Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

REPORT SUMMARY

REFERENCE NO - 17/00795/FULL APPLICATION PROPOSAL Demolition of four derelict agricultural buildings and construction of four detached dwellings with associated parking, landscaping and access from Hartley Road ADDRESS Agricultural Buildings Hartley Road Cranbrook RECOMMENDATION – Refuse (See Section 11 for the full recommendation) SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR REFUSAL - In the absence of a 5 year housing land supply the housing provision policies are considered to be out-of-date. Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that permission for sustainable development be granted unless “specific policies in this Framework indicate that development should be resisted”. The footnote to para 14 includes those policies related to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). - The proposal is not considered to be sustainable development, and is considered to be harmful to the AONB. - There are objections in highway safety terms to matters arising from the intensified use of the access onto a primary route - The application is recommended for refusal on four grounds: - 1. The proposal is not considered to be sustainable development and, due to the harm it would cause to the AONB the NPPF indicates that development should be restricted. - 2. The proposal would intensify the use of an access onto a primary route with insufficient visibility, spacing between junctions and pedestrian footway provision. Proposal fails to demonstrate the provision of a safe and suitable access. - 3. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would not be harmful to protected species. - 4. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would not be harmful to important trees. - All other material considerations have been taken in to account and are not considered to outweigh the identified harm that the proposal would cause. INFORMATION ABOUT FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL The following are considered to be material to the application: Contributions (to be secured through Section 106 legal agreement/unilateral undertaking): N/A Net increase in numbers of jobs: N/A Estimated average annual workplace salary spend in Borough through net increase in numbers of jobs: N/A The following are not considered to be material to the application: Estimated annual council tax benefit for Borough: £654.40 Estimated annual council tax benefit total: £6,544.00 Annual New Homes Bonus (for first 4 years): £4,000.00

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

Estimated annual business rates benefits for Borough: NA REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE Called in by Councillor Holden on the following grounds: Material Planning Grounds: The fact that the site is outside the current Limits to Built Development and in the AONB; The impact on the character and appearance of this prominent site and surrounding area; The suitability of the access to serve the proposal and highway safety issues.

Reason that warrants discussion at Committee are:

The context of the site, particularly at the access point. WARD & PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL APPLICANT Mr John Wickham Cranbrook Cranbrook & AGENT BTL Design Parish Council DECISION DUE DATE PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE 29/08/17 03/11/17 05/04/17 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (including appeals and relevant history on adjoining sites): None

MAIN REPORT

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE

1.01 This site stands within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and outside the Limit to Built Development (LBD) of Cranbrook. It is at the edge of Hartley, located some way away from the main groups of dwellings on either side of Hartley Road that could be considered to comprise the core of this substantial group of houses outside the LBD and thus, for current policy purposes, is considered as being within the open countryside.

1.02 The application site measures some 0.23 hectares and is served by an existing access track through a gateway set back from the carriageway across a paved apron. The length of the access route is about 30 metres before it enters the site proper. The access point onto Hartley Road is about 45m north of its junction with Glassenbury Road, B.2085, and 90m south of its junction with Swattenden Lane. Hartley Road in the vicinity of the site is subject to a 40 mph speed limit. There is no footway on the site side of Hartley Road with one on the opposite side that runs to Cranbrook. The site adjoins Glassenbury Road on its west boundary where there are a number of roadside mature trees on a low roadside bank and verge. The Bull Farm complex of agricultural buildings is on the other side of Glassenbury Road which now includes dwellings formed from converted farm buildings as well as the original farmhouse together with commercial uses. Adjoining the site to the north and east are paddocks with Hartley Gate Farmhouse some 50m distant.

1.03 The site is currently occupied by the remains of a group of four agricultural buildings which are in various stages of dereliction. There is no discernible yard area as such with the space around and between these structures having reverted to grass. This

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

links to the land to the east and north, also down to grass, and there is little demarcation between the group of buildings and the surrounding paddocks.

2.0 PROPOSAL

2.01 The proposal is to clear away the remains of the existing buildings and erect four new dwellings in locations that approximate to the positions of the existing structures around a central vehicle circulation area, with the access route to Hartley Road consolidated and, in part, widened to accommodate passing vehicles. The access is wide enough to accommodate pedestrians. The proposals comprise a one-bed, a two-bed, a three-bed and a four-bed unit, each having a simple gable ended profile, two having lower eaves on their rear elevations creating a catslide roof. Accommodation is provided in or partly within the roofspaces. Finishing materials include both grey slate roof tiles and black horizontal weatherboarding above brick plinths on Units 1 and 4, and profiled metal roof sheeting finished in grey and vertical timber boarding above brick or block plinths on Units 2 and 3. UPVC/aluminium/timber windows are specified with UPVC and conservation style rooflights. Externally, modest areas of curtilage are formed from the adjoining paddocks with either hedged or fenced boundaries indicated. Each plot has open parking accessed from the common circulation space.

