Objectively Assessed Needs (OAN) for Housing and Employment Land (Policies LP3, LP4 & LP38)

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Local Plan Examination

Matter 4 – Objectively Assessed Needs (OAN) for Housing and Employment Land (Policies LP3, LP4 & LP38)

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council (TMBC) Response

In answering these questions, the Council has drawn upon information from a range of evidence in the Local Plan Examination Library and from the Local Plan Examination Documents, including:

• Housing Need Update (January 2019) [HO1]

• Strategic Housing Market Assessment - Update Report (September 2016) [HO4]

• Strategic Housing Market Assessment - Update Report (June 2015) [HO5]

• Strategic Housing Market Assessment - Addendum (August 2014) [HO6]

• Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) - Main Report (March 2014) [HO7]

• Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) (February 2018) [HO12]

• Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) (Part 1 Gypsies and Travellers)(April 2013) [HO14]

• Housing Need Update (August 2020) [HO15 & ED55]

• Update of Employment Land Needs (November 2017) [EV1]

• Employment Land Review (December 2014) [EV2]

• Economic Futures Forecasting Study Addendum (November 2014) [EV3]

• Economic Futures Forecasting Study (January 2014) [EV4]

2 Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council (TMBC) Responses – Table of Contents

The Council’s responses to individual questions can be accessed directly from this Table of Contents by clicking on the relevant page number listed below.

Question Page

Q1. Does the Tonbridge and Malling Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and its updates (HO4- HO7 & H01) appropriately define the housing market areas? If not, what are the consequences for the housing requirement figure in policy LP3? ...... 5 Q2. Does the OAN figure in the Housing Need Update (January 2019) (HO1) take account of the most recent DCLG household projections, market signals, economic/jobs growth and the need for adequate levels of affordable housing to be provided? ...... 6 Q3. Is the housing target in the Local Plan appropriately aligned with forecasts for jobs growth? ...... 8 Q4. Should policy LP3 say how many dwellings per annum are required? Do the Council have a up to date housing trajectory, similar to the one in appendix 3 of examination document OLP6 (Housing (OAN) Topic Paper)? If not, can one please be provided? Should such a document be included in the Local Plan? ...... 9 Q5. Does the housing target take appropriate account of the need to ensure that the identified requirement for affordable housing is delivered? ...... 17 Q6. The soundness of proposals for the land allocations in the Local Plan will be considered at Stage 2 of the Examination. However, on the basis of the Local Plan as submitted, is it realistic that they would provide for: ...... 18 Q7. Have the Council carried out an assessment, as required by S.8 of the Housing Act 1985, of the needs of people in the district residing in caravans or houseboats? ...... 22 Q8. The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (February 2018) (GTAA) (HO12) finds a need for an additional 16 pitches for gypsies and travellers and 2 for travelling showpersons up to 2031, that meet the definition of gypsy and traveller in Annex 1 to Planning policy for traveller sites (PPTS). What about those who identify culturally as gypsies and travellers but do not meet the PPTS definition, how will their future housing needs be met? What about those gypsies and traveller whose status is ‘unknown’ because they were unable to be contacted? What account has been taken of them in terms of their future housing needs? ...... 23 Q9. Is it appropriate to meet the identified need through the authorisation of currently unauthorised sites, pitch turnover and planning applications coming forward on unallocated sites, or should sites be allocated in the plan to meet the future identified need? ...... 25 Q10. There is an identified need for a transit site for between 6 and 10 pitches in the GTAA. How are these to be provided for? The Council’s response to comments made at the regulation 19 stage to policy LP38 is that work is being undertaken with the County Council and other districts to identify an appropriate location for transit provision, but that it will be done at the LP review stage. Why is it not being done sooner given the GTAA found in 2017/18, on the basis of evidence of unauthorised encampment activity, the need for between 6 and 10 transit pitches which could accommodate between 12 and 20 caravans to reflect the scale and frequency of unauthorised encampment activity in this Borough alone? ...... 27 Q11. Is the Local Plan consistent with the requirement of national policy to identify a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide at least five years’ worth of supply against the local requirement and identify broad locations for growth for years 6 -10? ...... 28

3 Q12. What is the overall need for employment land that has been identified? What is the evidence for this? What is the situation regarding existing commitments and the residual need for additional land allocations? What is the past trend in take up rates for employment land? ...... 29 Q13. Overall does the evidence base provide adequate justification for the target set out in policy LP4 of at least 38ha of additional employment land? Should this also be expressed in terms of the number of jobs required? ...... 30 Q14. Are the employment land requirements consistent with the housing requirement figure and the methodology by which the latter was arrived at? ...... 33 Q15. Does the Local Plan allocate sufficient land to meet the identified minimum need in policy LP4? ... 34 Q16. What are the inter-relationships with other authorities in terms of employment land provision and how have these been taken into account? ...... 35 Q17. Would the strategy in the Local Plan result in the loss of any existing employment land? If so, where, how much and why? ...... 37

4 Housing

1.1. According to the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)1 Housing Market Areas (HMAs) are defined by analysing:

• House prices and rates of change in house prices; • Migration flow and housing search patterns; and • Contextual data such as travel to work areas, retail and school catchment areas.

1.2. Chapter 2 of the Tonbridge and Malling SHMA (March 2014) [HO7] examined all of the above criteria and as 2.43 of that document concludes:

“This pattern of interactions lends support to the view of two distinct HMAs operating in the West Kent area: one focussed on Maidstone and the other focussed on Sevenoaks, both of which exert influence on Tonbridge & Malling.”

1.3. It is true to say that the subsequent updates did not test the original definitions which were principally based on data up to 2011. In seeking to define the HMA it is still necessary to use data from 2011 albeit this would be a different source i.e. the Census which was not available at the time. It would, therefore, be extremely unlikely that a different conclusion would be drawn.

1.4. It should be noted that during the Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 consultations no objections were received from neighbouring authorities about how the HMAs were defined. This is in no small part due to the fact that the SHMA prepared for Tonbridge & Malling was a joint commission with Maidstone Borough Council and Ashford Borough Council and the same consultants prepared the SHMA shortly afterwards, using the same methodology, for Sevenoaks District Council and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council. The Local Plan has therefore been prepared using a proportionate evidence base for these purposes, applying national guidance.

1 https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20180607114246/https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and- economic-development-needs-assessments, see Paragraph 11 (Reference ID: 2a-011-20140306)

5 Q2. Does the OAN figure in the Housing Need Update (January 2019) (HO1) take account of the most recent DCLG household projections, market signals, economic/jobs growth and the need for adequate levels of affordable housing to be provided? TMBC Response to Q2:

2.1. As of January 2019 the most recent household projections available were the 2016- based Household Projections. These are set out in Table 8 of the Housing Need Update (January 2019) [HO1]. Since the preparation of HO1, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published the 2018-based Sub-National Population Projections (SNPP) and the 2018-based Household Projections, which are discussed further below.

