APPENDIX 1 KG CREATIVE CONSULTANCY Evidence On

APPENDIX 1

KG CREATIVE CONSULTANCY

Evidence on behalf of West Malling and East Malling and Larkfield District Councils on the Consideration of the Extension of the Green Belt in Tonbridge and Malling District Council.

1. This Tonbridge and Malling draft Local Plan has been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The new Local Plan will provide planning policies until 2031. The Regulation 18 version of the draft Local Plan proposed the extension of the Green Belt eastwards from the current boundary at West Malling as far as the A228.

2. The Submission version of the draft Local Plan now proposes the extension of the Green Belt boundary further east to broadly Wateringbury Road. The representations submitted by West Malling and East Malling and Larkfield Parish Councils seek the extension of the Green Belt further east again, to Kiln Barn Road, as shown on page 49 of the Councils document - Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Local Plan Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances Topic Paper (ED10).

3. The first hearings (Stage 1) into the local plan on a topic basis have been arranged and will hear evidence between October and November 2020. Matter 3 deals with the Metropolitan Green Belt (Policy LP 3) and evidence is scheduled to be heard on 4th and 5th November 2020.

4. I am instructed by West Malling and East Malling and Larkfield Parish Councils in respect of the proposals in the draft Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan for the extension of the existing Green Belt, generally in an eastern direction from its current boundary. It is worth noting here that the proposals by both the Borough Council and by the Parish Councils for their respective eastwards extensions, are

seeking an extension to an existing Green Belt boundary and not to the creation of an entirely new area of Green Belt.

5. My evidence is set out in the following manner within this Statement:

• How the Framework approaches the designation of the Green Belt; • How the current Green Belt came about and when; • The context of the area that is subject to the proposed extension; • The draft Local Plan approach to the proposed extension; • The assessment that I have undertaken to underpin the proposed extension; • The alternative policy approach considered to protect the land in the absence of a Green Belt extension; • My response to the Councils comments on the more eastern boundary extension; • Conclusions.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019

6. Section 13 of the Framework deals with ‘Protecting the Green Belt’. Paragraph 133 states:

The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

7. Paragraph 134 sets out the five purposes that the Green Belt serves:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

8. Paragraph 135 then states:

The general extent of Green Belts across the country is already established. New Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances,

for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions. Any proposals for new Green Belts should be set out in strategic policies, which should:

a) demonstrate why normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate;

b) set out whether any major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary;

c) show what the consequences of the proposal would be for sustainable development;

d) demonstrate the necessity for the Green Belt and its consistency with strategic policies for adjoining areas; and

e) show how the Green Belt would meet the other objectives of the Framework.

9. It should be noted that this paragraph deals specifically with the designation of ‘new’ Green Belts. It is provided for context with what the Framework says on this particular topic of the Green Belt. It does not directly apply as this proposal is not for a new Green Belt, but an extension. Rather the proposal needs to be considered against the wording of paragraph 136.

10. Paragraph 136 states: “Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans”.

11. Here the local plan is being updated and so that part of the paragraph is complied with.

12. Paragraph 139 states:

When defining Green Belt boundaries, plans should: a) ensure consistency with the development plan’s strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development; b) not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open; c) where necessary, identify areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period;

d) make clear that the safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time. Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following an update to a plan which proposes the development; e) be able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period; and f) define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.

Current Green Belt Boundary

13. The Green Belt in Tonbridge and Malling was established through its interim designation in 1983. The Council’s Green Belt Study 2016 refers to the history of the designation in this area in paragraph 1.1.3 of that document. It states:

In the 1960’s, Kent County Council in the Kent Development Plan Review proposed extending the MGB to include much of Tonbridge and Malling but this was not approved by Central Government. Instead, the corresponding area was defined as an area over which Green Belt policy would apply pending further studies. Those studies were taken forward by Kent County Council in preparing the first Kent Structure Plan which was approved in 1980. This indicated that the MGB would extend for some 15 miles from the outer edge of London and confirmed, for the first time, that much of Tonbridge and Malling was to be covered by the MGB. However, the outer boundary was only shown diagrammatically on the Key Diagram and described in general terms as going to the west of West Malling and east of Wateringbury. It was not until the adoption in 1983 by the County Council of the Kent Countryside Plan that a clear outer boundary to the MGB was defined around the western edges of Snodland and West Malling, but this was only on an interim basis until such time as Local Plans were prepared by the Borough Council. (my emphasis)

14. The history of the development plans that first set the areas to be designated is set out further in paragraphs 1.1.4 and 1.1.5 of the Study. These were all superseded by the adoption of the 1998 Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan. Aside from some minor changes, the boundaries adopted through the earlier plans were adopted at that time. I have not been able to identify any comprehensive review that was undertaken; simply an adoption of what had gone before. The extent of the boundary around West and East Malling was therefore last considered nearly

40 years ago and in my view it is therefore appropriate to revisit those decisions today, through this local plan update.

15. The timing of the approach to a boundary review here is also relevant as since the original boundary identification nearly 40 years ago, Kings Hill as a new settlement has been developed on the former RAF West Malling airfield to the south of the subject area. This area continues to develop and expand, with the proposed strategic housing allocation to the north of Kings Hill.

