focus on gaining a response from millennials. This allowed us

33 to put adverts on frequently visited web pages such as Facebook and Google. The campaign was launched on Tuesday 14th August and ran until Monday 10th September. This generated a greater response to the consultation. The last report from See Local was received on 28th September 2018 and shows:

 Total Ads Shown – 112,252  Total Ads Clicked - 486  Click through rate – 0.43%

Since the campaign began running the landing page saw 61 comments left.

Drop-in Sessions

Six exhibitions/drop-in sessions for members of the public to discuss the Draft Local Plan sites and policies with members of the Planning Policy team were held. Whereas for the Issues and Options consultation the drop-in sessions were held during one week, we decided to run the Draft Local Plan drop-in sessions across the 8 week consultation period. Taking into consideration that the consultation ran during the school summer holidays, it was determined that distributing these across the 8 weeks would allow more flexibility for the public to attend at least one session.

Unlike the Issues and Options consultation, we organised some of our Drop-in sessions outside as opposed to in offices or village halls. This was to capture the footfall around town and inform members of the public ‘in passing’ who may not have been specifically planning to attend the consultation.

These drop-in sessions were held on:

 Thursday 19th July 2018 – 2-8pm Westerham Town Council Offices, Russell House, Market Square, Westerham, Kent, TN16 1RB

 Thursday 26th July 2018 – 11am-3pm Blighs Market Place, Blighs Walk, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN13 1DA

 Tuesday 31st July 2018 – 2-8pm All Saints Church Centre, Ash Road, Hartley, Kent, DA3 8EL

 Tuesday 14th August 2018 – 2-8pm Waitrose Edenbridge, St Aignan Way, Edenbridge, Kent, TN8 5LN

 Wednesday 29th August 2018 – 2-8pm Swanley Link, London Road, Swanley, Kent, BR8 7AE

 Wednesday 5th September 2018 – 2-8pm

34 Sevenoaks District Council Offices, Argyle Road, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN13 1HG

An extra drop-in session was added after a request made by residents in Eynsford and Farningham. The request was accepted due to the proximity of these settlements to a proposed Exceptional Circumstances site. This was:

 Monday 13th August 2018 – 4-8pm Eynsford Village Hall, High Street, Eynsford, Kent, DA4 0AA

Planning Policy Officers also attended two extra drop in sessions, which were organised by Halstead Parish Council, to provide support. This request was accepted due to the proximity of the settlement to a proposed Exceptional Circumstances site. These sessions were held on:

 Monday 13th August 2018 – 5.30-7.30pm Halstead Pavilion, Station Road, Halstead, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN14 7DJ

 Thursday 16th August 2018 – 10am-2pm Halstead Pavilion, Station Road, Halstead, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN14 7DJ

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheets anticipating the main enquiries likely to be forthcoming were made available to all staff and to those dropping in at these sessions.

Meetings with Site Promoters

As part of the Draft Local Plan Consultation, the Planning Policy Team met with the site promoters for the Strategic Sites in the Green Belt.

This provided an opportunity for site promoters to outline the proposals and merits for their site. These meetings also enabled the Council to highlight where any further information was required and provide any relevant feedback.

Agents and Developers Forum

The Planning Policy Team held an Agent and Developers Forum as follows:

 Thursday 30th August 2018 – STAG Community Arts Centre, Sevenoaks Agents and Developers Forum

The attendees of the Agents and Developers Forum were split into 6 tables. There were 2 sets of questions, and so 3 tables had each set. These were as follows:

Set 1

1. Do you agree with our approach to ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ and do you have any thoughts on this strategy? 2. What do you think of Article 4 directions being set on new office

35 accommodation, to protect our employment base? 3. What are your thoughts on providing more affordable housing? For example; smaller sites, cross subsidy and rural exception sites. 4. What are your thoughts on the proposed stream-lined Green Belt policies?

Set 2:

1. Do you agree with our approach to ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ and do you have any thoughts on this strategy? 2. What are your thoughts on a Design Review Panel? 3. What is your opinion on the more flexible approach to Town Centre uses and Housing Densities? 4. Health and well-being are important issues in this Plan. What are your thoughts on promoting healthy living in the Plan and do you have any further suggestions?

The findings of each question were:

Question 1

 A transparent approach for judging Exceptional Circumstances sites is vital  More difficult for smaller sites to use the Exceptional Circumstances strategy

Set 1 Question 2

 Makes sense for purpose built offices  Should target good quality office space

Set 1 Question 3

 Easier on larger scale Greenfield sites  Rural exceptions are a good idea

Set 2 Question 2

 Agree to keep it local and Kent based  Suggested to use for larger sites not OA applications

Set 2 Question 3

 Suggested to look at London guidance on high density design for good quality  Scope for creativity

Set 2 Question 4

 Suggestion that the threshold should be higher than 10 for HIA  Greater emphasis should be made on green infrastructure and cycle networks

36 Specific Consultation Sessions

More specific consultation sessions were also undertaken as follows:

 Tuesday 10th July 2018 – Sevenoaks Town Council Offices Town and Parish Council Forum

Representations on the Draft Local Plan Consultation

Representations were received by 6,232 organisations and individuals and a total of 8,568 comments were made.

A total of 7406 comments were made on the Draft Local Plan proposed sites via the Interactive Map, by 5830 organisations and individuals.

A total of 1162 comments were made on policies and the Draft Local Plan document via the Consultation Portal, Inovem by 402 organisations and individuals.

The majority of comments received during the Draft Local Plan consultation relate to housing and the 12 “Exceptional Circumstances” proposals to develop within the Green Belt. In comparison, little comment has been made on the draft policies such as retail, employment, health and wellbeing and the environment.

The sites which generated the most responses were:

 MX52 and MX53 – Corinthians and Banckside, Hartley 1721 Comments

 MX41 – Land at Broke Hill Golf Course, Sevenoaks Road, Halstead 1253 Comments

 MX54b – Land between Beechenlea Lane and the railway line, Swanley 600 Comments

 MX54a – Land at Beechenlea Lane and the railway line, Swanley 567 Comments

 MX48 – Land at Pedham Place (wider), Swanley 479 Comments

The policies that generated the most responses were:

 Policy 2 – Housing and Mixed Use Allocations 308 comments

 Policy 1 – Balanced Strategy for Growth 118 comments

37  Policy 15 – Design Principles 36 comments

 Policy 4 – Development in the Green Belt 36 comments

 Policy 7 – Transport and Infrastructure 30 comments

Representations received as part of the Draft Local Plan Consultation were taken into account when making decisions on the policy wording and site allocations for the Regulation 19 Consultation.

For further details, please see the Cabinet (Thursday 6th December 2018) report [https://cds.sevenoaks.gov.uk/documents/s36237/10%20Local%20Plan%20PAC%20R eport2D.pdf?J=4] which sets out the results of the Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18) consultation and how this was used to inform the content of the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission Version of the Local Plan.

38 Additional Potential Strategic Development Sites in the Green Belt Consultation (Reg. 18)

Public Consultation Period – Tuesday 18th December 2018 to Sunday 3rd February 2019 (6 weeks and 5 days)

The Additional Potential Strategic Development Sites in the Green Belt Consultation ran alongside, but not as part of, the Regulation 19 consultation.

The Council received a number of additional greenfield Green belt housing allocations in response to the Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18) consultation process. Following initial assessments, the Council considered that there were four potential strategic development sites which display social and community infrastructure benefits which could help address evidenced infrastructure deficiencies in the area.

This was a Regulation 18 consultation of the additional potential strategic development sites. The consultation sought stakeholder and public comments on these sites, for information only. For avoidance of doubt, these sites are not included within the Local Plan. These were:

 MX58 - Land west of Childsbridge Lane and south of the Recreation Ground, Kemsing

 MX59 - Land north and south of Kemsing Station, Kemsing

 MX61 - Land south of Redhill Road, New Ash Green

 MX2- Land between Hartfield Road and Hever Road, Edenbridge

Publicising the consultation

 Letters were sent to all organisations and individuals on the Planning Policy consultation mailing list. This included all persons and organisations that have previously made comments on the Local Plan documents or who have expressed a wish to be kept informed of the progress of the plan.

 A public notice was placed in local newspapers informing the public of the consultation matters, the consultation period and the places at which the documents can be inspected i.e. online on the Council’s website, in libraries and at the Council offices. The details of the consultation were released to the local press via a press release.

39 Document Distribution

The documents in relation to the Additional Potential Strategic Development Sites in the Green Belt Consultation were sent by post on Friday 14th December 2018 to all Town and Parish Councils within the District, alongside the Regulation 19 consultation documents. Posters and flyers advertising the consultation Drop in sessions (listed below) and response forms for the consultation were also sent by post on this day. This enabled Town and Parish Councils to advertise the consultation within their local area in an attempt to generate a greater response.

The documents relating to the Additional Potential Strategic Development Sites in the Green Belt Consultation were delivered on Monday 17th and Tuesday 18th December 2018 to each library within the District, alongside the Regulation 19 consultation documents. This made all the documents accessible to members of the public who may not have had access to internet facilities.

Drop-in Sessions

5 exhibitions/drop-in sessions for members of the public to discuss the Additional Sites were organised at the same time as the Regulation 19 consultation drop-in sessions. Where a site was proposed in the Additional Potential Strategic Development Sites in the Green Belt Consultation, a drop-in session was organised for the area. These sessions gave members of the public a chance to discuss the proposals with members of the Planning Policy team. These sessions were held during one calendar week. Taking into account that the consultation period ran across the Christmas Holidays, it was decided that to run these at any other time would make them difficult to attend.

These drop-in sessions were held on:

 Monday 7th January 2019 – 5pm – 8pm Kemsing Primary School, West End, Kemsing, TN15 6PU

 Tuesday 8th January 2019 – 2pm – 8pm Swanley Link, London Road, Swanley, BR8 7AE

 Wednesday 9th January 2019 – 2pm – 8pm The Eden Centre, Four Elms Road, Edenbridge, TN8 6BY

 Thursday 10th January 2019 – 5pm – 8pm New Ash Green Primary School, North Square, New Ash Green, DA3 8JT

 Friday 11th January 2019 – 2pm – 8pm Sevenoaks District Council Offices, Argyle Road, Sevenoaks, TN13 1HG

40 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheets anticipating the main enquiries likely to be forthcoming were made available to all staff who attended these sessions.

Meetings with Site Promoters

As part of the Additional Potential Strategic Development Sites in the Green Belt Consultation, the Planning Policy Team met with the site promoters for the Strategic Sites in the Green Belt.

This provided an opportunity for site promoters to outline the proposals and merits for their site. These meetings also enabled the Council to highlight where any further information was required and provide any relevant feedback.

Interest Groups Forum

The Planning Policy Team held an Interest Groups Forum as follows:

 Tuesday 15th January 2019 – 1.30pm – 4.30pm Sevenoaks District Council Offices, Argyle Road, Sevenoaks, TN13 1HG

Invite were sent out to Interest Groups around the Sevenoaks District. The purpose of this meeting was to provide a short presentation update on the progress of the Local Plan, and to answer questions on the procedure of Regulation 19 and the examination. The Interest Groups forum also gave the Planning Policy Team an opportunity to address the process to be undertaken in relation to the four Additional Potential Strategic Development Sites in the Green Belt.

Representatives from the following interest groups were in attendance:

 Save Kemsing Countryside

 Swanley Action Group

 Otford Parish Council

 Keep Westerham Green

 Halstead Green Belt Futures Group

 Knockholt Society

Responses were not received from the No Hartley Expansion Group or the Swanley and Sevenoaks DC Development Discussion Group.

Representations on the Additional Strategic Development Sites in the Green Belt Consultation

41 Representations were made by 1443 organisations and individuals and a total of 1,697 comments were made. The number of comments on each site was as follows:

 MX61 – Land South of Redhill Road, Ash 866 Comments

 MX59 – Land north and south of Kemsing Station 422 Comments

 MX62 – Land between Hartfield Road and Hever Road, Edenbridge 215 Comments

 MX58 – Land west of Childsbridge Lane and south of the Recreation Ground, Kemsing 194 Comments

The consultation sought stakeholder and public comments on these sites, for information only. For avoidance of doubt, following this consultation, and further to the representations made on these sites, these sites are not included in the Local Plan.

42 Representations on Supplementary Planning Documents (Reg. 13)

Public Consultation Period – Tuesday 18th December 2018 to Sunday 3rd February 2019 (6 weeks and 5 days)

Consultation on three Supplementary Planning Documents ran alongside, but not as part of, the Regulation 19 Consultation.

This was a Regulation 13 consultation on the following three Supplementary Planning Documents:

 Affordable Housing SPD

 Design Review Panel SPD

 Development in the Green Belt SPD

Publicising the consultation

 Letters were sent to all organisations and individuals on the Planning Policy consultation mailing list. This included all persons and organisations that have previously made comments on the Local Plan documents or who have expressed a wish to be kept informed of the progress of the plan.

 A public notice was placed in local newspapers informing the public of the consultation matters, the consultation period and the places at which the documents can be inspected i.e. online on the Council’s website, in libraries and at the Council offices. The details of the consultation were released to the local press via a press release.

Document Distribution

The documents in relation to the three Supplementary Planning Documents were sent by post on Friday 14th December 2018 to all Town and Parish Councils within the District, alongside the Regulation 19 consultation documents. Posters and flyers advertising the consultation Drop in sessions (listed below) and response forms for the consultations were also sent by post on this day. This enabled Town and Parish Councils to advertise the consultation within their local area, in an attempt to generate a greater response.

The documents relating to the three Supplementary Planning Documents were delivered on Monday 17th and Tuesday 18th December 2018 to each library within the District, alongside the Regulation 19 consultation documents. This made all the documents accessible to members of the public who may not have had access to internet facilities.

43 Drop-in Sessions

5 exhibitions/drop-in sessions for members of the public to discuss the three Supplementary Planning Documents were organised at the same time as the Regulation 19 consultation drop-in sessions. These sessions were held during one calendar week. Taking into account that the consultation period ran across the Christmas Holidays, it was decided that to run these at any other time would make them difficult to attend.