2.2. Chapter 3 of [HO1] examines a range of market signals including data from the most recent housing affordability ratios (at that time) and house prices from the most recently completed full year (2017). These were examined across the HMAs and, having regard to the judgements of the more recent examining inspectors, justified a 25% uplift to the demographic need (para 3.30) which is towards the upper end of the range examined.

2.3. As paragraph 4.2 of [HO1] sets out, the economic-led housing need was based on the economic growth in the Borough as set out in the “Update of Employment Land Needs in Tonbridge and Malling” (November 2017) [EV1]. That report drew on the June 2017 Experian Forecasts which would have been the latest available to Turley's when they produced their report.

2.4. While this document provides evidence on housing need taking account of the DCLG household projections (2016-based) it was also used to confirm that the previous OAN of 696 dwellings per annum as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment - Update Report (September 2016) [HO4] remains appropriate (see paragraph 5.12 in [HO1]). [HO1] identified concluded that the OAN in Tonbridge and Malling for the period 2011 to 2031 was between 664dpa and 680dpa. Given that this was a reduction of between 16dpa (-2.3%) and 32dpa (- 4.6%) from the 2016 SHMA assessment of OAN (696dpa) on which the Local Plan is based, GL Hearn did not consider this to constitute a meaningful change in the housing situation. The Council agreed with this position.

2.5. [HO1] does take account of the need for adequate levels of affordable housing to be provided as explained in paragraphs 3.12 – 3.20. This is addressed in more detail in the Council’s response to question 5 (below). The Council is mindful that the requirement for affordable housing in the Plan is ultimately determined by

6 viability. The Council addressed this issue through the whole plan viability work - see [EV5] and [EV5(a) – EV5(e)].

2.6. In relation to the 2018 SNPP, and in response to the Inspectors’ request, in August 2020 the Council commissioned GL Hearn to produce a further housing need update taking account of the latest household projections [ED55].

2.7. [ED55] concludes that the OAN in Tonbridge and Malling for the period 2011 to 2031 is now between 715 dpa and 734 dpa based on a 25% uplift for market signals (although it also recognised that a lower uplift of 20% could also be justified given the latest, improving evidence on affordability in the borough). In any event, a 25% uplift would be sufficient to respond to market signals, including affordability, as well as making a significant contribution to affordable housing needs.

2.8. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) that supported the NPPF (2012) indicates that housing assessments are not automatically rendered outdated every time new projections are issued and that the central question is whether the latest projections result in a “meaningful change in the housing situation”2.

2.9. It is the view of GL Hearn that the assessment of OAN of between 715 dpa and 734 dpa is not a “meaningful change” from the 2016 SHMA assessment of OAN of 696 dpa which informed the submitted Local Plan, given the difference is only around 19 dpa to 38 dpa (+2.7% to +5.5%). Again the Council agree.

2.10. It is noticeable that the latest two iterations of the SNPP have given rise to OAN figures which are both slightly below (2016-based SNPP) and slightly above (2018- based SNPP) the OAN identified in the 2016 SHMA assessment (2014-based SNPP) on which the Local Plan is based. Given that the assessment of OAN is not an exact science such variances are not surprising. The important point is that neither of the updates has resulted in figures which differ so significantly from the OAN that it warrants revisiting this issue. Indeed, the fact that the latest updates show a variance of only circa +/- 5% serves to demonstrate how robust the OAN figure of 696dpa is.

2.11. Maintaining the previous OAN of 696 dpa for planning purposes would also (a) meet the expected demographic and economic growth; (b) provide further improvements to local affordability; and (c) make a significant and contribution to meeting affordable housing need.

2 https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20180607114246/https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and- economic-development-needs-assessments, see Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 2a-016-20150227

7 Q3. Is the housing target in the Local Plan appropriately aligned with forecasts for jobs growth? TMBC Response to Q3:

3.1. Yes. As stated in [HO1], the economic-led housing need was based on the economic growth in the Borough set out in [EV1]. The Local Plan seeks to address the identified shortfall of 46.8 ha of employment land (see Table 5.2 in [EV1]) through a combination of allocations and the intensification of economic development on existing employment land such as the former Aylesford Newsprint site (see Policy LP35). This was based on a jobs growth of 14,400 over the 2011 to 2031 period, as set out in [EV1]. This was tested in the Housing Needs Update (January 2019) (paragraph 4.3, [HO1]) which concluded an economic-led housing need figure of 614 dpa (paragraph 4.9, [HO1]). The demographic housing need with market signals adjustments results in a need for 664-680 dpa (paragraph 5.11, [HO1]). This would be more than adequate to meet the identified economic need of 614 dpa. There is therefore no need for a further increase to the OAN as a result of economic growth. A housing requirement of 696 dpa would also therefore more than provide enough housing for the economic-led housing need. The most recent update of the position in section 4 of [ED55] shows why that remains the case.

8 Q4. Should policy LP3 say how many dwellings per annum are required? Do the Council have a up to date housing trajectory, similar to the one in appendix 3 of examination document OLP6 (Housing (OAN) Topic Paper)? If not, can one please be provided? Should such a document be included in the Local Plan? TMBC Response to Q4:

Policy LP3: Dwellings per annum

4.1. LP3 is a strategic policy focussed on housing provision made in the Plan. The policy makes it clear that this provision will address in full the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for housing during the Plan period. This is considered to be a reasonable level of detail for this policy. For these reasons, the policy should not say how many dwellings per annum are required.

Up-to-date housing trajectory – Appendix A

4.2. At the outset of this answer the Council would like to highlight that at the point of submission the Local Plan fully addressed the assessed needs for housing with significant flexibility to adapt to rapid change, as demonstrated by Table 1 (p.4) in [OLP6].

4.3. The Council has prepared an up-to-date housing trajectory, similar to the one in Table 3 and Figure 1 in the Housing (Objectively Assessed Need and Land Supply) Topic Paper [OLP6]. The up-to-date trajectory is set out in Appendix A to this response document.

4.4. This up-to-date trajectory has a base date of 31 March 2019. The trajectory reflects completions up until this point in time. In terms of the trajectory, the Council has ensured that it is current, as far as reasonably possible, by taking account of recent granted permissions on allocated sites and decisions on non-allocated sites that are likely to have a significant bearing on housing land supply, certainly within the first five years from the adoption of the Plan. This is explained in more detail below. The position as at 31 March 2020 is still work-in-progress. Table 1 (overleaf) summarises the up-to-date trajectory. This is an update of Table 1 in [OLP6].

