Barton Willmore 26 Kings Hill Avenue Kings Hill West Malling Kent ME19 4AE
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EXAMINATION STATEMENT – MATTER 03 Metropolitan Green Belt Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan Representations on behalf of Borough Green Gardens Consortium, and Countryside Properties [ID: 2018/00004808L] October 2020 EXAMINATION STATEMENT – MATTER 03 METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT TONBRIDGE AND MALLING BOROUGH COUNCIL - LOCAL PLAN REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF: BOROUGH GREEN GARDENS CONSORTIUM, AND COUNTRYSIDE PROPERTIES OCTOBER 2020 Project Ref: 24338/A5 Status FINAL Issue/Rev: 01 Date: October 2020 Prepared by: David Maher Checked by: Huw Edwards Authorised by: Huw Edwards Barton Willmore 26 Kings Hill Avenue Kings Hill West Malling Kent ME19 4AE Tel: 01322 374660 Ref: 24338/A5/DM/HE Email: [email protected] Date: October 2020 COPYRIGHT The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Barton Willmore LLP. All Barton Willmore stationery is produced using recycled or FSC paper and vegetable oil based inks. CONTENTS CONTENTS PAGE NO. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS 2 Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION Background 1.1 This Statement has been prepared by Barton Willmore LLP in respect of “Borough Green Gardens” – Strategic allocation – Policy LP29 – in the Submitted Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (TMBC) Local Plan (LPS1). The Statement is prepared on behalf of the 6No. landowners – the “BGG Consortium” and Countryside Properties who has recently been identified as Development Partner to help bring forward the scheme. 1.2 Countryside is a leading UK house-builder specialising in place-making and delivering new communities and will act as master developer in the planning and implementation of the new Garden Community, namely the delivery of infrastructure, residential accommodation and other supporting social infrastructure. 1.3 BGG was also one of 19No. Garden Villages announced last Summer (2019) from MHCLG/Homes England1 (June 2019). This has resulted in “capacity funding” from MHCLG towards the project and TMBC has established a formal and comprehensive “BGG Garden Village Board” and “BGG Working Group” to progress a Development Brief for the Site. The BGG Consortium and Countryside Properties are parties to the Board and Working Group. As part of this work, TMBC has also appointed an external multi-disciplinary consultancy to undertake the Development Brief work – Arcadis. Executive Summary 1.4 These representations have been prepared in objective terms in accordance with the NPPF and PPG. With regard to Matter 03 MIQs, this Statement confirms: - TMBC comprises c. 70% of Green Belt including most of the West Kent HMA of the Borough – a review of Green Belt is therefore essential to assess if needs can be met in full. - The methodology for the Green Belt Review is in compliance with the NPPF and identifies land suitable for development in least sensitive parts of the Green Belt. - “Exceptional circumstances” are demonstrated for Green Belt release in the Borough. In particular, there is not sufficient land available outside Green Belt to meet housing need (including in the West Kent HMA). 1 https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1589388/brokenshire-announces-support-19-new-garden-villages 24338/A5/DM/HE 1 October 2020 Introduction - “Exceptional circumstances” are demonstrated in terms of allocation/Green Belt release at BGG. The case for development at BGG is supported by a number of factors including delivery of a much-needed Relief Road at Borough Green. 24338/A5/DM/HE 2 October 2020 Matter 3: Metropolitan Green Belt Response to Questions 2.0 RESPONSE TO MATTER 03: METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT Main Issue: Whether the Local Plan has been positively prepared and whether it is justified, effective and consistent with National planning policy in relation to the overall approach to the Green Belt. QUESTIONS Q.1 What is the basis of the Green Belt Review and how have the conclusions informed the Local Plan? What methodology has been applied and is it soundly based? 2.1 Green Belt occupies circa 70% of the total administrative area of TMBC, and broadly washes over the majority of the West Kent HMA area of the Borough. 2.2 A review of Green Belt is therefore of necessity in TMBC in order to establish if objectively assessed housing and employment needs can be met in full. 2.3 TMBC’s GB Review (GBR) methodology entailed a “two-staged approach” as follows. GBR Stage 1 ( 2016) 2.4 The Stage 1 GBR (LG9) undertook an assessment of land parcels across the Green Belt as divided into the various Parish areas within the Borough. Each Parish area was assessed against the purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF (para 80); namely: • To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; • To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; • To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; and • To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. 