These drop-in sessions were held on:

 Monday 7th January 2019 – 5pm – 8pm Kemsing Primary School, West End, Kemsing, TN15 6PU

 Tuesday 8th January 2019 – 2pm – 8pm Swanley Link, London Road, Swanley, BR8 7AE

 Wednesday 9th January 2019 – 2pm – 8pm The Eden Centre, Four Elms Road, Edenbridge, TN8 6BY

 Thursday 10th January 2019 – 5pm – 8pm New Ash Green Primary School, North Square, New Ash Green, DA3 8JT

 Friday 11th January 2019 – 2pm – 8pm Sevenoaks District Council Offices, Argyle Road, Sevenoaks, TN13 1HG

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheets anticipating the main enquiries likely to be forthcoming were made available to all staff who attended these sessions.

Representations on the Supplementary Planning Documents

 Affordable Housing – Supplementary Planning Document Representations were made by 5 organisations and individuals and a total of 5 comments were made.

 Design Review Panel – Supplementary Planning Document Representations were made by 6 organisations and individuals and a total of 6 comments were made.

 Development in the Green Belt – Supplementary Planning Document Representations were made by 21 organisations and individuals and a total of 22 comments were made.

44 Publication of a Local Plan (Reg. 19)

Public Consultation Period – Tuesday 18th December 2018 to Sunday 3rd February 2019 (6 weeks and 5 days)

The Proposed Submission Version of the Local Plan sets out the Council’s proposed allocations and policies as the Council wishes to see them adopted, following the consideration of all consultations undertaken as part of the Reg. 18 stage (as well as the completion of technical studies)

The Planning Policy Team took the Proposed Submission Version of the Local Plan to Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) on Thursday 22nd November 2018. It was recommended by PAC and subsequently agreed by Cabinet members on Thursday 6th December 2019 to publish the Regulation 19 Plan.

Consultation had already taken place at Regulation 18 stage with both the Issues and Options and Draft Local Plan consultations (see above) and the objective of this consultation was to obtain views and comments on the Local Plan as Sevenoaks District Council wished to see it adopted.

Publicising the consultation

 Letters were sent to all organisations and individuals on the Planning Policy consultation mailing list. This included all persons and organisations that have previously made comments on the Local Plan documents or who have expressed a wish to be kept informed of the progress of the plan.

 A public notice was placed in local newspapers informing the public of the consultation matters, the consultation period and the places at which the documents can be inspected i.e. online on the Council’s website, in libraries and at the Council offices. The details of the consultation were released to the local press via a press release.

Document Distribution

The Proposed Submission Version of the Local Plan document was sent by post on Friday 14th December 2018 to all Town and Parish councils within the District, as well as posters and flyers advertising the consultation Drop in sessions (listed below) and response forms for the consultation. Copies of the Affordable Housing SPD, Development in the Green Belt SPD, Design Review Panel SPD, Badgers Mount Neighbourhood Area Designation and Halstead Neighbourhood Area Designation were also sent. This enabled Town and Parish Councils to advertise the consultation within their local area in an attempt to generate a greater response.

45 The Proposed Submission Version of the Local Plan document was delivered on Monday 17th and Tuesday 18th December 2018 to each library within the District, along with a full set of Appendices and Site Appraisals, posters and flyers. We also included response forms for the consultation. Copies of the Affordable Housing SPD, Development in the Green Belt SPD, Design Review Panel SPD, Badgers Mount Neighbourhood Area Designation and Halstead Neighbourhood Area Designation were also sent. This made all the documents accessible to members of the public who may not have had access to internet facilities.

Drop-in Sessions

5 exhibitions/drop-in sessions for members of the public to discuss the Proposed Submission Version of the Local Plan with members of the Planning Policy team were held. These sessions were held during one calendar week. Taking into account that the consultation period ran across the Christmas Holidays, it was decided that to run these at any other time would make them difficult to attend.

Following the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan Drop-in Sessions, a series of improvements were made to the Drop-in Sessions, including having a presentation of the Frequently Asked Questions on loop, and having a member of staff welcoming and signposting residents.

These drop-in sessions were held on:

 Monday 7th January 2019 – 5pm – 8pm Kemsing Primary School, West End, Kemsing, TN15 6PU

 Tuesday 8th January 2019 – 2pm – 8pm Swanley Link, London Road, Swanley, BR8 7AE

 Wednesday 9th January 2019 – 2pm – 8pm The Eden Centre, Four Elms Road, Edenbridge, TN8 6BY

 Thursday 10th January 2019 – 5pm – 8pm New Ash Green Primary School, North Square, New Ash Green, DA3 8JT

 Friday 11th January 2019 – 2pm – 8pm Sevenoaks District Council Offices, Argyle Road, Sevenoaks, TN13 1HG

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheets anticipating the main enquiries likely to be forthcoming were made available to all staff who attended these sessions.

Interest Groups Forum

The Planning Policy Team held an Interest Groups Forum as follows:

46  Tuesday 15th January 2019 – 1.30pm – 4.30pm Sevenoaks District Council Offices, Argyle Road, Sevenoaks, TN13 1HG

Invites were sent out to Interest Groups around the Sevenoaks District. The purpose of this meeting was to provide a short presentation update on the progress of the Local Plan, and to answer questions on the procedure of Regulation 19 and the examination.

Representatives from the following interest groups were in attendance:

 Save Kemsing Countryside

 Swanley Action Group

 Otford Parish Council

 Keep Westerham Green

 Halstead Green Belt Futures Group

 Knockholt Society

No responses were received from the No Hartley Expansion Group or the Swanley and Sevenoaks DC Development Discussion Group.

Meetings with Site Promoters

As part of the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission Version Consultation, the Planning Policy Team met with the site promoters for the both the allocated and omitted Strategic Sites in the Green Belt.

This provided an opportunity for site promoters to outline the proposals and merits for their site. These meetings also enabled the Council to highlight where any further information was required and provide any relevant feedback.

Representations on the Proposed Submission Version of the Local Plan

Representations were made by 1956 organisations and individuals and a total of 3,566 comments were made.

1,645 of the comments were made on site allocations within the Local Plan, and 1,907 were made on the development management policies. The remaining 14 comments were made on general chapters or appendices.

The sites which generated the most representations were:

 ST2-57 – Fort Halstead, Crow Drive, Halstead 352 Comments

47  ST2-60 – Oasis Academy, Egerton Avenue, Hextable 226 Comments

 ST2-28 – Land at Pedham Place 155 Comments

 ST2-67 – Land south of Noahs Ark, Kemsing 89 Comments

 EMP1-28 – Bartram Farm, Old Otford Road, Sevenoaks 66 Comments

The policies which generated the most representations were:

 Policy ST2 – Housing and Mixed Use Sites Allocations 1216 Comments

 Policy ST1 – A Balanced Strategy for Growth in a Constrained District 445 Comments

 Policy T1 – Transport and Infrastructure 48 Comments

 Policy EMP1 – Supporting a Vibrant and Balanced Economy 21 Comments

 Policy H5 – Housing Density 21 Comments

The Regulation 19 consultation asked particular questions, and the results of these is as follows:

 Is the Plan sound? Yes – 1,271 Comments No – 2,295 Comments*

 Is the Plan Legally Compliant? Yes – 2,169 Comments No – 1,397 Comments

 Has the Plan complied with the Duty to Co-operate? Yes – 2,292 Comments No – 1,274 Comments

*All objections to individual sites are included in this category

48 Appendices

Page

Appendix A Regulation 18 - Issues and Options Findings 50

Appendix B Regulation 18 - Draft Local Plan Exceptional 85 Circumstances Sites Findings

Appendix C Regulation 18 - Draft Local Plan Sites Findings 99

Appendix D Regulation 18 - Draft Local Plan Policies 130 Findings

Appendix E Regulation 18 - Additional Sites Findings 139

Appendix F Regulation 13 - Supplementary Planning 142 Documents Findings

Appendix G Regulation 19 - Proposed Submission Version 144 Chapters, Policies and Appendices Findings

Appendix H Bodies and Individuals Consulted 164

Appendix I Regulation 19 - Individual Representation See Summaries and Council Responses SDC006a

49 Appendix A Regulation 18 Issues and Options Consultation Findings

50

Sevenoaks District Council Local Plan Consultation

Main Consultation slides Prepared by Lake Market Research November 2017

This report complies with ISO:20252 standards and other relevant forms of conduct

51

Profile of those responding to Consultation

Gender of respondent Working status of respondent

Male 48% Employee in full time job 26%

Female 52% Employee in part time job 9%

Prefer not to answer 2% Self-employed full or part time 10% On a government supported training programme 0.06% Age of respondent In full time education at school, college or university 0.3% Under 16 0.1% Unemployed and available for work 1% 16 - 17 0.1% Permanently sick / disabled 2% 18 - 24 1% Wholly retired from work 41% 25 – 34 5% Looking after the home 5% 35 – 44 10% Something else 2% 45 – 54 16% Prefer not to answer 4%

55 – 64 20% Children aged 17 or under living in household 65 and over 43% None 76% Prefer not to answer 4% One 8%

Disabled as set out in Equality Act 2010 Two 9% Yes 12% Three 2% No 82% More than three 0.4%

Prefer not to answer 6% Prefer not to answer 3%

52 Base: Various for each question (unweighted between 14,604 and 15,164) 2

Profile of those responding to Consultation

Gender of respondent Consultation response Profile of area

Male 48% 48%

Female 52% 52%

Prefer not to answer 2%

Age of respondent Consultation response Profile of area

16 - 24 1.2% 12%

25 – 44 16% 30%

45 – 64 36% 35%

65 and over 43% 23%

Prefer not to answer 4%

53

Base: Various for each question (unweighted between 14,845 and 15,164) 3 Profile of those responding to Consultation vs. profile of area

Consultation Profile Consultation Profile Sevenoaks District Council wards Sevenoaks District Council wards response of area response of area Ash & New Ash Green 5% 5% Leigh & Chiddingstone Causeway 2% 2% Brasted, Chevening & Sundridge 6% 5% Otford & Shoreham 4% 4% Cowden & Hever 2% 2% Penshurst, Fordcombe & 2% 2% Chiddingstone Crockenhill & Well Hill 2% 2% Seal & Weald 4% 4% Dunton Green & Riverhead 4% 4% Sevenoaks Eastern 4% 3% Edenbridge North & East 4% 4% Sevenoaks Kippington 5% 4% Edenbridge South & West 4% 4% Sevenoaks Northern 3% 4% Eynsford 2% 2% Sevenoaks Town & St.Johns 6% 6% Farningham, Horton, Kirby & 4% 4% South Darenth Swanley Christchurch & Swanley 4% 5% Village Fawkham & West Kingsdown 5% 6% Swanley St Mary’s 2% 4% Halstead, Knockholt & Badgers 4% 3% Mount Swanley White Oak 4% 5% Harley & Hodsoll Street 5% 5% Westerham & Crockham Hill 6% 4% Hextable 4% 4% Kemsing 4% 4% Consultation profile percentages have been rebased in the table above to exclude those outside of Sevenoaks – 6% of those answering

54 Base: unweighted (15,351) 4

Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q1. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should continue to protect the Green Belt by building new homes on land which has been previously built on? i.e. Brownfield land

Strongly disagree, Disagree, 3% 2% Neither agree nor 5% disagree, 3%

Agree, 20%

92%

Strongly agree, 73%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,139 236

55 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 5

Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q2. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should continue to protect the Green Belt by building new homes at slightly higher density? This means building more homes on a plot of land than we do at the moment.

Strongly disagree, 9% Strongly agree, 23% 30%

Disagree, 21% 56%

Neither agree nor Agree, 33% disagree, 14%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

14,991 384 56 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 6

Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q3a. To what extent do you support or oppose the following concepts… Draft Northern Sevenoaks Masterplan

Strongly oppose, 7% Strongly support, 13% Oppose, 6% 26%

Neither support nor oppose, 21% 66%

Base size answering Not answered / No Support, 40% scale opinion 13,654 1,721

57

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 7

Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q3a. To what extent do you support or oppose the following concepts… Draft Northern Sevenoaks Masterplan - Based on Sevenoaks North ward responses only

Strongly oppose, 11%

20% Strongly support, 32%

Oppose, 9%

Neither support nor oppose, 13% 67%

Base size answering Not answered / No Support, 35% scale opinion

486 27 58

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 513) 8

Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q3a. To what extent do you support or oppose the following concepts… Draft Northern Sevenoaks Masterplan - Based on Sevenoaks wards, Otford, Dunton Green, Kemsing and Seal responses only

Strongly oppose, 10% Strongly support, 18% Oppose, 8% 29%

Neither support nor oppose, 13% 69%

Base size answering Not answered / No Support, 39% scale opinion

4,892 262 59 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 5,154) 9 Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q3b. To what extent do you support or oppose the following concepts… ‘Which Way Westerham’

Strongly oppose, Strongly support, 12% 20% 19% Oppose, 7%

54%

Neither support nor oppose, 27% Support, 34%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

12,893 2,482

60 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 10

Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q3b. To what extent do you support or oppose the following concepts… ‘Which Way Westerham’ – Based on Westerham and Crockenhill ward responses only

Strongly support, 11%

22% Support, 10%

Neither support nor oppose, 5%

Oppose, 9% 73%

Strongly oppose, 64% Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

875 41

61

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 916) 11

Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q4. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should promote affordable housing and smaller private homes to meet the needs of all of our residents.

Strongly disagree, 3% Disagree, 6% 9% Neither agree nor disagree, 8%

Strongly agree, 47%

Agree, 36% 84%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,136 239

62 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 12

Objective 2: Promoting well designed, safe places and safeguarding and enhancing the District’s distinctive high quality natural and built environments

Q5. How much do you agree or disagree that… Not Base size answered All new buildings and developments include the following… answering / No scale opinion Good connections to public transport, 4% pedestrian links and local 1% 64% 95% 31% 15,108 267 facilities and that 1% schemes are safe and secure

Landscaping, green infrastructure and 65% 96% 31% 3% 14,717 658 sustainable drainage

Providing renewable 1% technology and 50% 86% 36% 12% 14,393 982 broadband 1%

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

63 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 13 Objective 3: Supporting a vibrant local economy both urban and rural

Q6. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should make more efficient use of existing employment sites and redevelop suitable brownfield land to meet the need for more employment land.

strongly disagree, Disagree, 2% 1% Neither agree nor 3% disagree, 5%

Agree, 35% Strongly agree, 57%

92%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,108 267 64 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 14 Objective 3: Supporting a vibrant local economy both urban and rural

Q7. How much do you agree or disagree with… Our approach to protecting employment sites, creating new business and home-working opportunities and ensuring the District remains a competitive location for businesses.