9 Table 1: Housing Land Supply (updated)

Housing requirement (gross) (2011-31) 13,920 (696 dwellings per annum)

Completions* 5,296 dwellings

Extant planning permissions** 2,687 dwellings

Small sites windfall estimate*** 528 dwelling

Local Plan net requirement 5,409 dwellings

Local Plan allocations^ 6,151 dwellings

Difference between Local Plan +742 dwellings (+13.7% buffer above allocations and net requirement net requirement)

* From 1 April 2011 up to 31 March 2019 ** As at 31 March 2019 + permissions granted on large sites post this date, (eg 3 Kings Hill sites) + outline permissions where there is clear evidence that reserved matters will be forthcoming in the near future (, eg Peters Village and Kings Hill Phase 3). Where planning permission has been granted on allocated sites, these dwellings have been counted towards the ‘Local Plan allocations’ figure so as to avoid double counting (see paragraphs 4.25-4.28 below) *** Projected supply of 44 dwellings per annum from small sites (fewer than 5 dwellings) for the remainder of the Local Plan period. Average supply from small windfalls over the five years (2013/14 – 2017/18) discounted by 50%. This has been confirmed as a reasonable estimate – please see the Council’s response to matter 2, question 10. ^ Phasing up to 2031 (Plan horizon)

Up-to-date housing trajectory – Differences with trajectory in OLP6

4.5. The differences between the up-to-date housing trajectory in Appendix A and the trajectory in [OLP6] are:

• Completions – the updated trajectory includes completions for 2018/19 (455 units). This means the total completions from the base date of the Plan (2011) has increased from 4,841 units to 5,296 units

• Projected Completions (extant permissions) – the figure has changed from 2,645 units to 2,687 units in the updated trajectory

• Windfall Allowances – the allowance has dropped from 572 units to 528 units

10 • Local Plan Allocations (during Plan period) – the projected figure during the lifetime of the Plan (up to 2031) has changed from 6,834 units to 6,151 units in the up-to-date trajectory.

4.6. Consequently there are changes to the ‘Total Annual Completions’ and Projections’ and ‘Cumulative Completions and Projections’, as reflected in Table 1 (above).

Up-to-date housing trajectory - the main changes

4.7. The differences outlined above are due to the following:

• Moving forward 12 months - from 31 March 2018 to 31 March 2019 • Anticipated adoption date of the Local Plan (revised) • Evidence of deliverability • Projected supply from C2 uses • Decisions on allocated sites (current) • Decisions on non-allocated sites (current)

Main changes – explained

4.8. The remainder of this response provides a narrative explaining in more detail what the main changes are and the bearing they have had on the up-to-date trajectory.

4.9. National policy context for decision-taking - In preparing this updated housing trajectory, the Council was mindful of the need to respond to national planning policy and planning practice guidance on housing land supply. Whilst the Council understands that the soundness of the Plan itself will be judged against the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] March 2012 and the Planning Practice Guidance [PPG] that supported it, in terms of projected housing land supply the Council needs to take account of the latest NPPF and PPG because these will inform the decision-taking on planning applications when they come forward, i.e. when the Plan is implemented. This means the Council has adopted a more conservative approach to assessing deliverability of sites than that expected in the NPPF 2012.

4.10. Anticipated adoption date of the Local Plan (revised) - The phasing of completions in the submitted Plan (i.e. the year when the first homes are anticipated to be completed for each allocation), was partly informed by the assumption at the time the Regulation 19 Plan was being prepared that by the end of the 2019 calendar year the Hearings sessions would have concluded and the Council would be approaching the formal adoption of the Plan. This assumption

11 was informed by the timeline set out in the Planning Inspectorate’s “Procedural Practice in the Examination of Local Plans”3 .

4.11. Given the delays to the commencement of the Hearing sessions, the Council has reviewed the timetable for the production of the Local Plan. The revised timetable for the Local Plan was endorsed at the meeting of the Council’s Planning and Transportation Advisory Board on 3 March 2020 and is set out in Appendix E to this response. The revised timetable identifies adoption of the Plan in November 2021.

4.12. A conservative approach has been taken to the up-to-date trajectory. In light of the revised timetable for the Local Plan, the Council has taken the decision to review the initial completion dates of development on the allocations in policy LP25. Part of this review process involved checking with promoters of the larger sites if the trajectory in Appendix E of the submitted Plan was still a realistic proposition for delivery. For many of the sites, the trajectory was confirmed. For a few sites, an alternative was proposed which the Council considered and reflected in the up-to- date trajectory. For many of the smaller sites which had been phased for development in years 2019/20 and 2020/21 in the submitted Plan, the trajectory has been pushed back two years.

4.13. This means that the earliest the Council now anticipates completions from the housing allocations in LP25 will be in 2021/2022. This compares to 2019/20 in the submitted Plan. Given that adoption is anticipated in November 2021 it is reasonable to assume that for some of the smaller allocations outside of the Green Belt some development is likely to take place during the final months of the financial year 2021/22. It is reasonable to expect these sites to be advanced ahead of the formal adoption, particularly if there is a clear indication of their soundness at the point of the identification of the main modifications months beforehand. Where early interest has been expressed through the Development Management process on some of the larger sites, we can expect an element of twin-tracking as the Examination stage reaches its conclusion, especially for those allocations where there are limited or no constraints.

4.14. Strategic Sites - The Council has not deviated from the length of the lead-in times for the large allocations, unless recent evidence has been forthcoming from the site promoters in terms of delivery, eg Bushey Wood (policy LP27) where the promoters have confirmed that the trajectory in Appendix E in the submitted Plan remians a realistic assessment of when the site will be delivered. The Lichfields research: “Start to Finish - How Quickly do Large-Scale Housing Sites Deliver?” which partly informed the lead-in assumptions in the submitted Plan was updated in February

3 June 2016 version at that time, now June 2019

12 2020. This second edition reached a similar conclusion on the lead-in times for large sites (approximately 500 units or more), i.e. typically at least five years from the validation of an outline planning application to the completion of the first homes.

4.15. The updated trajectory for the housing allocations in Policy LP25, taking account of the revised commencement date for completions and the other points highlighted above, is set out in Appendix F to this response.

4.16. Evidence of deliverability - In response to the NPPF (February 2019) and the updated PPG on ‘housing supply and delivery’ (July 2019) the Council has only included, in addition to the allocations in the submitted Plan, those existing commitments, i.e. extant planning permissions, where there is clear evidence of delivery. This is explained in the Council’s published housing land supply position (2019) - see Appendix D to this response. The Council is mindful of the key recent concession (June 2020) by the Secretary of State in response to the Willows legal case before it was heard at the High Court that the National Planning Policy Framework's (NPPF's) (2019) definition of a "deliverable" housing site is not a "closed list". Other circumstances can therefore bear on whether individual sites are “deliverable” in applying that guidance.

4.17. The Council understands that according to national policy4 deliverability is relevant to the immediate five year period and not the supply across the whole of the Plan period.

4.18. This means that the Council has only included (a) extant full planning permissions and (b) outline planning permissions where either reserved matters permissions have been granted/are being processed or where there is clear evidence of a timetable for the submission of the reserved matters planning application(s). Recent decisions taken by the Council have, in some instances, included a condition that the reserved matters application is submitted within 12/24 months of the date of the decision of the outline planning permission. This has informed the phasing of the development.

4.19. For example, for Kings Hill Phase 3 583 units have been included in the trajectory, even though there are 635 units on the outline planning permission (13/01535/OAEA). The figure of 583 units reflects the submitted extant reserved matters permissions as well as the commitment to submit a reserved matters application for 140 units before the end of the 2020 calendar year.