16. This significant change is in itself a reason to consider the extent of the eastern boundary of the Green Belt at this time. This is an example as other development, although not to the same degree, has occurred in the same timeframe in relation to the other settlements within this study area closing the gap between settlements.

17. This boundary in the adopted local plan currently extends around the south side of Kings Hill, infilling between that settlement and the Borough boundary. It then changes direction on a broadly north-south alignment through parts of the south side of West Malling before hugging the west side of the existing village. From there it follows the A20 until the western edge of Leybourne, before again turning broadly north at the A228 and over the M20, again following the A228.

18. As a consequence this in my view leaves a large area, broadly enclosed by West Malling to the west, Kings Hill to the south, Leybourne, Larkfield, East Malling and Ditton to the north and the Borough boundary to the east, vulnerable to extreme pressure for housing development. It is my view that this area is a finite resource, in many forms for the local area – visually, recreationally, historically, etc, that is being gradually eroded and if it were to be lost, would be lost for ever.

19. Whilst I look at this wider area later in this evidence in smaller area parcels, it needs to be considered both in that manner and also as a whole. Even the loss of one of those parcels, in part or whole, to development has consequences for the others and the resulting enclosure would start to strangle those remaining.

20. Given the current extent of the Green Belt and those of the settlement boundaries, open largely unprotected areas, such as the subject area, are seen by developers as areas that could be at least ‘infilled’ if not filled. The proposal, the subject of these submissions, extends to Kiln Barn Road, as a new defensible and enduring

eastern boundary of the Green Belt. To the northeast it would abut the Area of Opportunity at South Aylesford.

21. As examples of the pressure that this area of countryside is under, in August 2019 proposals to develop Land east of Lavenders Road, West Malling for up to 65 residential units was considered at appeal. That appeal was dismissed in October 2019. Another is the recent application by Wates to redevelop Land West of Winterfield Lane, East Malling for up to 250 residential units. A public inquiry on the basis of a non-determination appeal is timetabled for December 2020, the Council having subsequently resolved that they would have refused the application, partially as the application is premature.

22. Figure 1 below shows the broad location of these two areas in the context of the overall area.

Figure 1 - Recent and Current Appeal schemes in relation to existing and proposed Green Belt boundaries. Blue Square – Bellway Appeal Dismissed Red Square – Current Wates Appeal

23. Further evidence is the map that forms Examination document ED21 and which I provide an extract from below.

Figure 2 – Extract from ‘All site[s] promoted and filtered out’ ED21 Plan

24. This shows all the sites or areas promoted or considered in this part of the Borough through the Local Plan Call for Sites. In particular this shows that all the land north of the railway line and east of East Malling and north of Kings Hill were seen by some as development opportunities, which would further squeeze the important countryside between existing settlements.

25. This plan also shows beneath the blue crosshatch, to the north east of the railway line, by means of a red dashed line ‘Regulation 19 – Area of Opportunity. I return to this allocation in my assessment of the proposed eastern extension of the Green Belt, later in this evidence.

Context

26. There are a number of sources of information that provide some context for the nature of this vulnerable area, although perhaps none are a substitute for experiencing the area on foot at first-hand. The Magic Mapping website provides useful data on aspects of the area. In addition there is the evidence base for the local plan and other historical information.

27. The Magic Mapping shows that there are areas that lie between the A228 and West Malling that are classified, post 1998, as Grade 1, 2, 3a and 3b agricultural land. This also shows at a glance (given the small scale of the source mapping), some of the statutory historic nature of the area. This is not just confined to the periphery and within the settlements and their listed buildings. An extract from the Magic Mapping web page is shown at Appendix A.

28. The Mapping data held is not comprehensive in that there are other areas of land within the subject area that are graded for agricultural land purposes but not shown as such on the map. This includes land south of the A20, between the A228 and East Malling, such as the Wates appeal site.

29. There are numerous designated heritage assets within the countryside here, such as the Scheduled Monument designation at St Marys and although not shown on the Magic Map the Mill Street Conservation Area that includes the properties from Mill Street to Well Street, deep within the subject area. There is also the New Barns Conservation Area, anchored at either end by the listed buildings of New Barns and Broadwater Farm.

30. To illustrate this I provide below an extract from the Councils Heritage Assets Map for this area. This identifies the conservation areas and Scheduled Monuments within the subject area.

Figure 3 - Extract from TMBC Heritage Assets Map

31. Other conservation areas and numerous listed buildings are located close to the edge of settlements, such as East Malling Village, Bradbourne and Ditton Conservation Areas, as shown above.

32. There are also other features of the area such as its landscape quality and topography that add to its special character as a rural area and open countryside.

33. As well as this mapping information, as I refer to later in this submission, I have undertaken a detailed, measured and enjoyable walk throughout the area in question.

Draft Local Plan

34. The proposed extension of the Green Belt in the submission version of the draft Local Plan follows from work undertaken by the Council and published in two reports. The first was a Green Belt Study published in 2016 (LG9 (a-e)). The Map on page 16 of that document helpfully shows part of the area in question and the various features that are located within the area from conservation areas, public rights of way, flood zones, etc. I reproduce this map below:

Figure 3 – Extract from Green Belt Study 2016

35. This page dealing with West Malling concludes “The current boundary of the Green Belt located to the west is considered to be well defined and clearly shown on the Development Plan Proposals Map, following closely the route of the built-up area and St Leonards Street”.