Disagree, 2% Strongly disagree, Neither agree nor 1% disagree, 8% 3%

Strongly agree, 46%

Agree, 43% 89%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,059 316

65 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 15

Objective 4: Supporting lively communities with well performing town and village centres that provide a range of services, facilities and infrastructure

Q8. How much do you agree or disagree with… Our approach to protecting our existing town centres and local centres.

Strongly disagree, Disagree, 2% Neither agree nor 1% disagree, 6% 3%

Agree, 37% Strongly agree, 54%

91%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,163 212 66 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 16 Objective 4: Supporting lively communities with well performing town and village centres that provide a range of services, facilities and infrastructure

Q9. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should prioritise working closely with other councils, public bodies and service providers to deliver what infrastructure is needed, where it is needed and when it is needed, to support new development. Disagree, 2% Strongly disagree, Neither agree nor 1% disagree, 7% 2%

Strongly agree, 54% Agree, 37%

91%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,081 294

67 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 17

Objective 5: Promoting healthy living opportunities

Q10. How much do you agree or disagree with… Our approach to encouraging healthy communities.

Disagree, 1% Strongly disagree, Neither agree nor 0.4% disagree, 6% 1%

Agree, 34%

Strongly agree, 59%

93%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,080 295

68 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 18

Objective 5: Promoting healthy living opportunities

Q11. How much do you agree or disagree with this approach… We want to identify important green spaces, within both urban and rural areas.

Disagree, 1% Strongly disagree, Neither agree nor 1% disagree, 5% 2%

Agree, 33%

Strongly agree, 60%

93%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

14,991 295 69 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 19 Objective 6: Promoting a greener future

Q12. How much do you agree or disagree with … Our approach to promoting a greener future.

Disagree, 1% Strongly disagree, Neither agree nor 1% disagree, 6% 2%

Agree, 33%

Strongly agree, 60%

92%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,100 384

70 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 20

Sevenoaks District Council Local Plan Consultation

School Consultation slides Prepared by Lake Market Research November 2017

This report complies with ISO:20252 standards and other relevant forms of conduct

71 Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q1. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should continue to protect the Green Belt by building new homes on land which has been previously built on? I.e. Brownfield land Strongly disagree, Strongly agree, 24% 5%

Disagree, 9% 14%

Neither agree nor disagree, 15% 71%

Base size answering Not answered / No Agree, 47% scale opinion

212 14 72 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 22 Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q2. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should continue to protect the Green Belt by building new homes at slightly higher density? This means building more homes on a plot of land than we do at the moment. Strongly disagree, Strongly agree, 16% 3% 20% Disagree, 17% 57%

Neither agree nor disagree, 23% Agree, 41%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

210 16 73 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 23 Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q3a. To what extent do you support or oppose the following concepts… Draft Northern Sevenoaks Masterplan

Strongly oppose, 2% Strongly support, Oppose, 9% 11% 25%

Neither support nor oppose, 17%

72%

Base size answering Not answered / No Support, 47% scale opinion

175 51 74

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 24

Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q3b. To what extent do you support or oppose the following concepts… ‘Which Way Westerham’

Strongly oppose, 2% Strongly support, Oppose, 7% 9% 20%

Neither support nor 67% oppose, 23%

Base size answering Not answered / No Support, 47% scale opinion

172 54

75 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 25

Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q4. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should promote affordable housing and smaller private homes to meet the needs of all of our residents.

Strongly disagree, Disagree, 5% 2% 7%

Neither agree nor disagree, 15% Strongly agree, 40%

78%

Agree, 38% Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

216 10 76 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 26 Objective 2: Promoting well designed, safe places and safeguarding and enhancing the District’s distinctive high quality natural and built environments

Q5. How much do you agree or disagree that… Not Base size answered All new buildings and developments include the following… answering / No scale opinion Good connections to public transport, 7% pedestrian links and local 55% 92% 37% 1% 209 17 facilities and that 0% schemes are safe and secure

Landscaping, green infrastructure and 38% 83% 44% 14% 213 13 sustainable drainage

Providing renewable 0% technology and 50% 82% 32% 15% 210 16 broadband 2%

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

77 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 27 Objective 3: Supporting a vibrant local economy both urban and rural

Q6. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should make more efficient use of existing employment sites and redevelop suitable brownfield land to meet the need for more employment land.

Strongly disagree, 3% Disagree, 4% 7% Strongly agree, 28%

Neither agree nor disagree, 22%

71%

Base size answering Not answered / No Agree, 43% scale opinion 207 19 78 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 28 Objective 3: Supporting a vibrant local economy both urban and rural

Q7. How much do you agree or disagree with… Our approach to protecting employment sites, creating new business and home-working opportunities and ensuring the District remains a competitive location for businesses. Strongly disagree, 2% Disagree, 9% 10% Strongly agree, 25%

67% Neither agree nor disagree, 23%

Base size answering Not answered / No Agree, 42% scale opinion

199 27 79

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 29

Objective 4: Supporting lively communities with well performing town and village centres that provide a range of services, facilities and infrastructure

Q8. How much do you agree or disagree with… Our approach to protecting our existing town centres and local centres.

Strongly disagree, 2% Disagree, 4% 6% Neither agree nor disagree, 10% Strongly agree, 38%

83%

Agree, 45% Base size answering Not answered / No

scale opinion

203 23

80 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 30

Objective 4: Supporting lively communities with well performing town and village centres that provide a range of services, facilities and infrastructure Q9. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should prioritise working closely with other councils, public bodies and service providers to deliver what infrastructure is needed, where it is needed and when it is needed, to support new development. Strongly disagree, Disagree, 3% 2% 4% Strongly agree, 25%

Neither agree nor disagree, 24%

72%

Base size answering Not answered / No Agree, 47% scale opinion 209 17 81 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 31 Objective 5: Promoting healthy living opportunities

Q10. How much do you agree or disagree with… Our approach to encouraging healthy communities.

Disagree, 2% Strongly disagree, Neither agree nor 0% disagree, 5% 3%

Strongly agree, 45%

Agree, 46% 92%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

209 17 82 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 32 Objective 5: Promoting healthy living opportunities

Q11. How much do you agree or disagree with this approach… We want to identify important green spaces, within both urban and rural areas.

Strongly disagree, 2% Disagree, 8% 10%

Strongly agree, 37% Neither agree nor disagree, 10%

79%

Base size answering Not answered / No Agree, 42% scale opinion

210 16 83 Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 33 Objective 6: Promoting a greener future

Q12. How much do you agree or disagree with … Our approach to promoting a greener future.

Strongly disagree, Disagree, 5% 2%

7% Strongly agree, 33%

Neither agree nor disagree, 19%

74%

Base size answering Not answered / No Agree, 42% scale opinion

207 19 84

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 34

Appendix B Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan Consultation Findings Exceptional Circumstances Sites

85 Land South and East of Four Elms Road, Edenbridge – HO189, HO190, HO223, MX25 and MX26

86 Land North and East of Westerham – HO371, HO372, HO373, HO374 and EM17

87

Land at Breezehurst Farm, Edenbridge – MX10

88 Broke Hill Golf Course, Halstead – MX41

89 Sevenoaks Quarry, Sevenoaks – MX43

90 Land West of Romani Way, Hever Road, Edenbridge – MX44

91 Pedham Place, Swanley/Farningham/Eynsford – MX48

92 Land to the West of Chevening Road, Chipstead – MX49

52 93 Land east of London Road, Dunton Green – MX50

53 94 Land at Crouch House Road, Edenbridge – MX51

54 95

Corinthians and Banckside, Hartley – MX52 and MX53

96 Land between Beechenlea Lane and Highlands Hill, Swanley – MX54a

97 Land between Beechenlea Lane and Highlands Hill, Swanley – MX54b

98 Appendix C Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan Consultation Findings Site Allocations

99 All representations made as part of the Draft Local Plan (Reg, 18) Consultation on potential development sites have been summarised below. These summaries were prepared by Lake Research. Please see Appendix B for summaries of the comments made on Exceptional Circumstance Sites. Summaries are listed in order of appearance in the Draft Local Plan document

Housing and Mixed Use Site Allocation

Site Number of Comments

HO5 – 5 Crownfields, Sevenoaks 6

It was suggested that a covenant limits development in Crownfields to 1 dwelling per plot. Vehicle access to the site was considered dangerous and the development excessive. The single block design of the apartments is out of keeping with an area of single detached dwellings and it would have a negative impact on the skyline. Difficult to understand how the existing trees and hedges can be preserved.

HO217 – Sevenoaks Town Council Offices, Bradbourne Vale 6 Road, Sevenoaks

It was felt that development of the existing Adult Education Centre will a loss for the Sevenoaks community and this should be relocated elsewhere.

HO226 – Sevenoaks Adult Education Centre, Bradbourne Road, 37 Sevenoaks

See table below.

HO349 – Godfreys, Otford Road, Sevenoaks 6

There was support for more housing although there was some concern over increased traffic especially around the Bat and Ball junction. Also, of concern was the potential loss of employment and shops.

HO365 – Sevenoaks Hospital, Hospital Road, Sevenoaks 52

See table below.

HO381 – 15 St Botolphs Road, Sevenoaks 22

This was considered an over development on a historically interesting site. Apart for the need to protect the House which currently provides employment, the mature trees and coppice should be protected. These 16 units will add further traffic congestion and add to the parking problems and other infrastructure concerns with so many people in such a small localised area. The proposed development is not in keeping with the distinctive character of the rest of the road. While

100 development might be supported, it must be based on a sympathetic approach to the current character of the house and its surroundings. Care should also be taken with access to the site and the access used by neighbouring houses. There would also be a need to address the increase in noise light and air pollution that would result from the development.

HO382 – Archery and Far End, Chipstead Lane, Sevenoaks 12

The village needs starter homes although the proposals for 25 homes are excessive. Care should be taken with the Chipstead Lane access which is very narrow and already congested with narrow pavements. Parking is also a problem and care must be taken to ensure the character of the village.

MX29 – Sevenoaks Community Centre, Otford Road, Sevenoaks 7

While new housing is required, the proposed development is too high a density and out of keeping with the surrounding area. Also access from the steep and narrow Star Hill would be a problem as would roads that are already heavily congested. It is also expected that the social and community facilities would be relocated.

HO86 – Chaucers of Sevenoaks, London Road, Dunton Green 6

There was rejection of the proposals based on its position within the Green Belt albeit on a brownfield site. Some employment could be lost with the development.

HO197 – Land rear of West View Road, Swanley 31

See table below.

HO198 – The Woodlands, Hilda May Avenue, Swanley 14

Providing the AONB were preserved especially the trees the Woodlands site in its current condition was considered to be good area to be developed. However, there was concern in the following areas: increased traffic will add to existing congestion, pollution and too much pressure on already stretched medical care and schools.

HO202 – Land adjacent to 23 Russett Way, Swanley 15

There was concern about the loss of green space and play areas for children. The loss of AONB would also be a problem and the increase in pollution. Swanley Town Council supported the proposals provided that the development was limited, and amenity land was preserved.

HO274 – Land between 16 and 32 Alder Way, Swanley 14

This development is seen as an unwelcome development of a green break in the already overcrowded Alder Way. Parking and congestion are already a problem and the infrastructure is already under pressure with a lack of medical facilities and a lack of local amenities such as shops. This land is used by local residents, especially children, for recreational use and its loss

101 would be felt by many while noise pollution would increase because of the increased number of cars. There was also some concern for possible flood risk if drainage was not properly managed.

MX6 – White Oak Leisure Centre, Hilda May Avenue, Swanley (as 73 part of a leisure centre replacement programme)

See table below.

HO4 – Harringtons Nursery, Highlands Hill, Swanley 81

See table below.

HO10 – Old Forge Yard, Swanley Village Road, Swanley 16

There was general agreement that this would be a good use of a brownfield site providing it was a sympathetic development with well-planned access. However, the loss of local employment would affect the village and there was some concern over the already congested and dangerous roads become even busier. There is already air pollution in Swanley which would only get worse.

HO222 – Former Birchwood Primary School, Russett Way, 17 Swanley

There was support for the development of a redundant brownfield site although was a perceived lack of information on the type and density of the new housing development. Also thought must be given to additional schooling and medical care. The development could lead to the undesirable merging of Swanley and Hextable and it was felt that there were other preferable sites available

HO298 – Land rear of Cedar Lodge, Wood Street, Swanley Village 9

General support for this development although the comment was made that the site was isolated and unsustainable and would need a new access.

HO357 – Swanley Village Nursery, Swanley Village Road, Swanley 14 Village

There was support for this development on a brownfield site that no longer has employment opportunities and has fallen into disrepair. There was concern that this development would in time extend into adjoining land. The access is a problem because there would be unwelcome additional traffic on already congested narrow roads with no footpaths. There would also be increased pressure on infrastructure and local services which are already under pressure.

MX9 – Upper Hockenden Farm, Hockenden Lane, Swanley 10

The development of this site is considered viable by most respondents providing the road junction from the A20 and B2173 is remodelled to help take traffic away for the centre of Swanley and pavements added.

102 MX32 – Pembroke Business Centre and Pembroke House, 8 College Road, Swanley

The road is narrow and dangerous and would need to be redeveloped. The proposals are quite high density in a low density area and could contribute to the merger of Swanley and Hextable. Increase traffic will further exacerbate congestion as well as noise and air pollution.

HO210 – Open Space at Stangrove Estate, Crouch House Road, 23 Edenbridge

Parking is a particular problem with cars parking on verges and other recreational spaces. This is a particular problem on the many narrow roads. There is already overcrowding and there should not be more housing in an area where there has been a loss of recreational green space which is mostly used by children. There appears to be a particular problem with the parking of vans and other commercial building that exacerbates the parking problems. While parking is a big problem, trees should not be felled to allow for more parking and every effort should be made to protect fauna and flora. Also, residents should be allowed to use their gardens for parking. Air and noise pollution are also a problem together with an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour.

