LOCAL PLAN – RESULTS OF THE DRAFT LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION, AGREEMENT TO PUBLISH THE REGULATION 19 PROPOSED SUBMISSION VERSION AND NEXT STEPS

Planning Advisory Committee – 22 November 2018

Report of Chief Planning Officer

Status For comment / consideration

Also Consider by Cabinet – 6 December 2018

Council – 26 February 2019

Key Decision Part key

Executive Summary: This report provides a summary of the outcome of the draft Local Plan consultation, which was undertaken for an eight-week period from Monday 16 July to Monday 10 September 2018. It sets out the key content of the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission version of the Plan and the process for taking this forward to examination.

This report supports the Key Aim of: Protecting the Green Belt and Supporting and developing the local economy

Portfolio Holder Cllr. Robert Piper

Contact Officers James Gleave/Hannah Gooden Ext. 7134

Recommendation: That Planning Advisory Committee notes the report and agrees to recommend to Cabinet the recommendations below.

Recommendation to Cabinet: That Cabinet

a) agrees that the following be issued for public consultation

i) the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission version of the Local Plan (as detailed within Appendices 5 and 6 to this report);

ii) the additional strategic greenbelt greenfield sites received during Draft Local Plan consultation (as detailed within Appendix 4 to this report); and

iii) the associated Supplementary Planning Documents (as detailed within Appendix 7 to this report) b) delegates authority to the Chief Planning Officer following consultation with the Planning Portfolio Holder to finalise any non-policy text changes required in the Draft Local Plan prior to Regulation 19 public consultation; and

c) recommends that Full Council agrees to the submission of the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan for examination.

Recommendation to Council: That Council agrees to the submission of the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission version of the Local Plan for examination.

Reason for recommendation: To enable the progression of the Local Plan.

1 Purpose of the report

1.1 As a reminder, the new Local Plan will replace the Core Strategy and the Allocations and Development Management Plan (ADMP). It will be used to determine planning applications, as well as setting out the strategic land allocations which will help to meet the needs of the District over the plan period, up to 2035. The Local Plan is based on local evidence and will be examined in public by an independent Inspector, most likely in Spring 2019. The primary purpose of the examination is to determine that the plan meets the tests of soundness.

1.2 The consultation draft Local Plan was presented to PAC on 19 June 2018 and agreed by Cabinet on 12 July 2018. The document was issued for public consultation for an eight-week period on 16 July to the 10 September 2018. The results of the consultation process are summarised below, however the Council received in excess of 8,500 comments from 6,000 representors. The majority of these comments related to the proposed exceptional circumstances greenfield sites for housing. The vast majority of representors were objecting to these proposals.

1.3 This report provides information on the consultation process, the latest evidence base and how this has influenced the content of the next stage of the Local Plan, which is referred to as the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission version. It sets out the key proposed changes to the draft Local Plan, why these have been made and the next steps in the consultation process. Approval of these recommendations will allow the Local Plan to progress to the next stage in the process.

2 What is the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan? 2.1 The Regulation 19 version is the next stage in the production of the Local Plan and is referred to as the ‘Publication’ stage in the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The regulations set out the particular requirements that the Council is required to meet when the plan is published. These include the production of a statement setting out

2 how to make comments (referred to as a Statement of Representations Procedure), ensuring the document is available for inspection and that it is sent to statutory consultees.

2.2 The Regulation 19 version of the plan is published by the Council on the basis that it is sound, legally compliant and has been prepared in accordance with the duty to co-operate. It is the final version published before the Plan is submitted for examination and consultation responses are sent directly to the Inspector. The regulations provide limited scope for the Council to make further changes to the document itself as a result of these responses, prior to examination.

3 The Draft Local Plan (July 2018) 3.1 The draft Local Plan was issued for consultation in July 2018, in accordance with the Cabinet recommendation. The document contained a strategic vision for Sevenoaks District, policies to be used in the determination of planning applications and specific sites to meet identified needs, particularly those related to housing. In addition to sources such as outstanding planning applications, windfall sites and brownfield sites in the Green Belt, the Plan also included twelve Greenfield sites in the Green Belt, which had been submitted as part of the ‘call for sites’ process. These are referred to in the draft Local Plan as Exceptional Circumstances Greenfield sites

3.2 The Exceptional Circumstances Greenfield sites were included in the Plan on the basis that they had the potential to meet the Council’s identified housing requirement and deliver infrastructure to help meet an existing need. However, officers did not make a judgement as to their suitability for release from the Green Belt beyond this and sought views on the inclusion of the sites in the Plan as part of the consultation process. The outcome of the consultation is set out below.

4 The Regulation 18 consultation: Summer of 2018 4.1 The results of the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan consultation are set out in the consultation statement attached at Appendix 1 of this report. The process can be summarised as follows:  An ‘In Shape’ publication setting out the purpose and content of the Plan and how to make comments was sent to all households. A special pull out section on the Local Plan was included as part of this.  There was an extensive targeted social media presence and focused engagement with ‘hard to reach’ groups, such as young people, commuters and gypsies and travellers.  Nine public drop-in events were held, a developers’ forum, a town/parish council forum and a number of stakeholder workshops. An interactive map was developed, to allow comments to be made directly on sites.

4.2 The Council received in the region of 8,500 comments on the draft Local Plan from approximately 6,000 organisations and individuals. Approximately 3 7,500 of the comments were on sites and 1,000 related to development management policies. The bulk of these related to housing and the Exceptional Circumstances Greenfield Sites described above. In comparison, little comment was made on the draft policies such as retail, employment, health and wellbeing, and the environment.

4.3 The top 5 ‘commented on’ sites were:

• MX52 and MX53 (Corinthians and Banckside, Hartley) – 1,721 comments

• MX41 (Broke Hill) – 1,253 comments

• MX54a&b – (Land at Beechenlea Lane) – 1,167 comments

• MX48 (Pedham Place) – 479 comments

• HO371-374 (Which Way Westerham) – 405 comments

4.4 Going forwards, and as part of the preparation of the ‘Regulation 19’ Proposed Submission version, Officers have taken account of the consultation responses received and the provisions of national planning policy and guidance, which are set out in the following paragraphs.

5 National planning policy and housing need 5.1 The Local Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 and the key provisions of the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in July 2018. These documents set out the key procedural requirements and guidance on Plan making. In order to be found sound at examination, the Council will need to demonstrate that the key provisions of these documents have been met.

Housing need and the Green Belt 5.2 The key aspects of the NPPF which are particularly relevant to the Local Plan are the guidance on strategic policies and the advice related to the protection of the Green Belt. In relation to the preparation of the Local Plan, paragraph 23 of the NPPF states that strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed need, in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

5.3 In addition to the requirement to meet assessed need, the NPPF continues to place considerable emphasis on the protection of Green Belt land. Paragraph 136 notes that once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the updating of plans. Before amending the Green Belt, the Council will be required to demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives have been fully investigated. This includes making best use of brownfield land, optimising density and discussions with neighbouring areas.

4 Housing supply 5.4 The NPPF notes that planning authorities should have a clear understanding of the land available in their area through the preparation of a strategic housing land availability assessment. From this, policies should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability. Planning policies should identify a supply of: a) specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan period; and b) specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the plan.

5.5 It should be noted that government planning guidance indicates that Local Plans should be reviewed every 5 years. It is likely that a review of the Plan will commence by 2020.

Housing need calculation and new population projections 5.6 The Office for National Statistics (ONS) published a revised set of household projections in September 2018. When applied to the standard methodology, this data resulted in housing targets which were lower than those set out in previous guidance. The Government responded swiftly, restating its commitment to build 300,000 units per year and noting that a revised method for calculating housing need would be published by the end of the year. Revised guidance was published in at the end of October 2018, in the form of the Technical Consultation on Updates to National Planning Policy and Guidance.

5.7 The Technical Consultation document confirms that local authorities should continue to use the 2014 projections. As such, the current housing need of 698 homes per year, plus a 20% increase (or buffer) for the first 5 years remains. Rolled forward, the Council’s housing need for the entire plan period is 13,960 units, plus the addition of a 20% ‘buffer’ for the first five years.

6 What are exceptional circumstances? 6.1 The Council’s housing need cannot be accommodated within 7% of the district that is identified as ‘built up areas’ and officers have therefore investigated the release of Green Belt sites to respond to NPPF requirements. Information provided as part of the peer review process outlined in section 7 below, confirms that provided all reasonable options have been explored it is justifiable to claim that a review of Green Belt boundaries is the only remaining reasonable option.

6.2 The NPPF does not provide a general definition of what constitutes the exceptional circumstances to justify the release of Green Belt as they will vary according to locally specific needs and circumstances. It should be noted that it is necessary to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to

5 justify the release of Green Belt land, regardless of whether or not it has previously been developed.

6.3 Officers have identified the following considerations as being relevant in the determination of exceptional circumstances:  The extent to which land meets the purposes of inclusion in the Green Belt: The 5 key tests outlined in the NPPF include preventing coalescence and safeguarding the Countryside from encroachment;  Whether the release of land will result in the delivery of infrastructure to meet an existing evidenced based need; and  The overall sustainability of the proposals, as assessed by the Sustainability Appraisal of the Local Plan.

7 Peer review process 7.1 Officers have commenced a three stage ‘peer review’ process of the emerging plan, to ensure it meets the tests of legal compliance and soundness prior to being submitted for examination. The organisations and individuals involved in this process are as follows:  Intelligent Plans (IPe): This is an organisation of former planning inspectors which offers help and advice to local authorities on specific matters related to the preparation of Local Plans and the procedural aspects of the examination. A representative from IPe attended a meeting with Council officers on 1st November 2018. The visit was useful in clarifying the approach taken to Green Belt release in other local authority areas. Notwithstanding the need to provide some further supporting evidence and clarification on matters outlined in section 13 of this report, the process provided confidence that the Council’s approach to the production of the plan was broadly sound.  The Planning Inspectorate (PINS): Prior to the submission of Local Plans for examination, the Planning Inspectorate offers an ‘Advisory Visit’ to review the documents to highlight any areas of potential difficulty. This rigorous pre-examination assessment provides a good indicator of the key issues that are likely to be raised during the examination hearings. It will be necessary for the advisory visit to take place in early 2019.  Legal advice: Such advice will help to identify any issues related to compliance with planning legislation, such as the duty to co-operate, procedural aspects of the plan preparation and the interpretation of the exceptional circumstances test.

7.2 In combination, these three peer review processes will provide a high degree of certainty of how the plan will perform during the examination hearing sessions.

6 8 Key content of the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission version of the Local Plan Exceptional circumstances – greenfield sites 8.1 As noted in paragraph 4.2 of this report, approximately 7,500 of the 8,500 consultation responses received related to the proposed development sites. A large proportion of these commented on the Exceptional Circumstances Greenfield Sites, identified on page 33 of the draft Local Plan. Maps of these sites are attached as Appendix 2. Officers have undertaken a further assessment of the exceptional circumstances for these sites and whether the sites could be categorised as deliverable, developable or a broad location, in accordance with the definitions identified in paragraph 5.4. The sites have also been subject to a peer review process by Intelligent Plans.

8.2 The twelve sites included in the consultation draft version of the Local Plan have been assessed against these considerations, based on the conclusions of the Council’s Green Belt Assessment, Sustainability Appraisal and other material considerations. In addition, the infrastructure offer has been discussed with infrastructure providers to determine if the proposals meet an existing need. Consideration has been given to the results of the draft Local Plan consultation process. The full outcome of the site appraisal process is set out in Appendix 3 of this report and is summarised in Table A below: Table A: Exceptional Circumstances Greenfield Sites in the Green Belt to be included in the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission version:

Site Reason for inclusion Phasing

HO189 and HO223: Weakly performing Green Belt, on the edge of Years 1-5 and 6-10 Edenbridge: Four Elms a main settlement. Discussions with the Road Discussions with the CCG and KCC indicate developer indicate a 350 Units the proposed health centre and school are proportion of the units needed to meet an existing need. could be delivered in the first 5 years of the plan. The remainder are expected to come forward in years 6-10.

MX43: Sevenoaks Quarry Weakly performing Green Belt. Previously Phase 1: years 6-10 and developed land. Site is located on the edge of phase 2: 11-15, subject 600 units Sevenoaks and is considered to be in a to confirmation of suitable location for residential development. mineral extraction programme. Some extraction is still taking place on the site. Discussions with Infrastructure providers The Council is satisfied indicate that the infrastructure offer will that the site is in a benefit local community. suitable location for housing and there is a reasonable prospect that it will become available. As such, it is considered ‘developable’

7 MX50 and H070: Dunton Weakly performing Green Belt. Sports and Years 6-10, subject to Green, Land East of recreation offer and improvements to local discussions with the London Road primary school have been supported by site owner. infrastructure providers. 240 units The Council is satisfied that the site is in a suitable location for housing and there is a reasonable prospect that it will be available. As such, it is considered ‘developable’

Table B: Site identified as a ‘Broad Location’ for Growth

Strongly performing Green Belt. Site has the Pedham Place: Swanley/ Year 11 to the end of potential to deliver a comprehensive Farningham/Eynsford the Plan period. infrastructure offer that could assist in the 2,500 units regeneration of Swanley. Whilst the proposals Taking these factors have the potential to perform well against into account, it is sustainability objectives, further information considered that land to is required on matters such as the the east of Swanley and transportation strategy, the nature and the M25 should be proposed quantum of commercial/retail identified as a ‘broad development, how the proposals relate to the location’ for growth. existing developed area of Swanley and a Further consideration landscape and visual impact assessment. will be given to the release of the site from the Green Belt when the Plan is next reviewed in 2020/2025.

8.3 Officers are recommending that the following sites are not included in the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission version of the Plan:  Edenbridge: - Land west of Romani Way and Hever Road: employment need can be met on other more suitable sites and it has not been demonstrated that the housing element of the proposal outweighs the harm to weakly performing Green Belt. infrastructure proposals are not supported by the relevant providers. - Land at Breezehurst Farm: infrastructure proposals are not supported by the relevant providers. - Land at Crouch House Road: infrastructure proposals are not supported by the relevant provider.  Westerham: Land north and east of Westerham (Which Way Westerham): infrastructure proposals are not supported by the relevant providers and it has not been demonstrated that the benefits of the development outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the AONB. 8  Swanley: Land between Beechenlea Lane and Highlands Hill: infrastructure proposals are not supported by the relevant providers and the scheme would have an unacceptable impact on the highway network.  Halstead/Pratts Bottom: Broke Hill Golf Course: infrastructure proposals do not outweigh the harm to strongly performing Green Belt.  Fawkham/Hartley: Corinthians Golf Club and land at Banckside: infrastructure proposals are not supported by the relevant providers and the scheme would have an unacceptable impact on the highway network.  Chipstead: Land west of Chevening Road: infrastructure proposals are not supported by the relevant users and providers.

Other housing and mixed use allocations 8.4 Officers have undertaken a further assessment of all non Greenfield Greenbelt sites to be included in the Plan. The results of this process are included in the Site Appraisals contained at Appendix 3 of this report and included in Policy ST2 in Appendix 5. It should be noted that sites will be removed from the Green Belt, regardless of whether or not they have been previously developed.

Proposed allocations received during the course of the Regulation 18 consultation 8.5 The Council received a number of additional proposed Greenfield Green Belt housing allocations in response to the Regulation 18 consultation process. Following assessment, those that are considered as being potentially suitable for inclusion will be consulted on alongside, rather than as part of the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission version of the Local Plan. Details of the sites can be found in Appendix 4:  Land south of Redhill Road, New Ash Green  Land between Hartfield Road and Hever Road, Edenbridge  Land west of Childsbridge Lane and south of the recreation ground, Kemsing  Land north and south of Kemsing station.

8.6 It should be noted that any additions to the Regulation 19 version may need to be subject to additional targeted consultation, prior to the examination hearing sessions. Should the need arise, advice on the approval process will be sought from the Council’s Democratic Services team. This matter will also be discussed with the Planning Inspectorate and form part of the legal assessment prior to submission.

9 Development Management Policies 8.7 In addition to comments on sites and the strategy, a further 1,000 comments were made on the development management policies in the Plan. The three most commented-on policies were: • Policy 15 – Design principles • Policy 4 – Development in the Green Belt • Policy 7 – Transport and infrastructure. 8.8 Overall the Development Management policies were received very well, particularly by our statutory consultees and stakeholders including the Environment Agency, Natural England, Environmental Health, Highways England and KCC Highways. We also received detailed comments from our duty to cooperate partners.

8.9 The policies have been amended to reflect the comments made, particularly in response to any specific requirements identified by the statutory consultees. But ultimately these changes amount to minor amendments only, and it is proposed to carry forward the policies, as amended, into the next version of the Local Plan. The proposed development management policies are set out in Appendix 5 of this document. The associated maps are attached as Appendix 6.

Other land allocations 8.10 The Local Plan also allocates land for additional permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches. Sites for 40 additional pitches have been set out in the “Provision for the Gypsy and Traveller Community” policy to fully meet the District’s need.

8.11 Following the comments received on the proposed employment land allocations, the District’s need will be met through the retention of existing employment sites and the allocation of three new sites. This is set out in “Policy EMP1 Supporting a Vibrant and Balanced Economy” policy.

8.12 The district’s towns and local centres will continue to be protected and there are no significant changes to the policy or the proposed boundary amendments since the draft Local Plan consultation.

9 Other local authority examples 9.1 The following examples provide useful context of how the issue of housing need and Green Belt release is being considered in other local authority areas, both in and around London. These details should be carefully considered on the basis that every authority is different and the approach to plan making should be guided by local evidence and circumstances: Tandridge 9.2 It is understood that Tandridge has a housing need of 9,400 units and is seeking to deliver 6,056 units (64%) over the Plan period. At present, with the proposed Exceptional Circumstance Greenfield Sites, Sevenoaks will 10 meet approximately 70% of its housing need over the 20 year period of the Local Plan. Elmbridge 9.3 In order to justify Green Belt release, local authorities are required to demonstrate that all non-Green Belt opportunities have been fully investigated. Elmbridge has therefore commissioned an ‘urban capacity study’, which involves a full survey of all built up areas to identify opportunities for new homes. A study to identify opportunities for higher density development has also been commissioned.

Slough/South Bucks 9.4 Slough Borough is small authority to the west of London and has already built on most of its Green Belt land to meet housing need. As part of the issues and options consultation for its new Local Plan, the Council proposed a new settlement in the adjoining district of South Bucks to meet its housing need. The settlement is proposed on Green Belt land and is subject to considerable local opposition.

East Herts District 9.5 Located to the north/north west of London, East Herts Council adopted its Local Plan in October 2018. The Council proposes to meet its housing need of approximately 18,500 units in full. This involves the development of a 3,000 unit ‘Garden Village’ to the north of Harlow. Despite significant local opposition, the plan was found sound.

London Borough of Redbridge 9.6 The current London Plan opposes the release of Green Belt land to meet housing need. Instead, policies set targets for the development of ‘small sites’ under 0.25 hectares. Targets are based on an assumption that 1% of all residential units within 800 metres of a transport node could come forward for development or conversion. These numbers are high and for some boroughs, represent 50% of the total housing target. The approach has attracted significant objection, on the basis that it has the potential to fundamentally change the character of suburban areas.

9.7 Many outer London authorities are concerned with the small sites approach. LB Redbridge has recently adopted its Local Plan and proposes to release Green Belt sites to meet its substantial housing need. The exceptional circumstances tests applied in this case are similar to those outlined in paragraph 6.3 above and relate to:  Whether the site is located in the Green Belt,  The infrastructure offer associated with Green Belt release and whether this meets an existing need; and  The overall sustainability of the areas of Green Belt release.