2.02 Visibility splays at the access are shown as 58 metres in both directions with the one to the south extending beyond the Glassenbury Road junction. There is no footway here along the site side of Hartley Road. Details have also been added showing the position of trees along the Glassenbury Road frontage.

2.03 The application is supported by a Planning, Design and Access Statement, updated since first submission to take account of KCC Highways comments and for clarification in respect to distances from the site to local bus stops. Further comments made by KCC Highways have been addressed by an Access Technical Note.

2.04 When originally submitted the site was shown with a new access onto Glassenbury Road but this has since been amended to use the existing access from Hartley Road.

3.0 SUMMARY INFORMATION

Existing Proposed Change (+/-) Site Area 0.23 ha Land use(s) including floor area(s) Agriculture Residential Car parking spaces (inc. disabled) Nil 9 +9 No. of storeys Single 1.5 – 2.0 Max height Not known 6.6m n/a Max eaves height Not known 4.6m n/a No. of residential units 0 4 +4 Sizes of units: 1 bedroom n/a 1 +1 2 bedroom 1 +1

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

3 bedroom 1 +1 4 bedroom 1 +1 No. of affordable units 0 0 n/a

4.0 PLANNING CONSTRAINTS

Agricultural Land Classification Grade 3 (This information is taken from the MAFF 1998 national survey series at 1:250 000 scale derived from the Provisional 1” to one mile ALC maps and is intended for strategic uses. These maps are not sufficiently accurate for use in assessment of individual fields or sites and any enlargement could be misleading. The maps show Grades 1-5, but grade 3 is not subdivided

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty AONB (statutory protection in order to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of their landscapes - National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 & Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000)

Outside Limits to Built Development (LBD)

Grade II Listed Hartley Gate Farmhouse (approximately 47 metres to the east)

Grade II Listed Bull Farm House (approximately 36 metres to the south west)

Grade II Listed Bull Farm Barn 25 metres to the west)

Robin Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) approximately 300 metres to the south east of the site

5.0 POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG):

Site Allocations Local Plan July 2016 Policy AL/STR1 - Limits to Built Development

Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010 Core Policy 1 - Delivery of Development Core Policy 4 - Environment Core Policy 5 - Sustainable Design and Construction Core Policy 6 - Housing Provision Core Policy 14 - Development in the Villages and Rural Areas

Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 Policy LBD1 – Development Outside Limits to Built Development Policy EN1 – Design and Other Development Control Criteria Policy EN25 – The Rural Landscape Policy TP4 – Access to the Road Network Policy TP5 – Parking Standards

Supplementary Planning Documents: Borough Landscape Character Area Assessment 2002 – Character Area 4: Cranbrook Fruit Belt

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

TWBC Farmstead Assessment Guidance February 2016

Other relevant documents High Weald AONB Management Plan 3rd edition 2014-2019

Legislation and Planning Policy in the High Weald AONB October 2016

6.0 LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS

Site notices have been displayed at the access gate on Hartley Road and on the Glassenbury Road frontage.

A total of 13 neighbour representation letters and e-mails have been received from 6 sources. Points raised are as follows:

 Site is not in a sustainable location and does not comprise sustainable development.  Proposed is contrary to development plan policies and paragraph 55 of the NPPF.  The existing buildings are not suitable to be converted and there is therefore no ‘fallback’ position.  The claim that there is no increase in built form on the site is not substantiated by any figures.  Hartley Dyke Farm shop is not geared to everyday needs.  Site is outside the LBD and in this location development will not maintain or enhance any rural communities.  Loss of agricultural use and prevention of future farming on this land. The site has recently been used for sheep grazing and timber products.  Not clear what will happen to the rest of the site.  Farmyards cannot be considered as previously developed land.  Backland form of development and will appear as random residential development in the countryside.  Layout and appearance of site is inconsistent with its rural location and does not reflect a farmland grouping. Courtyard will be dominated by parked cars.  Replacement buildings will be modern, out-of-place design and do not represent typical converted farm buildings likely to be found in the locality. They will appear domestic with their flues, areas of glazing and urban courtyard.  Poor quality of materials to be used.  New boundaries do not reflect historic field patterns.  Impact on AONB.  Loss of/impact on roadside trees and hedgerow.  Inconsistent with nearby Listed Buildings.  Access onto Hartley Road would be hazardous. Currently only rarely used. Located between two junctions.  Access should be onto Hartley Road.  No existing access onto Glassenbury Road (GR) as the (original) proposal suggests.  New access onto Glassenbury Road would increase existing hazards, it is sited close to the junction, where Glassenbury Road is narrow with other access points adding to the hazards.  Numerous accidents occur at junction of Glassenbury Road and Hartley Road where traffic speeds are high generally.  Dangerous for pedestrians with no pedestrian paths on Glassenbury Road. Thus hazardous for pedestrians including school children trying to access bus stops and