36. The approach in their 2016 work was to examine the contribution of the existing Green Belt. Therefore whilst Figure 3 in that report shows the ‘Green Belt extent (shown in green) and current parish boundaries, the report only then focuses on those parishes where there is currently designated Green Belt.

37. Given that (broadly) the western part of the West Malling Parish is within the Green Belt, the contribution of the area is discussed within the report. This is also the case with Leybourne Parish where the existing Green Belt is also located to the west of the settlement.

38. However the report is considering the existing Green Belt at this stage, it does not undertake the same assessment of those areas that are located to the east, including the land between East Malling/Ditton and Kings Hill. The next steps

section at paragraph 8.1.3 mentions the consideration of “ways of strengthening/protecting the designation/boundaries”. But it does not here explicitly refer to extensions to the existing Green Belt.

39. The Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Local Plan Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances Topic Paper (ED10) deals with two matters. The justification for the release of some land from the Green Belt for development and the justification for the extension of the Green Belt as now proposed. This latter matter is dealt with in Section 3 of the Paper. Section 3.2 deals with the proposal as it existed at Regulation 18 stage of the draft plan, this being the extension of the outer edge of the Green Belt to the A228, as a more recent physical feature in the countryside.

40. It was considered that extending the outer edge to the A228 would both “strengthen purpose 4 (preserving the setting and special character of historic towns) as it applies to West Malling because the existing boundary does not envelope the eastern extent of the settlement which contains several listed buildings, an Ancient Monument and a large Conservation Area” and also “strengthen purpose 2 (preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another) as it applies to the relationship between West Malling and Kings Hill and, to a lesser extent, the relationship between West Malling and the Medway Gap urban area”.

41. I consider this to be common ground between the Council and the Parish Councils. To extend the Green Belt, at least, to the A228 would meet a number of Green Belt objectives. This area is the one that I consider later in this Statement as my Area 1.

42. Following the Regulation 18 Consultation which revealed extensive support for the proposed extension to the Green Belt to the A228, two other options were promoted locally: an extension to Wateringbury Road and also one further east to Kiln Barn Road. The Council’s reasons for not pursuing and proposing the more eastern extension to Kiln Barn Road are set out in paragraphs 3.2.11 - 3.2.13 of the ‘Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Local Plan Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances Topic Paper’ and I address these later in this Statement.

43. However, the Council did consider that the extension to Wateringbury Road could be justified and that exceptional circumstances existed to warrant the extension. The Councils case is set out in paragraphs 3.2.14-3.2.16 of the Paper. The detail

of this is found in the Councils Green Belt Stage Two Report – August 2018 – Section 4 (LG8).

44. The appointed Inspectors had raised in their letter of 23rd May 2019 a number of questions about the draft plan, which included a number relating to the Green Belt. The Council addressed and provided answers to these in their letter of 28th June 2019. I have made comment on some of these questions in the covering statement to this evidence document.

45. The Council’s response letter sets out the following extracted responses:

The Council was mindful that in order to establish exceptional circumstances the starting point needs to be an analysis of the performance of the various parcels of Green Belt land surrounding settlements against the purposes the Green Belt serves as set out in para.80 in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012).

The rationale for the identification of the parcels of Green Belt land is set out in the Appendices to the Green Belt Study: Part 1 (September 2016)...... For other settlements it was considered that an assessment of the whole Green Belt surrounding/abutting part of the defined extents was a reasonable and proportionate approach to take, particularly when you consider the extensive coverage of the Green Belt across the borough (approximately 70%).

It is therefore evident that the analysis of the land parcels referred to in the Green Belt Study and Topic Paper ED10 had provided meaningful input into the site selection process, particularly at the early stages of the exceptional circumstances assessment.

The Council can confirm that the Green Belt extension set out in the submitted Local Plan is an alteration to the existing Metropolitan Green Belt surrounding London.

.... the Council considered that there were three possible policy solutions that needed to be explored:

• A local landscape designation • A strategic gap policy

• Altering the outer boundary of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The appropriateness of each of these were considered during plan- making, the outcomes of which are summarised below

In conclusion, the Council considers that there are no genuine reasonable policy alternatives to an alteration to the outer boundary of the Metropolitan Green Belt to achieve the objectives of protecting the individual integrity and character of local settlements and the character of the local area without prejudice to the short, medium and long-term spatial strategy

46. Paragraph 1.5 of the 2018 Stage Two report states:

This report aims to respond to this by taking into consideration other parts of the Local Plan evidence base and responses to the public consultations (option 1, see above) in making the case for exceptional circumstances for removing the designation from sufficient sites to deliver a sustainable pattern of development in accordance with national planning policy (option 2, see above) and also for an extension of the designation to prevent the coalescence of settlements and to protect heritage assets (option 3, see above). (my emphasis).

47. It was therefore considered that the assessment of the Green Belt extension in the 2018 Report therefore flows from Option 3 in the Councils 2016 study.