11 9.8 The above examples indicate the tension between the policy objectives of meeting housing need and protecting the Green Belt land. Proposals which involve Green Belt release and the associated exceptional circumstances continue to be subject to considerable scrutiny by planning inspectors. However, the alternative to Green Belt release as a means of meeting housing needs, such as high density and small site development, can result in significant adverse impacts.

10 Soundness and compliance 10.1 Once submitted for examination, the plan will be assessed by the Inspector in terms of whether it is legally compliant and meets the following tests of ‘soundness’ as set out in the NPPF. Plans are sound if they are:

a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the areas objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;

b) Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;

c) Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and

d) Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework.

10.2 Consultees will be asked to comment specifically on whether the Plan meets these tests at Regulation 19 consultation stage. Very few Local Plans are adopted without some modifications by the inspector to ensure that the tests of soundness are met. From the advice received, officers are confident that the Plan, as drafted, is sound. Further guidance on the Regulation 19 consultation process will be provided nearer the time.

11 The current position: need vs supply 11.1 The content of this report indicates that the Council has an annual capped housing need figure of 698 units. Rolled forward over the 20 year period of the Plan and using the standardised methodology, the Council’s housing need of 13,960 units, plus the addition of a 20% buffer for the first five years. As part of the production of the Regulation 19 document, officers will need to provide evidence of the expected supply in years 1-5 and 6 – 10 of the Plan.

11.2 Government Guidance has been followed to ensure that all brownfield opportunities have been fully investigated. Officers are therefore content that there are exceptional circumstances for releasing the Green Belt sites identified in this report. It has not been demonstrated that exceptional

12 circumstances exist for other sites and as such, officers are of the view that the Council is justified in not fully meeting its assessed need for housing.

11.3 Government planning guidance notes that the Regulation 19 version of the plan should be a document that the Council considers to be sound and legally compliant. However, it is likely that sites and policies will continue to evolve as a result of consultation responses submitted at the Regulation 19 stage. Further changes are likely to occur during the course of the examination process.

12 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) 12.1 It should be noted that the Council is also proposing to consult on the following three SPDs alongside the Local Plan:  Affordable Housing SPD

 Development in the Green Belt SPD

 Design Review Panel SPD

13 Key Actions and next steps 13.1 The following issues will need to be addressed prior to the submission of the plan for examination:

Assessment of Density and Phasing 13.2 The peer review process has indicated that a specific ‘Issues Paper’ should be prepared to demonstrate that the Council is proposing an ‘optimum’ approach to development density. As noted above, demonstrating a five year supply of sites that meet the definition of ‘deliverable’ as set out in the NPPF for years 1-5 of the plan and a supply of ‘developable’ sites for years’ 6-10 will be a key focus of the examination process.

Evidence that all non-Green Belt options have been fully explored 13.3 The Council’s call for sites process has been open since 2015 and evidence has been prepared in accordance with Government guidelines to ensure that all previously developed sites have been investigated. The information on how officers have investigated capacity in built up areas is currently contained in a number of evidence base documents. As noted above, this will be compiled into a single report to clarify that all non-Green Belt options have been proactively investigated.

Production of a Key Diagram 13.4 The NPPF states that broad locations for development should be identified on a Key Diagram and land use designations on a Policies Map. These aspects of the plan are graphical representations of the development strategy and will be prepared as part of the Regulation 19 consultation document.

13 Further Peer review 13.5 Following the visit from IPe, officers will undertake a further ‘peer review’ process, in the form of a PINS Advisory visit. Counsel will be instructed for on-going support throughout the examination process.

13.6 The next steps in the production of the Local Plan are as follows:  Planning Advisory Committee: 22 November 2018

 Cabinet: 06 December 2018

 Pre-submission publication (Public consultation) – December 2018/ January 2019

 Full Council 26 February 2019

 Submission & Examination – Spring/Summer 2019

 Adoption – by the end of 2019.

13.7 The information contained in this report will be considered by Cabinet on 6 December 2018. If this is approved, the Regulation 19 version of the Plan will be published for a 6 week period of public consultation at the end of this year. All responses to the Regulation 19 consultation will be submitted to the Secretary of State alongside the Local Plan and evidence base in spring 2019.

Other options Considered and/or rejected

The option not to progress a new Local Plan would leave the Council open to reputational damage and likely Government intervention to produce a Local Plan for the District Council.

Key Implications

Financial

Production of the Local Plan will be funded from the Local Plan reserve.

Legal Implications and Risk Assessment Statement

Preparation of a Local Plan is a statutory requirement. There are defined legal requirements that must be met in plan making which are considered when the plan is examined by a Government Planning Inspector. Risks associated with Local Plan making are set out in the Local Development Scheme Equality Assessment

Members are reminded of the requirement, under the Public Sector Equality Duty (section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) to have due regard to (i) eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010, (ii) advance equality of opportunity between people from

14 different groups, and (iii) foster good relations between people from different groups. The preparation and adoption of a Local Plan will directly impact on end users. The impacts have been analysed via an Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) attached as Appendix 8.

Conclusion This report provides a summary of the outcome of the draft Local Plan consultation, which was undertaken for an eight-week period from Monday 16 July to Monday 10 September 2018. It sets out the key content of the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission version of the Plan and the process for taking this forward to examination. It is recommended that the Plan progresses to publication and submission for examination.

Appendices are not Appendix 1 – Local Plan Consultation Statement attached to the paper copy of the agenda Appendix 2 – Strategic Allocations Map & Greenfield Green Belt Site but are available on Allocation Maps the website. Appendix 3 – Site Appraisals (paper copies can be requested) Appendix 4 – Additional strategic green belt greenfield sites received during Draft Local Plan consultation

Appendix 5 – Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies

Appendix 6 – Development Management Policy maps

Appendix 7 – Draft Supplementary Planning Documents for Consultation

Appendix 8 – Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA)

https://cds.sevenoaks.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=326&MId=2316&Ver=4&J=2

PAC key progress reports: Background https://cds.sevenoaks.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CId=326&Year=0&J=1 papers 22 June 2017 Local Plan – for consultation 23 Nov 2017 Consultation update 14 March 2018 Local Plan Update 25 April 2018 Local Plan Update 19 June 2018 Draft Local Plan

Richard Morris Chief Planning Officer

15 22 November 2018 at 7.00 pm

Council Chamber, Argyle Road, Sevenoaks Despatched: 14.11.18

Planning Advisory Committee

Supplementary Agenda (1)

Pages Contact

6. Local Plan - Results of the Draft Local Plan James Gleave Consultation, agreement to publish the Tel: 01732227326 Regulation 19 proposed submission version and next steps (Pages 1 - 1048) APPENDICES 1 – 8

If you wish to obtain further factual information on any of the agenda items listed above, please contact the named officer prior to the day of the meeting.

Should you need this agenda or any of the reports in a different format, or have any other queries concerning this agenda or the meeting please contact Democratic Services on 01732 227000 or [email protected]. Agenda Item 6 Sevenoaks District Council Local Plan Consultation Statement

November 2018

1 Page 1 Agenda Item 6

Contents

Page

Introduction 3

Approach to Consultation 4

Bodies and Individuals Consulted 5

Preparation of a Local Plan (Reg. 18) 6

Evidence Base Gathering 7

Evidence Base Consultation 14

Call for Sites 26

Issues and Options Consultation 27

Draft Local Plan Consultation 34

Publication of a Local Plan (Reg. 19) 41

Appendices 44

2 Page 2 Agenda Item 6

Introduction

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

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

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

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

 Who was consulted (which bodies and persons the Local Planning Authority invited to make representations)

 How the community and local stakeholders were invited to make representations

 A summary of the main issues raised by the consultees at Regulation 18 stage (see section 4 and appendices B, C, D and E);

 An explanation of how the representations made at Regulation 18 stage have been taken into account (see appendices B, C, D and E); and

 The number of representations submitted at Reg. 19 stage (in accordance with Reg. 20) and a summary of the main issues which were raised (see section 5).

This consultation statement reflects the consultations carried out up until Regulation 19 stage, and a further statement will be produced after this consultation.

3 Page 3 Agenda Item 6

Approach to Consultation

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

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

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

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

4 Page 4 Agenda Item 6

Bodies and individuals consulted

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

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

5 Page 5 Agenda Item 6

Preparation of a Local Plan (Reg. 18)

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

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

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

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

6 Page 6 Agenda Item 6

Evidence Base gathering – 2015-2018

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

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

7 Page 7 Agenda Item 6

 Swanley and Hextable Master Vision  Swanley Transport Study   District-wide transport strategy  Affordable Housing /Whole Plan Viability   The Whole Plan Viability Study will update the existing viability evidence base in order to inform the Local Plan. It will form a key piece of evidence in determining the viability requirements for the District and how the Council can continue to deliver affordable homes, CIL and other plan requirements.

Biodiversity Analysis

AECOM were instructed by Sevenoaks District Council to undertake an assessment and analysis of the biodiversity value of land within the District. The council identified the need to establish a robust biodiversity evidence base to support the choice of housing and employment allocations through the Sevenoaks District Local Plan (2015-2015) and to potentially deliver net gain (e.g. through identifying lower value land for biodiversity which could be proactively enhanced through developer contributions). This document is intended to help support the evidence base by assisting in the site selection for the Local Plan. It also identifies sites that could potentially be subject to ecological enhancement.

Economic Needs Study

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

Green Belt Assessment

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd (Arup) were appointed by Sevenoaks District Council to undertake a Green Belt Assessment as part of the evidence base to inform the production of a new Local Plan for the District. The Green Belt Assessment assesses

8 Page 8 Agenda Item 6

the Sevenoaks Green Belt against the purposes of the Green Belt as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other local considerations.

Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment

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

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

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

Housing Strategy 2017

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

Infrastructure Delivery Plan

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

Landscape Character Assessment and Sensitivity Study

Sevenoaks District Council commissioned LUC in August 2016 to review and update the existing landscape character evidence base, and produce an updated landscape character assessment. It is intended to provide context for policies and proposals within the emerging Local Plan, inform the determination of planning applications,

9 Page 9 Agenda Item 6

and inform the management of future change. This character assessment updates the District’s previous Landscape Character Assessment.

LUC also produced a landscape sensitivity assessment.

Local Housing Needs Study (2017)

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

Open Space, Sport and Leisure Study:

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

 Initial Findings Document (2017)

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

10 Page 10 Agenda Item 6

 Playing Pitch Strategy – April 2018

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

 Open Space Study

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

 Sports Facility Strategy

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

Retail Study 2017

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

11 Page 11 Agenda Item 6

Settlement Hierarchy

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

Sevenoaks District Tourist Accommodation Study (September 2015)

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

Sevenoaks District Transport Study

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

Survey of Employers’ Housing Needs

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

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 2017 document replaces the Level 1 SFRA originally published by Sevenoaks District Council in August 2008 and provides supporting evidence for the emerging Local Plan. This updated SFRA will be used in 12 Page 12 Agenda Item 6 decision-making regarding the location of future development and the preparation of sustainable policies for the long-term management of flood risk.

Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA September 2015)

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

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

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

Swanley and Hextable Master Vision

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

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

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

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

13 Page 13 Agenda Item 6

Evidence Base Consultation

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Upper Darent Corridor – Westerham, Brasted, Sundridge and Chevening

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

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

These sessions were held on:

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

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

14 Page 14 Agenda Item 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

Findings

North East

Question 1 – Conserving the local character

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

15 Page 15 Agenda Item 6

 New Ash Green and West Kingsdown – Conserve open space

Question 2 – Opportunities for the future

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

Question 3 – Challenges for the area

 Preservation of Green Belt  Community Safety  Preservation of Green Belt

South

Question 1 – Conserving the local character

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

Question 2 – Opportunities for the future

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

Question 3 – Challenges for the area

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

North West

Question 1 – Conserving the local character

 Badgers Mount – Important woodland screening and Design

16 Page 16 Agenda Item 6

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

Question 2 – Opportunities for the future

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

Upper Darent Corridor

Question 1 – Conserving the local character

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

Question 2 – Opportunities for the future

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

Question 3 – Challenges for the area

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

Darent Valley

Question 1 – Conserving the local character

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

Question 2 – Opportunities for the future

 Otford – Vestry estate height limit

17 Page 17 Agenda Item 6

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

Question 3 – Challenges for the area

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

Sevenoaks Urban Area and Surrounds

Question 1 – Conserving the local character

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

Question 2 – Opportunities for the future

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

Question 3 – Challenges for the area

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

18 Page 18 Agenda Item 6

Call for Sites

The Call for Sites opened on Thursday 17th September 2015 at 09.00.

Sevenoaks District Council launched a Call for Sites submission scheme where local residents, landowners, developers, businesses and other interested parties were invited to put forward sites for potential development within the Sevenoaks District that may be suitable for future development and inclusion in the new Local Plan 2015 – 2035.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In total, Sevenoaks District Council has received 548 Call for Sites submissions to date.

26 Page 26 Agenda Item 6

Issues and Options Consultation

Public consultation period – Thursday 3rd August 2017 – Thursday 5th October 2017

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

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

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

Family Fun Days

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

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

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

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

27 Page 27 Agenda Item 6

Placemaking

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

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

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

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

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

 Upper Darent Corridor – Westerham, Brasted, Sundridge and Chevening

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

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

These sessions were held on:

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

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

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

28 Page 28 Agenda Item 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Placemaking workshops highlighted the following areas:

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

School Presentations

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

29 Page 29 Agenda Item 6

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

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

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

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

Train Station – Postcard Distribution

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

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

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

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

Drop-in Sessions

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

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

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

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

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

30 Page 30 Agenda Item 6

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

Agents and Developers Forum

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

 Thursday 17th August 2017 – Sevenoaks District Council Offices Agents and Developers Forum

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

Objective 1 – Promote housing choice for all

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

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

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

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

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

31 Page 31 Agenda Item 6

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

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

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

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

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

Representations on the Issues and Options Consultation

Representations were received from 15375 organisations and individuals and a total of 221,613 comments were made.

The objectives which generated the most responses were:

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

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

 Objective 1, Question 1 We should continue to protect the Green Belt by building new homes on land which has been previously built on? I.e. Brownfield land – 15139 responses

32 Page 32 Agenda Item 6

73% strongly agree and 20% agree 3% neither agree nor disagree 3% disagree and 2% strongly disagree

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

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

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

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

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

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

33 Page 33 Agenda Item 6

Draft Local Plan Consultation

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

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

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

Interactive Map

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

Consultation Responses and Validating Process

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

Train Station – Postcard Distribution

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

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

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

34 Page 34 Agenda Item 6

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

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

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

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

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

Document Distribution

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

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

SeeLocal Social Media Campaign

A new feature for the Draft Local Plan Consultation was a Social Media campaign with SeeLocal, with a focus on gaining a response from millennials. This allowed us to put adverts on frequently visited web pages such as Facebook and Google. The campaign was launched on Tuesday 14th August and ran until Monday 10th September. This generated a greater response to the consultation. The last report from SeeLocal was received on 28th September 2018 and shows:

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

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

35 Page 35 Agenda Item 6

Drop-in Sessions

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

Unlike the Issues and Options consultation, we organised some of our Drop-in sessions outside as opposed to in offices or village halls. This was to capture the footfall around town and inform members of the public who may not have been aware of the consultation. These drop-in sessions were held on:

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

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

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

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

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

 Wednesday 5th September 2018 – 2-8pm Sevenoaks District Council Offices, Argyle Road, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN13 1HG

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

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

Planning Policy Officers also attended two extra drop in sessions, which were organised by Halstead Parish Council, to provide support. This request was accepted due to the proximity of the settlement to a proposed Exceptional Circumstances site. 36 Page 36 Agenda Item 6

These sessions were held on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Set 1

1. Do you agree with our approach to ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ and do you have any thoughts on this strategy? 2. What do you think of Article 4 directions being set on new office accommodation, to protect our employment base? 3. What are your thoughts on providing more affordable housing? For example; smaller sites, cross subsidy and rural exception sites. 4. What are your thoughts on the proposed stream-lined Green Belt policies?

Set 2:

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

The findings of each question were:

Question 1

 A transparent approach for judging Exceptional Circumstances sites is vital 37 Page 37 Agenda Item 6

 More difficult for smaller sites to use the Exceptional Circumstances strategy

Set 1 Question 2

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

Set 1 Question 3

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

Set 2 Question 2

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

Set 2 Question 3

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

Set 2 Question 4

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

Specific Consultation Sessions

More specific consultation sessions were also undertaken as follows:

 Wednesday 13th June 2018 – Sevenoaks District Council Tandridge Duty to Cooperate

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

 Wednesday 1st August 2018 – Sevenoaks District Council Offices Duty to Cooperate with Kent County Council

 Monday 3rd September 2018 – Mid Sussex Office Wealden Duty to Cooperate

 Tuesday 11th September 2018 – Sevenoaks District Council Offices West Kent Duty to Cooperate Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council / Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

38 Page 38 Agenda Item 6

 Thursday 13th September 2018 – Sevenoaks District Council Offices North Kent Duty to Cooperate Dartford Borough Council / Gravesham Borough Council

 Thursday 27th September 2018 – Sevenoaks District Council Offices Duty to Cooperate with Highways England

 Wednesday 3rd October 2018 Duty to Cooperate London Borough of Bromley / London Borough of Bexley

Representations on the Draft Local Plan Consultation

Representations were received by 6232 organisations and individuals and a total of 8,568 comments were made.

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

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

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

The sites which generated the most responses were:

 MX52 and MX53 – Corinthians and Banckside, Hartley 1721 Comments

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

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

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

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

The policies that generated the most responses were:

39 Page 39 Agenda Item 6

 Policy 2 – Housing and Mixed Use Allocations 308 comments

 Policy 1 – Balanced Strategy for Growth 118 comments

 Policy 15 – Design Principles 36 comments

 Policy 4 – Development in the Green Belt 36 comments

 Policy 7 – Transport and Infrastructure 30 comments

40 Page 40 Agenda Item 6

Publication of a Local Plan (Reg. 19)

Opportunity to make representations – Monday 10th December 2018 to Monday 21st January 2019

The Draft Local Plan for Submission will set out the Council’s proposed allocations and policies as the Council wish to see them adopted, following the consideration of all consultations undertaken as part of the Reg. 18 stage (as well as the completion of technical studies etc.)