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

pedestrians would have to cross Hartley Road. No street lighting in Glassenbury Road or Hartley Road.  Inadequate parking on site. Overspill may occur on Hartley Road.  Loss of privacy, overlooking of Bull Farm Barn.  Misleading address/location.  Road sign impedes visibility.  Inadequate access for emergency vehicles.  No footways on the site side of Hartley Road.  Drainage is not addressed.  Biodiversity is not addressed.

7.0 CONSULTATIONS

Cranbrook and Sissinghurst Parish Council 7.01 (04/04/17) - Recommends approval to include the highest possible energy efficiencies being incorporated into the design. Remain in support following amended access provision.

Environment Agency 7.02 (17/03/17) – No comments to make.

Natural – 7.03 (24/03/17) – Robin Wood SSSI does not represent a constraint in relation to this proposal. In relation to the impact on the AONB this proposal should be determined in the light of local and national planning advice.

KCC Highways 7.04 The proposal has failed to demonstrate a safe and suitable access for all users. Contrary to NPPF and Local Plan policies.

(05/12/17) – Regard has been given to the additional Access Technical Note but would advise KCC Highways’ conclusions remain as set out on 14/09/17. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that safe access can be achieved with respect to the provision of visibility splays related to the speed of approaching traffic and the note confirms that a residential use of the scale proposed is likely to result in increased use of the access. The proposal will also require pedestrians to cross the road immediately on this busy stretch of road between two well used junctions.

(14/09/17) (following amendment to use existing access from Hartley Road) Amended access proposals raise concerns. No supporting evidence has been submitted. However it is evident that visibility splays are inadequate and proposals are likely to result in an intensification of use of the existing access. Access is on the brow of a hill, on a busy A class road with a 40 mph speed limit, between well used junctions with a crash record. The site is not in a sustainable location. Lack of footway on the north side of Hartley Road will require pedestrians to cross the A229 between two junctions. The proposal has failed to demonstrate safe and suitable access for all.

(23/03/17) – No evidence of an existing access onto Glassenbury Road as the Transport Statement claims, if this is the case then the proposal will involve the creation of a new access off Glassenbury Road. As such Kent Highways must be satisfied that a new access will be safe and suitable and will not introduce additional highway hazards. The application must be therefore be supported by details of visibility splays that can be provided which should be supported by speed checks to

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

demonstrate they are appropriate for the speed of approaching traffic. The site lies in the 60 mph zone . Splays should take account of this, and be demonstrated on plan with an ‘x’ distance of 2.4 metres, along with details of the ownership of the land within the splays. Vehicle tracking will also be necessary. Any gates must be set back 6 metres and the driveway must be surfaced in a bound material.

TWBC Client Services 7.05 (11/04/17) – Bins and boxes will need to be brought to an accessible collection point.

TWBC Landscape and Biodiversity Officer 7.06 (verbal comments) – recommend refusal. Lack of ecological information for reptiles, amphibians, dormice, bats in trees. Lack of landscape and visual assessment and consideration of the AONB Management Plan. In terms of layout, the buildings are of an appropriate vernacular but poorly studied and poorly laid out. If recommended for approval would require improved design, detailing and layout. The scheme could be better informed by reference to the farmstead guidance and input from the landscape assessment.

TWBC Tree Officer 7.07 (05/02/18) – Satisfied with the tree details in the arboricultural survey but would make the following comments on the application: 1. The RPAs of the trees do not appear to be offset to make allowance for the restricted rooting area on the West side, and so the impact on the RPAs may be greater than that shown. 2. Site sections (existing and finished) on the E-W axis, between the trees and the proposed buildings and drives would be necessary to show that all this can be carried out without impact on the RPAs. 3. The driveways should be to an APN 12 no-dig spec. 4. Shading should not be an issue.