2.5 The GBR includes an assessment criterion as against each of the NPPF purposes (above) as including: - “Performing well”; - “Performing moderately”; and - “Limited or no contribution”. 2.6 We broadly support the above methodology used as it is widely practiced for Green Belt Reviews across England. Whilst the Stage 1 GBR assessment does not examine specific allocation sub- 24338/A5/DM/HE 3 October 2020 Matter 3: Metropolitan Green Belt Response to Questions parcels, we have undertaken this exercise as part of our Reg 19 representations - as addressed under Q.4 below. GBR Stage 2 (2018) 2.7 The Stage 2 GBR (LG8) sets out the “exceptional circumstances” for sites selected for Green Belt release. These sites were drawn from the outcomes of the earlier Stage 1 GBR as well as from other evidence base documents including the iterative SLAA and SA. 2.8 The Stage 2 GBR methodology for assessing “exceptional circumstances” was derived from Calverton (2015)2 – which at the time provided the most recent and relevant definition of exceptional circumstances as encompassing the following elements: i) The acuteness/intensity of the OAN/Housing Need (matters of degree may be important); ii) The inherent constraints on supply/availability of land prima facie suitable for sustainable development; iii) The consequent difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt; iv) The nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt (or those parts of it which would be lost if the boundaries were reviewed); and v) The extent to which the consequent impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be ameliorated or reduced to the lowest reasonably practicable extent. 2.9 The Stage 2 GBR (Section 3 of document) provides a robust assessment of the exceptional circumstances for the removal of land from Green Belt. With reference to Calverton, the Stage 2 assessment is based on the following elements: a) Promoting sustainable patterns of development; b) Identifying the OAN for housing need; c) Meeting assessed need outside the Green Belt; d) Meeting unmet need elsewhere in the Borough beyond the outer Green Belt boundary or in neighbouring authorities; and e) Addressing housing affordability and providing opportunities to deliver affordable housing. 2 Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council and Gedling Borough Council and others [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) (21 April 2015) (Court of Justice) 24338/A5/DM/HE 4 October 2020 Matter 3: Metropolitan Green Belt Response to Questions 2.10 The assessment provided is largely sound. In particular paras 3.5 - 3.18 address the potential for needs to be met outside the Green Belt or in neighbouring authorities beyond the Green Belt boundary. 2.11 We have already addressed the inability for needs to be exported to neighbouring authorities in our Matter 01 Statement. Our Matter 02 Statement further addresses the necessity for meeting housing needs in the West Kent HMA parcel (predominantly Green Belt) of the Borough. 2.12 The Stage 2 report considers other non-Green Belt areas of the Borough (30% of Borough area), as including: - Brownfield sites within built up confines of settlements; - LDF Safeguarded Land / Areas of Opportunity; and - Other sites within the built confines of settlements (and not in a flood zone). 2.13 Brownfield sites – the Stage 2 report confirms a known potential yield of 267 units from brownfield opportunities. 2.14 LDF Safeguarded Land – The 2007 Core Strategy (Policy CP4) seeks to safeguard 4no. Green Belt sites for future development (post 2021). These include sites at: a) North of Lower Haysden Lane, Tonbridge; b) North of Dry Hill Park Road, Tonbridge; c) Carpenters Lane, Hadlow; and d) Land at Howlands allotments, Wrotham. 2.15 The status of these sites is addressed as follows: Table 1: LDF Safeguarded Land Site Notes/Status a. North of Lower Haysden - Site has not come forward for development. Lane, Tonbridge - Site is under control of Hayesbrook School and recent planning applications/permissions relate to associated school uses including sports pavilion. - Site is in school use/not proposed to be allocated in submitted Local Plan. 24338/A5/DM/HE 5 October 2020 Matter 3: Metropolitan Green Belt Response to Questions Site Notes/Status b. North of Dry Hill Park Road, - Site has not come forward for development. Tonbridge - Site is in the control of Hilden Grange School. - Site is proposed to be allocated in the submitted Local Plan for 44no. dwellings (ref. LP25 – ab). c. Carpenters Lane, Hadlow - Site is proposed to be allocated in submitted Local Plan (25no. dwellings – LP25 - u). d. Land at Howlands - Site is proposed to be allocated in submitted Local Plan allotments, Wrotham (39no. dwellings – LP25 - aj). 2.16 The above demonstrates that three of the four “safeguarded sites” are proposed to be allocated in the submitted Local Plan – this will contribute to meeting housing needs as well as other Green Belt and non-Green Belt site allocations.