4 Footnote 11 to paragraph 47 in the NPPF (2012): https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20180608095821/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nati onal-planning-policy-framework--2

13 4.20. The Council is mindful that the COVID-19 pandemic is having an impact on the economy including the housing industry. However, it is too early to judge the extent of this impact and for how long the impacts will be felt. The current circumstances have been caused by a health crisis and not an economic crisis, unlike the last recession. There is a reasonable prospect that once the health crisis dissipates, the economy will bounce back quite quickly. With all of this in mind, there is insufficient evidence at this moment in time to justify deviating from the delivery assumptions (delivery rates) that underpin the housing trajectory in the submitted Plan.

4.21. It is evident that a cautionary approach to considering the impacts of COVID-19 on projected housing land supply has been taken by Planning Inspectors and the Secretary of State in recent planning appeal decisions. These include the Woburn Sands decision (see paragraph 16)5 of 25 June 2020 and the Tiptree decision of 18 August 2020 (see paragraphs 52 and 54)6. These are set out in Appendices B and C to this response. In summary, the conclusions are that COVID-19 should not impact on the assessment of deliverability, certainly over the next five years, unless specific evidence relating to particular sites is provided to prove otherwise.

4.22. Projected supply from C2 uses - The Council is mindful that the Government’s updated PPG on ‘Housing for older and disabled people’ (June 2019) states: “…Plan-making authorities will need to count housing provided for older people against their housing requirement…” [Paragraph: 016a Reference ID: 63-016a- 20190626].

4.23. The Council has responded to this updated PPG, as explained in detail in the published housing land supply position (2019) – see Appendix D to this response.

4.24. This does not involve a direct count of bed spaces but a calculation of the amount of accommodation released in the housing market as a result of people moving from housing (Use Class C3) to specialist housing for older people (Use Class C2). The calculation involves dividing the number of bed spaces provided by the specialist housing by the average number of adults living in households as identified in the Census 2011. In the case of Tonbridge & Malling, the average number of adults living in households according to the Census 2011 was 1.89.

4.25. Decisions on allocated sites (current) - The updated trajectory has taken account of permissions on allocations in the submitted Plan since 1 April 2018. This includes permissions granted since 31 March 2019. The Council understands the importance of not double-counting.

5 Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/Y0435/W/17/3169314, Recovered Appeal by the Secretary of State 6 Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/A1530/W/20/3248038

14 4.26. The Council has taken the broad decision that where there is an extant planning permission covering an allocation and the number of units on the planning permission is quite significantly different to that in the submitted Plan, the number of units on the permission has been used in the updated trajectory. For example, planning permission (outline) was granted for 110 units on East Malling Research (Parkside) on 22 May 2020 (application refs: TM/18/03008/OA and TM/18/03042/LB). The Council has substituted the allocation for this site (LP25p: 205 units) with the figure on the planning permission (110 units). This permission includes a condition requiring the submission of the reserved matters within two years of the decision. This has been taken account of in the phasing of this site in the updated trajectory.

4.27. Where the number of units on the planning permission is similar to the allocation or where there is still potential for additional development to take place on the allocation because of the presence of more than one land owner, the Council has not made any changes in the updated trajectory. Instead, the planning permission has been used to validate what is in the submitted Plan. An example of this is South Aylesford (east of Hermitage Lane) (LP25g) where outline planning permission was granted for 840 units on the majority of the site on 5 August 2020 (application ref: TM/17/01595/OAEA). To avoid double-counting, these particular recent decisions have not been plugged into the supply from extant permissions. As highlighted above, the basis for the updated trajectory is the Council’s published position as at 31 March 2019 (see Appendix D). Please see Appendix F for details of extant permissions on the allocations in Policy LP25.

4.28. In the case of C2 permissions on allocated sites, eg rear of London Road and Town Hill, West Malling (LP25ah), the number of bedspaces on the permission has not substituted the number for the allocation in the updated trajectory. Instead, the conversion factor of 1.89 (see above) has been applied, i.e. the number of bedspaces is divided by 1.89, to determine how many C3 units will be freed up on the housing market for sale/rent. The outcome of this calculation features in the updated housing trajectory.

4.29. Decisions on non-allocated sites (current) - Whilst the trajectory has been updated to 31 March 2019 to reflect the Council’s latest published position, the Council is mindful that since this date there have been a couple of decisions that will have a significant bearing on housing land supply, certainly during the first five years from the point of adoption of the Plan. The Council considers that it is reasonable to include these in the updated trajectory because the outcome is a fairer representation of what is likely to happen over the coming years.

15 4.30. Kings Hill Appeals (3 sites) – On 14 February 2020, three appeals were allowed for residential development on sites at Kings Hill (APP/H2265/W/19/3235165, APP/H2265/W/19/3235166 and APP/H2265/W/19/3235171 – see Appendix G for decisions). The total yield from these sites is 350 units. There is a condition on the appeal decision that the reserved matters applications are required to be submitted no later than two years from the permission.

4.31. Land east of King Hill – This site enjoys an extant outline planning permission for up to 120 units (TM/18/01013/OA). The Council received the reserved matters application (20/00171/RM) on 27 January 2020. This is considered by the Council to represent clear evidence to demonstrate deliverability of the site.

4.32. Both of these significant decisions have been factored into the updated housing trajectory, as set out in Appendix A to this response.

Should the up-to-date housing trajectory be included in the Local Plan?

4.33. It is not necessary for the updated trajectory to be attached to the Plan to make the Plan sound. The Council is mindful that this trajectory is a snap-shot in time and it will become out-of-date as decisions are taken, moving forward. For these reasons, the updated trajectory should not be included in the Local Plan.

4.34. If the inspectors conclude that it is necessary to include the updated trajectory, the Council considers that should be done simply on the basis that it can provide an overview of housing supply across the Plan period and how this relates to the housing requirement. This general information may be of assistance to our customers and the wider public.

16 Q5. Does the housing target take appropriate account of the need to ensure that the identified requirement for affordable housing is delivered? TMBC Response to Q5:

5.1. Yes, the housing target takes appropriate account of affordable housing need. The evidence in [HO1] and [ED55] tested the OAN and took appropriate account of affordable housing need and made an adjustment for it in its calculation (paragraph 3.12 - 3.32 of HO1 and paragraphs 3.12 - 3.21). The affordable housing need was calculated in the Tonbridge and Malling SHMA (2014) [HO7] as 277 affordable dwellings per annum.

5.2. However, there is no policy requirement for local authorities to meet their identified affordable housing need in full. The Housing Need Update [HO1] also referred to the case of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Council v. SSCLG and Elm Park Holdings (see paragraphs 3.14-3.20) which confirmed that neither the National Planning Policy Framework nor the Planning Practice Guidance that informed plan-making suggest that affordable housing needs must be met in full when determining OAN.