HO364 – Edenbridge and District War Memorial Hospital, Mill 24 Hill, Edenbridge

There was objection to the proposal to build on an officially listed memorial site that contains a hospital and should be unavailable for residential use. If houses are to be built, the hospital on the site will need to be rebuilt. It was also suggested that if it is developed larger homes or luxury apartments should be built in keeping with the area. Another suggested use of the current hospital was for a rehabilitation/care facility rather than more housing. The density of the proposals was considered too high in a ‘conservation’ area and on a site which should retain the historical links as a memorial to the First World War. However, there was support for the scheme and it was suggested that an earlier consultation proposed the building of a new hospital and the memorial stones moved to a different location so that the land would be available for housing.

HO379 – Kent and Surrey Driving Range, Crouch House Road, 16 Edenbridge

The development is a pressure on the recreational use of the golfing driving range and will result in an increase in traffic on an already dangerous road junction, a threat to local flora and fauna and increase demands on the infrastructure and local services. It is a leisure facility in the Green Belt and is not brownfield development land.

HO46 – Land between Granville Road and Farleycroft, 10 Westerham

Potential flooding was mentioned and access down a very narrow lane was considered a problem both when building and for its eventual use. It was considered to be too close to other houses and

103 flats. The local roads are potentially dangerous especially for cars waiting on the A25 to turn into Farley Lane. The local infrastructure is already at capacity especially with regard to schools. Development would also require the removal of trees to the detriment of the character of the area and the visibility of other residents.

HO327 – Crockham Hill House, Main Road, Crockham Hill 5

The site would attract support providing the tree line along the road was preserved to conserve and enhance AONB. Would the scheme be viable given the scale of the existing premises for only 5 dwellings?

HO384 – The Forge, Ash Road, Ash 15

This development would result in the loss of employment at Orpins which is a very busy and popular builders’ merchant which needs to be retained in the village. Development would be supported if either the new builds or Orpins could be moved to a nearby alternative site.

MX55 – The Manor House, North Ash Road, New Ash Green 22

The current Manor House is a listed building with attractive landscape/positioning and should be retained for employment through its use by businesses or as a new nursing home rather than developed into new housing. This represents ‘gradualism’ and if commercial use cannot be maintained, development should not be larger than the original manor house and should include parking. If it is developed as proposed it would damage the identity of the area and increase the pressure on medical service and the already congested roads. The design and landscaping of any new buildings must be in keeping with the unique nature of the surrounding area. Any future use should also include the provision to ensure safe road crossing for pedestrians.

HO102 – Otford Builders Merchants, High Street, Otford 9

There was concern about the possible closure of OBS. Housing on the site would cause infrastructure problems especially with schools, medical care and road congestion. However, there was support for such development on a brownfield site providing care was taken with AONB.

HO353 – Land South of Orchard House, Ash Road, Hartley 20

There was support for the need for more housing. However, the proposed development at Hartley is too large for an area that has small access roads and already suffers from traffic congestion. The current infrastructure will not cope and there will be a need for more medical services, schools, parking and better local transport. The environmental impact in this Green Belt area including extra vehicle pollution and pressure on Flora and Fauna would be severe. There would also be a loss of employment and the loss of individual village identity in AONB with such a large development.

104 HO150 – Chelsfield Depot, Shacklands Road, Badgers Mount 28

There is concern that the proposed development is too large in scale / density and would put too much pressure on local infrastructure – local transport, schools, doctors’ services. Even with the proposed provision of additional services, there are concerns with regard to traffic and road structures. The boundary proposed also affects green belt / woodland areas that should be protected. There are concerns for wildlife.

HO328 – Land west of the roundabout, London Road, Badgers 18 Mount

While the development of an unattractive site has support it was felt that the density should be reduced in an area that already suffers from congested dangerous roads and a shortage of local services especially medical care, and local amenities. The development would also result in additional noise, air and light pollution and the proposed sports facilities are not necessary and would draw people from outside the local area and only add to the above problems.

HO368 – Calcutta Club and Polhill Business Centre, London Road, 26 Badgers Mount

There was some support for the development providing the local employment was retained perhaps through the retention of the hotel/diner and office. However, the density of the site was questioned as out of keeping of the local area. It was also considered an overdevelopment of a small village in a green belt area that is remote from existing developments and public transport. Infrastructure, local services and road issues need to be addressed. Also, extensive tree planting would be needed along the northern boundary and existing tress retained. The already congested roads would also be under pressure and the level of air noise and light pollution from the M25 would increase with the additional of new housing.

HO109 – Highways Depot, Tonbridge Road, Chiddingstone 3 Causeway

Chiddingstone Parish Council supports the inclusion of this site in the Local Plan. The Parish Council would not accept a greater density than this and would prefer to see 6 units on the site rather than 8.

HO97 – Middle Farm Nursery, Cray Road, Crockenhill 44

See table below.

HO124 – Wested Farm, Eynsford Road, Crockenhill 52

See table below.

105 HO315 – Gorse Hill Nursery, Gorse Hill, Farningham 15

Extra traffic would put further pressure on already congested and dangerous roads. Local medical services are already under pressure and the isolated position some way away for schools, shops and public transport makes the location unsustainable. In its current form it contributes little to the local character however, the new proposals would result in a more substantial detrimental effect on AONB. The potential addition of 2 permanent gypsy and traveller pitchers was criticised and the current permission for these sites should be withdrawn because of the current lack of use. Also access to the site is difficult and extensive work would be needed to make the site useable.

HO326 – Maplescombe Farm, Maplescombe Lane, Farningham 27

The number of dwellings proposed in this AONB was considered excessive especially with the already congested narrow access roads. A ‘dense’ housing estate rather than the established development of larger houses along the road was considered to be inconsistent with an area that has been involved with farming for a long time. The closure of the businesses on the farm would result in loss of employment. Before housing could be built there would need to be considerable expenditure on the infrastructure. There was support for the development of the farm as it was considered a good location for much needed housing rather than any light industrial use. The current farm is dilapidated odorous and noisy with farm machinery clogging up the narrow roads.

HO51 – Eureka Naturist Club, Manor Lane, Fawkham 61

See table below.

HO165 – Fawkham Business Park, Fawkham Road, Fawkham 71

See table below.

HO378 – Grange Park Farm, Manor Lane, Fawkham 71

See table below.

HO49 – Highfield Farm and Knocka Villa, Crow Drive, Halstead 24

This is AONB in the green belt adjacent to an area of ancient woodland with unadopted roads. The proposed development should not be necessary given the houses to be built at Fort Halstead. There are insufficient roads and water supply. Small scale employment units would be more appropriate and a smaller development of dwellings of no more than 2 stories. There may be problems with the provision of medical services if the new residents registered with the current GPs. While there is a promise to build schools, a new medical centre and other facilities, it is felt that the roads and local transport would be unable to cope with the additional number of residents. Urban sprawl, noise and light pollution will also increase. Loss of the lanes and green

106 areas would also adversely affect leisure activities such as horses riding and dog walking.

HO138 – Deer Leap Stud Farm, Knockholt Road, Halstead 19

There was some concern that the proposals were too much for a small historic village in the Green Belt that is already suffering from traffic problems, a lack of medical care, problems with air / noise / light pollution and insufficient local amenities. Access would also be a problem especially on to Knockholt road. However, there was also support because of a perceived need for more housing providing the development would not impose too much pressure on existing infrastructure and not seriously alter the attractiveness of the village.

HO301 – Oak Tree Farm, London Road, Halstead 20

It was felt that this involved over-development of a small village with the attendant problems of potentially dangerous and already congested narrow roads and insufficient medical care and schools struggling to cope with current numbers. Air pollution would increase, and the village identity would be lost because of the size of the development. The site was also described as Green Belt because it could not be found in the Register of brownfield sites. However, there was also support for the proposals providing the infrastructure can be developed to support it.

MX24 – Fort Halstead, Crow Drive, Halstead 92

See table below.

HO73 – The Parish Complex, College Road, Hextable 85

See table below

HO224 – Former Furness School, Rowhill Road, Hextable 28

There was objection to the demolition of the historically important Furness school and the Heritage centre. It was suggested that conversion to flats or community use might be better than demolition. The housing density was also criticised with the attendant problems with increased traffic especially in the narrow roads around the development. The loss of the site for schooling was also a problem in an area where the infrastructure for schools and medical care is under pressure. If the area is developed the playing fields should be retained.

HO58 – Land west of College Cottages, College Road, Hextable 28

There is a perceived lack of information on the proposals especially in term of access to the site and the relocation of the village hall and surrounding buildings. The main concerns centre on overcrowding, increased traffic congestion, air pollution, noise pollution, potential asbestos contamination and the perceived merging of villages will result in a loss of rural identity.

107 HO106 – College Road Nurseries, College Road, Hextable 23

There was considerable concern about the effect of increased traffic on already congested roads especially College road. The potential merging of Swanley and Hextable was a potential problem. Also, of concern was the ability of schools and medical provision to cope with the additional residents. There was some confusion over the number of houses as the proposal does not mention the actual application of a further 61 new houses. However, there is support for the development of this open, dangerous derelict site with a design that appears to be quite sympathetic with the current village layout.

HO212 – Egerton Nursery, Egerton Avenue, Hextable 18

There was both support and rejection for the proposals. However, there was strong support from both groups for the control of commercial vehicle movements especially in roads like Egerton Avenue which this development will help with. While there was concern that the number of houses should be reduced there was a lot of support for increasing the housing development to the whole of the commercial site rather than the planned 45%. This would ensure the reduction in commercial traffic movements. It was also felt important that the housing density wasn’t too great and the access roads were well designed. The potential loss of the identity of the individual villages was of concern because of the merging of Swanley and Hextable together with the associated increase in pollution.

HO225 – Oasis Academy, Egerton Avenue, Hextable 41

See table below.

HO354 – Holmesdale Works, Holmesdale Road, South Darenth 6

The development would result in the loss of local employment in an area that has historically been a successful mix of industrial and residential use. Also, the increase in access points to the highway would increase pressure on the already congested roads. The need for more housing was acknowledged and it was felt that the increase in traffic would be minimal because while there would be more private cars the commercial traffic would be reduced

HO127 – Gills Farm, Gills Road, South Darenth 14

There was general support for the proposals for this brownfield site and the generation of new homes and more employment. There was objection on the basis of its perception as an unstainable location without services and a single lane track road.

HO346 – Land at Oakview Stud Farm, Lombard Street, Horton 6 Kirby

While there is support for development in its current form, it is too big a development for a small village that already has problems with sufficient schools and medical services. Also, there would

108 be a loss of employment because of the need for business to move.

HO340 – Land east of Whitebeam Close and South of Pilgrims 41 Way Cottages, Kemsing

See table below.

HO104 – Baldwins Yard, Noahs Ark, Kemsing 7

There was general agreement that this would be a good use of a brownfield site providing it was a sympathetic development to ensure the retention of the AONB and with well-planned access. Concern was expressed about the increased pressure on Otford Medical Practice.

HO133 – Land south of West End, Kemsing 13

There was widespread criticism of the potential increased traffic on already congested dangerous roads that lacked adequate grass verges. There were also infrastructure concerns regarding inadequate water supply and telecommunications. There was also concerns over flood risk because of inadequate drainage. Otford Medical Practice is already overstretched and there is a lack of sufficient places in local schools and other local amenities. The pressure on flora and fauna is increasing in AONB which is not being properly addressed.

HO44 – 51-59 Mount Pleasant Road and land to the rear, 10 Sevenoaks Weald

While the need for more housing is accepted in principle, 14 new properties at this site would result in the significant loss of flora and fauna in AONB. Also, of concern are the potential drainage issues and the loss of local amenity space. The character of the village would change and there would be pressure on local services such as the village school and increased parking and congestion.

HO47 – 1-6 Gilchrist Cottages and land to the rear, Mount 5 Pleasant Road, Sevenoaks Weald

The proposals are for buildings within the confines of the village and AONB should be preserved with buildings no more than 2 stories high. This might be difficult for a development of 13 dwellings.

HO336 – Car Park east of Sundridge House, Main Road, 5 Sundridge

Providing the character of AONB is preserved there is support for the scheme. The potentially dangerous access road from the A25 needs to be carefully planned.

109 HO342 – Meadow Cottage, Goathurst Common, Ide Hill 18

Although this is registered as a brownfield site, it is considered AONB with narrow, dangerous access roads limited parking and insufficient infrastructure especially medical services water supply and sewerage. While there was support because of the need for more housing, considerable expenditure will be necessary on roads and infrastructure. Also, the size of the houses should be limited to no more than 2 stories to conserve the local character of the North Downs.

HO35 – JD Hotchkiss Ltd, London Road, West Kingsdown 5

Proposed housing density is too high and the loss of local employment in an urban area would be unfortunate.

HO78 – Florence Farm Mobile Home Park, Main Road, West 5 Kingsdown

The point was made that replacing the current mobile homes with housing units does not amount to an increase in housing supply. The current mobile units also provide a low cost housing need that would need to be addressed.

HO272 – Rajdani, London Road, West Kingsdown 5

If the site is to be developed there would be a loss of employment from the restaurant.

HO77 – Millview Park and Foxlands, London Road, West 25 Kingsdown

There was considerable concern about the housing future of the 24 current park home residents. These concerns included the likelihood of getting a fair price to move or offers of relocation. Most of these residents are old retirees who will not have the money to buy new homes while the sale of their park homes would not raise sufficient capital. It would appear that some have not be aware of public meetings to discuss these proposals.

HO129 – Terrys Lodge Farm, Terrys Lodge Road, Wrotham 12

There is considerable support for a site that has already been sympathetically developed. It is important that the change from an agricultural site into a hamlet retains the character of the farming heritage and protects AONB. There was some objection that the site was isolated and unsustainable and the loss of farm buildings questions the viability of farming in the area and would harm the rural environment.