48. Paragraph 2.20 of the 2018 report in dealing with the Regulation 18 version of the Local Plan states “In addition, an extension to the designation was proposed to the east of West Malling”. Paragraph 2.22 then states “In relation to the Green Belt, the Council received 198 representations overall; 152 of these related specifically to the proposed Green Belt extension at West Malling/Kings Hill. 86% were representations of support for the extension with 14% objecting to the proposal”.

49. I have previously referred to Section 4 of this report and the Council’s case as to why Exceptional Circumstances exist for the extension of the Green Belt designation.

50. However in light of the Inspector’s comments I have undertaken a more detailed assessment of the land that forms the proposed Green Belt extension and that

proposed and supported by the Parish Councils. In doing this I have been mindful of the Council’s approach to looking at to how the existing Green Belt functions, looking at those areas by parcels, in the form of the Parishes. I have adopted a similar, although finer grained approach, to parcels using features as boundaries, such as roads and the railway line, in looking at the proposed Green Belt extension area.

The Assessment

51. In my view there are two methods of approaching the suggested extension beyond Wateringbury Road. The first is to assume that the proposed extension of the Green Belt in the Submission Local Plan is in place and to then only consider the nature of that north-south extent of land that lies between Wateringbury Road and Kiln Barn Road. The second is to assume that this is not in place and therefore in order to justify the additional extension between Wateringbury Road and Kiln Barn Road it is first necessary to consider the contribution that the western land parcels (between the existing Green belt boundary and Wateringbury Road) make to the Green Belt extension. In my view this second approach is the only logical approach.

52. The purpose of the examination of the Plan is to identify and demonstrate that it is sound. The further extension can only be sound if the extension as proposed within the draft plan is sound as well. To just consider in isolation the area between Wateringbury Road and Kiln Barn Road would be to effectively give consideration to a ‘new’ Green Belt, rather than an extension to an existing Green Belt.

53. Having adopted the above method of assessment, I enjoyed carefully walking the whole of the subject area, both west and east of Wateringbury Road. There is a good network of public footpaths, country lanes and Quiet Lanes (under Section 268 of the Transport Act, 2000) that criss-cross the countryside here providing excellent access for those who wish to enjoy the natural beauty of this part of Kent, steeped in its history as part of the Garden of England. Extensive areas are given over to arable farming, particularly in the north of the area, with apple growing particularly evident to the south.

54. Whilst I have walked the whole of the areas and therefore personally seen all the parcels of land, for convenience and conciseness, I have set out my findings by reference to five areas, as shown on the plan attached at Appendix B. These are essentially:

1. Land west of the A228; 2. Land between the A228 and Wateringbury Road, north of the railway; 3. Land between the A228 and Wateringbury Road, south of the railway; 4. Land between Wateringbury Road and Kiln Barn Road, north of the railway; and 5. Land between Wateringbury Road and Kiln Barn Road, south of the railway.

Area 1

55. This is an irregular area of land between the existing boundary of the Green Belt on the north side of the A20, on the existing Green Belt boundary to the west of West Malling, the A228 and part of the northern edge of Kings Hill. It comprises a number of smaller parcels of land separated broadly north – south by public footpaths MR141 and MR143 and east-west by Lucks Hill, footpaths MR116 and MR142.

56. On the eastern side of St Leonards Street it includes Manor Park Country Park. The Park also falls within the West Malling Conservation Area that includes extensive areas of land on the east side of the village, together with the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) at St Marys.

57. North of the railway line and to the east of the settlement boundary the land is predominantly open, is within the conservation area and forms an important setting for West Malling from the north-east. This area being undeveloped maintains an important gap between the settlement and the A228.

58. South of the railway land and as far as Lavenders Road, where it crosses the A228, the land is either within the SAM, and/or the conservation area, and/or the Country Park; or is used for livestock, grassland or arable farming. Again these areas that are sparsely developed, save from housing on the east side of St Leonards Street, maintain an important gap between the existing settlement and the A228.

59. The pressure to develop within this area is reflected in the Lavenders Road application and appeal (Appendix C). It is also reflected in the areas promoted through the Call for Sites and shown on my Figure 1.

60. When considered against the five tests in the Framework:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas – the designation of this area will aid in preventing the outward spread of West Malling up to the A228 and the potential development of sporadic parcels of land;

b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another – the designation of this area will aid in the prevention of West Malling merging across the A228 with Leybourne to the north and with Kings Hill to the south. The present gap, particular to Leybourne at the closer points, is narrow and therefore vulnerable;

d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns – the designation will protect the eastern setting of West Malling and its special historic character. Preventing development here for this reason was recognised in the appeal decision on Lavenders Road; and

e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land – the designation of this area will mean that developers will need to focus on brownfield land rather than development of greenfields and the countryside.

Area 2

61. This is an irregular area of land between the A20 to the north, East Malling to the east and the railway line to the south. It is crossed by a number of footpaths and country roads. In particular footpath MR119 affords some wide views to the north and from the crest of the hill at the junction of footpaths MR119/MR120 the land falls away to the A20, providing some panoramic views from here. Aside from the land directly associated with Pine Toll and the Grade 1 listed Clare House, the majority of the land is used for arable farming and aside from hedge lines and some treed areas, there are wide open areas of rolling countryside as the topography rises to the south. It includes a school and its playing fields within the eastern finger of land.