5.3. This judgement also confirmed that there was no need for a mechanical uplift to housing need as a result of affordable housing need. Part of the reason for this is that the affordable housing need includes some households who are in unsuitable accommodation (e.g. overcrowded) who, if their needs are met through alternative accommodation, would release their home for another in need. This would not result in a need for a net additional household.

5.4. Ultimately, the affordable housing target is based on viability. However, the scale of affordable housing need (277 dpa) represents around 40% of the overall housing requirement in the submitted Local Plan (696 dpa). This would justify the Council seeking as much affordable housing as viability allows. As a result and taking into account viability Policy LP39 seeks to deliver up to 40% of housing on eligible sites to be affordable thus making a substantial contribution to meeting of the vast majority of the need irrespective of the issues outlined above.

17 Q6. The soundness of proposals for the land allocations in the Local Plan will be considered at Stage 2 of the Examination. However, on the basis of the Local Plan as submitted, is it realistic that they would provide for: (a) A supply of specific deliverable sites to meet the housing requirement for five years from the point of adoption? (b) A supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth for years 6-10 from the point of adoption?

If you contend that the Local Plan would not provide for either (a) or (b) above (or both) could it be appropriately modified to address this?

TMBC Response to Q6:

6.1. In [OLP6] (Table 2) the Council set out the five year housing land supply position, including local plan allocations, as at 1st April 2018 (ie for the period 18/19 to 22/23). The Council recognises that this base-date and time period is no longer appropriate. It has therefore sought to recalculate the five year supply using a base date of 1st April 2021 (ie for the period 2021/22 to 25/26). This has been undertaken on two scenarios: (i) on the basis of the housing trajectory in the plan as submitted (Scenario 1) and (ii) making amendments to the housing trajectory to take account of changes since adoption (Scenario 2).

6.2. The Council has also calculated the supply of developable sites for years 6-10 for each Scenario

(a) Scenario 1 - A supply of specific deliverable sites for five years from the point of adoption (Appendix H)

6.3. On the basis of the Local Plan as submitted, it is realistic that the land allocations would provide for a supply of specific deliverable sites to meet the housing requirement for five years from the point of adoption. This is highlighted in the Housing Land Supply (HLS) position in Appendix H. The basis of this work is Table 2 in the Housing Topic Paper [OLP6].

6.4. This HLS position illustrates that on the basis of the Local Plan as submitted, and taking account of the revised adoption date (see response to question 4 above) the Council would be able to demonstrate a housing supply of 5.3 years for the five year period from the point of adoption.

6.5. This calculation is based upon a housing requirement of 696 dwellings per annum + a 5% buffer. No shortfall figure has been included because, on this scenario, from the base date of the Plan (2011) up until the likely adoption date (up to and

18 including 2020/21) the supply (completions and projected completions) of 7,445 units exceeds the requirement for this period (6,960 units) by +485 units.

(b) Scenario 1: A supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth for years 6-10 from the point of adoption (Appendix I)

6.6. The calculation for the HLS position for years 6-10 of the Plan period from adoption differs to the calculation for the HLS position for five years from adoption. Not only is the definition of ‘developable’ less restrictive than ‘deliverable’, national policy7 but there is no requirement to introduce a further buffer for years 6-10 of the Plan

6.7. On the basis of the Local Plan as submitted, it is realistic that the land allocations would provide for a supply of specific developable sites to meet the housing requirement for years 6-10 from the point of adoption. This is highlighted in the Housing Land Supply (HLS) position in Appendix I. The basis of this work is table 2 in the Housing Topic Paper [OLP6].

6.8. This HLS position illustrates that on the basis of the Local Plan as submitted, and taking account of the revised adoption date (see response to question 4) the Council would be able to demonstrate a housing supply of 5.1 years for years 6-10 from the point of adoption. It is important to note that this housing supply would be made up specifically identified sites, i.e. the Local Plan allocations + a conservative projection from small windfall sites. It has therefore not be necessary to identify broad locations of growth for years 6-10, even though such an approach would be sufficient according to national guidance.

6.9. Given that the Local Plan can provide for both (a) and (b) above, the Council considers that no modifications are necessary.

Housing Land Supply Positions – Effects of Changes since Submission

6.10. The Council recognises, as highlighted in the response to question 4 (above), that there have been some changes since the submission of the Local Plan that are likely to have a bearing on housing supply and how this relates to the housing requirement.

6.11. In response, the Council has prepared HLS positions for five years from the point of adoption and for years 6-10 from the point of adoption, taking account of the impacts of these changes, in addition to the revised adoption date.

7 NPPF (March 2012), paragraph 47 footnote 12: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20180608095821/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nati onal-planning-policy-framework--2

19 (a) Scenario 2 - A supply of specific deliverable sites for five years from the point of adoption (Appendix J)

6.12. The HLS position for five years from the point of adoption is set out in Appendix J, whilst the HLS position for years 6-10 from the point of adoption is set out in Appendix K.

6.13. – The HLS position in Appendix J illustrates that, taking account of the main changes since submission, the Council would be able to demonstrate a housing supply of 6.15 years for the five year period from the point of adoption. The projected supply for this period would be +936 units above the requirement.

6.14. This calculation is based upon a housing requirement of 696 dpa + a 5% buffer + the shortfall accrued since the base date of the Plan. Taking account of the likely effects of the revised adoption date and deliverable permissions on the trajectory, the shortfall of supply accrued in the previous 10 year period (2011-2021) would be 381 units.

(b) Scenario 2: A supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth for years 6-10 from the point of adoption (Appendix K)

6.15. The HLS position in Appendix K illustrates that, taking account of the main changes since submission, the Council would be able to demonstrate a housing supply of 4.44 years for years 6-10 from the point of adoption. The projected supply for this period (taken alone) would be -387 units below the requirement.

6.16. The Council understands that the position for years 6-10 from adoption, taking account of the effects of changes since submission (see response to question 4) at first blush prompts whether consideration should be given to a modification to the Local Plan. However, the projected supply for the five year period from adoption is in excess of the requirement by +936 units. This is significantly larger than the modest projected under-supply for years 6-10 from adoption of 387 units. Across the two periods, the projected supply exceeds the requirement (for each five year period) by +549 units.

6.17. In light of the robust position, the Council does not consider it necessary to make any modifications to make the Plan sound. However, if there are any concerns about the provision of housing land supply, it would be open to the Inspectors o consider treating ‘safeguarded land’ (policy LP32) and/or the ‘Areas of Opportunity’, (policy LP33), as ‘broad locations for growth’ so far as is necessary to address any risk of “shortfall” during years 6-10 of the Plan period. These sites have been assessed and identified as suitable for addressing housing need, in the long-term.

20 The Council is mindful that by five years from the adoption of the Plan it is expected to have completed a review in any event.

6.18. In terms both of the application of policy and practical realisation of housing, there is a balance to be struck between recognising the importance of early adoption of the Plan for any local planning authority, and particularly one making significant releases of Green Belt land, and considering whether the Plan as a whole meets the overall thrust of national policy. In this respect, as in others, the Plan meets the overall thrust of national policy, and its adoption will further those policy goals.