To publicise the consultation:

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

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

The Planning Policy Team will be holding a series of public drop-in sessions as part of the Regulation 19 consultation. These will be held on:

 Tuesday 8th January 2019 – 2pm – 8pm Swanley Town Council Offices, St Mary’s Rd, Swanley, BR8 7BU

 Thursday 10th January 2019 – 2pm – 8pm The Eden Centre, Four Elms Road, Edenbridge, Kent, TN8 6BY

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

41 Page 41

Ag

enda Item6

Appendix A Pa

g Regulation 18 Issues and Options Consultation Findings e 42

42

Sevenoaks District Council Local Plan Consultation

Pa

g Main Consultation slides e 43 Prepared by Lake Market Research

November 2017 Ag

enda Item6

This report complies with ISO:20252 standards and other relevant forms of conduct Profile of those responding to Consultation

Gender of respondent Working status of respondent

Ag Male 48% Employee in full time job 26% enda Item6 Female 52% Employee in part time job 9%

Prefer not to answer 2% Self-employed full or part time 10% On a government supported training programme 0.06%

Age of respondent In full time education at school, college or university 0.3% Under 16 0.1% Unemployed and available for work 1% 16Pa - 17 0.1% Permanently sick / disabled 2% g

18e 44 - 24 1% Wholly retired from work 41% 25 – 34 5% Looking after the home 5% 35 – 44 10% Something else 2% 45 – 54 16% Prefer not to answer 4% 55 – 64 20%

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

Disabled as set out in Equality Act 2010 Two 9%

Yes 12% Three 2% No 82% More than three 0.4% Prefer not to answer 6% Prefer not to answer 3%

Base: Various for each question (unweighted between 14,604 and 15,164) 2 Profile of those responding to Consultation

Gender of respondent Consultation response Profile of area

Male 48% 48%

Female 52% 52%

Prefer not to answer 2%

AgePa of respondent Consultation response Profile of area g

16e 45 - 24 1.2% 12%

25 – 44 16% 30%

45 – 64 36% 35% Ag

65 and over 43% 23% enda Item6

Prefer not to answer 4%

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

Consultation Profile Consultation Profile

Sevenoaks District Council wards Sevenoaks District Council wards Ag response of area response of area enda Item6 Ash & New Ash Green 5% 5% Leigh & Chiddingstone Causeway 2% 2% Brasted, Chevening & Sundridge 6% 5% Otford & Shoreham 4% 4% Cowden & Hever 2% 2% Penshurst, Fordcombe & 2% 2% Chiddingstone Crockenhill & Well Hill 2% 2% Seal & Weald 4% 4% Dunton Green & Riverhead 4% 4% Pa Sevenoaks Eastern 4% 3% Edenbridge North & East 4% 4% g

e 46 Sevenoaks Kippington 5% 4% Edenbridge South & West 4% 4% Sevenoaks Northern 3% 4% Eynsford 2% 2% Sevenoaks Town & St.Johns 6% 6% Farningham, Horton, Kirby & 4% 4% South Darenth Swanley Christchurch & Swanley 4% 5% Village Fawkham & West Kingsdown 5% 6% Swanley St Mary’s 2% 4% Halstead, Knockholt & Badgers 4% 3% Mount Swanley White Oak 4% 5% Harley & Hodsoll Street 5% 5% Westerham & Crockham Hill 6% 4% Hextable 4% 4% Kemsing 4% 4% Consultation profile percentages have been rebased in the table above to exclude those outside of Sevenoaks – 6% of those answering

Base: unweighted (15,351) 4 Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

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

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

Pa g e 47 Agree, 20%

92% Ag

enda Item6 Strongly agree, 73%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,139 236

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 5 Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q2. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should continue to protect the Green Belt by building new homes at slightly higher density? Ag enda Item6 This means building more homes on a plot of land than we do at the moment.

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

Pa

g

e 48 Disagree, 21% 56%

Neither agree nor Agree, 33% disagree, 14%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

14,991 384

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 6 Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

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

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

Pa

g e 49 Neither support nor oppose, 21% 66%

Ag

enda Item6

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

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 7 Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q3a. To what extent do you support or oppose the following concepts… Ag

Draft Northern Sevenoaks Masterplan - Based on Sevenoaks North ward responses only enda Item6

Strongly oppose, 11%

20% Strongly support, Pa 32% g

e 50 Oppose, 9%

Neither support nor oppose, 13% 67%

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

486 27

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 513) 8 Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

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

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

Pa

g

e 51

Neither support nor oppose, 13% 69% Ag

enda Item6

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

4,892 262

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

Q3b. To what extent do you support or oppose the following concepts… Ag

‘Which Way Westerham’ enda Item6

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

Pa Oppose, 7%

g e 52 54%

Neither support nor oppose, 27% Support, 34%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

12,893 2,482

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 10 Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

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

Strongly support, 11%

22% Support, 10%

Pa g

e 53 Neither support nor oppose, 5%

Ag Oppose, 9% enda Item6 73%

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

875 41

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 916) 11 Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q4. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should promote affordable housing and smaller private homes to meet the needs of all Ag enda Item6 of our residents.

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

g disagree, 8% e 54

Strongly agree, 47%

Agree, 36% 84%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,136 239

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 12 Objective 2: Promoting well designed, safe places and safeguarding and enhancing the District’s distinctive high quality natural and built environments

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

Pa

g

e 55 Landscaping, green infrastructure and 65% 96% 31% 3% 14,717 658 sustainable drainage

Ag

enda Item6

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

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

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

Q6. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should make more efficient use of existing employment sites and redevelop suitable brownfield Ag enda Item6 land to meet the need for more employment land.

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

e 56

Agree, 35% Strongly agree, 57%

92%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,108 267

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

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

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

Pa

g e 57 Strongly agree, 46%

Ag

enda Item6

Agree, 43% 89%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,059 316

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

Q8. How much do you agree or disagree with… Ag

Our approach to protecting our existing town centres and local centres. enda Item6

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

Pa

g e 58

Agree, 37% Strongly agree, 54%

91%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,163 212

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

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

Pa

g e 59

Ag

Strongly agree, 54% enda Item6 Agree, 37%

91%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,081 294

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 17 Objective 5: Promoting healthy living opportunities

Q10. How much do you agree or disagree with… Ag

Our approach to encouraging healthy communities. enda Item6

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

Pa

g

e 60

Agree, 34%

Strongly agree, 59%

93%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,080 295

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 15,375) 18 Objective 5: Promoting healthy living opportunities

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

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

Pa

g

e 61

Agree, 33%

Ag

enda Item6 Strongly agree, 60%

93%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

14,991 295

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

Q12. How much do you agree or disagree with … Ag

Our approach to promoting a greener future. enda Item6

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

Pa

g

e 62

Agree, 33%

Strongly agree, 60%

92%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

15,100 384

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

Sevenoaks District Council Local Plan Consultation

Pa

g School Consultation slides e 63 Prepared by Lake Market Research

November 2017 Ag enda Item6

This report complies with ISO:20252 standards and other relevant forms of conduct Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q1. How much do you agree or disagree that… Ag We should continue to protect the Green Belt by building new homes on land which has been enda Item6 previously built on? I.e. Brownfield land

Strongly disagree, Strongly agree, 24% 5%

Disagree, 9% 14%

Pa

g

e 64 Neither agree nor disagree, 15% 71%

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

212 14

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

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

Disagree, 17%

57% Pa

g e 65

Ag

enda Item6 Neither agree nor disagree, 23% Agree, 41%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

210 16

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

Q3a. To what extent do you support or oppose the following concepts… Ag

Draft Northern Sevenoaks Masterplan enda Item6

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

Pa

g Neither support nor e 66 oppose, 17%

72%

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

175 51

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 24 Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

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

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

Pa

g Neither support nor 67% e 67 oppose, 23%

Ag

enda Item6

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

172 54

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 25 Objective 1: Promoting housing choice for all

Q4. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should promote affordable housing and smaller private homes to meet the needs of all Ag enda Item6 of our residents.

Strongly disagree, Disagree, 5% 2% 7%

Pa

g Neither agree nor e 68 disagree, 15% Strongly agree, 40%

78%

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

216 10

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

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

Pa

g

e 69 Landscaping, green infrastructure and 38% 83% 44% 14% 213 13 sustainable drainage

Ag

enda Item6

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

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

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

Q6. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should make more efficient use of existing employment sites and redevelop suitable brownfield Ag enda Item6 land to meet the need for more employment land.

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

Pa

g e 70 Neither agree nor disagree, 22%

71%

Base size answering Not answered / No Agree, 43% scale opinion

207 19

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 28 Objective 3: Supporting a vibrant local economy both urban and rural

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

Pa

g e 71

67% Neither agree nor

disagree, 23% Ag

enda Item6

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

199 27

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 29 Objective 4: Supporting lively communities with well performing town and village centres that provide a range of services, facilities and infrastructure

Q8. How much do you agree or disagree with… Ag

Our approach to protecting our existing town centres and local centres. enda Item6

Strongly disagree, 2% Disagree, 4% 6%

Pa Neither agree nor

g disagree, 10% e 72 Strongly agree, 38%

83%

Agree, 45% Base size answering Not answered / No

scale opinion

203 23

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 30 Objective 4: Supporting lively communities with well performing town and village centres that provide a range of services, facilities and infrastructure

Q9. How much do you agree or disagree that… We should prioritise working closely with other councils, public bodies and service providers to deliver what infrastructure is needed, where it is needed and when it is needed, to support new development. Strongly disagree, Disagree, 3% 2%

4% Strongly agree, 25%

Pa Neither agree nor

g disagree, 24% e 73

72%

Ag

enda Item6

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

209 17

Base: Various for each question (Not relevant & not answered excluded – original base size 226) 31 Objective 5: Promoting healthy living opportunities

Q10. How much do you agree or disagree with… Ag

Our approach to encouraging healthy communities. enda Item6

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

Pa

g

e 74

Strongly agree, 45%

Agree, 46% 92%

Base size answering Not answered / No scale opinion

209 17

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

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

Strongly disagree, 2% Disagree, 8% 10%

Strongly agree, 37% Pa Neither agree nor

g disagree, 10% e 75

Ag

enda Item6

79%

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

210 16

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

Q12. How much do you agree or disagree with … Ag

Our approach to promoting a greener future. enda Item6

Strongly disagree, Disagree, 5% 2%

7% Strongly agree, 33% Pa g

e 76 Neither agree nor disagree, 19%

74%

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

207 19

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

Appendix B Pa g Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan Consultation Findings e 77 Exceptional Circumstances Sites Ag enda Item6

46

Broke Hill Golf Course, Halstead – MX41 Pa g e 81 Ag enda Item6

50

Agenda Item 6 Local Plan Site Appraisals – November 2018

1 Page 97 Agenda Item 6

Table of Contents

1. Site Appraisal Methodology

2. Sustainability Appraisal for the Sevenoaks Local Plan: Site Assessment Criteria

3. Introduction to Site Appraisals

4. Sites included in the Submission Plan

5. Sites not included in the Submission Plan

6. Other Sites including those Withdrawn, Superseded and subject to Planning Permission

2 Page 98 Agenda Item 6

1. Site Appraisal Methodology

All sites submitted for development were subject to a thorough appraisal following the process set out below.

3 Page 99 Agenda Item 6

Stage 1 Site Appraisal

All available sites submitted in the “call for sites” were subject to a stage 1 site appraisal. For sites submitted up to October 2017 this appraisal was used to identify which sites would be subject to the draft Local Plan consultation in summer 2018.

Sites submitted since October 2017 have also been subject to a stage 1 appraisal and those considered potentially suitable at the end of the stage 1 appraisal have been subject to the stage 2 appraisal.

The stage 1 appraisals were undertaken as follows:

4 Page 100 Agenda Item 6

Call for sites

The call for sites ran from October 2015 to October 2018. Landowners and developers were invited to put forward sites for all types of development including for housing, employment, retail, gypsy and traveller pitches and mixed use.

Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

All sites submitted to the District Council for consideration are subject to a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) in accordance with the Strategic Environment Assessment Directive. The SA assesses sites irrespective of local policy or strategy and with a focus on the potential environmental, social and economic impact of development on the site. The findings of the SA led to the following actions within the site appraisal:

 Substantially negative impacts on sustainability were noted in the stage 1 appraisal as “Key Messages from the SA”.  Site boundaries were amended to exclude protected areas or where the constraints are unlikely to be overcome e.g. Ancient Woodland, SSSI, Flood Zones. The sites were then subject to a further SA on the reduced site area and continued in the site appraisal process.  The SA identified where input from technical specialists or technical surveys may be needed e.g. the Environment Agency or Natural England.  The SA findings resulted in additional design guidance or where additional information was required for any proposed allocations.

Details of the SA process can be found in section 2 and the findings will be included within each site appraisal.

Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA)

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

The SHELAA was initially published in July 2017 and updated in July 2018. It includes assessments of the following sources of supply:

 Sites submitted for all types of development through the ‘call for sites’ process between October 2015 and October 2017;  Sites already allocated in the Allocations and Development Management Plan (ADMP) that were yet to come forward;  In addition the empty properties register, refused/withdrawn planning applications, and 2008/09 SHLAA sites were also interrogated.

Sites were assessed for their suitability, availability and achievability. Full details of the methodology used and process followed are set out in the SHELAA 2018 document and associated appendices.

The SHELAA is an iterative process and a further update is planned for publication in December 2018 to accompany the Regulation 19 pre-submission version of the Local Plan.

5 Page 101 Agenda Item 6

This update will include assessments of new sites submitted between November 2017 and September 2018, and any updates to the assessments set out in the previous update of the SHELAA where additional information has been submitted.

Site Deliverability Assessment

Whilst the SHELAA and Sustainability Appraisal provide details on the suitability and sustainability of sites, they do not consider any policy constraints or site specific information that could be material considerations. The introduction of a deliverability assessment for all sites allowed the consideration of such data, including drawing out suitable brownfield sites and greenfield sites in the Green Belt where social and community infrastructure is proposed. Essentially, the deliverability assessment introduced a policy-on approach. This was particularly important given the significant constraints that exist within the District (93% Green Belt and 60% AONB).

The deliverability assessments considered the following issues:

 Whether an existing use would be lost;  Any access requirements;  For sites within the Green Belt, whether the Green Belt in that location is performing well and if there are any boundary issues;  Any viability issues;  Whether new social and community infrastructure is proposed;  Whether any input from technical specialists is required; and  Any other site specific considerations.

On completion of this information, sites were given a deliverability conclusion, based on the following rules:

 Green:

o Sites within existing settlements where there are no deliverability issues. o Greenfield sites in the Green Belt where they lie within a weakly performing Green Belt parcel and propose social and community infrastructure. o Previously developed and locally defined brownfield sites in the Green Belt where they lie within a weakly performing Green Belt parcel and propose social and community infrastructure.

 Yellow:

o Sites within existing settlements where there are minor deliverability issues. o Sites where an existing use would be lost e.g. employment, community, open space. o Previously developed sites in the Green Belt where there are no deliverability issues (and where relevant, the exclusion of any greenfield land). o Greenfield sites in the Green Belt where they lie within a moderate or strong performing Green Belt parcel and propose social and community infrastructure. o Previously developed and locally defined brownfield sites in the Green Belt where they lie within a moderate/strong performing Green Belt parcel and propose social and community infrastructure.

6 Page 102 Agenda Item 6

 Orange:

o Locally defined brownfield sites in the Green Belt where there are no deliverability issues (and where relevant, the exclusion of any greenfield land). o Greenfield sites in the Green Belt where they lie within a weakly performing Green Belt parcel but propose no social and community infrastructure.

 Red:

o Sites already allocated for a particular use e.g. employment, open space. o Sites located in a strategic gap. o Greenfield sites in the Green Belt where they lie within a moderate or strong performing Green Belt parcel and propose no social and community infrastructure. o Sites that are subject to constraints that are unlikely to be overcome.

Input from technical specialists

Some sites lie within or adjacent to designated, protected or sensitive areas where input from technical specialists has been sought to determine the potential impact of development. This includes but is not limited to:

Constraint/designation Technical Specialist When consulted Area of Outstanding Natural Kent Downs AONB Unit During site appraisal process Beauty High Weald AONB Unit and draft Local Plan consultation Flood zone Environment Agency During site appraisal process and draft Local Plan consultation Surface Water runoff Kent County Council Draft Local Plan consultation Source protection zones Environment Agency During site appraisal process and draft Local Plan consultation Air Quality Management Environmental Health During site appraisal process Area and draft Local Plan consultation Historic Landfill Sites Environmental Health During site appraisal process and draft Local Plan consultation Heritage Assets including Conservation Team Following additional Conservation Area, locally Historic England information received during register historic park and the draft Local Plan garden and listed buildings consultation Ancient Woodland Natural England Draft Local Plan consultation Areas of High Biodiversity Biodiversity Team fieldwork During site appraisal process Value Areas of Archaeological KCC Archaeology Draft Local Plan consultation Potential Registered Parks and Historic England Draft Local Plan consultation Gardens Scheduled Monument Historic England Draft Local Plan consultation Sites of Special Scientific Natural England Draft Local Plan consultation

7 Page 103 Agenda Item 6

Interest Areas along the road network KCC Highways During site appraisal process with specific traffic issues and draft Local Plan consultation Strategic Road Network e.g. Highways England Draft Local Plan consultation M25

Local Plan Strategy

A strategy has been produced for addressing:

 Housing Need  Employment Need  Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Need  Retail Need

The strategies are summarised in this document below however the full strategy explanation can be found in the relevant sections of the draft Local Plan.

Housing Strategy

The strategy for identifying land for new housing development is as follows:

 Maximising densities in existing settlements (non-green belt);  Redeveloping sustainable brownfield sites in the Green Belt (PDL and locally defined brownfield); and  Developing greenfield sites in the Green Belt only where there are convincing exceptional circumstances such as the inclusion of evidenced social and community infrastructure that benefits the existing community as well as the proposed.

Employment Strategy

The strategy for identifying new sustainable employment land is as follows:

 Sites close to the existing transport network, particularly the strategic road and rail network;  Sites adjacent to or close to existing protected employment land; and  Sites on the edge of existing settlements.

Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Strategy

The strategy to identify locations for additional permanent pitches has been developed, subject to site sustainability and suitability, and has been endorsed by Local Members:

 Identifying existing temporary pitches that can be made permanent;  Identifying additional permanent pitches on sites with existing pitches within the current site boundary to achieve a higher density; and  Identifying additional permanent pitches on sites with existing pitches with small scale minor boundary amendments in consultation with Local Members.

8 Page 104 Agenda Item 6

Retail Strategy

The strategy for the retail need for the District focuses on:

 Redeveloping, regenerating and intensifying existing town centres;  Allocating additional retail floorspace within suitable employment or mixed use allocations; and  Providing additional retail floorspace on suitable brownfield land located close to transport hubs.

Stage 1 Site Appraisal Conclusion

Sites have been separated into appraisal categories according to the findings of the site appraisal and whether the sites accord with the relevant Local Plan Strategy. This conclusion takes into account:

 The SHELAA findings  The Sustainability Appraisal findings  The Deliverability Conclusion  The relevant Local Plan Strategy

Rules have been developed to help the categorisation of sites, these are outlined below.

In addition to the “Green, Yellow, Orange and Red” categories some sites have been placed in the “Blue” category.

A site has been placed in the “Blue” category if:

 The site is too small to accommodate at least 5 housing units; or  The site lies within the Green Belt and has been promoted for employment use and is currently in that use.

Sites in the “Blue” category can be developed under existing and/or proposed policy in the Local Plan.

Where a site located in the Green Belt contains a mix of greenfield and brownfield land, and no social or community infrastructure is proposed, the site area has been reduced to exclude the greenfield element of the site in order to accord with the strategy. An exception to this rule is where a site contains a dwelling and associated garden and the site lies adjacent to the built confines of a settlement.

In addition, sites within strategic gaps between Green Belt settlements with no social or community infrastructure proposed have been reduced to the previously developed land only.

9 Page 105 Agenda Item 6

How sites have been categorised for the stage 1 appraisal conclusion

A site has been placed in the “Green” category if it is consistent with the relevant Local Plan Strategy and if:

 There are no overriding constraints to restrict development;  The development is unlikely to have an impact on any protected land, heritage assets;  There are no site specific issues which are unlikely to be overcome e.g. access;  The site is deliverable with no viability issues;  The proposed loss of the existing use is acceptable.

A site has been placed in the “Yellow” category if it is consistent with the relevant Local Plan Strategy but more information is required to assess if:

 There are no overriding constraints to restrict development  The development is unlikely to have an impact on any protected land, heritage assets;  There are no site specific issues which are unlikely to be overcome e.g. access;  The site is deliverable;  The proposed infrastructure and/or community benefits relate to an evidenced local need;  The proposed loss of the existing use has not yet been assessed.

