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 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 . 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 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. Given the circumstances, Site(a) – Lower Haysden Lane, is not considered “available” for development.

2.17 LDF Areas of Opportunity – The 2007 Core Strategy identifies land east of Eccles as an “Area of Opportunity”. This is located within and responds to meeting needs within the Maidstone HMA post 2021 (Policy CP16 of the Core Strategy refers).

2.18 The land now forms a strategic allocation in the submitted Local Plan (ref. LP27 Bushey Wood, Eccles) for development of c. 900 dwellings (up to 2031) with an additional c. 600 units (occurring post 2031).

2.19 It is envisaged that development will come forward as per the allocation requirements to meet housing needs predominantly in the Maidstone HMA.

2.20 Other sites within the Built- U p Areas – the Stage 2 GBR refers to other potential site opportunities outside of Green Belt and within built confines of settlements. This entails a potential yield of 276 units and excludes sites within a flood zone. In particular, much of the southern area of Tonbridge comprises areas at risk of flooding and we support the Green Belt assessment on this basis.

2.21 From the above, it is clear that there is not sufficient land outside “Green Belt” to meet housing need in full including within the West Kent HMA parcel of the Borough. “Exceptional circumstances” are therefore demonstrated for Green Belt release to occur and the GBR is therefore sound.

Q.2 Does it reflect the fundamental aim of Green Belts, being to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open?

24338/A5/DM/HE 6 October 2020 Matter 3: Metropolitan Green Belt Response to Questions

2.22 Yes, the GBR does seek to reflect the fundamental aims of GBs, being to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and maintaining openness and permanence.

2.23 Whilst these are overriding objectives of existing Green Belt land, it is important that such objectives are balanced against other factors of the Local Plan including, inter-alia, meeting future housing needs and assessing the availability/suitability of non-Green Belt land to accommodate this. As above, TMBC’s Local Plan/GBR does seek to strike this balance.

Q.4 Does it reflect the five purposes that Green Belts serve, set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF?

2.24 TMBC’s GB Review has been undertaken with regard to the purposes of the Green Belt in the NPPF. We broadly support the assessment of the wider parcels north of Borough Green as undertaken by TMBC.

2.25 Within our representations to the Reg 19 Local Plan, we provide a site-specific assessment for BGG as against the NPPF purposes. We do not rehearse the assessment here, instead we highlight the conclusions of our assessment, as follows:

Table 2 : BW assessment of BGG against NPPF purposes of Green Belt NPPF Purpose BW site assessment 1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas Site makes a limited contribution. 2. To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one Site makes no contribution. another 3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from Site makes some contribution. encroachment 4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic Site makes no contribution. towns Overall BGG Site assessment Site makes limited contribution

2.26 Overall, the BW assessment of BGG confirms the Site makes a limited contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt. It is therefore suitable for Green Belt release as reflecting the purposes that Green Belt serve.

Q.5 Paragraph 83 of the NPPF is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Is the Council’s approach to the Green Belt set out in its Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances Topic Paper (ED10) robust and in line with national guidance?

24338/A5/DM/HE 7 October 2020 Matter 3: Metropolitan Green Belt Response to Questions

2.27 The objective of the Topic Paper (ED10) is to set out/explain the exceptional circumstances for the alterations to GB boundaries/allocations of sites in the Green Belt. In terms of the approach taken, the Topic Paper correctly refers to Calverton and the factors to be considered in demonstrating exceptional circumstances. These are addressed under Q.1 and are thus not rehearsed here.

2.28 In terms of defining “exceptional circumstances”, we would also refer to the recent Compton Judgment (04 Dec 2019)3 which was handed down subsequent to the Topic Paper being prepared.

2.29 Compton introduces an additional factor towards exceptional circumstances being demonstrated. This relates to whether or not there is scope to export housing needs to neighbouring authorities.

2.30 The arguments on the ability (or otherwise) to export housing needs are referred above and already set out in our Matter 01 Statement. In this context, needs from the West Kent HMA cannot be exported to either Sevenoaks or Tunbridge Wells - for which Green Belt/AONB constraints are also evident.

2.31 As per the points under Q.1 above, the Topic Paper is considered to robustly address the exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release in the Local Plan.

2.32 The Topic Paper goes on to provide a site-specific exceptional circumstances case – a task not necessarily required by Calverton to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, but helpful, nonetheless. It refers to a number of factors that bolster the case (and which are supported by us) for Green Belt release at BGG inc:

• Development at a sustainable location (Borough Green); • Development to provide a delivery mechanism for the much-needed Relief Road; • The need for strategic development to occur in West Kent HMA; • Development providing transformational benefits for existing as well as new communities and the local environment; and • Ability of the scheme to mitigate potential harm to the Green Belt.

2.33 Moreover, we refer to other factors supporting the exceptional circumstances case for Green Belt release at the Site. These entail:

3 Compton and Ockham Parish Councils v. Guildford Borough Council and Secretary of State, CO/2173/2174/2175/2019

24338/A5/DM/HE 8 October 2020 Matter 3: Metropolitan Green Belt Response to Questions

- Making a significant contribution to meeting housing need in West Kent HMA/wider Borough area; - Making a significant contribution towards meeting affordable housing needs; - Development occurring on previously used / quarried land in less sensitive part of Green Belt (i.e. non-virginal land).