21 Q7. Have the Council carried out an assessment, as required by S.8 of the Housing Act 1985, of the needs of people in the district residing in caravans or houseboats? TMBC Response to Q7:

7.1. Yes. The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment or GTAA prepared in February 2018 (HO12) responds to Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985.

7.2. The Council commissioned the consultants Arc4 to prepare the GTAA to update the previous version prepared in 2013 by Salford University to reflect the changes introduced by the Housing and Planning Act (2016) and the changes to the definition of Travellers introduced by the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) in 2015.

22 Gypsies and Travellers

Q8. The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (February 2018) (GTAA) (HO12) finds a need for an additional 16 pitches for gypsies and travellers and 2 for travelling showpersons up to 2031, that meet the definition of gypsy and traveller in Annex 1 to Planning policy for traveller sites (PPTS). What about those who identify culturally as gypsies and travellers but do not meet the PPTS definition, how will their future housing needs be met? What about those gypsies and traveller whose status is ‘unknown’ because they were unable to be contacted? What account has been taken of them in terms of their future housing needs? TMBC Response to Q8:

8.1. The 2018 GTAA [HO12] includes an assessment for ‘cultural need’ as well as the PPTS need (see paragraph 8.3). The cultural need over the plan period was estimated to be 40 pitches of which 16 met the PPTS definition.

8.2. Paragraph 8.4 of the GTAA considers how this need can be addressed including an estimate of turnover on Local Authority sites and the potential expansion/intensification of existing authorised sites. Regarding turnover, the GTAA modelling anticipates a 4.1% rate of turnover on the two local authority sites at Coldharbour Lane, Aylesford and Windmill Lane, West Malling during the Plan Period and it is expected that at least 20 pitches will become available based on the expectations of households planning to move extrapolated over the Plan Period.

8.3. This would result in a reduction in the cultural need to 18 pitches and PPTS need would be fully addressed. The GTAA also identified the potential for expansion/intensification of existing sites that could result in a further supply of up to 17 pitches which would largely address the cultural need.

8.4. The Council is confident that the remaining cultural need for a single pitch can be met through the criteria based policy LP34.

8.5. Turning to the question of the needs of those who were unable to be contacted. The survey carried out by ARC4 between August and September 2017 had a high response rate. The consultants remarked at the time that this had been one of the most comprehensive surveys that they had carried out for a Local Authority to date.

8.6. The survey showed that for Gypsies and Travellers, there was a total of 65 occupied pitches across Tonbridge and Malling. It was found that 58 households were living across the pitches (with some households occupying more than one pitch). No households stated that they were doubling up or included concealed

23 households, however site observation would suggest there was doubling up on one private site. Overall, 51 Gypsy and Traveller households living on pitches responded to the interview questionnaire representing a response from 88.7% of households. A further roadside interview was achieved.

8.7. For Travelling Showpeople, there were a total of 4 plots and 4 households. 4 interviews were achieved, representing a response rate of 100% of households.

8.8. Therefore, less than 12% of the Gypsy Traveller community in Tonbridge and Malling living on pitches and plots were unable to respond to the survey. However, the consultants acknowledge that there are also settled Gypsy and Traveller families living in bricks and mortar in Tonbridge and Malling. The 2011 Census estimates there were 131 Gypsies and Traveller households currently living across Tonbridge and Malling, of whom 108 households live in bricks and mortar accommodation. Despite a number of different approaches (including liaison with Education Teams, engagement with community support groups), no interviews were achieved with Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople living in bricks and mortar accommodation. Instead, the 2011 Census data was used by the consultants together with some statistical assumptions regarding the typical proportion of need arising from bricks and mortar households (based on other Arc4 studies) (see [HO12] Chapter 7).

8.9. The need for additional pitches and plots arising from those members of the community that could not be contacted through the survey have therefore been estimated. For those households already living in settled accommodation, their future needs have been taken account of through the SHMA.

24 Q9. Is it appropriate to meet the identified need through the authorisation of currently unauthorised sites, pitch turnover and planning applications coming forward on unallocated sites, or should sites be allocated in the plan to meet the future identified need? TMBC Response to Q9:

9.1. The Council is of the opinion that the proposed approach in the Local Plan to meeting identified need is appropriate and proportionate to the level of need identified and allows a more flexible approach that can be better tailored to individual requirements.

9.2. One of the difficulties in identifying sites to meet future needs is that there are many different requirements for each individual case. What may be suitable for one Traveller family might not be for the next. This can be illustrated by the expansion and enhancement of one of the two sites in the Borough managed by Kent County Council at Coldharbour, near Aylesford.

9.3. In 2011 the Borough Council and the County Council worked closely together to refurbish and enlarge the site at Coldharbour, increasing the number of pitches from 8 to 18 at considerable cost. The Council felt that this would increase the number of pitches to an extent where all of the then unauthorised encampments in the Borough could be relocated.

9.4. All of the families affected were contacted and invited to move to the new site, but for a variety of reasons both practical and personal only one of the new pitches was eventually taken up by a local family.

9.5. Kent County Council then offered the remaining pitches to families located in other parts of Kent and then further afield. One family took up a pitch at Coldharbour from as far as Avon near Bristol.

9.6. This illustrates the difficulties of allocating sites. In addition, despite a 14 month Call for Sites exercise that generated over 200 proposals for housing, Employment and other uses, including a marina, no sites were promoted as potential Traveller sites.

9.7. The practice of authorising unauthorised sites has been successful since the GTAA was prepared. This can be illustrated by the granting of permission for three sites since 2018 at Malling Meadows (Teston Road, West Malling), Horseshoes (Sandy Lane, Ryarsh, West Malling) and Woodford (Old Lane, Ightham).

9.8. The methodology used by Arc4 has been successfully defended at local plan inquiries and planning appeals and they have prepared similar assessments for 50

25 Local Planning Authorities. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect there to be some turnover on the existing sites that can contribute to future capacity.

9.9. For other applications coming forward during the plan period, Policy LP38 provides a criteria based approach for determining each case on its own merits both in terms of the land use policies applying but also the individual requirements of the family in question.

26 Q10. There is an identified need for a transit site for between 6 and 10 pitches in the GTAA. How are these to be provided for? The Council’s response to comments made at the regulation 19 stage to policy LP38 is that work is being undertaken with the County Council and other districts to identify an appropriate location for transit provision, but that it will be done at the LP review stage. Why is it not being done sooner given the GTAA found in 2017/18, on the basis of evidence of unauthorised encampment activity, the need for between 6 and 10 transit pitches which could accommodate between 12 and 20 caravans to reflect the scale and frequency of unauthorised encampment activity in this Borough alone? TMBC Response to Q10:

10.1. The Council is working in partnership with Kent County Council and other Kent Districts to address the identified need for transit site provision identified in the GTAA [HO12] with other districts across the county. The 12 Kent Districts Kent are at different stages of plan making meaning concluding a coordinated response is difficult and consequently this work is ongoing.