A site has been placed in the “Orange” category if it is not consistent with the relevant Local Plan Strategy but doesn’t meet any of the “Red” criteria. This may be for one or more of the following reasons:

 The site is promoted for housing and is greenfield with no proposed infrastructure and/or community benefits to warrant exceptional circumstances in accordance with the strategy; and/or  The site is promoted for housing and is part greenfield, part PDL/brownfield on the edge of a settlement where the PDL/brownfield element alone would result in a site not capable of accommodating at least 5 units and the site does not meet the criteria for greenfield exceptional circumstances.

A site has been placed in the “Red” category if one or more of the following applies:

1. The site lies within an area of land wholly or mostly designated as an “absolute constraint”:

 Site of Special Scientific Interest  National or European designated site  Floodplain 3b  Scheduled Ancient Monument  Registered Park and Garden  Ancient Woodland

2. The site lies within an area of land wholly or mostly designated as:

 Local Wildlife Site  Floodplain 3a  Local Nature Reserve  Historic Park and Garden in Kent (local designation)

10 Page 106 Agenda Item 6

3. The site is greenfield, does not lie adjacent to an existing settlement Green Belt boundary, is considered to be in an unsustainable or unsuitable location and is not consistent with the relevant Local Plan Strategy.

4. The site lies within the strategic gap between Green Belt settlements.

5. The site is cannot be developed due to impacts or restrictions unlikely to be overcome, including but not limited to:

 Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty  Inadequate access arrangements  Impact on air quality or impact of an AQMA  Loss of habitat and impact on biodiversity and wildlife  Existing allocations for a protected use  Sites with multiple constraints  Overdevelopment of site  Development will have a detrimental impact on local character

Stage 2 Site Appraisal

Following the Draft Local Plan consultation a further appraisal was undertaken of the sites included within the Draft Local Plan, and any additional sites submitted that meet the strategy. The most suitable sites that met the Local Plan Strategy have been included in the proposed submission draft of the Local Plan.

Site Considerations

A Red-Amber-Green rating system was devised to assess the main qualities of each site. This considered whether the site:

 Is within or adjoining an existing settlement;  Is close to existing services, facilities and public transport;  Is within a strongly, moderately or weakly performing parcel of Green Belt as identified by the Green Belt Assessment; and  Has landscape constraints including Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and any landscape sensitivity.

Consideration has also been given to the optimum density of potential development on each site, in order to make the most efficient use of land. This included the:

 Location;  Existing built form;  Access to services, facilities and public transport; and  Efficient use of land.

The following matrix has been developed to guide optimum densities in the most suitable locations for the most appropriate types of development:

11 Page 107 Agenda Item 6

Location Description Density range Types of development expected Central / town Sevenoaks 150 DPH + Flats centres Swanley Edenbridge Urban areas Sevenoaks 50 – 150 DPH Flats Swanley Terraced Edenbridge Town houses Westerham Semi-detached New Ash Green Detatched Otford Hartley Edge of urban areas Sevenoaks 40 – 60 DPH Flats Swanley Terraced Edenbridge Town houses Westerham Semi-detached New Ash Green Detatched Otford Hartley Other built up areas West Kingsdown 40 – 60 DPH Flats (villages) South Darenth Terraced Hextable Semi-detached Seal Detatched Brasted Kemsing Eynsford Crockenhill Halstead Leigh Farningham Sevenoaks Weald Sundridge Knockholt Shoreham Four Elms Edge of villages West Kingsdown 30 – 60 DPH Flats South Darenth Terraced Hextable Semi-detached Seal Detatched Brasted Kemsing Eynsford Crockenhill Halstead Leigh Farningham Sevenoaks Weald Sundridge Knockholt Shoreham Four Elms

12 Page 108 Agenda Item 6

Rural locations Horton Kirby (already developed Ide Hill sites) Penshurst Hever Fawkham Chiddingstone Chiddingstone Causeway Badgers Mount Cowden Underriver Crockham Hill Fordcombe Hodsoll Street Ash Stone Street Mark Beech Swanley Village Chiddingstone Hoath Toys Hill Well Hill Chevening Knatts Valley Bough Beech Bitchet Green Heaverham Godden Green Marsh Green Pratts Bottom

Additional Information Requirements

Sites that had been categorised as “Yellow” in the stage 1 site appraisals were included in the draft Local Plan consultation subject to additional information. The draft Local Plan set out what additional information was required so that a complete assessment of the site could be undertaken. Such additional information included:

 Information on the loss of the existing use;  Assessment of the impact of the site on a heritage asset;  Advice from technical specialists such as Highways England, Natural England or Environmental Health regarding a site specific issue; and  Input from infrastructure providers including the local highways authority (KCC Highways), Clinical Commissioning Groups and education providers.

It is noted in the appraisal if the information was received and also whether the information provided was sufficient to demonstrate that the site could be taken forward as an allocation in the Local Plan.

13 Page 109 Agenda Item 6

Delivery

It is important to understand when a site can be delivered. The NPPF clearly sets out that the Local Plan should identify a supply of:

a) Specific, deliverable sites for years 15 of the plan period; and b) Specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-1 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the Plan.

Definitions of “deliverable” and “developable” can be found within the glossary of the NPPF. Each site has been categorised as “deliverable” or “developable” according to evidence of when the site can be delivered. Such evidence may include:

 When the site will become available – e.g. is there an existing use that is still active?  Whether there are any physical or viability constraints that may cause issues for delivery such as contamination.  Evidence of site progression such as the appointment of architects, housing developers, non-confidential pre-application discussions etc.  Any barriers to delivery such as multiple landowners or legal tenants.

Further evidence and information may be requested from site promoters to demonstrate that a site is “deliverable”. In the absence of information, or where the appraisal has identified potential barriers to delivery, suitable sites have been considered as “developable”.

Draft Local Plan Consultation Comments

The majority of sites progressing to the Regulation 19 publication stage of the Local Plan were included in the Draft Local Plan consultation in Summer 2018.

The comments received during the consultation have been summarised and form part of the appraisal process.

Local Plan Strategy Assessment

Each site was assessed against the relevant Local Plan Strategy following any additional information submitted and any technical advice received.

Sites within the Green Belt were tested to determine whether the benefits of the development outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Account was taken of:

 The history of the site and its current use;  Green Belt strength according to the Green Belt Assessment;  Whether the site is classed as previously developed land or has been developed; and  Whether the proposal makes the best use of the land.

For the greenfield Green Belt sites proposing a mix of uses, the promoter was required to demonstrate that the infrastructure and community benefits proposed meets an existing evidenced need. Analysis has been undertaken within the appraisal to test the claims of the promoter.

14 Page 110 Agenda Item 6

Conclusions

For a site to be included in the Regulation 19 pre-submission version of the Local Plan it must have a positive outcome in both the site appraisal conclusion and the local plan strategy assessment.

15 Page 111 Agenda Item 6

2. Sustainability Appraisal for the Sevenoaks Local Plan: Site Assessment Criteria

Purpose of this note:

This note sets out the steps and criteria utilised when undertaking the GIS-based SA site assessment of the c.450 sites proposed within the Green Belt. These were developed following discussions between SDC and AECOM between December 2017 and May 2018.

Step 1: Evaluation of absolute constraints

Where the following constraints are present, sites will not be taken forward for further consideration unless the site area can be reduced and the site remains developable.

 Over 50% of site intersects with a Flood Risk Zone 2 or 3  Presence of an SSSI on the site  Presence of ancient woodland on the site  The site is within/covers part of a Registered Park and Garden  A Scheduled Monument covers part of the site

Where these absolute constraints are highlighted, this will be identified in the Site Appraisal.

Step 2: Evaluation of non-absolute constraints

Step 2 considers the ‘non-absolute’ constraints present at a site. The following criteria are proposed for evaluating at this step, utilising a red / amber / green (RAG) approach to scorings.

16 Page 112 Agenda Item 6

Table: Proposed criteria to evaluate at Step 2

Criteria ‘RAG’ rules Commentary Green Belt R = Strong These are site scorings determined by the Green Belt A = Moderate Assessment, which has evaluated how each site performs G = Weak against the role and function of Green Belt as set out in National Policy. Areas of R = Within AONB This reflects the presence of the Kent Downs AONB across Outstanding A = Within 5km of AONB the centre of the district and the High Weald AONB in the Natural Beauty G = Over 5km from AONB south of the district. Landscape R = Medium-High/High These scorings are based on the conclusions of the Landscape sensitivity A = Medium Sensitivity Study where available and earlier evidence base G = Low/Low-Medium work for areas outside the scope of the LSS. Agricultural land R = Grade 1 or 2 Recent land classification has not been undertaken in many quality A = Grade 3 parts of the district. As such the pre-1988 classification is the G = Grade 4/5 or urban only means of consistently comparing sites. This does not however provide a distinction between Grade 3a (i.e. land classified as the ‘best and most versatile’) and Grade 3b land (i.e. land which is not classified as such). As such Grade 3 land has been assigned an ‘amber’ score. SSSI Impact Risk R = Within an SSSI IRZ for Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) are a GIS tool developed by Natural Zones all development England to make a rapid initial assessment of the potential A = Within an SSSI IRZ for risks to SSSIs posed by development proposals. They define the type and scale of zones around each SSSI which reflect the particular development likely to be sensitivities of the features for which it is notified and indicate proposed the types of development proposal which could potentially G = Not within an SSSI IRZ have adverse impacts. The IRZs also cover the interest features and sensitivities of European sites, which are underpinned by the SSSI designation and “Compensation Sites”, which have been secured as compensation for impacts on Natura 2000/Ramsar sites. LPAs have a duty to consult Natural England before granting planning permission on any development that is in or likely to affect a SSSI. As such IRZs enable a consideration of whether a proposed development is likely to affect a SSSI and determine whether they will need to consult Natural England to seek advice on the nature of any potential SSSI impacts and how they might be avoided or mitigated. Proximity to a R = Includes or is adjacent There are a number of LWS situated within the district. The Local Wildlife A = <50m RAG distances reflect this, along with the assumption that the Site G = >50m sites are of less significance/ are less sensitive than nationally designated SSSIs. Proximity to a R = Includes or is adjacent This seeks to flag if a development at a site could result in the BAP priority A = <50m loss of and therefore fragmentation of BAP priority habitats. habitat G = >50m It also helps to flag if there is the potential for disturbance to priority habitats within 50m of the site.

17 Page 113 Agenda Item 6

Criteria ‘RAG’ rules Commentary Ecological R = Biodiversity High This builds on the Biodiversity Analysis work AECOM have A = Biodiversity Medium recently completed for Sevenoaks and seeks to highlight sites G = Biodiversity Low which could have the greatest impact on biodiversity. Proximity to a R = Intersects or is adjacent It is appropriate to ‘flag’ as red where a site is within, Conservation A = <50m intersects with or is adjacent to a Conservation Area. It is also Area G = >50m appropriate to flag sites that might more widely impact on the setting of a Conservation Area and a 50m threshold has been assumed. It is recognised that distance in isolation is not a definitive guide to the likelihood or significance of effects on a heritage asset. It is also recognised that the historic environment encompasses more than just designated heritage assets. Whilst there is good potential to highlight where development in proximity to a heritage asset might impact negatively on that asset, or its setting, a limitation relates to the fact that it is unlikely to be possible to gather views from heritage specialists on sensitivity of assets / capacity to develop each of the sites. This is a notable limitation as potential for development to conflict with the setting of historic assets / local historic character can only really be considered on a case-by-case basis rather than through a distance based criteria. It will also sometimes be the case that development can enhance heritage assets. Proximity to a R = Is adjacent As above. Registered Park A = <50m or Garden G = >50m Proximity to a R = Is adjacent As above. Scheduled A = <50m Monument G = >50m Proximity to a R = Intersects or is adjacent As above. listed building A = <50m G = >50m Proximity to an A = Intersects or is adjacent It is assumed that any development within an area of area of G = Does not intersect and archaeological importance is more likely to contain archaeological is not adjacent archaeology. This does not mean that sites outside these importance areas cannot contain archaeology and this would be investigated further through any planning applications. AQMA R = Within or adjacent to an Highlights which AQMA a site is within or closest to. For sites AQMA outside of an AQMA the straight line distance is shown. 50m A = Within 50m of an has been assumed to represent AQMA buffer zones as these AQMA are not individually defined. G = Further than 50m from an AQMA

18 Page 114 Agenda Item 6

Criteria ‘RAG’ rules Commentary Fluvial flood risk A = < 50% intersects with The lack of a red scoring reflects that sites with over 50% Flood risk zone 2 or 3 intersecting with a Flood Risk Zone 2 or 3 will be identified in G = Flood risk zone 1 the Site Appraisal separately. Surface water A = Areas of high or medium High - each year, the area has a chance of flooding of greater flood risk surface water flood risk is than 1 in 30 (3.3%) present in the site Medium - each year, the area has a chance of flooding of G = No areas of surface between 1 in 100 (1%) and 1 in 30 (3.3%) water flood risk are present This criterion will help to identify sites that fall within surface in the site water flood risk areas. N.B. While it is important to avoid development in flood zones, there is the potential to address flood risk at the development management stage, when a ‘sequential approach’ can be taken to ensure that uses are compatible with flood risk. There is also the potential to design-in Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). Groundwater R = Within a Zone 1 SPZ Groundwater Source Protection Zones are designated zones Source A = Within a Zone 2 or 3 around public water supply abstractions and other sensitive Protection SPZ receptors that signal there are particular risks to the Zones (SPZs) G = Not within an SPZ groundwater source they protect. The zones are based on an estimation of the time it would take for a pollutant which enters the saturated zone of an aquifer to reach the source abstraction or discharge point. For each source, three zones are defined around a particular water abstraction based on travel times, of the groundwater (Zone 1 = 50 days; Zone 2 = 400 days) and the total catchment area of the abstraction (Zone 3). Open space R = Loss of public open The presumption is that a loss of open space will lead to a space negative impact in relation to a range of SA themes. However G = No loss of public open it should be noted that some loss of open space may not space necessarily be a negative effects if green infrastructure enhancements are initiated on-site or nearby. Employment R = Loss of allocated Considers the loss of an allocated employment area. site employment site G = No loss of allocated employment site

19 Page 115 Agenda Item 6

Step 3: Evaluation of opportunities

Step 3 considers the positive elements of each site and potential opportunities. The following criteria are proposed for this step, again utilising a red / amber / green (RAG) approach to scorings.

Table: Proposed criteria to evaluate at Step 3

Criteria ‘RAG’ rules Commentary Previously R = Greenfield site Highlights whether the site is a previously developed or developed land A = Mixture of greenfield greenfield site as defined by the NPPF/NPPG. and previously developed land A = Sevenoaks brownfield G = Previously developed land Settlement R = Open countryside or This set of criteria is based on the site’s proximity to services hierarchy adjoining Tier 5 settlements and facilities. There is a presumption that the higher up the (hamlets) settlement hierarchy the location is, the broader range of A = Adjoining Tier 4 amenities are available. settlements (villages) G = Adjoining Tier 1,2 or 3 settlements (four largest towns plus local services centres) Proximity to a R = >800m Highlights walking distance to town or local centres in the town or local A = 400-800m district. There is no clear guidance on distance thresholds and centre G = <400m it is recognised that service centres will often be reached by car or public transport. The thresholds reflect the spread of the data. Proximity to a R = >800m Highlights walking distance to a school. Department for 1 school A = 400-800m Transport guidance suggests 800m as a walkable distance to G = <400m community facilities. Proximity to a R = >800m Highlights walking distance to a Doctor or Health Centre. 2 doctor or health A = 400-800m Department for Transport guidance suggests 800m as a centre G = <400m walkable distance to community facilities. Proximity to a A = >1,000m Highlights walking distance to a train station. Department for 3 train station G = <1,000m Transport guidance does not suggest a walkable distance for a train station. An assumption of 1,000m is considered appropriate.

1 WebTag (December 2015) Unit A4.2 paragraph 6.4.5, Department for Transport 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 20 Page 116 Agenda Item 6

Criteria ‘RAG’ rules Commentary Proximity to a R = >400m Highlights walking distance to a bus stop. Department for 4 bus stop G = <400m Transport guidance suggests 400m as a walkable distance to a bus stop. Proximity to a A = >50m Highlights the proximity of site options to PRoW. Where a public right of G = <50m PRoW falls within a site it is assumed that this can be retained way (PRoW) or an alternative route provided to ensure that links are not severed. It is also assumed that the closer a development is to a PRoW the more likely there is for an opportunity to enhance. Proximity to a A = >50m Highlights the proximity of site options to a cycle route. cycle route G = <50m Where a cycle route falls within a site it is assumed that this can be retained or an alternative route provided to ensure that links are not severed. It is also assumed that the closer a development is to a cycle route the more likely there is for an opportunity to enhance linkages.

4 Ibid. 21 Page 117 Agenda Item 6

3. Introduction to Site Appraisals

The site appraisals have been structured according to the relevant site appraisal conclusion category.

Each site appraisal consists of:

 A map showing the site boundary, relevant constraints and land designations;  A Sustainability Appraisal  A Stage 1 Site Appraisal - Site Deliverability Assessment and a Stage 1 Site Appraisal Conclusion.  A Stage 2 Site Appraisal – Site Considerations, Additional Information Required and Delivery  Summary of the Draft Local Plan Consultation Comments  Local Plan Strategy Assessment

Sites have been listed by the lead reference number according to the most suitable use. Other relevant SHELAA reference numbers are listed in the Site Deliverability Assessment section of the appraisal.

22 Page 118

HO49 ‐ HIGHFIELD FARM AND KNOCKA VILLA, CROW DRIVE, HALSTEAD

SITE DELIVERABILITY ASSESSMENT

SHELAA ref HO49 SHELAA category 2 SHELAA conclusion Deliverable SHELAA yield 15‐20 residential units SHELAA density 30‐40 DPH When will development 1‐5 years be delivered?

Will an existing use be Agricultural buildings and containers in commercial use lost? If yes, what? Access requirements Existing access could be used. Green Belt strength & Strength: Strong boundary issues RA‐22 Viability issues Potential costs associated with remediating contamination. New infrastructure and None community benefits

Input from technical Kent Downs AONB Unit ‐ Concerned that a residential specialists development here would be outside of any existing settlement and not relate to existing settlement pattern in the AONB. However it is recognised that the site is currently partially developed and fails to conserve the AONB. Other considerations

Deliverability summary Orange – due to site being located in Green Belt and locally defined brownfield.

STAGE 1 ‐ SITE APPRAISAL CONCLUSION

Deliverability summary Orange – due to site being located in Green Belt and locally defined brownfield Key messages from SA Kent Downs AONB School Health centre Bus stop Town/local centre

Land Use Residential Developable area (ha) 0.69 Density 40 DPH Site capacity 27 units Phasing 1‐5 years

Overall conclusion Include in plan, subject to further information

Agenda Item 6

SITE CONSIDERATIONS HO49 –Highfield Farm And Knocka Villa, Halstead

Land use / existing Brownfield or PDL use Is site in the Green Yes Belt? Green Belt Not in an RA ‐2.1% recommended area (RA) – weakly performing Wider Green Belt Strong parcel strength GB Parcel ID ‐ 76

Strategic gap (SG) Not in a SG

Adjacent to Not adjacent settlement boundary Settlement Not related to a settlement hierarchy Proximity to public Not within walking distance of public transport and existing transport/services services and facilities

AONB Fully within AONB

Agricultural land Grade 3 quality Landscape Low / low‐medium sensitivity Medium Medium‐high / high

Optimum density Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; Not related to a settlement – 30DPH

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS (for yellow sites only)

What information was Conclusion requested? Environmental Health Contamination assessment will be required Response ‐ Contamination

Page 270 Agenda Item 6

DELIVERY

Site has been promoted by an Agent with support from the landowner at the Draft Local Plan consultation. Agent has expressed interest in engaging with the Council to progress the scheme.