110 Provision for Gypsy and Traveller Community

Site Number of Comments GT1 – Bournewood Brickworks, Stones Cross Road, Crockenhill 10

While five pitches were not considered excessive, concern was expressed that the history of unauthorised building on the site would mean that there will continue to be uncontrolled further development. Other concerns were increased road congestion, inability of infrastructure to cope especially schools and medical care and loss of village identity.

GT2 – Early Autumn, East Hill, Shoreham 3

There was support for the proposal however it was also suggested that there are already too many pitches planned and granted. They should be evenly distributed throughout the country and not concentrated in a small district.

GT3 – St George’s Stables, Well Hill, Shoreham 1

Any planning should ensure the AONB needs to be protected.

GT4 – Station Court, London Road, Halstead 3

The ‘Agent’ for the site supports the planning. However, Halstead Parish Council felt that expansion of this already controversial site would not be in the best interest of the area.

GT5 – Alexis Place, Hockenden Lane, Swanley 5

There was concern on the way this planning will be policed to ensure that there are no more than 10 dwellings. It was also felt that there are already too many traveller sites in Swanley / Hextable and that they always end up bigger than intended. Swanley Town Council had no objections to increasing capacity.

GT7 – Merry Lees, Billet Hill, Ash 11

The site is positioned between 2 residential properties and the reasons for granting the original exemptional permission are no longer relevant and the area should be returned to Green Belt. There should be consideration for a pedestrian access as the very narrow roads are already dangerous. There is no acceptable infrastructure such as electricity, sewage disposal and surface/storm water disposal. The Barnfield site should be developed as it is underused.

GT8 – Knatts Valley Caravan Park, Knatts Valley Road, West 1 Kingsdown

No significant concerns

111 GT9 – Hollywood Gardens, School Lane, West Kingsdown 2

The reasons for granting the original exemptional permission are no longer relevant and there are too pitches many for the size of the site.

GT10 – Two Barns, Knatts Lane, West Kingsdown 2

There has been a perceived lack of control over unauthorised development which must be addressed. Also, issues regarding AONB must be taken into account.

GT11 – Fordwood Farm, New Street Road, Ash 5

Infrastructure particularly schools and medical care will not cope with more residents. Such developments rarely increase local jobs. Why are they planning new pitches in an AONB when existing policy is to place them in an area of existing settlements. There are already too many travellers.

GT12 – Seven Acre Farm, Hever Road, Edenbridge 3

Additional gypsy sites are inappropriate in an area that already contains many and where the Green Belt needs protection. Unauthorised or out of planning authorisation must be returned to the Green Belt. There is also confusion over the definition of gypsy versus traveller.

GT16 – Park Lane Farm, Park Lane, Swanley Village, Swanley 14

It is understood original permission was for 1 person. This is an unwelcome attempt at extending permission for more travellers. Property values will drop and there will be more pressure on sewage and waste disposal. There are too many new sites in AONB and historic sites. Sevenoaks should be used for new sites instead of Swanley and Hextable. There should also be more control over existing sites where there is uncontrolled expansion. The Green Belt needs protecting. Roads are already congested and dangerous. Pollution will increase and the infrastructure will not cope especially schools and medical care.

GT17 – Land south west of Broomhill, Button Street, 2 Farningham

There was support for the application from the ‘Agent’. There was also rejection because it will open up more land and the lack of control will more than 2 dwelling will be built.

112 Supporting a Vibrant and Balanced Economy

Site Number of Comments

EM3, EM5, EM11 and EM21 – “Dunbrik Hub A25” – Main Road, 18 Sundridge: Construction Yard, Sevenoaks Garden Centre, Land at A21/M25 interchange, Coblands Nursery, Dryhill Lane (brownfield portion only)

Increased traffic on already congested and dangerous roads was a concern particularly the very busy A25 and the dangerous and narrow Dryhill Lane. Also, the development would almost ‘link’ Sundridge to Chipstead. There is also a need to preserve AONB/flora and fauna and the ability of people to enjoy Dryhill Park. Pollution and flood risk are also of concern.

EM6, EM23 and EM24 – Bartram Farm, Old Otford Road, 8 Sevenoaks

Some support for the need to develop land to support employment. However, it was felt that there are already sites that could be developed to aid this without the need to new build on Green Belt. Other concerns were increased traffic adding to current dangerous roads and noise, air and light pollution levels, erosion of the Green Belt and the local flora and fauna. There are already many vacant units on the Vestry estate negating the need for more new units. Acceptance of the need to provide more land to increase employment levels.

EM12 – Land South of High Street, Brasted 1

There are no significant concerns with regard to water and sewage. The safeguarding of flora and fauna needs to be considered.

EM4 – Land at Pedham Place, Swanley 198

See table below

EM20 – Westerham Garage and land to rear, London Road, 17 Westerham

Wolfe/Westerham garage refuted suggestions that the garage would cease to operate. Such an event would be a concern as it was felt that there were no reasonable alternatives. Also the potential loss of the garage shop, workshops and local community shops was a concern and the jobs for the people employed there. There were also concerns for AONB, flora and fauna, possible flooding, the need to get rid of toxic waste when the current buildings are demolished, increased air and noise pollution, road safety especially for school children and loss of local identity. However, it was also felt that the current Wolfe/Westerham site does little for the AONB and its development could improve this.

113 EM1 – Land South of High Street, Brasted 1

Need to ensure the AONB is protected.

EM9 – The White House and land to the rear, High Street, 3 Brasted

There was concern on the effect on the village street scene if the White House was demolished. However, there was support for the scheme providing there was proper design and planning and a limit to a two- storey structure and care to preserve AONB.

EM10 – Land west of Chaucer Industrial Park, Honeypot Lane, 4 Kemsing

The location in an AONB is the main concern. The proposals should endeavour to maintain the rural perspective including well planned tree planting. The problem of increased litter from passing cars should also be addressed.

114 HO226 – Sevenoaks Adult Education Centre, Bradbourne Road, Sevenoaks

115 HO365 – Sevenoaks Hospital, Hospital Road, Sevenoaks

116 HO197 – Land rear of West View Road, Swanley

117 MX56 – White Oak Leisure Centre, Hilda May Avenue, Swanley (as part of a leisure centre replacement programme)

118 HO4 – Harringtons Nursery, Highlands Hill, Swanley

119 HO97 – Middle Farm Nursery, Cray Road, Crockenhill

120 HO124 – Wested Farm, Eynsford Road, Crockenhill

121 HO51 – Eureka Naturist Club, Manor Lane, Fawkham

122 HO165 – Fawkham Business Park, Fawkham Road, Fawkham

123 HO378 – Grange Park Farm, Manor Lane, Fawkham

124 MX24 – Fort Halstead, Crow Drive, Halstead

125 HO73 – The Parish Complex, College Road, Hextable

126 HO225 – Oasis Academy, Egerton Avenue, Hextable

127 HO340 – Land east of Whitebeam Close and south of Pilgrim Way Cottages, Kemsing

128 EM4 – Land at Pedham Place, Swanley

129 Appendix D Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan Consultation Findings Chapters and Policies

130 All representations made as part of the Draft Local Plan (Reg, 18) Consultation on Chapters and Polices have been summarised below. These summaries were prepared by Lake Research.

Document Part Number of Comments

Sevenoaks Vision 2015-2035 and Objectives of the Plan 13

There was general acceptance of the proposals. The Pedham Place development is criticised because of the potential linking of Farningham and Swanley and its effect on infrastructure. There needs to be a clear monitoring process to ensure developers are accountable. Also, residential developments should be limited to affordable homes. It is not sure that the environmental expectations are at all sustainable.

Chapter 1 – Finding Places for New Homes 44

We should not be building on the Green Belt. Existing settlements and previously developed land and areas which have the infrastructure e.g. trains and more than the one bus an hour should take priority. The roads are barely coping with the existing traffic. What infrastructure and road improvements are the council and developers putting in place?

The number of homes being proposed is excessive and will be damaging to the area which is largely Green Belt with already overburdened roads, schooling a medical infrastructure. There should be greater emphasis on attractive, higher density community/co-housing sites (like Rockdale in Sevenoaks), encouraging their development at the heart of existing communities. This would support the sustainability of our town and village centres and help grow the important contribution of older and retired people to their communities.

Change of use from employment to residential should only occur where a site is shown to be no longer viable for employment. The plan acknowledges the loss of local amenities, employment, leisure and healthcare but is not clear how they will be replace/relocated.

Do we actually need homes? Many houses are empty and there are developer’s plots with permissions not yet started. When planning is achieved, developers must be forced to complete by charging council tax after a period of 18 months.

Policy 1 – A Balanced Strategy for Growth in a Constrained 82 District

The proposed development is too big for the areas effected even though proposed targets are unlikely to be met. There will be urban sprawl, village character will be lost, and infrastructure will be unable to cope especially in villages like Halstead and Badgers Mount. However, it is accepted that more housing is needed but maximum use of available land requires higher densities that fit in as far as possible with the surrounding infrastructure and green belt identities. This is particularly important for the increasing proportion of older residents. Before using land between towns and villages infilling and ‘rounding off’ should take priority. It is important that the term

131 ‘exceptional circumstances’ is clearly understood and applied so that developments are justified and properly completed.

Policy 2 – Housing and Mixed Use Site Allocations 216

Many agree with the need for more housing but the almost universal problems with the suggested development sites are narrow, dangerous and already overcrowded roads, a lack of infrastructure for schooling, medical care and public transport as well as air/light pollution and increase flooding risks. Another common view is the potential loss of recreational green areas that are used by all ages for walking and relaxing thus aiding both physical and mental well-being.

There is a general agreement on the need for more residential housing but varying views on how it should be achieved. Affordable housing is most often mentioned as more necessary than ‘executive homes’. However, the problem with affordable housing is how to control the way they evolve after being built. There are views that much of it will be bought by people moving from London, therefore putting out of reach of ‘local’ need. Furthermore, these previously London based purchasers will have to continue to work in London in order to afford to buy, necessitating the increasing use of rail travel and use of rail travel and use of cars on an already overcrowded and dangerous often narrow road infrastructure. Also, these small affordable homes often take on extensions which move them up the price bracket. Affordable homes should be built quite densely to help alleviate these problems.

There is concern over urban sprawl joining up villages and towns. While there are examples on the edge of settlements that would work with affordable housing it is also felt that local employment is important to preserve, and mixed developments may be preferable to accommodation only.

Many developments are planned on local amenities such as golf courses or community centres and recreational areas. It is felt important that developers are made to replace those that are built on and ideally, they should be placed nearby so their use doesn’t increase car or public transport usage to visit them. This is particularly important for the elderly users of such sites.

Many developers question the actual definition of exceptional circumstances. They claim that some Councils claim that this excludes the residential as the main ‘circumstance’. Developers disagree. Similarly, developers and greenfield defenders disagree on the classification of Green Belt that performs well and the justification of its potential use for development. Many designated sites include good performing greenfield areas. Developers and their representatives wanting to develop them often quote edicts of the NPPF while those wanting to protect these sites quote the views of ARUP.

Chapter 2 – Protecting our Countryside 27

General acceptance of proposals. While strong support for Green Belt protection, it is acknowledged that some Green Belt is more ‘worthy’ of protection than others providing special circumstances are exactly that and not used simply for more development. Special circumstances

132 means development where there is strong compensatory benefit. Protecting the landscape should not mean well designed executive homes using lots of space, it is well designed high-density affordable housing that uses less space for more homes. While we must ensure that gaps between settlements are not bridged, well designed new developments on the edge of settlements could be used without harmful effects.

Policy 3 – Landscape and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 20

Most accept the proposals. Too many new homes would destroy the tranquillity of the development areas and increase noise and light pollution and possibly reduce local employment by building homes on commercial sites. The current wording concerning the use of Green Belt land is not consistent with AONB policy. It was also felt that the developments could have a positive environmental effect by reinstating hedgerows, enhancing woodland ‘edge’ and improving roads and footpaths.

Policy 4 – Development in the Green Belt 33

While protective of the Green Belt, there is general acceptance that development is needed and unavoidable on brownfield sites and previously developed Green Belt covered by exceptional circumstances. In order to protect village identity, the local environment and prevent urban sprawl, big single developments should be avoided in favour of sensitive infilling and development of existing sites. The term exceptional circumstances must be carefully defined.

Chapter 3 – Looking after our Wildlife ?

Wildlife considerations should not stop an area being used, if it ticks all the other boxes. Wildlife can thrive anywhere, people can’t. The opposite view was also expressed; wildlife cannot flourish anywhere because most species of animal and plant are habitat specific. Comprehensive ecological surveys are essential to ensure that effective measures are taken to look after wildlife throughout the development areas.

Policy 5 – Ashdown Forest 8

While there was general agreement with the proposals, it was felt that fauna and flora must be protected. It may be advisable to consider stating that any proposals considered likely to have a significant adverse effect on the Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) will not normally be permitted.

Policy 6 – Safeguarding Places for Wildlife and Nature 28

There was general support for the proposal and the acknowledgement of the importance of both small and large scale habitat creation in both rural and urban environments. However, the policy must be enforced, and it is important that there must be a net gain not just a net loss. The Council’s track record of protecting trees is not good. Also, would the developers contribute to the cost or if it would be in the Sevenoaks District Council budget? There was confusion of the exact location of the designated areas and it will be important to both protect and enhance

133 current water environments as well as addressing possible flood risk in both the development and the surrounding areas.

Chapter 4 – Improving Health, School and Transport 16

There are no plans to improve education facilities and where developers have proposed health provision these are included to boost the special circumstances bids of developers. No consultation will have taken place with NHS.

Health, school and transport infrastructure facilities are already stretched to near breaking point. Wherever large developments are proposed, these facilities must be augmented to bring them up to modern standards e.g. larger GP surgeries which can take some of the load from hospitals; schools built locally so that children don’t have to travel long distances. There is no mention of whether utilities – electricity, gas, water, drainage, broadband etc. can cope with the increased loads required by the proposed new developments.

As well as providing essential retail opportunities within walking distance of a large population, the village centre is the location of other commercial and community activities which provide both employment and facilities for local people including the village hall, public house, gym, dance studio, veterinary surgery and offices. These should be retained in any redevelopment or equivalent replacement community facilities equally accessible to the population should be built.