10.2. The previous GTAA prepared by Salford University in 2013 [HO14] recognised the challenges of determining transit need and supported an approach of creating a network of transit facilities across the wider region to accommodate short term requirements [see paragraphs 10.4 and 10.5]. This in turn referred to an earlier study [Niner, P. (2009) South East England Regional Gypsy and Traveller Transit Study, Final Report, Birmingham: University of Birmingham, October 2009].

10.3. Policy LP38 provides a criteria based approach for proposals coming forward over the plan period to address the Transit Site need for 6-10 pitches identified in the GTAA. Paragraph 5.4.5 of the submitted Local Plan states that any applications for new sites, including transit sites, should demonstrate that the criteria in Policy LP38 (3) can be met and that they are in accordance with all other relevant policies in the Local Plan.

27 Q11. Is the Local Plan consistent with the requirement of national policy to identify a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide at least five years’ worth of supply against the local requirement and identify broad locations for growth for years 6 -10? TMBC Response to Q11:

11.1. Yes. Paragraph 7.26 of the GTAA identifies an annualised cultural need for 3.3 pitches and an annualised PPTS need for 1.4 pitches. Since the GTAA was revised in 2018, 7 previously unauthorised pitches across 3 sites have been granted permanent planning permission contributing towards the 5 year supply. This demonstrates that the policy can meet the requirements of national policy.

11.2. In terms of broad locations for years 6-10, I refer to the Council’s response to Q9.

28 Employment Land

Q12. What is the overall need for employment land that has been identified? What is the evidence for this? What is the situation regarding existing commitments and the residual need for additional land allocations? What is the past trend in take up rates for employment land? TMBC Response to Q12:

12.1. The Employment Land Review Update [EV1] prepared by Turley in 2017 recommended that the Council plan for a gross employment land requirement over the Local Plan period of 85.9 hectares based on the Labour Demand scenario (see Table 5.1 and paragraph 5.3, page 55). Taking into account a net supply of 39.1 hectares delivered since 2011 this leaves a need of 46.8 hectares (see Table 5.2, paragraph 5.5, page 55).

12.2. This updated the initial Employment Land Review prepared by Nathanial Lichfield and Partners in December 2014 [EV2], which in turn was informed by their Economic Futures report of January 2014 [EV4] and an Addendum prepared in November 2014 [EV3].

12.3. The existing commitments identified in [EV1] identified a supply pipeline of 8.5 hectares for office (B1a/b) uses and 30.6 hectares for industrial (B1c/B2/B8) uses.

12.4. The study concluded that there is a surplus of 2.2 hectares for meeting future needs for offices and a deficit of 49 hectares for industrial uses. Assuming that the surplus could be reallocated for industrial uses, this results in a residual need of 46.8 hectares of employment land over the plan period.

12.5. [EV1] identifies the past trend in take up rates for employment land between 2012 and 2017 using CoStar data. There were 142 office transactions with an annual average of 6,425 sq.m of office floor space leased during this period. The majority of this was accommodated at Kings Hill.

12.6. For industrial (B2/B8) there were 162 transactions with an average of 32,506 sq.m leased per annum.

29 Q13. Overall does the evidence base provide adequate justification for the target set out in policy LP4 of at least 38ha of additional employment land? Should this also be expressed in terms of the number of jobs required? TMBC Response to Q13:

13.1. The evidence shows that while Tonbridge and Malling has a relatively successful local economy that has recorded significant job growth since 2000 and are forecast to continue, the levels of economic growth have been decelerating since the economic recession of 2008.

13.2. Notwithstanding this trend towards a lower level of growth, the Employment Land Review in 2014 and the update in 2017 both recommended additional employment land be identified in the Local Plan to meet future needs up to 2031. The 2014 Review identified a range of between 3.2 to 33.3 hectares of additional employment land, while the update in 2017 increased this to 46.8 hectares.

13.3. The Council accepts that the objectively assessed need for employment land is 46.8 hectares and this is stated at paragraph 5.3.2 of the submitted Local Plan. That paragraph goes on to explain that through the Call for Sites exercise approximately 38.5 hectares of additional employment land has been allocated and that the remaining need will be met over the plan period through opportunities to intensify employment activity on existing sites.

13.4. Both Employment Land Reviews also recommended that in addition to allocating further sites for employment uses, the Local Plan should encourage the redevelopment and intensification of existing sites to potentially yield higher net job creation and provide a better fit for the accommodation needs of local businesses (See paragraph 6.10 of [EV1] and paragraph 8.8 (4) of [EV2]).

13.5. Policy LP35 in the Local Plan responds to this recommendation in respect of the former Aylesford Newsprint Site. This 43.9 hectare site located in the New Hythe employment area was until 2015 occupied by a highly automated paper mill employing approximately 160 employees. In April of 2015 the company went into receivership and operations ceased. The site has since been largely cleared of the paper mill buildings, machinery and infrastructure and the Employment Land Review update in 2017 recorded that the site was vacant.

13.6. Paragraph 5.3.6 of the Local Plan recognises that future employment opportunities are likely to result in a more intensive use of the site than the previous use as a paper mill and Policy LP35 sets out criteria to enable the redevelopment of the site for a range of employment uses including light industrial (B1c), general industrial (B2) and/or storage and distribution (B8).

30 13.7. In August 2020 the Council received a hybrid planning application for 36.59 hectares of the site on behalf of Panattoni UK Development Ltd (application reference TM/20/01820/OAEA) for outline planning permission for the erection of flexible B1c, B2 and B8 units and full planning permission for two warehouse buildings for the same uses, with associated works and infrastructure.

13.8. The proposal is for a development of up to 182,750 sq.m gross floor area (GFA), which could comprise a mix of B uses (B1c 16,250 sq.m/B2 32,200 sq.m/B8 134,300 sq.m) or entirely B8 uses of up to 182,750 sq.m.

13.9. The planning application suggests that the development could generate up to 2,460 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs. The Economic Benefits Statement prepared by Barton Wilmore Planning Partnership accompanying the application confirms this upper range for a mix of B use development.

13.10. The statement goes on to explain that if the development were to be exclusively B8 warehousing and distribution this would generate up to 1,756 FTE. However, the Statement acknowledges that it uses an alternative to the HCA workforce densities for B8 preferring the Prologis report ‘Delivering the Future: The changing nature of employment in distribution and warehousing’ (Sept 2019), which uses a ratio of 1 employee to 104 sq.m which is higher than that used by the HCA. If the 2015 HCA ratio is applied there could be between 1,924 and 2,373 FTE generated from B8 uses alone, depending on whether the ratio for National or Regional distribution centre is used).

13.11. The Statement adds that there would be additional indirect job creation (not necessarily located at the site, but across Kent and the UK as a whole) of 2,567 and 1,563 FTE for a mix of B uses and exclusively B8 respectively

13.12. Therefore both scenarios would see a significant increase in the number of jobs provided at the site compared to the previous use (+2,300 for a mix of B uses, +1,596 FTE if using the Prologis employment densities and between +1,764 and 2,213FTE if using the HCA densities).