62. When considered against the five tests in the Framework:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas – the designation of this area will aid in preventing the southern spread of Leybourne up to the A228 and East Malling from the east. This area is already under threat through an appeal by Wates to be heard at inquiry, relating to land to the south of the A20 (Appendix C), that should it be allowed would mean that development this far west would bridge the A20, leading to ribbon development towards the junction of the A228/A20;

b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another – the designation of this area will aid in the prevention of Leybourne merging across the A228 with West Malling to the west. The present gap to Leybourne at the closer point is narrow and therefore vulnerable and the Wates appeal scheme, whilst the layout is illustrative, demonstrates how this gap would be significantly eroded;

c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment – the designation of this area will prevent encroachment, whether by an extension of an existing settlement or sporadic isolated development of sites and safeguard the future of the arable fields on the south side of the A20. The southern part of this area closer to the railway line, being more remote from the A20 is very rural in character and so any change would be more acute;

d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns – the designation will contribute to the protection of the wider eastern setting of West Malling and its special historic character, together with the western setting of East Malling. The church spire in West Malling is visible in views southwest from the ridge line, as other parts of the village, even from the eastern side of the A228. Protection of this area will also preserve the setting of historic Clare House, its Park and it’s wider curtilage; and

e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land – the designation of this area will mean that developers will need to focus on recycling land rather than development of greenfield land and the countryside.

Area 3

63. To the south of the railway line the topography of the area changes, as does the nature of the use of the land areas. Here the principal crop is apples towards the southern edge, with interspersed areas of arable crop and rough grass. It is

noteworthy here that further areas of Kentish apple orchards will be lost as Kings Hill pushes north, with the strategic housing site at Broadwater Farm. To the east of the proposed northwards extension of Kings Hill, between this and Wateringbury Road there is East Malling Heath and the Nature Reserve and mature woodland.

64. Wateringbury Road that forms the eastern edge of the Council’s proposed extension boundary gradually rises from north to south. The rise is from around 50m at the southern edge of East Malling to around 100m at the current edge of the Green Belt, east of Kings Hill. Whilst this, as a broadly straight line, could form a clear boundary to a new eastern extension of the Green Belt, we consider that there is also a case for pushing that boundary further east, to provide greater protection to the rural countryside here.

65. As noted above there is already a gradual expansion of Kings Hill north with the loss of apple orchards through the proposed strategic housing site at Broadwater Farm. This northwards expansion, with gradual southwards extension from East Malling/Ditton, is likely to lead to the closure of the existing settlement gap and harm to the setting of East Malling and Mill Street.

66. These apple growing areas are Priority Habitats as Traditional Orchards.

67. When considered against the five tests in the Framework:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas – the designation of this area will aid in preventing the northern and eastern spread of Kings Hill towards East Malling and Mill Street. The Council has already designated Broadwater Farm as a strategic housing site that will extend built development further north. The area to the east of Kings Hill up to Wateringbury Road becomes even more vulnerable in this respect;

b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another – the designation of this area will aid in the prevention of Kings Hill merging with East Malling/Mill Street to the north;

d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns – the designation will contribute to the protection of the wider eastern setting of West Malling and its special historic character, together with the southern setting of East Malling and also the Mill Street and New Barns and Broadwater Farm Conservation Areas; and

Area 4

68. This area and Area 5, both lie to the east of Wateringbury Road and therefore in the additional extension land that is being promoted by the Parish Councils.

69. The northern and western boundaries are formed by the respective settlement edges of Ditton and East Malling. The southern edge is the railway and the eastern edge formed by that of Kiln Barn Road. At the northern end is the listed Grade I Bradbourne House and its landscaped gardens and lakes. The land between the lakes and the railway line is primarily occupied and used by the East Malling Research Station (EMRS), that is the UK’s largest horticultural research and development undertaking work in the perennial and clonally-propagated crops sector. (https://www.emr.ac.uk/about-us/history-of-east-malling-research) It occupies over 200ha of this land. The origins of the facility here extend back to before the First World War and are worthy of protection.

70. This wider area is already subject to erosion with the two housing designations in the draft plan, that I refer to later. The pressure that this area is under for development is reflected in the areas promoted or considered through the Call for Sites and shown on my Figure 2.

71. Figure 2 referred to earlier also shows an Area of Opportunity to the north of the railway line and to the east of Kiln Barn Road. The western edge of this area forms the eastern boundary of the proposed additional Green Belt designation here. This is the South Aylesford Masterplan Area in the Submission Local Plan (pages 41-42) and an extract from the relevant figure is provided below.

Figure 4 - Extract from Figure 5 Submission Local Plan 2019

72. Paragraph 5.1.13 of the draft plan states “An Area of Opportunity is identified in South Aylesford to address the longer term development needs of the borough in the post plan period (after 2031). The delivery of this site will be dependent upon improvements to the local highway network including the A20/Mills Road/Hall Road junction and Coldharbour roundabout and improved connectivity to the strategic highway network”.