Policy 7 – Transport and Infrastructure 50

Most comments centred on the need for more roads in a region that is already congested. It was felt that the road infrastructure and a thorough transport policy should have been extensively researched before proposing the possible developments. Provision for electric cars, charging more cycle lanes and more off-street parking were also suggested. There were other infrastructure concerns centred on improvements in public transport, schooling, medical facilities and other public utilities.

Chapter 5 – Homes to Suit All Incomes 20

We need better planning laws (against height restrictions etc) that allow the developer to innovate with housing, and they shouldn’t have their hands tied by having to create a mix of housing – the developer should be allowed to decide how best to build suitable homes. It may be best to group cheaper homes together.

There is not plan to address the acute shortage of affordable homes in Sevenoaks for people who work there. It is a key reason for traffic congestions and poor air quality as so many people have to drive in from elsewhere to work. The key shortage is social rented housing.

Inward migration (often from areas such as London) is a factor in Sevenoaks’ growing population. Local prices and the availability of houses to first-time buyers will be skewed by more affluent incomers who have sold their properties in London. Many affordable developments in the District have been purchased as Buy-to-Let. Such activities distort an already broken housing market for

134 first-time buyers.

Policy 8 – Market and Affordable Housing Mix 31

While there is a need for a broad mix of housing, affordable houses in high value areas are difficult to create and maintain. Small units are extended to become medium sized. Only those moving from London can afford housing in some areas. It is a serious problem because there is a need for the increasing sized elderly sector to downsize while providing inexpensive homes for first time buyers. Developers must develop affordable homes including social rented accommodation although no groups want single bedroom homes.

Policy 9 – Provision of Affordable Housing 30

Previous affordable home targets have not been met. Developers must guarantee developments will be completed rather than simply making financial contributions. Affordable homes become unaffordable because of extensions and because of demand from people moving down from London. Consideration should be given to ensuring that affordable homes remain so. There is some confusion over the actual targets proposed, 35% or 40%. Also, viability is a common concern with many questioning whether accurate viability testing has been carried out on development proposals.

Policy 10 – Housing in Rural Areas 18

Considerable support for the inclusion of market housing to help subsidise the affordable segment. While it was felt that there should be a limit on market housing to stop it overwhelming the number of affordable homes it was also felt that attempting to apply such a limit would make the schemes unviable. Park homes were suggested as a way of providing affordable housing especially for the elderly.

Policy 11 – Provision for the Gypsy and Traveller Community 19

There is support for more sites, although the number of pitches per site must be limited to no more than 15. The number of pitches must also be limited by the level of infrastructure available. There is also the view that Gypsy sites are inappropriate in AONB and there should not be a policy to allow temporary sites to become permanent. However, there is also the view that temporary sites should become permanent and allow more pitches on existing sites both within and in a limited way outside existing boundaries. As many sites outside settlements are currently in the Green Belt, the use of such should not be a reason to reject new sites on Green Belt land.

Policy 12 – Housing Density 22

Proposed densities are too high and unlikely to be appropriate in most sites within the Kent Downs AONB. A flexible approach to densities will cause problems, there needs to be a range of densities for different proposals depending on the local identities. Green Belt densities should use rural not urban densities and on street parking needs to be minimised.

135 Chapter 6 – Creating Local Jobs and Better Town Centre 13

Establish more designated space for shops that serve the local community. We should make it easier to shop locally. Allowing residential on existing employment sites will destroy local employment not create it. Parking issues must be addressed to encourage people to use the High Street. There is no way in which their transport needs can be met by private cars. There are increasing numbers of people working part time from home in high value services, with needs for local support and networking. Towns in the area have already lost some of their distinctive individual flavours. Local retail facilities impact on the success of leisure resources as well as other local business. The continuing rise of online retail may make redundant the additional retail space suggested in the plan. Once a development has been approved it takes too long to be built because of developer’s desire to maximise their return. Ugly, boarded open spaces are left unused.

Policy 13 – Supporting a Vibrant and Balanced Economy 34

Commercial sites should be protected against change of use to protect local employment. Developers manipulate the viability of commercial sites in order to obtain change of use to residential. There is the view that sensitive residential building on commercial sites in the middle of towns or villages relieves pressure on building on greenfield sites and can add to the attractiveness of the area. Consideration should be given to promote mixed home/business use to help solve change of use problems.

Policy 14 – Town and Local Centres 28

A policy that looks at helping boutique shops and small business owners to take on premises, through lower rates and business growth support would go a long way to regenerating towns and creating jobs for the future. Creating a vibrant economy with leisure, recreational and work opportunities is paramount to the sustainability of the wider community and a growing population. However, we need to begin to future proof our town/village centres, as large numbers of retail chains close stores as shopping trends move increasingly online.

From a recreational and leisure perspective, anything that encourages social interaction is always going to be positive thing, but the policy needs to be robust to take into account young, elderly and vulnerable members of the community and ensure that facilities are centrally located and within easy access of public transport and where possible car parking should be easily available and priced to encourage shoppers to visit rather than rely on online options. There is a need to ensure the local infrastructure of transport and medical services and other community services are preserved.

Chapter 7 – Designing and Protecting Attractive Places 5

The landscape that is visible today is the result of many centuries of evolution and the pattern of roads, tracks, field boundaries and hedgerows that gives the modern landscape its character is firmly rooted in the past. It is important that the potential impact on the historic environment is

136 fully considered and any unavoidable damage is mitigated. This is best secured by early consideration of the local historic environment and how development can best fit in it.

Policy 15 – Design Principles 31

All new buildings should include rainwater capture and recycling of grey water. At the same time possible flooding needs to both in the new development sites and in the areas around them that might be affected. Biodiversity needs to be considered along with soft natural landscaping. Mention was made of the features reflected in the Otford design. There needs to be a net gain in biodiversity. Also important was light pollution and the elimination of any advertising. Adequate parking will be important. There is no need for a review panel as it only adds cost and time. If there are any costs they should be borne by the developer.

Policy 16 – Historic Environment 8

There was unanimous support for this policy.

Policy 17 – Heritage Assets 13

While the policy is acceptable, it is important that the Council strongly support it and does not allow it to be compromised. Local distinctiveness must be used in the early stages of the design unlike the approach in many previous developments. Also, the economic future of buildings should be preserved and where possible, historical and environmental characteristics protected.

Chapter 8 – Clean Air, Healthy Living and Preparing for a 4 Changing Climate

The plan must include detailed recommendations on the mitigation of climate change. Need baseline emission survey and possible development impact. The plan must make clear how noise, pollution, dangerous congested roads will be dealt with. The design of houses should consider all forms of clean energy, orientation, natural ventilation and planting to avoid unnecessary heat gain and promote efficient energy usage.

Policy 18 – Health and Wellbeing, Air Quality, Climate Change 31 and Flooding

Solar panels should be fitted to all new developments. Also important is sustainable drainage policies along with a clear understanding of the local flood risks both within the new developments and in the local areas that might be affected. Permeable surface will also help. Air and light pollution also need to be addressed and a continuing policy to reduce emissions to protect air quality. New areas of trees and vegetation needs to be promoted together with drought tolerant planting. Well-designed green areas and accessible space are important for physical and mental wellbeing. Consideration should be given to Park Homes to provide affordable accommodation and for inexpensive communities for the increasing elderly population.

137 Chapter 9 – Improving Opportunities to Relax and Have Fun 9

Allotments must receive the same degree of protection in the Local Plan as other recreation space, in addition to their statutory protection. Improvements to existing open spaces should be made in consultation with the local community. Also, children’s play space does not always have to include attractive and engaging equipment. There are other forms of play. When money is invested in new play equipment, a wide range of ages should be considered.

Recent studies have shown there is a correlation between areas of high deprivation that have poor access to open spaces and green infrastructure. This issue can be addressed by supporting the creation of new open spaces in areas of high deprivation. It is imperative that open spaces are easily accessible by walking, cycling or use of public transport, to avoid a dependency on private vehicle use.

Policy 19 – Open Space, Sport and Leisure 27

There was general support for the proposals. Allotments appear not to have been mentioned and these were considered important for health and community spirit. Where sporting facilities such as golf courses and associated facilities are lost, they must be replaced in the local area to avoid the need to travel. The proposal also mentions that new playing pitches are limited to full size only – why is this? Also, swimming pools are omitted, and they should be included. It is important that developers follow through on providing such facilities where relevant. There was some confusion over the exact location of some developments that would affect open space areas and this needs to be clarified. There was suggestion for more provision for non-motorised open spaces and lanes for cyclists and horse riders and the parking of horseboxes should be considered.

138 Appendix E Regulation 18 Findings Additional Potential Strategic Development Sites in the Green Belt

139 Representations made on the Additional Potential Strategic Development Sites in the Green Belt (Reg. 18) Consultation are summarised below.

Site Number of Comments

MX61 – Land south of Redhill Road, New Ash Green 880

There was an objection to the ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ proposed for this site, as well as the resultant loss of greenfield Green Belt land if this site were to be allocated in the Local Plan. The sites proximity to Ancient Woodland and the Kent Downs AONB was highlighted. Although many responses appreciated the need for additional housing, there was a widespread concern that this development would link Ash and New Ash Green, and destroy their separate identities. It was felt that the local infrastructure would not be able to cope with an increased population, and in particular there would be an additional burden on GP and hospital facilities. There were concerns over many additional commuters using the already insufficient transport services. Traffic congestion around New Ash Green and Hartley was highlighted, especially at peak times. Many representations made reference to previous responses to the Draft Local Plan regarding sites MX52/MX53 (Corinthians and Banckside, Hartley.

MX59 Land North and South of Kemsing Station, Kemsing 427

There was objection due to the site being located within the Kent Downs AONB and on greenfield Green Belt land. The ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ proposed were widely rejected. It was felt that the local road network, of which the majority are narrow country lanes, would be unable to cope with an increase in cars, especially at peak times where they are already struggling. It was highlighted that Kemsing’s GP surgery is already under strain and would not cope with the pressures of the additional population. Concerns were voiced over Kemsing Station being insufficient for a transport hub, with a limited service and its distance from the village centre. Many representations made reference to the SHELAA process under site reference MX46, where the site was originally assessed as ‘red – not for inclusion in plan’.

MX62 – Land between Hartfield Road and Hever Road, 222 Comments Edenbridge

Many representations objected to this site due to the constraints. The site is located within Flood Zone 2, and is greenfield Green Belt land. The sites proximity to the High Weald AONB and several SSSI’s was also highlighted. It was felt that the ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ were a poor substitute for the loss of open space. Concerns over who would maintain and pay for the proposal for a Country Park. Although many responses appreciated the need for a medical hub, it was highlighted that the site is located away from the town centre, and so the Four Elms Road site in the Proposed Submission Version of the Local Plan remained the preferred location. Some representations highlighted that the site was previously deemed unsuitable in the SHELAA.

140 MX58 – Land West of Childsbridge Lane and South of the 196 Recreation Ground, Kemsing

Many representations objected to the proposal due to the fact that the site is located within greenfield Green Belt land, as well as its proximity to the Kent Downs AONB. It was felt that the local road network, of which the majority are narrow country lanes, would be unable to cope with an increase in cars, especially at peak times. Many representations questioned the need for new homes within the Kemsing area. Concerns for infrastructure such as GP services, education facilities and the drainage network coping with an increased population. Lack of public transport provision was also highlighted. Representations also make reference to a smaller site boundary being included in the SHELAA process under site reference HO112 and the conclusion being ‘Red – Not for inclusion in plan’.

141 Appendix F Supplementary Planning Documents (Reg. 13) Findings

142 Representations made on the Affordable Housing SPD, Design Review Panel SPD and Development in the Green Belt SPD (Reg. 13) Consultations are summarised below.

Supplementary Planning Document Number of Comments

Affordable Housing SPD 5

Suggestion to expand Section 5.11 to include Town Council and County Council employees employed in Sevenoaks District. It was felt that the viability evidence base is restrictive to the supply of important housing typology within the Local Plan area. Responses recognised that Supplementary Planning Documents cannot set new development plan policies. Various queries over wording and interpretation of development plan policies.

Design Review Panel SPD 6

Representations supported the significance of a Design Review Panel to developments in Sevenoaks District. Similarly, other representations did not see the benefit of a Design Review Panel, but comments stated that should this be taken forward there should be strong local representation. Suggestion that the Supplementary Planning Document makes reference to the Settlement Hierarchy.

Development in the Green Belt SPD 22

Many representations on the Development in the Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document made reference to the proposed site allocations in the Local Plan which are proposed in the Green Belt. Concerns that the SPD does not reflect National Planning Policy in some respects, e.g. approach to infill development in the Green Belt. Some representations made have been inputted on the wrong consultation and these have been copied into the correct section of the Regulation 19 Local Plan, and the Additional Potential Strategic Development Sites in the Green Belt consultations.

143 Appendix G Proposed Submission Version of the Local Plan (Reg. 19) Chapters, Policies and Appendices Findings

144 Representations made on the Proposed Submission Version of the Local Plan (Reg. 19) are summarised below.

Policies

Policy Number of Comments

ST1 – A Balanced Strategy for Growth in a Constrained District 445

Comments related to the proposed, district-wide development strategy, particularly the balance between meeting housing need and Green Belt protection, and the link to infrastructure in making an ‘exceptional circumstances’ case for Green Belt amendment. In considering the Green Belt release, the Council has considered the Green Belt performance, the sustainability of the site (as assessed through the SA), and the infrastructure proposals. A number of comments related to scale/grain of Green Belt Assessment evidence base, which splits the whole district into parcels and classifies them as either strong, moderate or weak performing Green Belt, based on the 5 purposes outlined in national policy (the NPPF). It also identifies 31 weak-performing sub-areas, or (recommended areas’) for potential development. The definition of brownfield land was also raised in several comments, and the re-use of land in a broader sense. A number of respondents proposed a more ‘dispersed’ approach and noted that there are a number of proposed allocation the NW of the District, but this is primarily due to the distribution of existing brownfield land. Similarly, a number of comments were made on Pedham Place, and why it has been identified as a ‘broad location for growth’ rather than a site allocation. Comments also related to the Duty-to- Cooperate process and Statements of Common Ground, which will be submitted with the Local Plan for examination including with authorities which share the HMA. To date, no authorities have been able to assist with unmet housing need, although DTC discussions will continue to progress up to submission.