Overall, there is not enough information to ensure that the proposal would not negatively impact on the trees.

8.0 APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING COMMENTS (SUMMARISED)

8.01 The proposed development lies within the broad hamlet of Hartley. The condition of the buildings on the site prevents them from being converted. The approach taken ensures that, whilst new build dwellings are proposed, there would be no increase in built form on the site compared to what has existed historically.

8.02 The Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land, relevant policies for the supply of housing can thus be considered out of date. In this instance this application should therefore be considered against the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

8.03 There are no specific policies within the NPPF or within the Development Plan which indicate that planning permission should be refused and the site is not subject to any physical constraint to development.

8.04 Whilst the proposed development lies within the High Weald AONB, it will create four dwellings the footprint, scale, mass and ridge of which will be no larger than the existing buildings to be demolished. Moreover, the proposed dwellings will be sympathetic to the agricultural heritage of the site but result in an aesthetic enhancement from the existing which in their current state of dereliction is considered

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

to detract from the AONB. Overall the proposed scheme is considered to be a sustainable form of development.

8.05 The adverse impacts of the proposed development are very limited, and are not considered sufficient to ‘significantly or demonstrably’ outweigh those benefits which have been identified.

8.06 The information provided demonstrates, contrary to the comments of the Highways Officer, that the site provides safe and suitable access for all users and is therefore not contrary to the NPPF and local plan policies.

9.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS AND PLANS

Planning, Design and Access Statement by DHA Planning Ref. DCH/TS/12199 dated July 2017 Access Technical Note by DHA Transport dated October 2017 Pre-development Tree Survey and Report by Invicta Arboriculture dated 18th May 2015 Drawings P102-PL01 Rev. E; Proposed Location Plan and Roof Plan P102-PL02 Rev. B; Proposed Site Plan P102-PL03 Proposed Plans and Elevations Sheet 1 P102-PL04 Proposed Plans and Elevations Sheet 2

10.0 APPRAISAL

10.01 It is considered that the principle issues in this case are:

 The principle of development including the sustainability of the site and the proposal, the impact on the AONB as well as on the wider landscape;  Highways issues;  Impact on residential amenity;  Impact on trees;  Other matters.

Principle of Development

10.02 The site is located within the countryside, well outside of any LBD, in an area that would hitherto have been considered an area of restraint to development. The adopted development plan policies seek to direct new residential development to the most sustainable locations within the LBD’s. The appeal decision at Common Road, Sissinghurst dated 21/03/16 included some conclusions (in respect of housing land supply) that are highly pertinent to this application. In particular, the conclusion that in relation to the objectively assessed need (at that point in time) that applying “the Council’s preferred backlog, buffer and claimed deliverable supply against the SHMA figure of 648 per year results in a supply of only 2.5 years of housing land”. Officers are aware of “Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places” consultation proposals published on 14/09/17 that indicates the figure of 692 dwellings per year would be appropriate for TWBC. However this is a consultation and as such has little weight. In any event TWBC does not have a five year supply using either calculation.

10.03 Since the above mentioned appeal decision there have been a number of resolutions to grant planning permission for new residential development, either by Planning Committee or under delegated powers. Several of these relate to sites which are

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

allocated through the Site Allocations Local Plan to meet the identified need established in the Core Strategy. These are Church Farm and Mascalls Court Farm in , land at the Southborough Hub site, Union House, Tunbridge Wells, Bus Depot at 36-40 St Johns Road, Tunbridge Wells, Travis Perkins on Belgrave Road and Tunnel Road, Tunbridge Wells and Woodham Hall, . Consent at the allocated Beechwood Sacred Heart School has contributed to a particular need. The numbers of residential units proposed under these applications have been slightly higher than the allocations.

10.04 Planning permission has also been granted, or there have been resolutions to grant, residential development at a number of other sites since the Common Road appeal decision (which provided an extra 60 units in its own right):

- Home Farm, (9 units); - Land at Cobnut Close, Sissinghurst (9 units); - Cranbrook Engineering/Wilkes Field (28 units); - Bassetts Farm, (up to 30 units); - Service Station (net increase of 6 units); - Charles Trent, Willow Lane Paddock Wood (6 units); - Land at Walkhurst Road, Benenden (12 units) (resolution to grant); - Land West of Maidstone Road, Horsmonden (17 units) (resolution to grant); - Land fronting Maidstone Road, (20 units) (resolution to grant).

