Cllr John Grint, Halstead, and Badgers Mount, Response to SDC Local Plan Consultation

(a) Broke Hill Gold Course (MX41)

Many Halstead residents have written to you voicing their serious concerns and objecting to the proposed development at Broke Hill. I fully support their objections. In particular I align myself fully with the comments submitted by Helen Brown on behalf of the Halstead Green Belt Future Group. I would highlight the following concerns:

1. The site in question is one of the most vital and essential pieces of Green Belt in the whole of District, and must be afforded the highest level of protection. It serves the vital role of preventing urban sprawl extending from into . Broke Hill is immediately adjacent to Pratts Bottom, which is the outermost development in Greater London; permitting development on this site would effectively extend Greater London directly into Sevenoaks District, contrary to the original and most fundamental purpose of the Green Belt.

2. There is a serious and well founded concern in my ward of Halstead, Knockholt and Badgers Mount that at some point in the future Greater London may seek to extend its boundary to include all areas lying within the M25, and in particular to include the 3 villages which comprise my ward. This threat has been hanging over the villages ever since the construction of the M25 in the 1980s. Local villagers value highly their independence from Greater London and have no desire whatsoever to be swallowed up in this manner. They fear, however, that development on Broke Hill, effectively extending Greater London urban development directly into Sevenoaks District, will serve only to accelerate this unwelcome outcome.

3. The proposed scale of development at Broke Hill is way over the top, to a ridiculous extent. Halstead is a small village, as is Badgers Mount. To place such a massive development in close proximity to both villages pays no regard whatsoever to the nature of the villages and would destroy their character.

4. There is no evidence whatsoever that the local transport infrastructure could cope with such a massive development as is proposed at Broke Hill. Knockholt station is already operating to capacity, as is evident from the parking around the station every workday. Access to the M25 from Broke Hill is far from ideal, with one-way access to the A21 and Wheatsheaf Hill being unsuitable for heavy traffic volumes.

5. This is far more than simple development proposal. The Sevenoaks Draft Local Plan highlights the existing towns within the District - Sevenoaks, , Edenbridge and . Development at Broke Hill would effectively create a fifth town in the north-west of the District immediately adjacent to, and straddling the boundary with, the London Borough of Bromley. No case for the creation of such a town has been presented to or considered by Sevenoaks District Council. A proper examination of the issues connected with such a proposal would go far beyond the narrow confines of the Draft Local Plan and it is wholly inappropriate to use a brief 8 week consultation on the Local Plan as a means of promoting such a fundamental change to the character of the area. If SDC wishes to consider the creation of a new town in this area then I would suggest this should be the subject of a full process of consultation in its own right, including formal consultation with all interested parties including other local authorities, transport providers, education authorities, health providers, etc, etc, quite independently of the current Local Plan.

6. The totality of development proposals for my ward is out of all proportion to its size and current population. It is essential that the Local Plan is perceived to be "fair” by all residents of the District, if it is to command their support. My local residents perceive the Plan, and in particular the Broke Hill proposals, to impose a wholly unacceptable burden upon them when compared with other communities within the District.

7. Lastly, I trust SDC will disregard the special pleading by members of Sevenoaks Rugby Club who support the creation of new sporting facilities at Broke Hill. It is quite apparent that they have no interest in the totality of the development proposals at Broke Hill - indeed some have made it abundantly clear that they care not a jot what impact the rest of the development proposals might have. If the development proposals were purely for the creation of sporting facilities - which indeed might well be appropriate in the Green Belt - then that would be one thing. But in fact the sporting facilities are merely a minor "sweetener" tacked on to the whole Broke Hill proposal, and support for this small facet of the proposals should most certainly not be taken as evidence of support for the development proposal as a whole.