ST2 – Housing and Mixed Use Site Allocations 1216

Comments mainly related to support for the non-inclusion of omission sites to objection to the inclusion of larger sites. A vast majority of these responses were in relation to Broke Hill Golf Course (MX41), the Which Way Westerham proposal (HO371, HO372, HO373, HO374 and EM17) and Corinthians and Banckside (MX52 and MX53). Representations made by site promoters of omitted sites were also listed under this policy.

H1 – Market and Affordable Housing Mix 17

Representations showed strong support for increasing the proportion of smaller units, allowing older people to downsize and first time buyers to move onto the housing ladder. Comments suggested that the Policy should go further to meet the needs of an ageing population. The development industry argues that the requirement to build all new homes to meet the optional technical standard M4(2) for accessible and adaptable dwellings is too restrictive and should be reduced.

H2 – Provision of Affordable Housing 15

Representations showed strong support for the provision of affordable housing on new developments. There was some concern that the small sites requirement is contrary to policy.

145 H3 – Housing in Rural Areas 10

Representations showed strong support for the provision of local needs housing in rural areas. The development industry argues that the limit to the provision of market homes on cross- subsidy sites is too restrictive.

H4 – Provision of the Gypsy and Traveller Community 12

The policy was generally supported by respondents. The promoter of an omitted greenfield site disagreed with the exclusion of their site. The promoters of 2 omitted sites within the AONB (one with a pending planning application) disagreed with the exclusion of their site from the Local Plan. Some respondents in Edenbridge felt there were too many pitches in Edenbridge. One respondent stated that some sites would be too large and should only accommodate up to 10 pitches. The Kent Downs AONB unit were concerned about sites within the AONB and the potential negative impact.

H5 – Housing Density 21

Representations showed a mixed response, there was support for the policy but there was also some concern that 60 Dwellings Per Hectare (DPH) is too high. Comments acknowledged that the efficient use of land in built up areas reduces the pressure on the Green Belt.

EMP1 – Supporting a Vibrant and Balanced Economy 21

The policy was generally supported by respondents. An additional site was promoted for allocation in the Swanley area. The site had been promoted for housing up to this point. The promoters of an omitted greenfield site disagreed with the exclusion of their site. One respondent stated that the policy is too restrictive and that small sites should be allowed to redevelop for housing without any restrictions relating to the existing employment use.

EMP2 – Town and Local Centres 10

General support for the re-use of retail units to aid the intensification and regeneration of the Local Plan. Clarification on how the retail needs of the District will be met over the Plan period.

EMP3 – Tourism and Rural Economy 3

There was general support of this policy. Reference was made to the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan.

T1 – Transport and Infrastructure 48

There was general support for the policy in providing more sustainable transport and delivering infrastructure in support with the appropriate transport partners/providers. However, some views expressed concern on the certainty of when infrastructure will be delivered as part of a scheme. There was support for the provision of electric vehicle charging points within new developments.

LA1 – Landscape and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty 13

General support for the policy. Minor changes proposed by Natural England regarding the wording for AONBs. Kent Downs AONB unit requested wording from national policy to be

146 included regarding major developments.

GB1 – Development in the Green Belt 10

Some comments support the policy and approach to Green Belt. Discriminates against small brownfield sites in the Green Belt which offer less than 5 residential units. No policy beyond residential extensions. Some comments on amending Green Belt boundaries.

AF1 – Ashdown Forest 1

There was general support for this policy.

WN1 – Safeguarding Places for Wildlife and Nature 16

There was general support for this policy and for the requirement for net gain in biodiversity.

EN1 – Design Principles 10

There was general support for this policy. One respondent raised concerns that the Design Review Panel process should be set out in the Local Plan rather than an SPD. Another commented that the Panel should only be used for major developments.

HEN1 – Historic Environment 7

There was general support for this policy. Requests for New Ash Green to be identified in chapter/policy. Concerns regarding The Historic Environment Review for Sevenoaks District.

HEN2 – Heritage Assets 5

There was general support for this policy. Concerns regarding The Historic Environment Review for Sevenoaks District.

HE1 – Health Wellbeing and Air Quality 6

There was some support for this policy. Policy assumes hot food takeaways have significant health impacts over other food and drink uses. Concern regarding air quality monitoring and mitigation.

CC1 – Climate Change, Flooding and Water Management 7

There was general support for this policy. Clarification needed on water consumption target.

OS1 – Open Space, Sport and Leisure 14

There was general support for this policy. KCC Public Rights of Way Team request for the Improvement Plan to be referenced. Some additional sites have been suggested by a Parish Council however insufficient information was provided as to the location and extent and therefore an assessment cannot be made at this time.

147 Chapters

Chapter Number of Comments

1 – A Balanced Strategy for Sustainable Growth in a Constrained 0 District

There were no responses on this chapter.

2 – Providing Housing Choices 6

Comments suggested that this chapter is not in line with National Policy. Concerns for the lack of consideration of housing for older people.

3 – Supporting a Vibrant and Balanced Economy 0

There were no responses on this chapter.

4 – Ensuring Well-Connected Communities are Supported by 6 Appropriate Infrastructure

Comments raised settlement and site specific concerns regarding transport and infrastructure issues. Concerns that elderly population had not been considered in providing better transport.

5 – Protecting, Conserving and Enhancing Green Belt, Landscape 0 and the Natural Environment

There were no responses on this chapter.

6 – Safeguarding places for Wildlife and Nature 0

There were no responses on this chapter.

7 – Ensuring New Development Respects Local Distinctiveness 0

There were no responses on this chapter.

8 – The Historic Environment 1

Suggested changes to policies within this chapter.

9 – Climate Change, Flooding and Healthy Communities 0

There were no responses on this chapter.

10 – Leisure and Open Space 0

There were no responses on this chapter.

148 Appendix 1 – Guidance for Design Principles

Document Number of Comments

Guidance for Design Principles 1

Suggestion that parking standards in rural areas should be increased and generally be within the curtilage of each house

149 Appendix 2 - Housing and Mixed Use Site Allocations

ST2 Site Number of Comments

1 – Delivery and Post Office / BT Exchange, South Park, 2 Sevenoaks

Comments were in support of this site. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

2 – 5 Crownfields, Sevenoaks 2

Comments were in support of this site. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

3 – 15 St Botolphs Road, Sevenoaks 2

Comments were in support of this site. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

4 – School House, Oak Lane and Hopgarden Lane, Sevenoaks 2

Comments in support of site, although showed concern for number of dwellings allocated to this site in the Local Plan. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

5 – Johnsons, Oak Lane and Hopgarden Lane, Sevenoaks 1

Comments were in support of site. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

6 – Sevenoaks Hospital, Hospital Road, Sevenoaks (replacement 5 facilities to serve the local community to be provided on-site or nearby as part of any redevelopment scheme)

Comments raised objections to the inclusion of this site in the Local Plan, due to the loss of the hospital in Sevenoaks. It was suggested that a new site be bought forward for replacement facilities. Site lies within an Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) for Sevenoaks Gravel Pits SSSI. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

7 – Sevenoaks Community Centre, Otford Road, Sevenoaks 3

Comments objected to the loss of community facilities, and highlighted air pollution issues at the Bat and Ball junction. Site lies within an Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) for Sevenoaks Gravel Pits SSSI. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

8 – Cramptons Road Water Works, Sevenoaks 2

Site lies within an Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) for Sevenoaks Gravel Pits SSSI. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

150 9 – Sevenoaks Gasholders, Cramptons Road, Sevenoaks 3

Site lies within an Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) for Sevenoaks Gravel Pits SSSI. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

10 – Sevenoaks Town Council Offices, Bradbourne Vale Road, 2 Sevenoaks

Site lies within an Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) for Sevenoaks Gravel Pits SSSI. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

11 – Sevenoaks Adult Education Centre, Bradbourne Road, 6 Sevenoaks

Comments objected to the loss of community facilities, and also raised concerns for infrastructure provision, particularly the road network and congestion. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

13 – Sevenoaks Quarry, Bat and Ball Road, Sevenoaks 22

Concerns that the site is in the Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) for Greatness Brickworks SSSI. The land is Green Belt land and should not be developed. Concerns that the site is still in use and should only be developed when surplus to requirement. Concerns that there is no provision for infrastructure such as GP’s, schools or other local amenities. The congestion at Bat and Ball junction is highlighted in responses. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

15 – Chaucers of Sevenoaks, London Road, Dunton Green 3

Consideration should be given to the sites location within the AONB. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

16 – Swanley Centre, Nightingale Way, Swanley 20

Comments objected to this site due to concerns for already congested roads and pressure on existing local infrastructure. Comments referred to a Planning Application for the site currently undergoing an appeal. Concerns that too many units are proposed. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

17 – Bevan Place, Swanley 10

Although comments appreciate the need for new housing, there were concerns that the proposed allocation for this site is too high. Concerns for pressure on existing local infrastructure. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

18 – Bus Garage and Kingdom Hall, London Road, Swanley 11

Concerns that the proposed allocation for this site is too high. Concerns for pressure on existing local infrastructure. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

151 19 – The Woodlands, Hilda May Avenue, Swanley 7

Concerns for pressure on existing local infrastructure. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

20 – White Oak Leisure Centre, Hilda May Avenue, Swanley (as 13 part of a leisure centre replacement programme)

Concerns for the loss of a community and leisure facility. Need for a replacement facility to be provided, including a swimming pool. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

21 – Land between 16 and 32 Alder Way, Swanley 10

Retention or diversion of Public Right of Way (PRoW) required. Concerns for how existing local infrastructure will cope with development allocations in the Local Plan, in particular the existing road network and congestion. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

22 – Former Birchwood Primary School, Russett Way, Swanley 5

Concerns over lack of infrastructure, in particular education provision, given the cumulative impact of the development allocations in the Local Plan. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

23 – Upper Hockenden Farm, Hockenden Lane, Swanley 3

Concern for how the existing local infrastructure will cope with the proposed development, particularly the road network and effect on congestion. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

24 – Harringtons Nursery, Highlands Hill, Swanley 7

Concerns for impact on congestion in Swanley. Existing local infrastructure is inadequate to cope with development. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

25 – Swanley Village Nursery, Swanley Village Road, Swanley 7 Village

Comments in support of site. Comments objecting to site with concerns about the pressure on existing local infrastructure, in particular GP’s and congestions. Concerns that the land is not brownfield. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

26 – Land rear of Cedar Lodge, Wood Street, Swanley Village 6

Comments in support of site. Suggestion to include land parcel adjacent to site for development. Concerns for pressure on existing local infrastructure, in particular GP’s and congestion. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

152 27 – Land south of Wood Street, Swanley Village 5

Comments in support of site. Concerns for pressure on existing local infrastructure, in particular GP’s and congestion. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

28 – Land at Pedham Place 155

Concerns for pressure on existing local infrastructure, in particular the road network around Pedham Place and into Swanley. Objection that the proposals meet the ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ test. Concerns that development should not take place on greenfield Green Belt land and in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Concerns that the development would encroach on Farningham and Eynsford. The character and views of the area would be spoilt. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

29 – Station Approach, Edenbridge 3

General support for site as this is brownfield land. Suggestion to consider site solely for residential development. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

30 – Open space at Stangrove Estate, Crouch House Road, 50 Edenbridge

Concerns for loss of recreation and open space. Concerns on pressure of existing local infrastructure, in particular the impact on parking and the road network. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

31 – Kent and Surrey Driving Range, Crouch House Road, 6 Edenbridge

Concerns for the loss of a leisure/recreation facility in Edenbridge. Objection to building on Green belt land. Lack of infrastructure to support development, in particular public transport and the surrounding road network. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

32 – Edenbridge and District War Memorial Hospital, Mill Hill, 7 Edenbridge

Support for redevelopment of site, medical centre to be re-provided at the Four Elms Road site. Heritage aspect of hospital should be protected. Concerns for ownership of land. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

33 – Land South of Four Elms Road, Edenbridge 25

Recognition that Edenbridge requires a medical centre, and that this is the preferred location, however there are concerns for accessibility. Access should be provided for Town Station Cottages as part of the proposal. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

153 34 – Land east of Bray Road, Edenbridge 25

Recognition that Edenbridge requires a medical centre, and that this is the preferred location, however there are concerns for accessibility. Access should be provided for Town Station Cottages as part of the proposal. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

35 – Currant Hill Allotments, Westerham 6

Consideration should be given to the sites location within the AONB. Concerns for the loss of community facilities and school playing fields. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

36 – Land between Granville Road and Farleycroft, Westerham 4

Consideration should be given to the sites location within the AONB. Concerns on access capability of site. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

37 – New Ash Green Village Centre, New Ash Green 39

Concerns relating to the architectural character of New Ash Green. Suggestion that any redevelopment should retain the original character. Concerns for the negative impact on existing local infrastructure. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

38 – The Manor House, North Ash Road, New Ash Green 43

Concerns for the increase in traffic which would result from this development. Concerns for the pressure on infrastructure, in particular the existing road network, schools and medical facilities.

39 – The Forge, Ash Road, Ash 18

Further development of New Ash Green will put a strain on local infrastructure, in particular the road network, congestion and parking as well as GP’s. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

40 – Oast House Nursery, Ash Road, Ash 14

Concerns that the site is horticultural use in the Green Belt and there is no case for very special circumstances. Careful consideration should be given to the number of units and the style of development. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

41 – Otford Builders Merchants, High Street, Otford 4

Support for allocation of site. Consideration should be given to the sites location within the AONB.

42 – Land south of Orchard House, Ash Road, Hartley 6

Concerns regarding the pressure on existing local infrastructure, in particular the road network and public transport provision. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

154 43 – Chelsfield Depot, Shacklands Road, Badgers Mount 7

Consideration should be given to the sites location within the AONB. Concerns regarding the lack of infrastructure to support development, in particular public transport. Concerns that the density of the site is too high.