2.34 The Topic Paper (ED10) is considered to provide a helpful synopsis of TMBC’s approach to Green Belt review/release. The process for such is sound.

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

2.35 This Matter is addressed in our Matter 01 and 02 Statements, so we do not rehearse the full suite of points again.

2.36 As set out, the spatial strategy is predicated on an even distribution of growth across the Borough. This ultimately entails the necessity for Green Belt release in the West Kent HMA in order to meet housing needs by accommodating strategic development as aligned with infrastructure provision.

Q.8 Do the decisions taken on Green Belt releases reflect the need to assist with urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land? Where is this evident?

2.37 The ability (or otherwise) for needs to be met on urban/brownfield land has been addressed above under Q1. We do not reiterate the arguments here, but it is clear that needs cannot be met in full (or even close to) on recycled or other urban land as addressed in the Stage 2 GBR (LG8).

2.38 The GBR (LG8) however confirms that it seeks to locate development to the least constrained areas of the Green Belt (in terms of its impact upon the NPPF purposes). This includes BGG which predominantly comprises despoiled land suitable for development and making a limited contribution to the Green Belt. BGG is also near/adjacent to urbanising influences such as the M26 motorway which runs through both Green Belt and AONB land.

Q.9 Has a comprehensive assessment of capacity within built up areas been undertaken? Where is this evident?

24338/A5/DM/HE 9 October 2020 Matter 3: Metropolitan Green Belt Response to Questions

Q.11 Have opportunities to maximise capacity on non-Green Belt sites been taken (including increasing densities)? Where is the evidence of this?

2.39 Q.9 and Q.11 are inter-linked and we therefore address both here. TMBC has conducted a thorough exercise in establishing the capacity of the built-up areas and the potential for needs to be met on such land. In this context, we point to the SLAA process for which a reduced quantum of sites have been identified as “available” within the urban areas.

2.40 Similarly, in representations to the Plan (inc to this EiP), there is no evidence of significant urban opportunities being available through site promotion, and this perhaps provides tacit indication as to the unavailability of potential alternatives sites. We consider that if such (presently unforeseen) alternative sites do become available in the longer term, then this will be in response to future market conditions (ie. as windfall) at that time.

2.41 In respect of “increased densities”, we have not seen any evidential basis of sites under- performing (in terms of site capacity) and are very mindful of the need for future densities needing to also be secured at a level in keeping with the prevailing context/character of its surroundings.

Q.14 Is the approach to new infrastructure in the Green Belt justified?

2.42 The necessity for new infrastructure provision is set out in the IDP (TI1). This includes the need for delivery of the Relief Road at BGG, albeit this will be provided on land being proposed to be removed from the Green Belt (with the exception of Phase 1c: Safeguarded for development post 2031). 2.43 Nevertheless, the approach to securing the Relief Road and other elements of infrastructure can be secured whilst having regard to wider sensitive receptors. The Relief Road will be carefully designed through the masterplanning process (inc. the Development Brief for the Site) as well as at the planning application stage. The alignment and design of the road will be secured having regard to all NPPF purposes, inc. proximity to the existing motorway network (north), views from the wider AONB (from the north) and drainage considerations.

Q.15 What land is safeguarded through this Local Plan and what land was safeguarded through the previous adopted Local Plan? Does the Local Plan make clear that safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time? Is all land previously safeguarded allocated for development in this Plan?

24338/A5/DM/HE 10 October 2020 Matter 3: Metropolitan Green Belt Response to Questions

2.44 Safeguarded land in the previous LDF (Core Strategy 2007) includes the following sites:

Table 3 : Safeguarded Sites – 2007 Core Strategy Site Notes/Status North of Lower Haysden Lane, Site is school use/not proposed to be allocated in Tonbridge Local Plan North of Dry Hill Park Road, Site proposed to be allocated in Local Plan (44no. Tonbridge dwellings – LP25 - ab). Carpenters Lane, Hadlow Site proposed to be allocated in Local Plan (25no. dwellings – LP25 - u). Land at Howlands allotments, Site proposed to be allocated in Local Plan (39no. Wrotham dwellings – LP25 - aj).

2.45 The safeguarding of land provides an effective means of meeting longer-term housing needs. In this context, the submitted Local Plan proposes safeguarded land at “Phase 1C” of BGG for development beyond 2031.

2.46 In addition to safeguarded land, the Local Plan also secures “Areas of Opportunity” at non- Green Belt land at South Aylesford/Ditton (East Malling Research Station) and at Eccles. This also serves as an effective mechanism for addressing longer term development needs beyond 2031.

Q.17 Have the altered Green Belt boundaries been considered having regard to their intended permanence in the long term? Are they capable of enduring beyond the plan period? 2.47 Where Green Belt releases are to occur, new GB boundaries are to be formed including at BGG. The new boundary for BGG is clearly shown on the proposals map, as extending towards the M26 north of Borough Green. The M26 forms a long-term defensible boundary (both physically and psychologically) along the northern edges of Phase 1B and 1C and the boundary (in its entirety) will be capable of enduring beyond the Plan period/longer-term.

24338/A5/DM/HE 11 October 2020