The permitted additional units above the stated allocations, and those identified above, are positive in terms of boosting the housing supply, but have not had a significant impact (either individually or cumulatively) on the housing land supply (HLS) position since the Common Road appeal decision.

10.05 The NPPF sets out within paragraph 49 that “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the LPA cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites”. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out that where such policies are out-of-date LPAs should grant permission for sustainable development:

 “unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole; or  specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted [footnote 9]”.

10.06 Footnote 9 includes those policies relating to land designated as being within an AONB. Para 115 of the NPPF advises that ‘great weight’ should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, as they have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. This does not create a blanket presumption against new housing in the AONB, but does require detailed consideration of the impacts of new development in such locations.

10.07 In view of the above, the spatial strategy for the delivery of housing in TWBC (such as Core Strategy policies 1 and 6) are considered to be out of date. As such it is necessary to consider whether the development is sustainable in the context of the NPPF, whether there are any adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when considering the Framework taken as a whole and whether specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

10.08 For the sake of clarity and completeness, on 10 May 2017 a Supreme Court Judgement in respect to two separate cases, overturned an earlier Court of Appeal ruling that para 49 does not confine the concept of "policies for the supply of housing" simply to policies in the development plan that support the delivery of new housing "in terms of numbers and distribution or the allocation of sites". The Supreme Court however ruled that interpretation of the phrase "relevant policies for the supply of housing" was wrong and that it preferred a "narrow" interpretation of the phrase, "contrary to the conclusion of the Court of Appeal", limiting it to policies that deal with the supply of housing, and not to policies which seek to restrict housing such as those that seek to protect the countryside. Saved Policies LBD1 and EN25 of the Borough Local Plan are therefore considered relevant.

10.09 Therefore the relevant test is whether or not the proposal would represent a sustainable form of development, having regard to local planning policies and the NPPF, and particularly whether specific NPPF policies (i.e. those related to the AONB) within para 14 indicate this development should be restricted.

10.10 Para 7 of the NPPF explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: - “an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; - a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and - an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.” It can be seen that sustainability is thus a multi-faceted and broad-based concept. It is often necessary to weigh certain attributes against each other in order to arrive at a balanced position. Location of Site (Social and Environmental Role) 10.11 This is partly dependant on whether residents of the development would be able to meet some or all of their day-to-day needs by walking to facilities in order to potentially reduce the need to travel shorter distances by private car, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The likelihood of completing journeys on foot is dependant on the number and location of local facilities and services, and the connectivity between the site and these facilities. Connectivity is not just dependant on the shortest walking distance to the nearest centre, it includes whether there are intervening facilities together with the attractiveness and convenience of the route itself, which can be dependant on such matters as whether there are footways, their width and how busy the highway is along the route. Gradient, street lighting, the existence of convenient crossing points, whether the highway is a busy route and the speed of vehicles using it and the position of any significant junctions are also relevant.

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

10.12 Previous appeal Inspectors have concluded the following which would appear to assume a walking pace of 5kph, or 1 km every 12 minutes, which is reasonable for an average person on a flat, well maintained surface:

 A site within 5-10 min walking distance of a range of facilities, accessed by footways along a busy road, has been found to be a sustainable location for residential development (Honey Meads, Road, Brenchley);

 A site that is c.10 min walk from the nearest facility, accessed by footways (some of narrow width) along a busy road would be unattractive/inconvenient enough so that potential occupiers would be reliant on a car in order to access the full range of day-to-day services and facilities, but not so unattractive/inconvenient as to prevent access to some services on foot or by bicycle (High Street, Hawkhurst);

 A site of 15 (-20 min) walking distance to the range of facilities, accessed by footways along a busy road, would not be an attractive option and therefore would not be a suitable location for a new dwelling. The location of a convenience store at a petrol filling station would make it more likely that it would be used by residents travelling elsewhere by car (The Cobs, Santolina, The Common, Sissinghurst);

 Although not explicitly stated, through the reasoning given in the Santolina case although there may be shorter routes from a site to a range of facilities, if these routes do not have footways and traffic travels along these at speed, then occupants would not use these routes;

 Although all the above sites have been on bus routes, little weight has been attached to this by the respective Inspectors, although when considering appeals for proposals of greater numbers of dwellings (e.g. Highgate Hill, Hawkhurst and Common Road, Sissinghurst) the ability of future residents to travel by bus has been a relatively important factor. Furthermore, the recent appeal Inspector for The Cobs (close to the application site) gave moderate weight to the existence of the bus route.