44 – Land west of the roundabout, London Road, Badgers Mount 3

Consideration should be given to the sites location within the AONB. Concerns that density of site is too high.

45 – Calcutta Club and Polhill Business Centre, London Road, 8 Badgers Mount

Consideration should be given to the sites location with regards to the AONB. Concerns that density is too high. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

46 – Highways Depot, Tonbridge Road, Chiddingstone Causeway 3

There was general support for this site allocation. Concerns that density is too high.

47 – Land rear of Brickyard Cottages, Tonbridge Road, 6 Chiddingstone Causeway

Consideration should be given to the sites location with regards to the AONB. Concerns that a section of the Chiddingstone Old Clay Pits Local Wildlife Site is within the site boundary.

48 – Middle Farm Nursery, Cray Road, Crockenhill 63

Consideration should be given to the sites location within the AONB. Concerns that the land is not brownfield land and should not be developed. Objection due to the pressure on existing local infrastructure, in particular the road network and traffic. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

49 – Wested Farm, Eynsford Road, Crockenhill 43

Concerns that the land is not brownfield land and should not be developed. Concerns for pressure on existing local infrastructure, in particular public transport, the road network and pedestrian routes. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

50 – Gorse Hill Nursery, Gorse Hill, Farningham 7

Site specific details raised regarding transport. Concern that density is too high and that the site is rural and isolated from local amenities. Concerns for local infrastructure, in particular GP’s.

51 – Maplescombe Farm, Maplescombe Lane, Farningham 3

Concerns for access to site, and accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists and other modes of sustainable transport. Concerns for infrastructure, in particular public transport and GP’s. Concerns that the site would cause harm to the AONB setting.

155 52 – Fawkham Business Park, Fawkham Road, Fawkham 26

Concerns for the loss of employment land on the site. Concerns for existing local infrastructure, in particular the surrounding road network and effect on traffic. Concerns for the effect on the adjacent Green Belt land.

53 – Grange Park Farm, Manor Lane, Fawkham 41

Concerns for the pressure on existing local infrastructure, in particular the access to the site, the surrounding road network and the impact on equestrian use of the area. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

54 – Highfield Farm and Knocka Villa, Crow Drive, Halstead 5

Consideration should be given to the sites location within the AONB.

55 – Deer Leap Stud Farm, Knockholt Road, Halstead 4

Concerns for infrastructure, in particular the increase in traffic and access to site. Concerns density is too high.

56 – Oak Tree Farm, London Road, Halstead 2

Access to site requires widening. Concerns over distance from site to local services. Suggestion that density should be low to reflect local character. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

57 – Fort Halstead, Crow Drive, Halstead 352

Consideration should be given to the site’s location within the AONB. Concerns for the overdevelopment of land parcel 76, the protection of wildlife, the pressure on existing local infrastructure and the proposed housing density of the site. Objection of the increase of 300 units on the site as 450 already have outline planning permission. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

58 – College Road Nurseries, College Road, Hextable 11

Suggestion to incorporate wider site area in allocation. Improvements to infrastructure, in particular the road network, are needed as part of this proposal. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

59 – Egerton Nursery, Egerton Avenue, Hextable 30

Suggestion that the wider site boundary should be allocated in the Local Plan. Concerns for pressure on existing local infrastructure, in particular the surrounding road network and congestion. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

156 60 – Oasis Academy, Egerton Avenue, Hextable 226

Concerns for the loss of community facilities at the Howard Venue. Concerns for parking provision. Concerns for impact on surrounding road network. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

61 – Rowhill Farm, Top Dartford Road, Hextable 3

Concerns for impact on existing local infrastructure, in particular GP’s and the surrounding road network. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

62 – Top Dartford Road, Hextable 3

Concerns for how existing infrastructure, in particular the road network ad GP services, would cope with the proposed allocations in the Local Plan. Density and number of units too high for site. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

63 – Gills Farm, Gills Road, South Darenth 3

Concerns for impact on local equine community. Concerns for pressure on existing local infrastructure, in particular the surrounding road network and public transport. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

64 – Land at Oakview Stud Farm, Lombard Street, Horton Kirby 5

Concerns that the site is not brownfield land. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

65 – The Cottage, Holmesdale Road, South Darenth 7

Concerns for pressure on existing local infrastructure, in particular the road network, traffic and access to site. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

66 – Land south of West End, Kemsing 14

Concerns that the site is not brownfield and will result in urban sprawl. Increased noise, air and light pollution. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

67 – Land south of Noahs Ark, Kemsing 89

Responses on this site highlighted landownership issues. Consideration should be given to the sites location with regards to the AONB. Responses also had concerns for flooding and the pressure on existing local infrastructure, in particular the surrounding road network and school provision. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

68 – Meadow Cottage, Goathurst Common, Ide Hill 7

Concerns that site is located within the Green Belt and is adjacent to a SSSI. Consideration should be given to the sites location within the AONB. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

157 69 – JD Hotchkiss Ltd, London Road, West Kingsdown 3

Objection to site regarding the loss of employment. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

70 – Florence Farm Mobile Home Park, Main Road, West 4 Kingsdown

Suggestion that site should be allocated for affordable housing only. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

71 – Rajdani, London Road, West Kingsdown 2

Site no longer available for allocation in the Local Plan.

72 – Terrys Lodge Farm, Terrys Lodge Road, Wrotham 4

Consideration should be given to the sites location within the AONB. Site specific details raised regarding transport and access to site.

158 Appendix 3 - Supporting a Vibrant and Balanced Economy

EMP1 Sites Number of Comments

1 – Vestry Road, Sevenoaks 0

There were no responses on this site.

2 – Bat and Ball Enterprise Centre, Sevenoaks 0

There were no responses on this site.

3 – British Telecom, Sevenoaks 0

There were no responses on this site.

4 – Erskine House, Sevenoaks 0

There were no responses on this site.

5 – Hardy’s Yard, Riverhead 0

There were no responses on this site.

6 – High Street, Sevenoaks 0

There were no responses on this site.

7 – London Road, Sevenoaks 0

There were no responses on this site.

8 – Morewood Close, Sevenoaks 1

The current landowner wishes for the employment allocation to be removed.

9 – South Park, Sevenoaks 0

There were no responses on this site.

10 – Lime Tree Walk, Sevenoaks 0

There were no responses on this site.

11 – Wested Lane Industrial Estate, Swanley 1

Additional requirement in Design Guidance - Any intensifications or regeneration of the site shall enhance the AONB in its design, scale and materials.

12 – Swanley Town Council Offices, Swanley 0

There were no responses on this site.

159 13 – Swan Mill, Goldsel Road, Swanley 1

Concerns that infrastructure would not cope with allocation.

14 – Media House, Swanley 0

There were no responses on this site.

15 – Moreton Industrial, Swanley 0

There were no responses on this site.

16 – Park Road Industrial Estate, Swanley 0

There were no responses on this site.

17 – Southern Cross Industrial Estate, Swanley 1

Additional requirement in Design Guidance – Any intensification or regeneration of the site shall enhance the AONB in its design, scale and materials.

18 – Teardrop Industrial Estate, Swanley 1

Additional requirement in Design Guidance – Any intensification or regeneration of the site shall enhance the AONB in its design, scale and materials.

19 – The Technology Centre, Swanley 0

There were no responses on this site.

20 – Broom Hill, Swanley 1

Concerns that the land is Green Belt.

21 – Station Road, Edenbridge 1

Amount of development in Edenbridge ST2-33 and EMP1-21 is likely to have an impact upon the rail network.

22 – Edenbridge/Warsop Trading Centre 0

There were no responses on this site.

23 – Westerham Trading Centre, Westerham 3

Consideration should be given to the site’s location within the AONB. Additional requirement in Design Guidance – Any intensification or regeneration of the site shall enhance the AONB in its design, scale and materials.

160 24 – Blue Chalet Industrial Park, West Kingsdown 2

Consideration should be given to the site’s location within the AONB. Additional requirement in Design Guidance – Any intensification or regeneration of the site shall enhance the AONB in its design, scale and materials.

25 – West Kingsdown Industrial Estate, West Kingsdown 0

There were no responses on this site.

26 – Horton Kirby Trading Estate, South Darenth 0

There were no responses on this site.

27 – Sevenoaks Garden Centre, Main Road, Sevenoaks 9

Consideration should be given to the site’s location within the AONB. Concerns for infrastructure, loss of Green Belt and other site constraints. Suggestions for further design guidelines.

28 – Bartram Farm, Old Otford Road, Sevenoaks 66

Concerns that this proposal will impact on the Strategic Gap between Sevenoaks and Otford. The land is Green Belt. Negative impact on rural environment, biodiversity, noise, air quality and light. No demand for additional industrial estates – already room on Vestry Estate.

29 – Former Park and Ride, Otford Road, Sevenoaks 3

Recognised that the site is within the Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) for Sevenoaks Gravel Pits SSSI.

30 – North Downs Business Park, Dunton Green 1

Consideration should be given to the site’s location within the AONB.

31 – Chaucer Business Park, Kemsing 1

Consideration should be given to the site’s location within the AONB.

161 Appendix 4 – Provision for the Gypsy and Traveller Community

H4 Sites Number of Comments

1 – Bournewood Brickworks, Stones Cross Road, Crockenhill 7

Infrastructure and Green Belt concerns.

2 – Early Autumn, East Hill, Shoreham 3

Consideration should be given to the sites location within the AONB. Concern that the site has no room for additional pitches.

3 – St George’s Stables, Well Hill, Shoreham 3

Consideration should be given to the sites location within the AONB. Concern that site is not close to existing services.

4 – Station Court, London Road, Halstead 0

There were no responses on this site.

5 – Alexis Place, Hockenden Lane, Swanley 1

No objection to increasing the capacity of this site.

6 – Knatts Valley Caravan Park, Knatts Valley Road, West 4 Kingsdown

Consideration should be given to the sites location within the AONB. Concerns that the number of pitches proposed is too high and lack of infrastructure.

7 – Hollywood Gardens, School Lane, West Kingsdown 2

Consideration should be given to the sites location within the AONB. Concerns about overdevelopment.

8 – Fordwood Farm, New Street Road, Ash 0

There were no responses on this site.

9 – Seven Acre Farm, Hever Road, Edenbridge 4

Concerns that the site does not currently have any permission.

10 – Park Lane Farm, Park Lane, Swanley 2

Objection to the expansion of this site, and concerns over effect on Green Belt land. Concerns that allocation is contrary to planning permission.

162 11 – Land south west of Broomhill, Button Street, Farningham 0

There were no responses on this site.

12 – Land west of Romani Way, Edenbridge 4

Landowner considers the wider mixed use site should be allocated in Local Plan. Disproportionate to scale of town. Site specific issues.

163 Appendix H Bodies and Individuals Consulted

164 As well as General Members or the Public, Companies and Interest Groups registered on the Sevenoaks District Council Local Plan mailing list, the following were consulted throughout the Local Plan preparation:

Statutory Consultees

Company

The Environment Agency

English Heritage

Natural England

The Mayor of London

The Civil Aviation Authority

Homes and Communities Agency

Primary Care Trust

Office of Rail Regulation

Transport of London

Integrated Transport Authority

Kent County Councils Highways (as the Highways Authority)

Marine Management Organisation

Town and Parish Councils

Council

Ash-cum-Ridley Parish Council

Badgers Mount Parish Council

Brasted Parish Council

Chevening Parish Council

Chiddingstone Parish Council

Cowden Parish Council

165 Crockenhill Parish Council

Dunton Green Parish Council

Edenbridge Town Council

Eynsford Parish Council

Farningham Parish Council

Fawkham Parish Council

Halstead Parish Council

Hartley Parish Council

Hever Parish Council

Hextable Parish Council

Horton Kirby & South Darenth Parish Council

Kemsing Parish Council

Knockholt Parish Council

Leigh Parish Council

Otford Parish Council

Penshurst Parish Council

Riverhead Parish Council

Seal Parish Council

Sevenoaks Town Council

Sevenoaks Weald Parish Council

Shoreham Parish Council

Sundridge with Ide Hill Parish Council

Swanley Town Council

Westerham Town Council

166 West Kingsdown Parish Council

Neighbouring Authorities

Local Authority

Dartford Borough Council

Gravesham Borough Council

London Borough of Bexley

London Borough of Bromley

Tandridge District Council

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Wealden District Council

Others

Company

NHS England

UK Power Networks

Network Rail

Corporate and Financial Affairs Department

Bromley Clinical Commissioning Group

The Howard Venue

SGN

Great Brighams

South East Water

EMF Enquiries

Highways England

167 KCC Highways, Transportation and Waste

Kent Downs AONB Unit

The Garden Trust

Greater London Authority (GLA)

Darent Valley Landscape Partnership Scheme

Historic England

Kent Nature Partnership

Kent Police

National Grid

CPRE

High Weal AONB Unit

Lead Local Flood Authority

Network Rail

NHS Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley

NHS England (South)

NHS West Kent CCG

Office of Road and Rail

South East Local Enterprise Partnership

Thames Water

Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board

Maidstone Borough Council

Forestry Commission

Kent Police

National Amenity Societies and the Theatres Trust

168 Homes England

NHS Property Services

Kent County Council

Limpsfield Parish Council

Stansted Parish Council

Surrey County Council

Dormansland Parish Council

Bidborough Parish Council

Utilita Services Limited

Secretary of State for Transport

Southern Gas

EDF Energy

Sutton-at-Hone and Hawley Parish Council

Sutton and East Surrey Water

Trottiscliffe Parish Council

Meopham Parish Council

Forest Row Parish Council

Hartfield Parish Council

Shipbourne Parish Council

Southfleet Parish Council

Longfield and New Barn Parish Council

Withyham Parish Council

Wrotham Parish Council

North West Kent Countryside Partnership

169 The Planning Inspectorate

Speldhurst Parish Council

East Sussex County Council

DCLG – Local Plans

EFSA (Education and Skills Funding Agency)

NHS Property Service Ltd

Kent Local Nature Partnership

Hildenborough Parish Council

Health Inequalities Development Manager, West Kent Primary Care Trust

Hampshire County Council

170