Conclusion Deliverable

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION COMMENTS

Site promoter No comments received.

Infrastructure providers Thames Water ‐ Water Response On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding Water Supply capability in relation to this site. Waste Response On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater networks in relation to this development/s.

West Kent CCG ‐ Having assessed the proposed developments detailed under the other settlements part of the draft local plan a significant impact has emerged relating to Otford Medical Practice. Not taking into account the sites that need to be confirmed, the impact of the ‘other settlements’ would be growth of c. 1650 new patient registrations (Using average occupancy of 2.34 per dwelling). There is an existing pressure on services ‐ Otford Medical Practice have plans to reconfigure the main surgery at Otford and have developed plans to extend the branch surgery at Kemsing for which capital is currently being explored. This will not however support all of the growth set out above and further discussions will be required as part of the CCG strategic planning work and the Local Plan infrastructure delivery plan.

Bromley CCG ‐ HO150, HO328, HO368, HO49, HO138, HO307, MX24The above sites do not fall into our catchment area and in fact the closest GP is a not a Bromley one. However, we do have 3 Practices on the border of the Borough that do have a number of patients living in the TN14 postcode. They account for approximately 12% of the total list sizes at the Practices. Whilst we would not object to these specifically, we would like to express our concerns that some patients may choose to register with one of our GP’s. If all of the above proposals were to all go through, then we may end up with an issue at these practices which are not able to expand currently in both physical terms and clinical workforce. After speaking to 2 of the local Practices, one is at capacity but the other may be able to absorb a small number. Please note that other Health services in Bromley would not make home visits outside of the Geographical borough so it may cause additional complications

Page 271 Agenda Item 6

if patients needed them. Examples include Health Visiting, Midwifery, District Nursing.

Kent County Council (KCC) Highways – No particular concerns subject to level of development proposed. Rural location. Access ‐ Existing access onto Crow Drive. Good visibility. Score ‐ A Capacity ‐ A development of this scale would not be likely to lead to any significant impact on capacity. Score ‐ A Sustainability ‐ Bus stops available on Pollhill. Fairly remote location from defined settlements. Score – C

KCC Primary Education ‐ Up to 1277 new dwellings would generate 358 primary pupils. This equates to 1.7FE of primary provision. As has been mentioned above, KCC believe that the developments in Dunton Green will fill an expanded 2FE Dunton Green Primary School, leaving no capacity for residents from the Sevenoaks Northern Villages planning area. KCC request dialogue with SDC planners over resolution of this issue.

Statutory consultees Natural England – Designation Impacted ‐ Kent Downs AONB. What should be considered for this allocation? ‐ Each policy needs to consider the site’s location within the AONB, ensuring the character of the AONB is protected and enhanced, with reference to the Management Plan, NCA and LCA. Significant Concerns – None

Kent Downs AONB Unit ‐ A residential development here would be outside of any existing settlement and would not relate to existing settlement pattern in the AONB, particularly in view of the site being some depth back from the highway. As such, we consider that re‐use of the site with small scale employment units would be more appropriate. In the event of the site being taken forward, we would wish to see existing trees around the perimeter of the site protected and retained. It is also considered any redevelopment of the site should adopt a woodland character with provision made for trees to establish large crowns within the development and along the road frontage and north and west boundaries to reflect the character of the residential development to the south. Development should be low density and designed and laid out in such a way as to conserve the character of the Kent Downs AONB and should be no taller than two stories. The proposed density of 40 dwellings per hectare is considered wholly inappropriate.

KCC Heritage and Conservation ‐ Preliminary Heritage Assessment ‐ Low archaeological potential for remains associated with the use of an ancient routeway following alignment of Crow Drive. Roman coin PAS find to west may suggest Roman activity. Scale 4 ‐ Low level archaeology anticipated which could be dealt

Page 272 Agenda Item 6

with through suitable conditions on a planning approval.

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

Other interested No comments received. parties

STAGE 2 SITE APPRAISAL CONCLUSION

Is this site acceptable for the proposed development? YES

LOCAL PLAN STRATEGY ASSESSMENT

Relevant Local Plan strategy Evidence Housing – Brownfield in the Green Belt Locally defined brownfield

Does this site meet the relevant local plan strategy? YES

OVERALL CONCLUSION

Include in Plan/Do not include

Land Use Residential Developable area (ha) 0.69 Density 30DPH Site capacity 20 units Phasing

Page 273 Agenda Item 6

HO138 ‐ DEER LEAP STUD FARM, KNOCKHOLT ROAD, HALSTEAD

Page 332 Agenda Item 6

SITE DELIVERABILITY ASSESSMENT

SHELAA ref HO138 SHELAA category 3 SHELAA conclusion Deliverable SHELAA yield 12‐16 Residential Units SHELAA density 30‐40 DPH When will development 1‐5 Years be delivered?

Will an existing use be 2 residential dwellings, an indoor swimming pool and a stable block. lost? If yes, what? Access requirements The existing access onto Knockholt Road could be utilised. Alternatively access could be made through the adjacent Warren Court Farm site which is already allocated for housing development. Green Belt strength & Strong boundary issues The site is located adjacent to Halstead urban confines. Viability issues No constraints that could render the site financially unviable are identified at this time. New infrastructure and None community benefits

Input from technical N/A specialists Other considerations Overall the previously developed portion of the site is considered able to accommodate development. Site reduced to previously developed land and locally defined brownfield land only.

Deliverability summary Yellow – due to site being located in Green Belt and proportion being NPPF PDL.

STAGE 1 SITE APPRAISAL CONCLUSION

Deliverability summary Yellow – due to site being located in Green Belt and proportion being NPPF PDL. Key messages from SA Health centre Town/local centre

Land Use Residential Developable area (ha) 0.39 Density 40 DPH Site capacity 13 units (15 gross) Phasing 1‐5 Years

Overall conclusion Include in plan

Page 333 Agenda Item 6

SITE CONSIDERATIONS HO138 ‐ Deer Leap Stud Farm, Knockholt Road, Halstead

Land use / existing Brownfield or PDL use Is site in the Green Yes Belt? Green Belt Not in an RA recommended area (RA)‐ weakly performing Wider Green Belt Strong parcel strength GB Parcel ID ‐ 76

Strategic gap (SG) Not in a SG

Adjacent to Fully adjacent ‐ Halstead settlement boundary Settlement Within or adjacent to lower tier settlement ‐ Halstead hierarchy Proximity to public Within walking distance of public transport and existing services transport/services and facilities including…  Shops

AONB Outside AONB

Agricultural land Urban quality Landscape Low sensitivity

Optimum density Edge of village – 40DPH

DELIVERY

Site has been promoted by an Agent with support from the landowner

Conclusion Deliverable

STAGE 2 SITE APPRAISAL CONCLUSION

Is this site acceptable for the proposed development? YES

Page 334 Agenda Item 6

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION COMMENTS

Site promoter Landowner promoting wider site.

Infrastructure providers Kent County Council (KCC) Highways ‐No particular concerns subject to level of development proposed. Access –A Capacity –A Sustainability‐ A

Statutory consultees Thames water ‐ On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding Water Supply capability in relation to this site. Waste Response On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater networks in relation to this development/s. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to advise of the developments phasing.

NHS West Kent CCG‐ Having assessed the proposed developments detailed under the other settlements part of the draft local plan a significant impact has emerged relating to Otford Medical Practice. Not taking into account the sites that need to be confirmed, the impact of the ‘other settlements’ would be growth of c. 1650 new patient registrations (Using average occupancy of 2.34 per dwelling). In addition: • It should also be noted that Otford Medical Practice would also expect a proportion of the growth from the proposed exceptional circumstances development at Dunton Green (total of c560 patients) • The existing Fort Halstead permission for 450 units will create c 1050 new patient registrations. To put this into context this could be an additional c.3260 new patient registrations during the plan period; an increase of 30.7% increase on the current registered patient list. There is an existing pressure on services ‐ Otford Medical Practice have plans to reconfigure the main surgery at Otford and have developed plans to extend the branch surgery at Kemsing for which capital is currently being explored. This will not however support all of the growth set out above and further discussions will be required as part of the CCG strategic planning work and the Local Plan infrastructure delivery plan.

Public including Halstead Parish Council‐ Halstead Parish Council contest the Town/Parish Councils categorisation of this site as partial brownfield, believing it is wholly green belt land and the proposal put forward does not meet the criteria of building on the green belt by not meeting and criteria of exceptional circumstances.

General Public Comment Summary ‐ There was some concern that the proposals were too much for a small historic village in the Green Belt that is already suffering from traffic problems, a lack of medical care, problems with air / noise /

Page 335 Agenda Item 6

light pollution and insufficient local amenities. Access would also be a problem especially on to Knockholt road. However, there was also support because of a perceived need for more housing providing the development would not impose too much pressure on existing infrastructure and not seriously alter the attractiveness of the village.

Other interested No comments received parties

STAGE 2 SITE APPRAISAL CONCLUSION

Is this site acceptable for the proposed development? YES

LOCAL PLAN STRATEGY ASSESSMENT

Relevant Local Plan strategy Evidence Housing – Developed land in the Green Developed land (including previously Belt developed land) Does this site meet the relevant local plan strategy? YES

OVERALL CONCLUSION

Include in Plan Land Use Residential Developable area (ha) 0.39 Density 40DPH Site capacity 13 units (15 gross) Phasing 1‐5 years

Page 336 Agenda Item 6

HO150 ‐ CHELSFIELD DEPOT, SHACKLANDS ROAD, BADGERS MOUNT

Page 337 Agenda Item 6

SITE DELIVERABILITY ASSESSMENT

SHELAA ref HO150 SHELAA category 2 SHELAA conclusion Deliverable SHELAA yield 109‐146 residential units SHELAA density 30‐40 DPH When will development 1‐5 years be delivered?

Will an existing use be Aggregate storage and distribution. lost? If yes, what? Access requirements Existing access could be used. Green Belt strength & Green Belt strength: Strong boundary issues The site is not connected to a settlement but is within walking distance of Badgers Mount which has good transport links. Viability issues Potential costs associated with remediating contamination. New infrastructure and None community benefits

Input from technical Kent Downs AONB Unit ‐ It is considered that any redevelopment specialists should also be of a low density to reflect the site’s former state. Development should be designed and laid out in such a way as to conserve the character of the Kent Downs AONB. Environmental Health Natural England Other considerations As the site is in existing employment use it would need to be demonstrated that the use is no longer suitable, feasible or viable and that there is no reasonable prospect of the continued business use in the longer term. Surrounded by ancient woodland therefore a buffer would need to be included within the design and layout.

Deliverability summary Orange – due to site being located in Green Belt and locally defined brownfield.

STAGE 1 SITE APPRAISAL CONCLUSION

Deliverability summary Orange – due to site being located in Green Belt and locally defined brownfield. Key messages from SA Kent Downs AONB Ancient woodland (adjacent) School Health centre Town/local centre

Land Use Residential Developable area (ha) 4.86

Page 338 Agenda Item 6

Density 40 DPH Site capacity 194 units Phasing 1‐5 years

Overall conclusion Include in plan, subject to further information

SITE CONSIDERATIONS HO150 ‐ Chelsfield Depot, Shacklands Road, Badgers Mount

Land use / existing Brownfield or PDL use Is site in the Green Yes Belt? Green Belt Not in an RA recommended area (RA)‐ weakly performing Wider Green Belt Strong parcel strength GB Parcel ID – 73

Strategic gap (SG) Not in a SG

Adjacent to Not adjacent settlement boundary Settlement Within or adjacent to lower tier settlement – Badgers Mount hierarchy Proximity to public Not within walking distance of public transport and existing transport/services services and facilities

AONB Fully within AONB

Agricultural land Urban quality Landscape Low sensitivity

Optimum density Rural location – 30DPH

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS (for yellow sites only)

What information was Conclusion requested? Review of existing use The site should be considered as developable due to the existing use

Page 339 Agenda Item 6

Environmental Health Contamination assessment will be required Response ‐ Contamination

DELIVERY

Landowner has indicated that the site is developable.

Conclusion Developable

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION COMMENTS

Site promoter CBRE Ltd – Support inclusion of the site.

Infrastructure providers Kent County Council (KCC) Highways – Access ‐ Use of existing access on Shacklands Road. Secondary / emergency access will be required. Score ‐ A Capacity ‐ No significant capacity issues expected however a Transport Assessment would be required. Score ‐ A Sustainability ‐ The site is not within the confines of a defined settlement boundary. Pedestrian and cycle links to provide access to Badger Mount and Knockholt train station. Score – B

Bromley Clinical Commissioning Group ‐ HO150, HO328, HO368, HO49, HO138, HO307, MX24 The above sites do not fall into our catchment area and in fact the closest GP is a not a Bromley one. However, we do have 3 Practices on the border of the Borough that do have a number of patients living in the TN14 postcode. They account for approximately 12% of the total list sizes at the Practices. Whilst we would not object to these specifically, we would like to express our concerns that some patients may choose to register with one of our GP’s. If all of the above proposals were to all go through, then we may end up with an issue at these practices which are not able to expand currently in both physical terms and clinical workforce. After speaking to 2 of the local Practices, one is at capacity but the other may be able to absorb a small number. Please note that other Health services in Bromley would not make home visits outside of the Geographical borough so it may cause additional complications if patients needed them. Examples include Health Visiting, Midwifery, District Nursing.

West Kent CCG ‐ Having assessed the proposed developments detailed under the other settlements part of the draft local plan a significant impact has emerged relating to Otford Medical Practice.

Page 340 Agenda Item 6

Not taking into account the sites that need to be confirmed, the impact of the ‘other settlements’ would be growth of c. 1650 new patient registrations (Using average occupancy of 2.34 per dwelling). There is an existing pressure on services ‐ Otford Medical Practice have plans to reconfigure the main surgery at Otford and have developed plans to extend the branch surgery at Kemsing for which capital is currently being explored. This will not however support all of the growth set out above and further discussions will be required as part of the CCG strategic planning work and the Local Plan infrastructure delivery plan.

Statutory consultees Natural England – Designation Impacted ‐ Kent Downs AONB. What should be considered for this allocation? ‐ Each policy needs to consider the site’s location within the AONB, ensuring the character of the AONB is protected and enhanced, with reference to the Management Plan, NCA and LCA.

KCC Heritage and Conservation ‐ Preliminary Heritage Assessment ‐ Former site of WWII Ammunitions Store. Site has been cleared but any remnants of the WWII activity would be of historic interest Heritage Statement required to support any application, including assessment of impact on setting and character of Terrys Lodge. Formal programme of archaeological works required, subject to details. Scale 3 ‐ Significant archaeology could be dealt with through suitable conditions on a planning approval

Thames Water ‐ Water Response The water network capacity in this area may be unable to support the demand anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing water network infrastructure may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Waste Response The scale of development/s is likely to require upgrades to the wastewater network.

Public including Badgers Mount Parish Council – We support the redesignation of Town/Parish Councils the site. It is accepted that a residential development would be an improvement compared to the present unsuitable, sometimes noisy industrial use. However, the proposed density of 40 DPH is unacceptably high compared to the less than 8 DPH for the present developed area of Badgers Mount and therefore contravenes policy 12. The density should be reduced to a maximum of 20 DPH. There is no evidence that the infrastructure of utilities, roads etc can accommodate such a large development. The access indicated could be problematic being so close to the roundabout. Integration with the existing community must also be addressed. The opportunity should also be taken to incorporate a recreation area and allotments available for the whole of Badgers Mount, possibly utilising the non ancient woodland part of the site.

Halstead Parish Council‐ Halstead Parish Council feel this is a suitable site for development but find proposed density too high

Page 341 Agenda Item 6

for the current infrastructure and not in keeping with the village in which this development would be situated. This council would prefer to see a development of less than 20 units per hectare which would be more in keeping with the surrounding residential area and have less impact on the facilities within the village of Halstead.

General Public Main Issues (in order of frequency)–  No building on green belt / AONB / use brownfield  Too many houses / no housing needed  Environmental impact / flora & fauna  Inadequate infrastructure / infrastructure must be in place  Agree with development but with reservations  Traffic will increase  Pollution will increase / air quality  Area would be spoiled ‐ character / views  Access roads to developments inadequate  Roads already congested  Pressure on schools / doctors / more needed  Loss of identity / urban sprawl  Object to the development

Other interested No comments received. parties

STAGE 2 SITE APPRAISAL CONCLUSION

Is this site acceptable for the proposed development? YES

LOCAL PLAN STRATEGY ASSESSMENT

Relevant Local Plan strategy Evidence Housing – Developed land in the Green Developed land (including previously Belt developed land) Does this site meet the relevant local plan strategy? YES

OVERALL CONCLUSION

Include in Plan/Do not include

Land Use Residential Developable area (ha) 3.35 (Including buffer for ancient woodland)

Page 342 Agenda Item 6

Density 30DPH Site capacity 100 Phasing 11‐15 years

Page 343 Agenda Item 6

HO307 ‐ OAK TREE FARM, LONDON ROAD, HALSTEAD

Page 418 Agenda Item 6

SITE DELIVERABILITY ASSESSMENT

SHELAA ref HO307 SHELAA category 3 SHELAA conclusion Deliverable SHELAA yield 38‐51 units SHELAA density 30‐40 DPH When will development 1‐5 years be delivered?

Will an existing use be Waste Transfer Station, Concrete Crushing, B2 and residential. lost? If yes, what? Access requirements Existing access could be used Green Belt strength & Green belt strength: Strong boundary issues Viability issues Viability may be affected by costs associated with remediating any contamination. New infrastructure and None community benefits

Input from technical Environmental Health specialists Other considerations Site reduced to previously developed land and locally defined brownfield land only. As the site is in existing employment use it would need to be demonstrated that the use is no longer suitable, feasible or viable and that there is no reasonable prospect of the continued business use in the longer term. Potential contamination issues

Deliverability summary Yellow – due to site being located in Green Belt and proportion being NPPF PDL.

STAGE 1 SITE APPRAISAL CONCLUSION

Deliverability summary Yellow – due to site being located in Green Belt and proportion being NPPF PDL. Key messages from SA School Health Centre Bus Stop Town/Local centre

Land Use Residential Developable area (ha) 1.29 Density 40DPH Site capacity 50 units (51 gross) Phasing 1‐5 years

Overall conclusion Include in plan, subject to further information

Page 419 Agenda Item 6

SITE CONSIDERATIONS HO307 ‐ Oak Tree Farm, London Road, Halstead

Land use / existing Brownfield or PDL use Is site in the Green Yes Belt? Green Belt Not in an RA recommended area (RA) – weakly performing Wider Green Belt Strong parcel strength GB Parcel ID – 76

Strategic gap (SG) Not in a SG

Adjacent to Not adjacent settlement boundary Settlement Not related to a settlement hierarchy Proximity to public Not within walking distance of public transport and existing transport/services services and facilities

AONB Outside AONB

Agricultural land Grade 3 quality Landscape Low sensitivity

Optimum density Rural area – 30DPH

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS (for yellow sites only)

What information was Conclusion requested? Environmental Health Contamination assessment will be required Response ‐ Contamination Review of existing use None received

Page 420 Agenda Item 6

DELIVERY

The site is considered developable as no information has been submitted addressing the loss of the current use.