73. Provision is therefore made for future housing development, after 2031, through effectively a western extension of the proposed Strategic Site at South Aylesford. The western extent of that future provision is Kiln Barn Road and on the opposite side of that road is our proposed Green Belt boundary, so this provides both synergy with this strategic proposal and protects housing development from straddling Kiln Barn Road into what I describe below as the ‘horseshoe shaped gap’ that is otherwise vulnerable to loss.

74. When considered against the five tests in the Framework:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas – the designation of this area will aid in preventing the potential southern spread of Larkfield/Ditton, beyond the two existing designations. Whilst the area benefits from listed Grade I Bradbourne House and its grounds, together

with the EMRS the settlement almost surrounds the open land here on three sides, so it is at risk of proposals to infill;

b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another – the designation of this area will assist with preventing the merging of East Malling Larkfield/Ditton to the north with Kings Hill to the southwest, although the latter lies beyond the railway line. There is also the risk of gradual infilling of the horseshoe shaped gap between these settlements - see the sites promoted at Call for Sites stage (Figure 2). It will also serve to protect the area from any western extension of South Aylesford in the future, for which some provision has already been made and the proposed boundary will form a defensible and permanent western edge to South Aylesford;

c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment – the designation of this area will prevent encroachment, whether by an extension of an existing settlement or sporadic isolated development of sites and safeguard the future of the important role that the EMRS performs with the need for extensive open land in the countryside;

d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns – the designation will contribute to the protection of the eastern setting of East Malling including the East Malling Village Conservation Area and its special historic character and the southern setting of Larkfield/Ditton that also includes the Bradbourne, East Malling Conservation Area and the Ditton Conservation Area. Much of the southern edge of the settlement here is within a conservation area, demonstrating its special heritage value; and

Area 5

75. To the south of the railway line the additional proposed extension area becomes wider as Kiln Barn Road turns southeast. Beyond that, the proposed boundary leaves the road where it changes direction again and follows Byway MR496 and then turns southwest towards the Borough boundary in Oaken Wood.

76. Kiln Barn Road is a public highway and then the proposed boundary follows the Byway. Both of these are recognised, signposted and physical features in the local landscape. Therefore the proposed extended eastern boundary does provide for a permanent and enduring Green Belt boundary.

77. There is a small ribbon of development on the west side, on Wateringbury Road. To the south of the area and although outside the borough boundary there is the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) at Oaken Wood. The extension of the Green Belt across the land to the north would provide additional protection for this adjoining area. The wood itself, excluding the SSSI, extends across the borough boundary here. The area also includes apple growing areas that are Priority Habitats as Traditional Orchards.

78. When considered against the five tests in the Framework:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas – the designation of this area will aid in preventing the potential eastern extension of Kings Hill into the countryside putting at risk the openness of this area;

b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another – the designation of this area will aid in the prevention of East Malling Village merging with the northern edge of Kings Hill;

c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment – the designation of this area will prevent encroachment, whether by an extension of an existing settlement or sporadic isolated development of sites and safeguard the future of the fields and woodland. It is also a logical extension to safeguard the countryside if the area to the north of the railway line is included in the Green Belt extension;

d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns – the proposed designation is neutral in this respect; and

Summary of Assessment

79. From the preceding assessment in my view there is not a singular matter that is an exceptional consideration in respect of these five parcels of land, but a blend

of a number of matters. They all fit together with in some instances the character of one spilling into the neighbouring one, even with the A228, the railway and Wateringbury Road running through the wider area. The parcels are important in their own right, but when combined are even stronger in their combined contribution to the countryside that should be protected from erosion, significant development and potential coalescence.

80. In terms of those combined exceptional circumstances these include:

• The inherent suitability of each parcel individually and in combination for Green Belt, as they meet the tests for the purpose of designation as Green Belt;

• The intrinsic rural value of the majority of the land through its contribution to the Kentish countryside through arable farming, apple orchards, etc;

• The need to act as a control measure to the development pressure that is readily apparent on the edge of existing settlements, that if unchecked will erode this generally open area;

• The area provides a valuable pleasant and generally open area for recreation, crossed as it is by a network of public footpaths, bridleways and Quiet Lanes. The subject area in relatively close to existing settlements in all directions, so affords easy access to the countryside for those existing local residents. Its loss to protection and the threat of development would mean greater travel time to alternative areas of countryside and the Green Belt;

• Development in open countryside is likely to be unsustainable, being dependent on modes of travel dominated by the private car;

• In addition and whilst there is no need to rely on the tests in paragraph 135 of the Framework criteria a), b), c) and d) of that paragraph are at least in spirit met here.

Alternative Policy Approach to Protect Land Proposed for Green Belt Extension

81. The Submission version of the local plan seeks to address proposals beyond the settlement boundaries through draft Policy LP5: Settlement Hierarchy. This states:

Development in Rural Areas

5. Outside of the confines of the Urban Areas, Rural Service Centres and Other Rural Settlements development will be restricted to:

a. limited infilling development where it does not erode the identity of settlements or harm the setting or character of a settlement; or,

b. the one-for-one replacement, or appropriate extension, of an existing building provided it would be proportionate to the size of the existing building; or,

c. the conversion or change of use of an existing building; or

d. development that is necessary for the purposes of agriculture or forestry, including essential housing for farm or forestry workers; or

e. development required for the limited expansion of, or improvement to, an existing authorised employment use; or

f. development that secures the viability of a farm as an agricultural business; or

g. tourism and leisure development where it is evident that it will support the local economy and where there would be no unacceptable adverse impacts arising from lighting, traffic generation, activity at unsocial hours or noise; or

h. equestrian related activities provided the following criteria are met: (N.B.I have not reproduced the criteria here)

i. community facility development where no suitable alternative accommodation is available within the confines of the urban areas, rural service centres or other rural settlements and where the proposal is essential to serve the settlement to which it relates, or

j. predominantly open recreation uses together with associated essential built infrastructure, having regard to Policy LP12 on the AONB.