13.13. The intensification of this single site would therefore result in a significant contribution to meeting the future employment needs identified by the evidence.

13.14. The 2014 Employment Land review identified an increase in B use class employment of between 4,130 and 5,680 over the plan period. The Update in 2017 identified an increase 5,565 based on a Labour Demand scenario.

13.15. Potentially therefore the proposed development by Panattoni at the former Aylesford Newsprint Site could meet between 29 and 40% of the employment need

31 for the whole plan period. This demonstrates that there is adequate justification for the target of 38 hectares of employment land in Policy LP4 against the estimated need of 46.8 hectares.

13.16. Due to the different assumptions used by developers and property consultants to translate estimated employment need in the form of number of jobs, site area and floor space it may assist to express this in terms of the number of jobs also.

32 Q14. Are the employment land requirements consistent with the housing requirement figure and the methodology by which the latter was arrived at? TMBC Response to Q14:

14.1. Yes. The employment land requirements are consistent with the housing requirement figure because the assessment of housing need took account of the economic forecast for jobs across the Plan period. The approach taken is consistent with the Planning Practice Guidance8.

14.2. The housing requirement that features in the submitted Plan was informed by the SHMA Update (September 2016) [HO4]. This Update assessed economic-led housing need (section 8). It concluded:

“Comparing these figures shows that the expected workforce growth arising from the 2014-based SNPP is higher than the growth required to support the economic growth scenarios. Therefore, the population growth projected in the 2014-based SNPP will be sufficient to support workforce growth and in drawing conclusions on OAN an upward adjustment to support economic growth is not required.” [paragraph 8.4]

14.3. The Housing Need Updates [HO1] and [HO15] both considered the implications for housing need of the forecast jobs growth in [EV1]. Both Updates reached a similar conclusion, as highlighted by the extract below from [HO15]:

“The demographic need with market signals adjustments results in a higher need by any of the four measures examined. This would be more than adequate to meet the identified economic need herein. There is, therefore, no need for a further increase to the OAN as a result of economic growth. Maintaining the emerging housing requirement of 696 dpa would also more than provide for the economic-led housing need.” [paragraph 4.10]

14.4. Please also see the Council’s response to question 3.

8 Paragraph: 018 Reference ID: 2a-018-20140306 https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20180607114246/https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing- and-economic-development-needs-assessments

33 Q15. Does the Local Plan allocate sufficient land to meet the identified minimum need in policy LP4? TMBC Response to Q15:

15.1. Yes – Policy LP4 states that at least 38 hectares of employment are allocated in the Local Plan to meet future employment needs up to 2031.

15.2. Policy LP36 (Employment Land Allocations) identifies approximately 38.5 hectares of additional employment land across 11 sites.

34 Q16. What are the inter-relationships with other authorities in terms of employment land provision and how have these been taken into account? TMBC Response to Q16:

16.1. The Employment Land Review update [EV1] recognises that Tonbridge and Malling forms part of a Functioning Economic Market Area (FEMA) with Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks Districts. The methodology used by Turley in preparing the Employment Land Review Update in 2017 is consistent with that used for the rest of the West Kent FEMA.

16.2. The update notes that Tunbridge Wells has an employment land need of 14 hectares over its plan period (2013-2033) with a shortfall of 12.3 hectares. For Sevenoaks there is an identified need for 11.5 Hectares up to 2033 with an 8.5 Hectare shortfall. For the West Kent FEMA there is a need for 107 hectares of employment land over an approximate 20 year period the majority of which is located in Tonbridge and Malling (76%). The cumulative shortfall which needs to be planned for is 63 hectares.

16.3. Regular Duty to Cooperate meetings have been held between the three authorities to discuss cross boundary issues including employment needs across the West Kent FEMA. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the progress of these plans and their approach to addressing their future employment needs. No formal requests for Tonbridge and Malling to accommodate unmet employment need from these neighbouring authorities has been received.

16.4. The Sevenoaks submitted Local Plan identified new employment site allocations at Policy EMP1 totalling 14.35 hectares against a net need of 11.6 hectares. The plan also proposes intensification of existing employment sites at two existing employment sites.

16.5. The Tunbridge Wells Regulation 18 version of the Local Plan includes a strategy for allocating approximately 14 hectares of employment land [see paragraph 4.40, 3rd bullet point] to meet its identified needs. Draft Policies STR/RTW1 and AL/RTW12 allocate land at North Farm/Kingstanding Way for a business park for B1, B2 and B8 uses sufficient to accommodate between 80,000 and 90,000 sq.m of new employment floorspace, which the plan acknowledges would make a substantial contribution towards meeting the need for new employment land over the plan period. Paragraph 5.13 notes that ‘This will help to further establish this area as a key business location not only for Royal Tunbridge Wells, but the wider borough and West Kent’.

35 16.6. The Borough received an outline planning application on 12th August 2019 for up to 74,000 sq.m Gross External Area (GEA) for B1 and B8 uses on this 30 hectare site [application reference 19/02267/OUT].

16.7. Tonbridge and Malling also shares boundaries with Medway and Gravesham to the north, which form part of the North Kent FEMA and Maidstone to the east. Appendix 2 of [EV1] summarises the employment land needs arising in these areas.

36 Q17. Would the strategy in the Local Plan result in the loss of any existing employment land? If so, where, how much and why? TMBC Response to Q17:

17.1. The Local Plan strategy identifies one employment site as a future housing allocation, which would result in the loss of 2.01 hectares of employment land identified as ‘other employment land’ in the adopted LDF at Drayton Road in Tonbridge.

17.2. The site was assessed as part of a review of existing employment sites in the Economic Futures Report of November 2014 [EV3]. It received a low score ranking 3rd lowest out of 37.

17.3. Para 5.17 described the site as follows:

17.4. This town centre site comprises of ageing, small scale, light industrial units and some small offices. Though it is located close to A2014, local access routes are constrained, congested and run through a dense residential area. A number of dwellings share the on-site circulation routes which are poorly maintained.

17.5. The site was submitted as part of the Call for Sites exercise (SLAA Site 248) and assessed as being suitable and deliverable for meeting future housing need.

17.6. Part of the site was the subject of a planning application in 2019 for a residential development of 9 flats (application reference 19/01251/FL), which was recommended for approval at the Council’s Area 1 Planning Committee on 1st August 2019 subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement (yet to be signed).

17.7. The loss of this small employment site with poor access and in close proximity to neighbouring residential uses would not have a detrimental impact on the stock of employment land and a more appropriate use in this location would be for residential use. The new employment land allocations in Tonbridge set out at Policy LP36 (1) (h) and (i) at Little Postern (10.8 hectares (B2 and B8) and the Munday Works (1.7 hectares (B1 and B2) more than adequately compensate for this loss.