Conclusion Developable

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION COMMENTS

Site promoter No comments received

Infrastructure providers Kent County Council (KCC) Highways ‐ Access improvements required. Rural location Access ‐ Existing access onto A224 London Road. Access route is appears less than 4 metres in width. There should be sufficient space for 2 cars to pass each other at least every 40m. These spaces should be intervisible. Score ‐ B Capacity ‐ A development of this scale would not be likely to lead to any significant impact on capacity. Score ‐ A Sustainability ‐ Remote location. Score – C

Bromley Clinical Commissioning Group – HO150, HO328, HO368, HO49, HO138, HO307, MX24The above sites do not fall into our catchment area and in fact the closest GP is a not a Bromley one. However, we do have 3 Practices on the border of the Borough that do have a number of patients living in the TN14 postcode. They account for approximately 12% of the total list sizes at the Practices. Whilst we would not object to these specifically, we would like to express our concerns that some patients may choose to register with one of our GP’s. If all of the above proposals were to all go through, then we may end up with an issue at these practices which are not able to expand currently in both physical terms and clinical workforce. After speaking to 2 of the local Practices, one is at capacity but the other may be able to absorb a small number. Please note that other Health services in Bromley would not make home visits outside of the Geographical borough so it may cause additional complications if patients needed them. Examples include Health Visiting, Midwifery, District Nursing.

Thames Water‐ Water Response On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding Water Supply capability in relation to this site.

NHS West Kent CCG‐ Having assessed the proposed developments detailed under the other settlements part of the Page 421 Agenda Item 6

draft local plan a significant impact has emerged relating to Otford Medical Practice. Not taking into account the sites that need to be confirmed, the impact of the ‘other settlements’ would be growth of c. 1650 new patient registrations (Using average occupancy of 2.34 per dwelling). There is an existing pressure on services ‐ Otford Medical Practice have plans to reconfigure the main surgery at Otford and have developed plans to extend the branch surgery at Kemsing for which capital is currently being explored. This will not however support all of the growth set out above and further discussions will be required as part of the CCG strategic planning work and the Local Plan infrastructure delivery plan.

Statutory consultees KCC Heritage and Conservation ‐ Preliminary Heritage Assessment ‐ Potential for remains of post medieval or earlier date associated with land boundaries identifiable on 1st Ed OS map. Oak Tree Farm outbuildings identified in Farmstead Survey (HE) Some formal archaeological work may be required, subject to details Scale 3 ‐ Significant archaeology could be dealt with through suitable conditions on a planning approval.

Public including Badgers Mount Parish Council ‐ We support redevelopment of this Town/Parish Councils site as it would be an improvement compared with the present use, although it would be very close to the proposed crematorium immediately to the north. We are concerned about whether the infrastructure, utilities, roads etc. can accommodate such a large development, particularly with it having direct access onto the A224. This would be a group of dwellings very remote from any existing development, a long way from any public transport. The density proposed is out of keeping with the nearby area, contrary to policy 12 and should be reduced to a maximum of 20 DPH if it is included to be developed.

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

Other interested No comments received parties

STAGE 2 SITE APPRAISAL CONCLUSION

Is this site acceptable for the proposed development? YES

Page 422 Agenda Item 6

LOCAL PLAN STRATEGY ASSESSMENT

Relevant Local Plan strategy Evidence Housing – Developed land in the Green Developed land Belt Does this site meet the relevant local plan strategy? YES

OVERALL CONCLUSION

Include in Plan

Land Use Residential Developable area (ha) 1.29 Density 30DPH Site capacity 37 units (38 gross) Phasing 6‐10 years

Page 423 Agenda Item 6

HO328 ‐ LAND WEST OF THE ROUNDABOUT, LONDON ROAD, BADGERS MOUNT

Page 437 Agenda Item 6

SITE DELIVERABILITY ASSESSMENT

SHELAA ref HO328 SHELAA category 2 SHELAA conclusion Deliverable SHELAA yield 16‐21 residential units SHELAA density 30‐40 DPH When will development 1‐5 years be delivered?

Will an existing use be Scrubland and remains of old buildings lost? If yes, what? Access requirements Existing access could be used

Green Belt strength & Green belt strength: Strong boundary issues The site is located adjacent to Badgers Mount urban confines. Viability issues No viability issues have been identified. New infrastructure and None community benefits

Input from technical N/A specialists Other considerations None

Deliverability summary Orange – due to site being located in Green Belt and locally defined brownfield.

STAGE 1 SITE APPRAISAL CONCLUSION

Deliverability summary Orange – due to site being located in Green Belt and locally defined brownfield. Key messages from SA School Health centre Town/local centre

Land Use Residential Developable area (ha) 0.54 Density 40 DPH Site capacity 21 units Phasing 1‐5 years

Overall conclusion Include in plan

Page 438 Agenda Item 6

SITE CONSIDERATIONS HO328 ‐ Land West Of The Roundabout, London Road, Badgers Mount

Land use / existing Agricultural land / natural field use Is site in the Green Yes Belt? Green Belt Not in an RA recommended area (RA) – weakly performing Wider Green Belt Strong parcel strength GB Parcel ID – 76

Strategic gap (SG) Within a SG – Halstead and Badgers Mount

Adjacent to Not adjacent settlement boundary Settlement Within or adjacent to lower tier settlement – Badgers Mount hierarchy Proximity to public Not within walking distance of public transport and existing transport/services services and facilities

AONB Outside AONB

Agricultural land Urban quality Landscape Low sensitivity

Optimum density Rural location – 50DPH

DELIVERY

Site has been promoted by an Agent with support from the landowner

Conclusion Deliverable

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION COMMENTS

Site promoter Site is promoted by the landowner Infrastructure providers KCC‐ Existing access onto London Road.

Page 439 Agenda Item 6

Access –A Capacity – A Sustainability – B

Bromley Clinical Commissioning Group – "HO150, HO328, HO368, HO49, HO138, HO307, MX24 The above sites do not fall into our catchment area and in fact the closest GP is a not a Bromley one. However, we do have 3 Practices on the border of the Borough that do have a number of patients living in the TN14 postcode. They account for approximately 12% of the total list sizes at the Practices. Whilst we would not object to these specifically, we would like to express our concerns that some patients may choose to register with one of our GP’s. If all of the above proposals were to all go through, then we may end up with an issue at these practices which are not able to expand currently in both physical terms and clinical workforce. After speaking to 2 of the local Practices, one is at capacity but the other may be able to absorb a small number. Please note that other Health services in Bromley would not make home visits outside of the Geographical borough so it may cause additional complications if patients needed them. Examples include Health Visiting, Midwifery, District Nursing. "

NHS West Kent CCG – Having assessed the proposed developments detailed under the other settlements part of the draft local plan a significant impact has emerged relating to Otford Medical Practice. Not taking into account the sites that need to be confirmed, the impact of the ‘other settlements’ would be growth of c. 1650 new patient registrations (Using average occupancy of 2.34 per dwelling). In addition: • It should also be noted that Otford Medical Practice would also expect a proportion of the growth from the proposed exceptional circumstances development at Dunton Green (total of c560 patients) • The existing Fort Halstead permission for 450 units will create c 1050 new patient registrations. To put this into context this could be an additional c.3260 new patient registrations during the plan period; an increase of 30.7% increase on the current registered patient list. There is an existing pressure on services ‐ Otford Medical Practice have plans to reconfigure the main surgery at Otford and have developed plans to extend the branch surgery at Kemsing for which capital is currently being explored. This will not however support all of the growth set out above and further discussions will be required as part of the CCG strategic planning work and the Local Plan infrastructure delivery plan.

Thames Water ‐ Water Response On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding Water Supply capability in relation to this site. Waste Response On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater networks in relation to this development/s. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames Water at the earliest

Page 440 Agenda Item 6

opportunity to advise of the developments phasing.

Statutory consultees Natural England – Designation Impacted ‐ Kent Downs AONB(setting).What should be considered for this allocation? ‐ Potential to impact the setting of the AONB. Policy should consider the site's location with regards to the AONB, and any impact this allocation may have on the setting of the AONB. Significant Concerns – None Further advice ‐ See detailed comments on Policy 3(Landscape and AONB).

Public including Badgers Mount Parish Council ‐ This site is actually in Halstead Town/Parish Councils although listed as Badgers Mount. We support the proposal which would be an improvement from the existing overgrown area with an assortment of containers etc, but the density proposed is out of keeping with the nearby area, contrary to policy 12 and should be reduced to a maximum of 20 DPH. The site is about 10% larger than Crest Close which is almost opposite this site in Old London Road, Badgers Mount, and a similar shape. Crest Close has 9 dwellings which have small gardens and there would have been little scope for more, so we believe that 10 or 11 is the maximum number this site can accommodate. Careful design of access must be made as it is so close to the roundabout.

Halstead parish council ‐ Halstead Parish Council would like to make it clear that this site lies in the Parish of Halstead, not Badgers Mount. The council feel that this area would be suitable for development but the proposed density per hectare is not fitting with the local area. A similar sized area of land in the local area encompasses 9 small units and council feel this would be a more suitable number of houses for this development – keeping within the character of the local area. The proximity to the roundabout of this development would be contradictory to Kent Highways policy RHI06 – it would not make provision for adequate visibility at the access point to the land and would result in conditions harmful to road safety. (Also contradictory to policy EN1 of the Current Sevenoaks District Local Plan)

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

Other interested No comments received parties

Page 441 Agenda Item 6

STAGE 2 SITE APPRAISAL CONCLUSION

Is this site acceptable for the proposed development? YES

LOCAL PLAN STRATEGY ASSESSMENT

Relevant Local Plan strategy Evidence Housing – Developed land in the Green Developed land (including previously Belt developed land) Does this site meet the relevant local plan strategy? YES

OVERALL CONCLUSION

Include in Plan

Land Use Residential Developable area (ha) 0.54 Density 50DPH Site capacity 27 units Phasing 1‐5 years

Page 442 Agenda Item 6

HO368 ‐ CALCUTTA CLUB AND POLHILL BUSINESS CENTRE, LONDON ROAD, BADGERS MOUNT

Page 476 Agenda Item 6

SITE AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT

SHELAA ref HO368 SHELAA category 2 SHELAA conclusion Deliverable SHELAA yield 30‐40 residential units SHELAA density 30‐40 DPH When will development 1‐5 years be delivered?

Will an existing use be Restaurant, associated parking, office, residential dwelling, hotel, lost? If yes, what? storage and workshop buildings Access requirements Existing access points could be used

Green Belt strength & Green belt strength: Strong boundary issues The site is not connected to a settlement but is within walking distance of the services and facilities in Badgers Mount. Viability issues No issues known New infrastructure and None community benefits

Input from technical Kent Downs AONB Unit ‐ Concerned that a residential specialists development here would be outside of any existing settlement and not relate to existing settlement pattern in the AONB. However it is recognised that the site is currently partially developed and in its current form fails to conserve the AONB. Other considerations Previously two separate sites submitted under refs HO24 and HO25, now considered as a single site.

As the site is in existing employment use it would need to be demonstrated that the use is no longer suitable, feasible or viable and that there is no reasonable prospect of the continued business use in the longer term.

Any new development would need to assess the potential impact on the adjoining local wildlife site and ancient woodland and a 10m buffer is likely to be required.

Deliverability summary Yellow – due to site being located in Green Belt, NPPF PDL and subject to review of the existing use.

STAGE 1 SITE APPRAISAL CONCLUSION

Deliverability summary Yellow – due to site being located in Green Belt, NPPF PDL and subject to review of the existing use. Key messages from SA Local wildlife site and ancient woodland (adjacent) Kent Downs AONB School

Page 477 Agenda Item 6

Health centre Town/local centre

Land Use Residential Developable area (ha) 2.0 Density 40 DPH Site capacity 66 units Phasing 1‐5 years

Overall conclusion Include in plan, subject to further information

SITE CONSIDERATIONS HO368 ‐ Calcutta Club And Polhill Business Centre, London Road, Badgers Mount

Land use / existing Brownfield or PDL use Is site in the Green Yes Belt? Green Belt Not in an RA recommended area (RA) – weakly performing Wider Green Belt Strong parcel strength GB parcel ID – 73

Strategic gap (SG) Not in a SG

Adjacent to Not adjacent settlement boundary Settlement Within or adjacent to lower tier settlement – Badgers Mount hierarchy Proximity to public Not within walking distance of public transport and existing transport/services services and facilities

AONB Fully within AONB

Agricultural land Grade 3 quality Landscape Low sensitivity

Optimum density Rural location – 40DPH

Page 478 Agenda Item 6

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS (for yellow sites only)

What information was Conclusion requested? Review of existing use The loss of existing uses have not been fully demonstrated.

DELIVERY

The site is considered developable as no information has been submitted addressing the loss of the current use

Conclusion Developable

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION COMMENTS

Site promoter Robinson Escott Planning – Support inclusion of the site.

Infrastructure providers Kent County Council (KCC) Highways ‐ Existing access from London Road can be utilised. Secondary / emergency access will be required.

Access – A Capacity – A Sustainability – C

NHS West Kent CCG‐ Having assessed the proposed developments detailed under the other settlements part of the draft local plan a significant impact has emerged relating to Otford Medical Practice. Not taking into account the sites that need to be confirmed, the impact of the ‘other settlements’ would be growth of c. 1650 new patient registrations (Using average occupancy of 2.34 per dwelling). There is an existing pressure on services ‐ Otford Medical Practice have plans to reconfigure the main surgery at Otford and have developed plans to extend the branch surgery at Kemsing for which capital is currently being explored. This will not however support all of the growth set out above and further discussions will be required as part of the CCG strategic planning work and the Local Plan infrastructure delivery plan.

Thames Water ‐ Water Response On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding Water Supply capability in relation to this site.

Bromley CCG ‐ HO150, HO328, HO368, HO49, HO138, HO307, MX24The above sites do not fall into our catchment area and in

Page 479 Agenda Item 6

fact the closest GP is a not a Bromley one. However, we do have 3 Practices on the border of the Borough that do have a number of patients living in the TN14 postcode. They account for approximately 12% of the total list sizes at the Practices. Whilst we would not object to these specifically, we would like to express our concerns that some patients may choose to register with one of our GP’s. If all of the above proposals were to all go through, then we may end up with an issue at these practices which are not able to expand currently in both physical terms and clinical workforce. After speaking to 2 of the local Practices, one is at capacity but the other may be able to absorb a small number. Please note that other Health services in Bromley would not make home visits outside of the Geographical borough so it may cause additional complications if patients needed them. Examples include Health Visiting, Midwifery, District Nursing. Statutory consultees Kent downs AONB Unit‐ A residential development here would be outside of any existing settlement and not relate to existing settlement pattern in the AONB, especially at the proposed density of 40 dwellings per hectare which would be more appropriate in an urban context and would result in a larger proportion of the site being occupied with built development than the current situation. As such we consider the proposed allocation would fail to conserve or enhance the local distinctiveness of the Kent Downs. Furthermore, we can see no justification for development of the undeveloped northeast corner of the site. Notwithstanding these comments, in the event of the site being taken forward, we would wish to see a structural belt of trees provided along the northern boundary and existing trees within and around the perimeter of the site protected and retained. The site was formerly part of the woodland that still surrounds the site and consider in the event of redevelopment, the site should adopt a woodland character with provision made for specimen trees with capacity to establish large crowns to be incorporated within the development and along the London Road frontage. We would also wish to see a requirement for development to be designed and laid out in such a way as to conserve the character of the Kent Downs AONB and should be no taller than existing buildings on the site.

Natural England –Designation Impacted ‐ Kent Downs AONB. What should be considered for this allocation? ‐ Each policy needs to consider the site’s location within the ONB, ensuring the character of the AONB is protected and enhanced, with reference to the Management Plan, NCA and LCA.

KCC Heritage and Conservation ‐ Preliminary Heritage Assessment ‐ Potential for multi‐period remains associated with use of ancient trackway, Pilgrims Way, running to the south east of site. There are buildings identifiable on the 3rd Ed OS map forming a complex called The Retreat. This seem to include greenhouses. Some of these buildings no longer survive above ground but remains may survive below ground. A Heritage Statement would be required to support any application.

Page 480 Agenda Item 6

Formal historic building and archaeological works may be required, subject to details. Scale 3 ‐ Significant archaeology could be dealt with through suitable conditions on a planning approval.

Public including Badgers Mount Parish Council ‐ We support the redevelopment of Town/Parish Councils the site but would stress the importance of retaining local employment. This site is in both the Green Belt and AONB, and if only residential would be a group of dwellings very remote from any existing development and a long way from any public transport. The density proposed is out of keeping with the nearby area, contrary to policy 12 and should be reduced to a maximum of 20 DPH. While some of the site may no longer be viable for employment, it would be desirable to keep some, possibly the hotel/diner, a facility which seems to be lacking in the area, and the small office. We are concerned about whether the infrastructure, utilities, roads etc. can accommodate such a large development, particularly with it having direct access onto the A224. Planners should ensure that if this site is developed it does not set a precedent for ribbon development all along London Road to the north.

Halstead parish Council ‐Halstead Parish Council do not feel that this site would be a suitable adoption into the local plan. The site is not connected to an existing settlement and is situated in an Area of Natural Beauty. The council also considered this development in conjunctions with other proposed sites in the local area and the loss of employment from the hotel, restaurant and business centre would be contrary to objective 3 ‘To support a local and vibrant economy’ Halstead Parish Council also feel that this development would have a huge impact on the amount of traffic entering and leaving the A21 causing traffic delays within the area and compounding the problems of pollution created by the proximity to the M25. Halstead Parish Council are also concerned about the stability of the ground within this area.