82. Whilst it is accepted that this policy, when adopted, will provide some protection, together with that related to designated heritage assets (in areas where this would be a relevant consideration), it is not considered that this provides the same level of protective certainty as the inclusion of land within the nationally protected Green Belt. The bar to be met when considering development in the Green Belt is far higher than set by draft Policy LR5. Consideration may need to be given to breaches of existing settlement boundaries to meet further housing requirements or to lose land from the countryside, in the context of the application of the tilted balance. Whereas protection of these settlement edges and countryside as Green Belt would provide a clear reason to refuse an application and therefore not be vulnerable to being overridden in the event that the present titled balance is engaged.

83. This is at least in part evidenced by the recent applications for housing development within this wider area and the ‘All site[s] promoted and filtered out’ map (Figure 2), where existing policies on the rural areas are considered by housing developers to be capable of being overridden. Again a current example is the appeal proposal by Wates and their application on the south side of the A20, to the west of East Malling, that I have referred to above and shown in Figure 2.

84. The Council in their letter of 28th June 2019 in addition to the consideration of altering the outer boundary of the Green Belt, also referred to two other potential options. These being a local landscape designation or a strategic gap policy. Paragraphs 6.25 and 6.26 provide the Councils views on these two matters.

85. On the local landscape designation they considered that there was no landscape evidence to support such a designation and it was too narrowly focused and would not be sufficiently robust to counter development pressure in this area. On the Strategic Gap there is no support in the Government’s NPPF for the designation of strategic gaps in Local Plans, so this was also not considered a reasonable alternative.

86. I concur with the views that neither is as defensible and permanent as a Green Belt designation here.

87. Draft Policy LP11 deals, in part, with nationally designated land that is afforded a very high level of protection, will afford the protection that these parcels of land need and will benefit from. It is important to the local community that these areas remain permanently open and do not lose their individual identities, through the

narrowing of the present countryside gaps or even more alarmingly gradual coalescence of settlements.

Response to Council’s comments

88. I have previously referred to the Councils response to the proposals to extend the Green Belt boundary to the east of Wateringbury Road to Kiln Barn Road and briefly comment on their responses below.

89. Extension this far to the east would be inconsistent with the current Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development. The Local Plan has identified allocations for housing and economic development on East Malling Research Station land (see policies LP25 (n), (o) and (p) and LP36 (e) and (f) in the submitted Plan). The option suggested through the Regulation 18 consultation would wash over these parcels of land.

90. Site LP25 (n) is already within the settlement boundary for Ditton and so is unaffected by the proposed further eastern extension. Sites LP25 (o) and (p) are within the proposed extension but are directly associated with the southern Ditton edge and the Parkside edge, respectively. If the Inspectors accept that these are needed then some minor modification of the proposed boundary would be needed to accommodate these and not adversely impact on the housing strategy, but provide certainty going forward on adjoining land.

91. However, these proposed allocations perhaps demonstrate the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ in respect of the erosion of these open areas. Also, that the designation of heritage assets is not enough to safeguard these areas. The Parish Councils do not wish to erode the Council’s housing strategy and therefore as indicated above a minor modifications may be needed to the wider proposed extension to reflect these two housing allocations.

92. In respect of the employment allocations (e) and (f), these relate to two parcels of land adjoining the existing built development at the EMRS within a rural setting. Given the existing development is a major developed site within the countryside then the allocations can remain and be washed over by the proposed Green Belt designation.

93. An extension this far to the east would be prejudicial to these elements of the development strategy in the Local Plan. It would include swathes of land which, considering the high housing pressure experienced in the borough as highlighted

by the significant and worsening housing affordability ratio, is unnecessary to keep permanently open. Given the acute housing need the Council is not in a position to be satisfied that such an alteration to the boundary will not need to be reviewed and changed at the end of the Local Plan period (after 2031). Furthermore, Kiln Barn Road is not a physical feature that is as clear and readily recognisable as Wateringbury Road or the A228 Ashton Way.

94. I have already addressed the alleged prejudice to the development strategy and as to how this is can be addressed. The Council clearly consider that the wide area between West Malling and Wateringbury Road, that also comprises large tracts of arable, fruit growing and other rural countryside, is worthy of protection from housing development and enduring beyond this plan period. I therefore find this an unsupported comment about the additional land the Parish Councils are promoting. Indeed it is this level of ‘high housing pressure’ that has the potential to erode the rolling Kentish countryside here and seeks to lever development into unsustainable rural locations accessed by narrow, unsuitable roads and with poor or non-existent public transport connections.