10.13 This site is some 2.3km from the centre of Cranbrook, and further to its doctor’s surgery, Cranbrook School, and Cranbrook Primary School, and a similar distance to the Weald Academy and Weald Leisure Centre. As such this is in the order of a 27 minute walking distance from the site, and although there are footways along the entire route, these are narrow in places and would involve crossing the busy A road (as there is a footway only on the east side of the A229), as well as an awkward junction to a B-class road (Swattenden Road). Vehicles travel quickly along the A229 which, combined with the distances involved, is more likely to discourage pedestrians. Hartley Dyke farm shop and the nearby Monkey Puzzle Day Nursery are much closer to the site. The farm shop, it is considered, offers only limited facilities and does not offer a broad range of goods that a settlement such as Cranbrook would offer. It may be useful for daily essentials but is unlikely to fulfil the requirements of a larger, weekly shop.

10.14 These findings are in line with the appeal Inspector’s assessment in relation to The Cobs. He found that occupiers would be heavily reliant on private transport to access facilities and services in Cranbrook and further afield although he gave some weight to the existence of the bus service. However, it should be noted that, while there are bus stops in fairly close proximity, the lack of a footway on the west side of

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

the A229 means that accessing them would involve crossing and re-crossing the A229 and the Swattenden Lane junction.

10.15 Furthermore, he found that the proximity to the Hartley Dyke shopping area would enhance the local community as there would be a realistic prospect that occupants would chose to walk to the local facilities for some of their day to day needs from The Cobs. The proposal would therefore provide an economic and social benefit in maintaining and contributing to the local community. In this case however, accessing facilities at Hartley Dyke would necessitate crossing the A229 and the junction to Swattenden Lane, which it is considered would make accessing these facilities on foot less attractive to occupants. Therefore less weight should be given to the proximity to Hartley Dyke and the potential enhancement to the local community.

10.16 Overall, it is considered that in regard to the location of the site and accessibility in relation to Cranbrook and to its proximity to services nearby, the site is less than moderately sustainable. While there may be opportunities to improve the connectivity and accessibility to bus stops and local facilities through off-site highway works such as extension to the footway, safer pedestrian crossings etc., the scale of this application is too small to secure such improvements.

Housing Considerations (social and economic role) 10.17 The proposal would contribute four units into the overall housing supply. Planning Inspectors have given some weight to this, even though it is still a small contribution to the overall need, in view of the acknowledged lack of a five year housing land supply. Furthermore, it would provide a mix of dwelling in terms of sizes at a reasonable density for its location in the open countryside. Only minor weight can be attached to the social element of the proposal under the “social role” considerations of sustainable development due to its limited size.

10.18 Future residents would make a contribution to the social vitality of Cranbrook and Hartley, but in line with previous appeal decisions this is not likely to be significant and has little weight in the overall planning balance. Economic benefits of four new dwellings during the construction phase would be short term and would also carry little weight overall. There would be some contribution to the economic vitality of Cranbrook and Hartley. The site is not included in the definition of previously developed land (PDL) as set out in the NPPF, which specifically excludes “land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings”. Therefore any benefit of re-using PDL, as actively promoted by the NPPF does not apply here (environmental role). The proposal may also result in the fragmentation of an agricultural holding, making the remaining land less viable and harder to access.

Impact on landscape and the AONB (environmental and social role) 10.19 At paragraph 115 of the NPPF we are told that “great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONB’s” which have “the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty”. At Development Plan level, protection of the AONB is addressed in Core Policy 4 which seeks to conserve and enhance it in accordance with the national policy, with Core Policy 14 stressing that a policy of restraint will operate in order to maintain the landscape character and quality of the countryside. Local Plan Policy EN25 sets out the criteria that development outside the LBD is required to satisfy, including that any proposal must have a minimal impact on the landscape character of the area.

10.20 Although this site is set back some distance from Hartley Road there are clear views in the public realm into the site from Glassenbury Road immediately adjacent the site where only a number of clear stemmed trees and patchy roadside planting form an

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

inadequate visual screen. Limited views are possible from Hartley Road, although roadside planting mitigates this to some degree. There are no public footpaths in the vicinity. The existing buildings on the site have now reached such an advanced stage of dereliction that they are gradually being consumed back into the landscape. There is no discernible yard area between the buildings and little by way of boundary demarcation on the open side of the group. The proposal would introduce a considerably more intensive form of development than currently exists, which would intensify and urbanise the built development of the site, particularly when taking into account the consolidation of the access from Hartley Road, and the generosity of the circulation space between the proposed dwellings. No garages are proposed but there are considerable amounts of paved surfaces which contribute to the built development on the site. In addition, boundary treatments around and between plots will impact further on the appearance and openness of the landscape. There will almost certainly be domestic paraphernalia across the site.