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

Other interested No comments received parties

Page 481 Agenda Item 6

STAGE 2 SITE APPRAISAL CONCLUSION

Is this site acceptable for the proposed development? YES

LOCAL PLAN STRATEGY ASSESSMENT

Relevant Local Plan strategy Evidence Housing – Developed land in the Green Developed land (including previously Belt developed land) Does this site meet the relevant local plan strategy? YES

OVERALL CONCLUSION

Include in Plan

Land Use Residential Developable area (ha) 2.0 (inclusive of ancient woodland buffer) Density 40DPH Site capacity 66 units Phasing 6‐10 years

Page 482 Agenda Item 6

MX24–FORTHALSTEAD,CROWDRIVE,HALSTEAD

Page 537 Agenda Item 6

SITEDELIVERABILITYASSESSMENT

SHELAAref MX24 SHELAAcategory 3 SHELAAconclusion Deliverable SHELAAyield 300residentialunits(inadditionto450alreadyagreed)and 27,000m²ofemploymentfloorspace(alreadyagreed) SHELAAdensity 3040DPH Whenwilldevelopment 15yearsand510years bedelivered? Willanexistingusebe ResearchandDevelopmentfacility lost?Ifyes,what? Accessrequirements TheexistingaccessontoCrowDriveandStarHillRoadcouldbe utilised. GreenBeltstrength& Strong boundaryissues Viabilityissues Noconstraintsthatcouldrenderthesitefinanciallyunviableare identifiedatthistime. Newinfrastructureand Residentialledmixedusevillagedevelopment,incorporating communitybenefits VillagehubandBusinesspark Inputfromtechnical KentDownsAONBUnit specialists KCCHighways EnvironmentalHealth HistoricEngland HighwaysEngland Otherconsiderations ScheduledAncientMonumentonsite.Sitehasoutlineplanning permissionfor450residentialunits,27,000m2ofemployment floorspace,an80bedhotelandavillagecentre. Deliverabilitysummary Yellow–moderate/stronglyperformingGreenBeltandproportion ofNPPFPDL. STAGE1SITEAPPRAISALCONCLUSION Deliverabilitysummary Yellow–moderate/stronglyperformingGreenBeltandproportion ofNPPFPDL. KeymessagesfromSA HighBiodiversity ScheduledAncientMonument KentDownsAONB School HealthCentre Town/LocalCentre LandUse MixedUse–Residential,Leisure,Employment,Retail, Infrastructure,OpenSpace Developablearea(ha) 62.66

Page 538 Agenda Item 6

Density 40DPH Sitecapacity 300(inadditionto450alreadyagreed) Phasing 610years Overallconclusion Includeinplan,subjecttofurtherinformation SITECONSIDERATIONS MX24FortHalstead,CrowDrive,Halstead Landuse/existing BrownfieldorPDL use IssiteintheGreen Yes Belt? GreenBelt FullywithinanRA–85.2% recommended RA22 area(RA)–weakly performing WiderGreenBelt Strong parcelstrength GBParcelID–76 Strategicgap(SG) NotinaSG Adjacentto Notadjacent settlement boundary Settlement Notrelatedtoasettlement hierarchy Proximitytopublic Notwithinwalkingdistanceofpublictransportandexisting transport/services servicesandfacilities[butanewcentrewouldbecreatedonsite] AONB FullywithinAONB Agriculturalland Otherlandprimarilyinnonagriculturaluse quality Landscape Low sensitivity Optimumdensity Thedensitywillvaryacrossthesite. ADDITIONALINFORMATIONREQUIREMENTS(foryellowsitesonly) Whatinformationwas Conclusion requested? Indicativelayoutplan Received KCCHighwaysresponse– Seesummaryofconsultationcomments sufficientcapacity

Page 539 Agenda Item 6

DELIVERY Existingplanningpermissionforredevelopmentofsite. Conclusion Developable

SUMMARYOFCONSULTATIONCOMMENTS Sitepromoter Nocommentsreceived Infrastructureproviders KentCountyCouncil(KCC)HighwaysCurrentpreapplicationand extantpermission.TransportAssessmentrequired.Restrictionon employmentuses e.g.noB8 Access–B Capacity–B Sustainability–B NHSWestKentCCG–Havingassessedtheproposed developmentsdetailedundertheothersettlementspartofthe draftlocalplanasignificantimpacthasemergedrelatingtoOtford MedicalPractice.Nottakingintoaccountthesitesthatneedtobe confirmed,theimpactofthe‘othersettlements’wouldbegrowth ofc.1650newpatientregistrations(Usingaverageoccupancyof 2.34perdwelling).Thereisanexistingpressureonservices OtfordMedicalPracticehaveplanstoreconfigurethemainsurgery atOtfordandhavedevelopedplanstoextendthebranchsurgery atKemsingforwhichcapitaliscurrentlybeingexplored.Thiswill nothoweversupportallofthegrowthsetoutaboveandfurther discussionswillberequiredaspartoftheCCGstrategicplanning workandtheLocalPlaninfrastructuredeliveryplan. BromleyCCGHO150,HO328,HO368,HO49,HO138,HO307, MX24Theabovesitesdonotfallintoourcatchmentareaandin facttheclosestGPisanotaBromleyone.However,wedohave3 PracticesontheborderoftheBoroughthatdohaveanumberof patientslivingintheTN14postcode.Theyaccountfor approximately12%ofthetotallistsizesatthePractices.Whilstwe wouldnotobjecttothesespecifically,wewouldliketoexpressour concernsthatsomepatientsmaychoosetoregisterwithoneof ourGP’s.Ifalloftheaboveproposalsweretoallgothrough,then wemayendupwithanissueatthesepracticeswhicharenotable toexpandcurrentlyinbothphysicaltermsandclinicalworkforce. Afterspeakingto2ofthelocalPractices,oneisatcapacitybutthe

Page 540 Agenda Item 6

othermaybeabletoabsorbasmallnumber.Pleasenotethatother HealthservicesinBromleywouldnotmakehomevisitsoutsideof theGeographicalboroughsoitmaycauseadditionalcomplications ifpatientsneededthem.ExamplesincludeHealthVisiting, Midwifery,DistrictNursing. Statutoryconsultees KentDownsAONBUnit–TheKentDownsAONBUnitconsiders thatproposalstoincreasethedensityofthepreviouslyallocated siteatFortHalsteadfrom450to710tobewhollyinappropriate. Whileweacknowledgethatitisamajordevelopedsiteinthe GreenBelt,andinviewoftheprevioususeofthesite,theAONB Unithasacceptedtheprincipleofredevelopmenthere,we considerthatincreasingthedensitywouldnotrespondtothe specialcircumstancesofthesiteintermsofitslocationwithinthe KentDownsAreaofOutstandingNaturalBeautyaswellasbeing inconflictwiththerevisedNPPF NaturalEngland–DesignationImpactedKentDownsAONB. Whatshouldbeconsideredforthisallocation?Eachpolicyneeds toconsiderthesite’slocationwithintheAONB,ensuringthe characteroftheAONBisprotectedandenhanced,withreference totheManagementPlan,NCAandLCA. Publicincluding BadgersMountParishCouncilWeobjectstronglytothe Town/ParishCouncils proposedincreaseinscaleofthealreadyapprovedredevelopment oftheFortHalsteadsite.Whenoutlinepermissionwasgiven,it wasconsideredthat450dwellingswasthemaximumthesiteand itsunadoptedaccessroadcouldaccommodate.Thishasnot changed.Theoriginalrequirementthattheredevelopmentshould beemploymentledmustalsobemaintained.Ifthenumberof dwellingsisincreased,thentheaccessontoStarHillmustbe utilisedasthehighernumberofcarsusingasingleaccessonto Polhillwouldbeunacceptable.Cantheutilities(electricity,gas, water,drainage,communicationsetc)providethenecessary services?Iftheproposedincreaseinthenumberofdwellingsis accepted,FortHalsteadwillhavealargernumberthantheexisting villageofHalstead. HalsteadParishCouncil–HalsteadParishCouncilfeelthatthis area,onewhichissituatedalongsidethegreenbelt,inanAreaof NaturalBeautyandcontainingAncientWoodland,hasalready accepteditsfairshareofhousing.Anextra300unitsalongsidethe alreadyapproved450withinthesamefootprint–would encroachonthewoodlandandthegreenbelttoanunacceptable levelandwouldhaveandirectimpactonthesurrounding countrysidetostillbeconsideredanAreaofNaturalBeauty. SealParishCouncilFortHalstead(SiteMX24)SealParishCouncil objectstodevelopmentofafurther300dwellingsatthissite unlessanewprimaryschoolisprovideatthesitetoservethetotal of700dwellings.

Page 541 Agenda Item 6

Otherinterested Nocommentreceived parties STAGE2SITEAPPRAISALCONCLUSION Isthissiteacceptablefortheproposeddevelopment? YES

LOCALPLANSTRATEGYASSESSMENT RelevantLocalPlanstrategy Evidence Housing–DevelopedlandintheGreen Developedland(includingpreviously Belt developedland) Doesthissitemeettherelevantlocalplanstrategy? YES

OVERALLCONCLUSION IncludeinPlan LandUse MixedUse–Residential,Leisure,Employment,Retail, Infrastructure,OpenSpace Developablearea(ha) 62.66 Density 40DPH Sitecapacity 300(inadditionto450alreadyagreed) Phasing 610years

Page 542

MX41 ‐ LAND AT BROKE HILL GOLF COURSE, SEVENOAKS ROAD, HALSTEAD

SITE DELIVERABILITY ASSESSMENT

SHELAA ref MX41 SHELAA category 3 SHELAA conclusion Unsuitable SHELAA yield 0 SHELAA density 30‐40 DPH When will development 1‐5 years be delivered?

Will an existing use be Golf course and driving range lost? If yes, what? Access requirements The existing access onto Sevenoaks Road could be utilised, however an additional access would also be required to serve more than 50 units Green Belt strength & Strong boundary issues Viability issues None identified New infrastructure and Extra care / warden‐supported housing community benefits Local Needs Housing Local service centre (likely to include community hall, a café, health club facilities, and small‐scale retail) Healthcare provision New Education Facilities, including Primary School, Early Years and Special Education Needs facility Employment space including incubator business space Self build plots Gin distillery (employment and tourism) Station car park A Regional Sports Hub including club/changing facilities Public open space provision

Input from technical Biodiversity Analysis specialists KCC Highways Other considerations The loss of the golf course and facilities needs to be addressed.

Deliverability summary Yellow – provision of evidenced infrastructure benefits, moderate/strongly performing Green Belt and proportion of NPPF PDL. For a mix of residential, employment and community facilities.

STAGE 1 SITE APPRAISAL CONCLUSION

Deliverability summary Yellow – provision of evidenced infrastructure benefits, moderate/strongly performing Green Belt and proportion of NPPF PDL. For a mix of residential, employment and community facilities. Key messages from SA High biodiversity School Health centre Town/ local centre

Land Use Mixed Use – Residential, Mixed Use, Employment. Retail, Community, Leisure, Open space Developable area (ha) 60.22 Density 40 DPH Site capacity 800 Phasing 1‐5 years, 6‐10 years

Overall conclusion Include in plan, subject to further information

Agenda Item 6

SITECONSIDERATIONS MX41LandAtBrokeHillGolfCourse,SevenoaksRoad,Halstead Landuse/existing Managedgreenlandi.e.golfcourse use IssiteintheGreen Yes Belt? GreenBelt NotinaRA recommended area(RA)– Weakly Performing WiderGreenBelt Strong parcelstrength GBParcelID–76 Strategicgap(SG) Notinastrategicgap Adjacentto PartiallyAdjacent–PrattsBottom settlement boundary Settlement Withinoradjacenttolowertiersettlement–PrattsBottom hierarchy Proximitytopublic Withinwalkingdistanceofpublictransportandexistingservices transport/services andfacilitiesincluding…  BusStop–20m  TrainStation–104m AONB OutsideAONB Agriculturalland Grade3 quality Landscape Low–ResidentialandCommercialDevelopment sensitivity Optimumdensity Edgeofsettlement(average40DPH)Densitywillvaryacrosssite, makingefficientuseoflandandrespectingthecharacterofthe location,andwillbedevelopedthroughfurthersitedesignand assessment.Itisanticipatedthatthecentreofthesite/localcentre willbeofhigherdensityandtheedgeofthesitewillbelowerdensity, formingasoftergraduatededgetothedevelopment. ADDITIONALINFORMATIONREQUIREMENTS(foryellowsitesonly) Whatinformationwas Conclusion requested? Socialandcommunity See the infrastructure considerations table. infrastructureevidence BromleyCCGresponse– Aresponsehasbeenprovided,settingoutpotentialoptions

Page 675 Agenda Item 6

Healthfacilitiessupported toprovideadditionalfacilitiesbothonandoffsite. Educationprovider’s Aresponsehasbeenprovidedsuggestingcurrentprovision response–facilities cannotbeexpanded supported Transportmodelling The information submitted is satisfactory. NetworkRailresponse– Aresponsehasbeenprovided,statingthatimprovementsto reasonableandfeasible theexistingfacilitywillbeneeded. Lossofexistinguse The information submitted is satisfactory. Sports England and Golf England have no objections. Ecologyandlandscape The information submitted is satisfactory. assessment

DELIVERY SitehasbeenpromotedbyAgentwithsupportfromthelandowner Thesitepromoterhasindicatedthattherearenophysicalorviabilityconstraintsthatwould preventthesitecommencingwithinyears15 Deliverpartnerappointed Sitepromotionteamappointedandsupportingstudiesprovided/inpreparation HeadsofTermswithsportingproviders Conclusion Deliverable/Developable

SUMMARYOFCONSULTATIONCOMMENTS Sitepromoter QuinnEstates–Thesiteisentirelyconsistentwithnationalpolicy andwhichdoesnotcompromisethestrategicpurposeofthe District’sGreenBelt.Themasterplandepicts800homesalthough thereisscopeforprovisionof1200homesonsite.Proposed40% affordablehousing. TheLocalCentrewillaccommodatenewmedicalfacilities–most notablyapurposebuiltGPsurgeryandpharmacy. Itisahighlyenclosedanddiscreteparcelofland,itisavery accessibleandquintessential‘transporthub’location,andby bringingthisredundantlandbackintoactiveuse,wecangenerate unprecedentedpublicbenefitsthroughbalancedgrowththat securesmajorinvestmentinlocalservicesthroughlandvalue captureinsteadoftaxpayergeneratedresource.Noother ‘ExceptionalCircumstances’sitecanprovidesuchadiverseand meaningfulrangeofeconomic,socialandenvironmentalbenefits. Moreover,thelandisnotcropproducingBMVL,itisnotinanArea ofOutstandingNaturalBeauty,anditisnotsubjectofother planningdesignationsorphysicalconstraintsthatwouldprevent delivery(ecology,oodrisk,landscapeandsoforth).Inlegalterms, itisthereforesequentiallypreferabletodevelopthissiteaheadof otherland. Giventheabsenceofdevelopmentandinfrastructureconstraints,a newdevelopmentallocationpolicyforthissiteassetoutforMX41

Page 676 Agenda Item 6

canincludetherequirementtodeliverarangeofverybeneficial communityandnonresidentialusesthatwillbenefitexistingas wellasfutureresidentsoftheWard. Infrastructureproviders KentCountyCouncil(KCC)HighwaysTransportAssessmenthas beenscopedwithKCCandhasbeenreceivedandconsidered.Two accessesontoLondonRoadandthisaccordswithKentDesign. Emergency/cyclingWalkingaccesscanbeprovidedtoconnect ruralroads.Acapacityassessmenthasbeencompleted.Additional informationisrequiredtoaddressoutstandingconcernsrelatingto thetrafficimpactalongWheatsheafHillandattheHewitts roundabout.ThesiteisclosetotheKnockholtstationanda developmentofthisscalewouldbeexpectedtodeliverpublic transportimprovementsandwalkingandcyclingopportunities. AccessB Capacity–B Sustainability–B KCCPrimaryEducationUpto1277newdwellingswould generate358primarypupils.Thisequatesto1.7FEofprimary provision.Thetwosignificantdevelopmentsinthisareaarethe BrokeHilldevelopmentnorthofHalstead,andtheFortHalstead developmentwhichliessouthofHalstead.TheissueforKCCis thatthesmallprimaryschoolinHalsteadcannotreallybe expandedonitscurrentsite.TomovetheschooltoBrokeHill meansthattheresidentsinFortHalsteadwouldhavemuchfurther totravel.Ashasbeenmentionedabove,KCCbelievethatthe developmentsinDuntonGreenwillfillanexpanded2FEDunton GreenPrimarySchool,leavingnocapacityforresidentsfromthe SevenoaksNorthernVillagesplanningarea.KCCrequestdialogue withSDCplannersoverresolutionofthisissue. KCCHeritageandConservationScale3Significantarchaeology couldbedealtwiththroughsuitableconditionsonaplanning approval. ThamesWaterWaterResponseOntheinformationavailableto datewedonotenvisageinfrastructureconcernsregardingWater Supplycapabilityinrelationtothissite. WasteResponseThescaleofdevelopment/sislikelytorequire upgradestothewastewaternetwork. BromleyClinicalCommissioningGroup–Thesitesitsclosestto BromleyGPspractices.Weestimatethistobeanadditional2000 patientsofwhichanumberoftheseareexpectedtobeofahigher complexity.Ifallthepatientsregisteredwiththeclosestpractice,it wouldrepresenta24%increaseinpracticelistsize.CurrentLocal GPPracticestakingontheadditionalpatientswithintheircurrent practices/premises.Afterspeakingto2ofourmostlocalGP Practicesonlyoneofthemsaidtheywouldbeabletotakeona fewadditionalpatientsbuttheycouldnottakeonthevolumeof

Page 677 Agenda Item 6

patientsthisdevelopmentisproposing.Thereisnoroomforthese practicestoexpandandwouldnotbeabletosupport70bed nursinghome.ThereisnoscopeforrelocationofaGPpractice. Provisionofanewsurgeryonsitesseemstobeavalidsolutionbut apracticeinBromleywouldnotbeabletomoveintothepremises. NHSWestKentCCGTheproposeddevelopmentattheformer BrokeHillGolfcoursedoesnotcurrentlyfallwithintheboundary ofanyGeneralPracticesintheWestKentCCGarea.Nearby practiceshavenoplanstoextendtocovertheareaandthegrowth generatedwouldnottriggeranewgeneralpractice.No requirementorneedforamedicalcentreinthislocation.The proposalsdetailthatincludedinthedevelopmentwouldbe70 unitsofretirementaccommodationand70bedsofextra care/nursingaccommodation.Supportingthecomplexmedical needsofthispopulationisplacingademandongeneralpractices whichexceedsthelevelofcarewhichtheyarerequiredtoprovide undertheirstandardgeneralmedicalservice(GMS)contract.This wouldbeinadditiontotheoveralldemandcreatedbythe developmentandfromaworkloadandworkforceperspectivethe pressurewouldbesignificantaspracticeswouldgenerallysee highernumbersofrequestsforhomevisitsandsupporttocare homes. NetworkRail–KnockholtStationNRestimatethataround20%of workingagepopulationwillcommuteintocentralLondon.The journeytimeisrelativelyquickataround35minutestoLondon Bridgeandthereare3trainsinthepeakhours,amixtureof8,10 and12cartrains.TheKentRouteStudyrecommendsthatan additional12vehiclesbeprovidedinthepeaktocaterfor projecteddemand.TheSouthEasternfranchiseForadevelopment ofthesizeproposedwewouldrecommendconsiderationbeing giventoprovidingaseparateaccessroadtotheSkipYard,this wouldenhancethestationareabymakingitsaferforallusers.It wouldalsoallowustoprovidebetterparkingfacilitiesfor commuters.Thereiscurrentlynostepfreeaccessatthestation, thereforeNRwouldencourageearlyengagementwithadeveloper todiscusspotentialoptions. Statutoryconsultees SportEngland–SportEnglandhasconsultedtheRugbyFootball Union,EnglandHockeyandEnglandGolf,astheirviewsmustbe givensufficientweightwhenconsideringthisproposedsite allocationgiventheexistingandproposedusesbothconcerntheir respectivesports.EnglandHockeyhavestatedthatInprinciple, theyaresupportiveoftheproject.RFUhaveconfirmedthat SevenoaksRFCwouldviewtheproposeddevelopmentasa satellitevenueinadditiontotheircurrentgroundatKnolePark andnotasawholesalerelocation.TheRFUwouldbesupportiveof thedevelopmentsubjecttofurtherinformation.Thegolfclubhada relativelystrongmembershippriortoclosing,thedecisionwas madetocloseover12monthsago.EnglandGolfstatethatthereis alotofgolfprovisioninthearea,sofromtheirperspective,thereis