95. In my view the proposed boundary can be enduring and so, long lasting. It will be capable of protecting the countryside here from dilution and encroachment.

96. Further, given the proximity of the new eastern boundary of the Green Belt which the Council are promoting and the Borough boundary, if the Council’s proposed extension is accepted as sound but the further extension to Kiln Barn Road is not then the Parish Councils would then come under even more pressure for housing development.

97. Kiln Barn Road is a public highway and then the proposed boundary extension follows the Public Byway. Both of these are recognised, signposted and physical features in the local landscape. Therefore the proposed extended eastern boundary does indeed provide for a permanent and enduring Green Belt boundary.

98. Earlier in this evidence I referred to the Area of Opportunity at South Aylesford, that lies to the east of my Area 4, This is land specifically safeguarded in the draft plan to safeguard the longer term needs of the Borough, beyond the plan period. In addition the Submission Local Plan at section 5.2 deals with the question ‘How will long-term housing needs beyond the Plan period be addressed?’

99. The subsequent text (para 5.2.2) sets out two responses:

1. Identifying land between the confines of a settlement and the Green Belt and safeguarding it to address longer-term development needs.

2. Identifying areas of opportunity in parts of the borough outside of the Green Belt to address longer-term development needs

100. Policy LP32 deals with ‘Safeguarded Land’ north east of Borough Green. Policy LP33 deals with the two Areas of Opportunity, one of which adjoins the eastern edge of the further eastern extension proposed. Provision is therefore made in the draft plan for development post 2031, that is beyond the extent of the proposed Green Belt boundary here and so serves to ensure that it can endure.

Conclusion

101. This evidence is submitted on behalf of West Malling and East Malling with Larkfield Parish Councils, in support of the proposed extension of the existing outer Green Belt boundary. That support is in respect of the new eastern edge as proposed by the Council through the submission Local Plan, but as directly addressed by this evidence a greater extension eastwards to Kiln Barn Road.

102. It is considered that the area that broadly is located to the east of West Malling, to the north of Kings Hill, to the south of Leybourne, East Malling, Larkfield and Ditton and to the east by Kiln Barn Road is an area that is under threat from erosion as countryside, through housing development from all directions.

103. Some evidence of this are the submissions to the Local Plan Examination on behalf of housing developers against the proposed Green Belt extension, the recent dismissed appeal at West Malling and the appeal inquiry in December 2020 in respect of land to the south of the A20.

104. The proposal is not for a new Green Belt that would be subject to consideration under paragraph 135 of the Framework. It is for, in my view, a logical extension of the existing outer Green Belt boundary to protect existing settlements, some with historic character and the Kentish countryside.

105. Paragraph 136 requires that it be necessary for ‘exceptional circumstances’ to be fully evidenced and justified to underpin such an extension. The starting point against which to consider the proposed extension is that the present Green Belt boundary is now over 40 years old and there has been significant change in the

local area, such that the need to protect what remains is a material consideration. Considering the boundary through the local plan process is the appropriate format.

106. There is then perhaps no one consideration that is the predominant exceptional circumstance, but a combination of several as set out in the previous section. In paragraph 80 I provide matters that I consider combine to represent exceptional circumstances to justify an extension to the Green Belt here.

107. As I indicate in the last bullet in that text, although paragraph 135 of the Framework does not apply, because there is no proposal to establish a new Green Belt, in my judgement it is relevant in the wider consideration that the requirements of subparagraphs (a) to (d) are met in respect of the proposed extension promoted by the Parish Councils.

108. This being the extension to Kiln Barn Road. I have demonstrated that the normal planning and development management policies (135 (a)) are not preventing development proposals coming forward, particularly on the western side, that if allowed will erode the open countryside and are potentially seeing the existing settlement gap narrowing, if not closing. I have referred to the development of Kings Hill within the last 40 years as being a major change in this area (135 (b)), together with other development on the edges of existing settlements. If inappropriate development were not able to occur within this area then housing promoters would need to look to more sustainable locations (135 (c)) to bring housing forward. The extension of the outer boundary of the Green Belt is necessary and with two minor adjustments to accommodate proposed housing allocations on the edge of East Malling and Ditton, is consistent with strategic policies for the area (135 (d)).

109. These findings against the criteria in paragraph 135, in my view, strengthens the case for finding the proposed extension to be effective, justified and necessary for soundness.

110. I therefore consider that I have demonstrated that the extension as proposed in the draft local plan is sound, but further that the additional extension east to Kiln Barn Road is also sound and the evidence that I have provided in this statement provides the exceptional circumstances to fully justify this. Kevin Goodwin KG Creative Consultancy October 2020

Appendix A – Extract From Magic Mapping website

Key: Dark blue areas – Grade 1 agricultural land; Light blue areas – Grade 2 agricultural land; Dark Green area – Grade 3a agricultural land; Light Green area – Grade 3b agricultural land. Brown Hatch – Country Park; Yellow H – Grade 1 Listed Building; Blue H – Grade II* Listed Building; Red H – Grade II Listed Building; Olive Green areas – Priority Habitat; Light Green 1 – Oaken Wood SSSI; Yellow Square – Scheduled Monument.

Appendix B – Assessment Areas (paras 54-79)

Appendix C – Lavenders Road Appeal Decision