10.21 The proposal has not been informed by a proper assessment of the landscape context or visual appraisal, as set out in the Landscape and Biodiversity Officer’s comments. The approximate footprints of the existing buildings of the site have been used to inform the site layout, but this has resulted in a loose arrangement with significant wasted spacing in the central circular access area, which would appear as a suburban cul-de-sac arrangement dominated by car parking rather than an appropriate response to the site context in the AONB. Overall, it is not considered that the layout is appropriate to this setting. The scale of buildings in relation to the existing or previous buildings on the site is not clear, and there is no evidence to suggest that the new buildings would result in an environmental benefit in terms of the appearance of the site.

10.22 The broad design approach to the proposed dwellings which seeks to replicate the scale and appearance of the former agricultural buildings is not in itself objectionable, although there are aspects that raise concerns. However, the layout and the use of the space between them are not reflective of the rural location. Matters of design detailing, external materials as well as landscaping could be made the subject of negotiation and conditions if approval were recommended. The proposal is considered to be significantly harmful to the AONB.

10.23 The overall development is thus considered to harm the open character and appearance of the AONB. This is in contrast to the existing relatively open nature of the site notwithstanding the remains of the farm buildings. This harm is considered to represent a significant adverse change to the landscape and the open nature of it and its immediate surroundings. This is considered to weigh heavily against the proposal given the policy requirements of the NPPF.

Impact on Biodiversity and Trees (environmental role) 10.24 The site is greenfield, with trees and hedgerow in close proximity as well as a pond. No ecological information has been provided with the application, and due to its location and characteristics it is considered that there is potential for biodiversity interests to be adversely affected by the proposal. The proposal is not supported by recommendations for biodiversity enhancements. It is therefore considered that the proposal fails to provide any benefits and may cause harm.

10.25 Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the trees alongside Glassenbury Road. These trees are considered to be important to the rural character and visual amenity of the area and this is considered to be a potentially negative impact.

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

Summary in respect to the principle of development and the planning balance 10.26 Overall this proposal is not considered to comprise sustainable development. In particular;  In locational terms the site is remote enough from Cranbrook that future occupiers will predominantly be reliant on private transport to access all but basic services and facilities;  Bus services and local facilities in Hartley would be difficult to access by foot due to the lack of a footway on the west side of the A229;  The development only contributes a small number of units toward the overall housing supply; although  It does give a range of dwelling sizes across the site;  Residents will only make a moderate contribution to the social vitality of Cranbrook, albeit with some contribution to its economic vitality;  The site is not PDL;  The development is harmful to the appearance of the landscape and the scenic beauty of the AONB;  No information has been provided to show that the proposal will safeguard or enhance biodiversity interests and trees.

10.27 As such, although the Council’s housing policies can be considered to be out of date owing to the absence of a five year land supply, it is not considered that the proposal is sustainable development. There are specific policies in the NPPF which indicate that development should be restricted. The clear adverse impacts of the scheme would outweigh its benefits which are considered limited. In principle it is considered that permitting this proposal will result in an unsustainable form of development with harm to the AONB being a key element of this objection.

Highway considerations

10.28 As originally submitted this proposal was shown with its access off Glassenbury Road. This was poorly detailed, particularly in terms of visibility and would have been likely to have given rise to an objection on highway grounds.

10.29 As a consequence the access point was relocated to one using an existing farm entrance onto Hartley Road, resulting in the need for a longer access drive into the site proper. As can be seen from the comments of the Kent Highways Officer, use of this route is also problematic and has also resulted in an objection, even following the submission of further justification in the form of an Access Technical Note. In summary the points of concern are;

 Sight lines are inadequate on this A-class road, even with a 40mph sped limit;  There will be an intensification of use of the access, which is acknowledged in the Technical Advice Note (18 vehicles movements a day proposed compared to 10 which could be generated by the existing use);  Access is positioned on the brow of a hill; and  Will be between two busy junctions with accident records;  Lack of a footway on the site side will involve pedestrians having to cross the main highway.