Page 678 Agenda Item 6

stillagoodlevelofprovisionabletocaterforthelocaldemand. Therefore,subjecttotheprovisionofdetailrequestedabove,Sport Englandhasnoplanstoobjecttothissiteallocation. NaturalEnglandDesignationImpactedKentDownsAONB (setting).Whatshouldbeconsideredforthisallocation?Potential toimpactthesettingoftheAONB.Policyshouldconsiderthesite's locationwithregardstotheAONB,andanyimpactthisallocation mayhaveonthesettingoftheAONB. HistoricEnglandAllsitesincludedinthedraftplanaspotential housingormixeddevelopmentsitesshouldbesubjecttoadetailed heritageassessmentpriortoinclusioninthefinaldraftLocalPlan. Wherenegativeimpactscannotbeavoidedorlimited considerationshouldbegiventoreducingthequantumof developmentontheallocatedsite,oritsremovalifmitigationof theharmtoheritagesignificancecannotbeachieved.Site descriptionsinAppendixAshouldbeenhancedtoidentifyheritage designations(listedbuildings,scheduledmonuments,registered parksandgardens,etc.)thatmaybeaffectedbydevelopmentof allocatedsites. Publicincluding LondonBoroughofBromley–Areconcernedregardingthe Town/ParishCouncils transportimpactoftheproposeddevelopment.Knockholtstation with2servicesanhourintoLondonisunlikelytobeanattractive optioncomparedtoprivatecars.Thedevelopmentwouldhavea significantimpactonthecapacityofthisstationatpeaktimes. Additionalbusserviceswillberequiredfortheonsiteprimary schoolandtosecondaryschool. Themixedusenatureofthedevelopmentiswelcomebutthereare concernsthatsomeusesmayleadtoadditionaltripgeneration fromoutsideintothevillage. ShorehamParishCouncilBoththelandatBrokeHillandPedham PlacearesituatedintheGreenbeltandshouldnotbebuilton. BadgersMountParishCouncil–Theproposalwouldresultin linkingofHalsteadandPrattsBottomandresultinurbansprawl. HalsteadscoredhighintheArupGreenBeltassessment.Roadsare alreadycongestedandcannotcopewithmoretraffic.Knockholt stationiscrowdedandhasnofurthercapacity.StonehouseLane, CadlocksHillandStationRoadcannotcopewithfurthertraffic. Thesportsfacilitiesdonotprovideforlocalresidentsbutforclubs withexistingfacilitiesinSevenoakstown.Thereisaconsiderable amountofwildlifeinandaroundthesitewhichwillbesignificantly affectedbytheproposeddevelopment.Withallthedevelopment intheareaHalsteadwillhavemorethan3timesthenumberof housesastheexistingvillage. HalsteadParishCouncil–ThesiteperformedhighlyintheArup GreenBeltassessment.Donotfeelthatexceptionalcircumstances hasbeenmet.Thereisancientwoodlandonthesitewhichwould

Page 679 Agenda Item 6

bethreatenedbydevelopment.Theinfrastructurewillnotbeable tocopewiththedevelopment. GeneralPublicMainIssues(inorderoffrequency)–  NobuildingonGreenBelt/usebrownfield  Objecttothedevelopment  Trafficwillincrease  Supportsportsfacilities/school/GPsurgeryonsite  Roadsalreadycongested  Environmentalimpact/flora&fauna  Toomanyhouses/nohousingneeded  Trainstationparkinginsufficient/poortrainservice  Lossofidentity/urbansprawl  Recogniseneedforsomehousing  Pollution(air/light/noise)willincrease/airqualitydecline  Accessroadstodevelopmentsinadequate  Allegationsofimpropriety/responsesfromoutsidethearea  Inadequateinfrastructure/infrastructuremustbeinplace  Sportfacilities/schoolnotneeded  Needforaffordablehomes  Pressureonschools/doctors/moreneeded  Areawouldbespoiled–character/views  Poorpublictransport  Lossofpublicfootpaths  Noexceptionalcircumstances  Goodlocation/neartotransportlinks  Increasedpressureonutilities  Gindistillery/businessparknotrequired  Concernedaboutflooding  Severeparkingproblemsalready  Lackofamenities/shops  Increaseincrime/antisocialbehaviour/pressureon policing  Supportthedevelopment Otherinterested LondonBoroughofBromleyAswardcouncillorsinthe parties neighbouringauthorityrepresentingChelsfield&Pratt’sBottom wardwearetotallyopposedtoadevelopmentofthisnatureon greenbeltland.Wearealsogreatlyconcernedontheimpactitwill haveonourresidentsandthelocalinfrastructure.Chelsfield StationisalreadyaffectedbytheoverflowfromKnockholtStation andthiswillimpactfurther.TheA21isanextremelybusyroad already.Wecannotseeany‘ExceptionalCircumstances’that warrantthisgoingaheadonGreenBeltlandandalsoloseahighly valuedrecreationalarea. CPREKent(SevenoaksDistrictCommittee)–objecttothe developmentastherearenoexceptionalcircumstances,which meetevidencedneedsandthecumulativeimpactofdevelopment intheareawilloverwhelminfrastructure.

Page 680 Agenda Item 6

INFRASTRUCTURECONSIDERATIONS(forgreenfield+greenbeltsitesonly) WhatInfrastructureisproposed? Doesitmeetanevidencedexisting (updatedtoincorporateDraftLocalPlan need? representationsfromsitepromoter) HockeyandRugbyfacilities PlayingPitchStrategy(2018) 7.7haforsportsprovision,facilitiesprovided SevenoaksHockeyCluband onvirtualfreeholdbasis SevenoaksRugbyClub–agreedHoT NationalGoverningBody Stationcarpark Currentonstreetparkingissues LocalCentre–retail,café,communityhall, Centreprimarilytoservenew healthclubwithswimmingpool development BuildofnewGPmedicalfacility CCGshavenotconfirmedthey wouldoccupyinthislocation BusinessHub–purposebuiltservicedB1 EconomicNeedsStudy officespace2.1haofemploymentland Education–2FEprimaryschool,earlyyears, KCCeducation SEN,S106contributiontosecondary(1.7ha KentCommissioningPlanfor land) Education20182022 Carehome/wardenassistedaccommodation LocalHousingNeedsStudy(2017) 70beds(retirementhome)70bedsextracare Additionalfundingstreams? Limitedfundingfromothersources Othersitesavailable? Infrastructureproposalsprimarily relatedtodistrictwideneed CompensatoryimprovementsinGreenBelt? Creationofparkland–retaining maturetreesandlandscape enhancement.ManagementTrust/ gifttoPC.Provisionofallotments STAGE2SITEAPPRAISALCONCLUSION Isthissiteacceptablefortheproposeddevelopment? YES

LOCALPLANSTRATEGYASSESSMENT RelevantLocalPlanstrategy Evidence Housing–GreenfieldsiteintheGreenBelt Infrastructureproposalsdonotoutweigh harmtostronglyperformingbelt. Doesthissitemeettherelevantlocalplanstrategy? NO

Page 681 Agenda Item 6

OVERALLCONCLUSION Donotinclude LandUse Developablearea(ha) Density Sitecapacity Phasing

Page 682 Agenda Item 6

Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan Policies

To Note: The formatting of these policies indicates the changes from the consultation version (Regulation 18) of the Plan. Where text has been amended, insertions are in underlined text and deletions are in strikethrough text.

These policies will be accompanied by explanatory ‘supporting text’, which does not form part of the policy wording, but provides additional background information and context. Performance indicators and delivery mechanisms will also be included in the final submission version of the Plan, in order to monitor progress and delivery.

1 Page 745 Agenda Item 6

Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan Policies

Chapter 1 – A Balanced Strategy for Growth in a constrained district

Policy ST1 - A Balanced Strategy For Growth in a Constrained District (Policy 1) Policy ST2 - Housing and Mixed Use Site Allocations (Policy 2)

Chapter 2 – Providing Housing Choices

Policy H1 - Market and affordable housing mix (Policy 8) Policy H2 - Provision of affordable housing (Policy 9) Policy H3 - Housing in rural areas (Policy 10) Policy H4 - Provision for the Gypsy and Traveller Community (Policy 11) Policy H5 - Housing density (Policy 12)

Chapter 3 – Supporting a vibrant and balanced economy

Policy EMP1 - Supporting a Vibrant and Balanced Economy (Policy 13) Policy EMP2 - Town and Local Centres (Policy 14) Policy EMP3 – Tourism and Rural Economy (Policy 14)

Chapter 4 – Ensuring well-connected communities are supported by appropriate infrastructure

Policy T1 - Transport & Infrastructure (Policy 7)

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

Policy LA1 - Landscape and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Policy 3) Policy GB1 - Development in the Green Belt (Policy 4) Policy AF1 - Ashdown Forest (Policy 5)

Chapter 6 –Safeguarding places for wildlife and nature

Policy WN1 - Safeguarding Places for Wildlife and Nature (Policy 6)

Chapter 7 – Ensuring new development respects local distinctiveness

Policy EN1 - Design Principles (Policy 15)

Chapter 8 – The Historic Environment

Policy HEN1 - Historic Environment (Policy 16) Policy HEN2 - Heritage Assets (Policy 17)

2 Page 746 Agenda Item 6

Chapter 9 – Climate Change, Flooding and Healthy Communities

Policy HE1 – Health, Wellbeing and Air Quality (Policy 18) Policy CC1 - Climate Change, Flooding and Water Management (Policy 18)

Chapter 10 – Leisure and Open Space

Policy OS1 - Open Space, Sport and Leisure (Policy 19)

3 Page 747 Agenda Item 6

Chapter 1 – A Balanced Strategy for Growth in a constrained district

Policy ST1 - A Balanced Strategy For Growth in a Constrained District

Development will be focused within the boundaries of existing settlements, including building at higher density on non-Green Belt land. Mixed use developments which intensify the use of land by incorporating housing will be supported and encouraged, particularly on sites that are close to services and facilities and/or well-connected by public transport, walking and cycling . The four towns within the District - Sevenoaks, Swanley, Edenbridge and Westerham, will be the initial focus for development, with more moderate development within the settlements further down the Settlement Hierarchy. Development proposals for the four towns will be expected to comply with the place-making proposals and priorities listed in the supporting text.

We will encourage the re-use of previously developed 'brownfield' land, including land in the Green Belt, where it is situated in sustainable locations. However, the supply of 'brownfield' land is limited and therefore this is not a solution in itself.

We will promote sustainable patterns of development by permitting development in the Green Belt only in 'exceptional circumstances'. in the most sustainable locations where employment, key services and facilities and a range of transport options are or will be available. Sites will need to provide social and community infrastructure in addition to housing, to help address evidenced infrastructure needs in the area.

Where development will result in a significant improvement in the sustainability of settlements through the provision of social and community infrastructure in areas currently lacking such facilities, we will alter Green Belt boundaries to enable sites to be removed from the Green Belt and to be allocated for development.

We will continue to work discuss with neighbouring authorities under the Duty to Co-operate about whether they can accommodate some of the identified need for development, but the position, as set out in the Statements of Common Ground. is that they are currently unable to assist.

4 Page 748 Agenda Item 6

Policy ST2 - Housing and Mixed Use Site Allocations

The following new housing and mixed use sites, are proposed for consultation allocated for development.

These sites will provide for a range of housing types, density, mix and tenure and are subject to the site areas and design guidance.

Unimplemented housing and mixed use site allocations from the ADMP (2015) have been will be carried forward into this Local Plan and are also listed in the table.

Ref Settlement/Site No. of units ST2-

Sevenoaks Urban Area 1 Delivery and Post Office / BT Exchange, South 100 H2a Park, Sevenoaks 2 5 Crownfields, Sevenoaks 20 HO5 3 15 St Botolphs Road, Sevenoaks 12 HO381 4 School House, Oak Lane and Hopgarden Lane, 56 H1d Sevenoaks 5 Johnsons, Oak Lane and Hopgarden Lane, 54 H1e Sevenoaks 6 Sevenoaks Hospital, Hospital Road, Sevenoaks 73 HO365 7 Sevenoaks Community Centre, Otford Road, 75 MX29 Sevenoaks 8 Cramptons Road Water Works, Sevenoaks 126 H1b 9 Sevenoaks Gasholders, Cramptons Road, 98 H1c Sevenoaks 10 Sevenoaks Town Council Offices, Bradbourne 32 HO217 Vale Road, Sevenoaks 11 Sevenoaks Adult Education Centre, 30 HO226 Bradbourne Road, Sevenoaks 12 Summerhill, Seal Hollow Road, Sevenoaks 13 HO410 13 Sevenoaks Quarry, Bat and Ball Road, 600 MX43 Sevenoaks 14 Land rear of the Village Hall, London Road, 240 MX50 Dunton Green

5 Page 749 Agenda Item 6

Ref Settlement/Site No. of units ST2- 15 Chaucers of Sevenoaks, London Road, Dunton 11 HO86 Green Withdrawn by HO349 Godfreys, Otford Road, Sevenoaks landowner Archery and Far End, Chipstead Lane, Withdrawn by HO382 Chipstead, Sevenoaks landowner Not in accordance MX49 Land west of Chevening Road, Chipstead with strategy

Swanley 16 Swanley Centre, Nightingale Way, Swanley 250 H2c 17 Bevan Place, Swanley 100 H1g 18 Bus Garage and Kingdom Hall, London Road, 74 H1h Swanley 19 The Woodlands, Hilda May Avenue, Swanley 66 HO198 White Oak Leisure Centre, Hilda May Avenue, 20 Swanley (as part of a leisure centre 80 MX56 replacement programme) 21 Land between 16 and 32 Alder Way, Swanley 20 HO274 22 Former Birchwood Primary School, Russett 39 HO222 Way, Swanley 23 Upper Hockenden Farm, Hockenden Lane, 25 MX9 Swanley 24 Harringtons Nursery, Highlands Hill, Swanley 71 HO4 25 Swanley Village Nursery, Swanley Village 6 HO357 Road, Swanley Village 26 Land rear of Cedar Lodge, Wood Street, 6 HO298 Swanley Village 27 Land south of Wood Street, Swanley Village 10 HO388 28 Land at Pedham Place 2,500* MX48 HO197 Land rear of West View Road, Swanley Unsuitable HO202 Land adjacent to 23 Russett Way, Swanley Defer to Development

6 Page 750 Agenda Item 6

Ref Settlement/Site No. of units ST2- Management process Old Forge Yard, Swanley Village Road, HO10 Unavailable Swanley Defer to Pembroke Business Centre and Pembroke MX32 Development House, College Road, Swanley Management process Unsuitable/not in Land between Beechenlea Lane and the MX54a accordance with railway line, Swanley strategy Unsuitable/not in Land between Beechenlea Lane and Highlands MX54b accordance with Hill, Swanley strategy

Edenbridge 29 Station Approach, Edenbridge 30 H2d 30 Open space at Stangrove Estate, Crouch 15 HO210 House Road, Edenbridge 31 Kent & Surrey Driving Range, Crouch House 7 HO379 Road, Edenbridge 32 Edenbridge & District War Memorial Hospital, 30 HO364 Mill Hill, Edenbridge 33 Land south of Skinners Lane, Edenbridge 270 HO189 34 Land east of Bray Road, Edenbridge 70 HO223 Amended site HO190 Land north of Skinners Lane, Edenbridge boundary Land east of Four Elms Road and north of Amended site MX25 Skinners Lane, Edenbridge boundary Land south of the railway line, Four Elms Road, Amended site MX26 Edenbridge boundary Land at Breezehurst Farm, Crouch House Not in accordance MX10 Road, Edenbridge with strategy Not in accordance MX44 Land west of Romani Way, Edenbridge with strategy Land south west of Crouch House Road, Not in accordance MX51 Edenbridge with strategy

Westerham

7 Page 751 Agenda Item 6

Ref Settlement/Site No. of units ST2- 35 Currant Hill Allotments, Westerham 26 H1m 36 Land between Granville Road and Farleycroft, 10 HO46 Westerham Defer to Crockham Hill House, Main Road, Crockham HO327 Development Hill Management process Unsuitable/not in HO371 Land south of Farley Lane, Westerham accordance with strategy Unsuitable/not in HO372 Land north of Farley Lane, Westerham accordance with strategy Unsuitable/not in HO373 Land east of Croydon Road, Westerham accordance with strategy Unsuitable/not in HO374 Land south of Madan Road, Westerham accordance with strategy

New Ash Green 37 New Ash Green Village Centre, New Ash 70 H2e Green 38 The Manor House, North Ash Road, New Ash 35 MX55 Green 39 The Forge, Ash Road, Ash 29 HO384 40 Oast House Nursery, Ash Road, Ash 20 HO402

Otford 41 Otford Builders Merchants, High Street, 7 HO102 Otford

Hartley 42 Land south of Orchard House, Ash Road, 10 HO353 Hartley Unsuitable/not in Land at Corinthians Sports Club, Valley Road, MX52 accordance with Fawkham/Hartley strategy

8 Page 752 Agenda Item 6

Ref Settlement/Site No. of units ST2- Unsuitable/not in Land between Parkfield and Fawkham Road, MX53 accordance with Fawkham/Hartley strategy

Other Settlements 43 Chelsfield Depot, Shacklands Road, Badgers 100 HO150 Mount 44 Land west of the roundabout, London Road, 27 HO328 Badgers Mount 45 Calcutta Club and Polhill Business Centre, 66 HO368 London Road, Badgers Mount 46 Highways Depot, Tonbridge Road, 8 HO109 Chiddingstone Causeway 47 Land rear of Brickyard Cottages, Tonbridge 18 HO408 Road, Chiddingstone Causeway 48 Middle Farm Nursery, Cray Road, Crockenhill 30 HO97 49 Wested Farm, Eynsford Road, Crockenhill 10 HO124 50 Gorse Hill Nursery, Gorse Hill, Farningham 55 HO315 51 Maplescombe Farm, Maplescombe Lane, 35 HO326 Farningham HO51 Eureka Naturist Club, Manor Lane, Fawkham Unsuitable 52 Fawkham Business Park, Fawkham Road, 31 HO165 Fawkham 53 Grange Park Farm, Manor Lane, Fawkham 32 HO378 54 Highfield Farm and Knocka Villa, Crow Drive, 20 HO49 Halstead 55 Deer Leap Stud Farm, Knockholt Road, 13 HO138 Halstead 56 Oak Tree Farm, London Road, Halstead 37 HO307 57 300 (plus 450 with Fort Halstead, Crow Drive, Halstead MX24 planning permission) Land at Broke Hill Golf Course, Sevenoaks Not in accordance MX41 Road, Halstead with strategy Withdrawn by HO73 The Parish Complex, College Road, Hextable landowner

9 Page 753 Agenda Item 6

Ref Settlement/Site No. of units ST2- Former Furness School, Rowhill Road, Withdrawn by HO224 Hextable landowner Land west of College Cottages, College Road, HO58 Unsuitable/unavailable Hextable 58 College Road Nurseries, College Road, 9 HO106 Hextable 59 Egerton Nursery, Egerton Avenue, Hextable 30 HO212 60 Oasis Academy, Egerton Avenue, Hextable 190 HO225 61 Land north of Top Dartford Road, Hextable 16 HO433 62 Top Dartford Road, Hextable 29 H1j Holmesdale Works, Holmesdale Road, South Defer to Development HO354 Darenth Management process 63 Gills Farm, Gills Road, South Darenth 16 HO127 64 Land at Oakview Stud Farm, Lombard Street, 42 HO346 Horton Kirby 65 The Cottage, Holmesdale Road, South Darenth 9 HO430 Land east of Whitebeam Close and south of Withdrawn by HO340 Pilgrim Way Cottages, Kemsing landowners Defer to Development HO104 Baldwins Yard, Noahs Ark, Kemsing Management process 66 Land south of West End, Kemsing 20 HO133 67 Land south of Noahs Ark, Kemsing 22 HO407 51-59 Mount Pleasant Road and land to the Withdrawn by HO44 rear, Sevenoaks Weald landowner 1-6 Gilchrist Cottages and land to the rear, Withdrawn by HO47 Mount Pleasant Road, Sevenoaks Weald landowner Car park east of Sundridge House, Main Road, Defer to Development HO336 Sundridge Management process 68 Meadow Cottage, Goathurst Common, Ide Hill 14 HO342 69 JD Hotchkiss Ltd, London Road, West 31 HO35 Kingsdown

10 Page 754 Agenda Item 6

Ref Settlement/Site No. of units ST2- 70 Florence Farm Mobile Home Park, Main Road, 16 HO78 West Kingsdown 71 Rajdani, London Road, West Kingsdown 20 HO272 Millview Park and Foxlands, London Road, HO77 Unsuitable/unavailable West Kingsdown 72 Terrys Lodge Farm, Terrys Lodge Road, 5 HO129 Wrotham

11 Page 755