10.30 The Highways Officer’s comments in relation to pedestrians having to cross a busy A road in a location close to two junctions also indicate that planning permission should be refused. In addition the Highways Officer considers that the site is not in a sustainable location, and has objected to the scheme. It is considered that insufficient information has been provided to support the use of the existing access to

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

the site. As this will result in an intensified access in close proximity to two existing junctions where there are crash records, it is considered that planning permission should be refused.

Residential amenity

10.31 The nearest dwellings are at Bull Farm on the opposite side of Glassenbury Road from the site which include a converted oasthouse in use as a Bed and Breakfast. It is considered that the proposed dwellings are sited far enough distant from these as to not have a detrimental affect on existing residential amenity either through overlooking, or disturbance. The house at Hartley Gate Farm is at an even greater distance from the site and is not considered to be affected by the proposal. It is noted that neighbours on the west side of Glassebury Road have raised concerns with potential overlooking. However, due the distances involved, it is not considered that a refusal could be justified on this basis.

10.32 In terms of the amenities of future occupiers, it is noted that some of the gardens would be overshadowed by boundary trees on the west (dwellings 1 and 4). However, due to the size and configuration of the gardens it is considered that adequate amenity space would be provided to meet the requirements of LP Policy EN1.

Impact on trees

10.33 The Tree Officer has considered the information provided with the proposal. Insufficient information has been provided in relation to sections between the houses and the trees, the method of construction of the hard surfaced areas and the extent of the root protection areas, where these may be compensating for the presence of the road to the west. This should form a reason for refusal, as the trees are important to the visual amenity of the area.

Other matters

10.34 In view of the previous use of the site, if planning permission were granted it would be prudent to require an assessment of potential contamination.

10.35 As the proposal involves groundworks on land that is likely to have previously been relatively undisturbed, an archaeological watching brief could be required by condition.

10.36 In terms of drainage, no details of the proposed method of disposal for foul sewage have been provided and it is stated that surface water would be dealt with through a sustainable urban drainage system. If the application were to be approved, these matters could be dealt with through a condition as necessary.

10.37 There are several listed buildings in close proximity to the site but due to the distances involved and intervening vegetation and road, it is not considered that the proposal would be harmful to their setting.

Conclusion

10.38 It is considered that this proposal does not represent a sustainable form of development as it would see the development of land that is not PDL. While it would provide a small number of dwellings with a mix of sizes, this benefit would not outweigh the environmental harm and reliance on private transport to access most

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

local services and facilities. Furthermore the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the AONB. In addition there are objections to the scheme on highway safety grounds. No information has been provided in relation to ecological interests on the site and insufficient information has been provided in relation to the impacts on trees.

10.39 Notwithstanding the undersupply of housing land to meet a five-year supply in the Borough it is considered that this proposal should be refused.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE for the following reasons

1. The proposal is not considered to be sustainable development, and due to the harm that it would cause to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty the relevant policy in the National Planning Policy Framework indicates that this development should be restricted. It lies outside the Limits to Built Development as defined within the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006, which indicate the most sustainable areas for new housing development. The proposal therefore fails to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the National Planning Practice Guidance, saved policies LBD1 and EN25of the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan 2006 and Core Policies 4, 6 and 14 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010.

2. It is considered that, by virtue of the intensified use of an access onto a primary route, with insufficient vision splays, at a location between junctions, with a lack of associated footways thus requiring pedestrians to cross and re-cross the highway, the proposal has failed to demonstrate that a safe a suitable access is provided for all highway users. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to Policy TP4 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006, the National Planning Practice Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

3. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that biodiversity will not be adversely affected by the proposal, contrary to Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006, Core Policy 4 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010, the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and the National Planning Practice Guidance.

4. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal will not be harmful to important trees. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies EN1 and EN25 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006, Core Policy 4 of the of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010, the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and the National Planning Practice Guidance.

INFORMATIVES

1. The plans taken into consideration in reaching this decision to refuse planning permission are:-

Planning, Design and Access Statement by DHA Planning Ref. DCH/TS/12199 dated July 2017 Access Technical Note by DHA Transport dated October 2017 Pre-development Tree Survey and Report by Invicta Arboriculture dated 18th May 2015 Drawings P102-PL01 Rev. E; Proposed Location Plan and Roof Plan P102-PL02 Rev. B; Proposed Site Plan

Planning Committee Report 14 February 2018

P102-PL03 Proposed Plans and Elevations Sheet 1 P102-PL04 Proposed Plans and Elevations Sheet 2

Case Officer: Tim Archer

NB For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the relevant Public Access pages on the council’s website. The conditions set out in the report may be subject to such reasonable change as is necessary to ensure accuracy and enforceability.