- The proposal w - The proposal would provide a policy compliant … · 2019. 10. 9. · Planning...

Planning Committee Report 09 October 2019

REPORT SUMMARY

REFERENCE NO - 17/02192/OUT

APPLICATION PROPOSAL

Outline (Access not reserved) - Proposed erection of up to 24 dwellings to include garaging,

parking provision, improvements to existing vehicular access, landscaping and other ancillary

works

ADDRESS Former Site Of Springfield Nurseries Cranbrook Road Hawkhurst Cranbrook Kent

TN18 5EE

RECOMMENDATION GRANT planning permission subject to conditions subject to completion

of Section 106 Agreement (see section 11.0 of report for full recommendation)

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

- The application site lies within the Limits to Built Development (LBD) and is an allocated site for residential development;

- The proposal would result in the delivery of sustainable development in terms of delivering housing in a sustainable location, inside the LBD, of a second tier small town. There is no objection in principle to the proposal for housing development on this site;

- The proposal would provide a policy compliant level of affordable housing (35%).

- The proposal could be designed to ensure it would not adversely affect the appearance of the street scene or character of the area, through the submission of reserved matters;

- It is considered that the impact on trees and ecology can be addressed through the reserved matters and conditions;

- The proposal could be designed to not cause significant harm to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.

- Whilst KCC Highways have been consulted on numerous occasions regarding this application site, there remains a highways based objection regarding delivering safe and satisfactory access for all. KCC Highways remain concerned that the proposal would not deliver pedestrian facilities, the access would not enable two large vehicles to pass at the access, and the refuse vehicle would need to cross the centre line of the minor road.

INFORMATION ABOUT FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL

The following are considered to be material to the application:

Contributions (to be secured through Section 106 legal agreement/unilateral undertaking):

Primary School education - £79,776.00 towards Benenden Primary School

Secondary school education - £98,760.00 Towards Phase 1 expansion of The Skinners School (please note, clarification is sought with KCC regarding the education sums and Members will be updated at the meeting).

Libraries - £1,152.38 towards bookstock at Hawkhurst Library to mitigate the demand from the new borrowers from this development.

Contribution towards Children’s recreation at Heartenoak Playground - £450.06p Per

applicable bedspace

£719 per bedspace for Youth/Adult Recreation Open Space towards Community

hall/sports pavilion at King George V playing fields The Moor Hawkhurst, to cover

architect costs and project management to deliver a community hall scheme.

KCC Highways Sustainable Transport contribution – No contribution requested, notwithstanding KCC Highways recommendation to refuse.


Net increase in numbers of jobs: N/A

Estimated average annual workplace salary spend in Borough through net increase in numbers of jobs: N/A

The following are not considered to be material to the application:

Estimated annual council tax benefit for Borough: £4,290

Estimated annual council tax benefit total: £42,900

Annual New Homes Bonus (for first 4 years): £24,000

Estimated annual business rates benefits for Borough: N/A

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE

This proposal comprises more than twenty dwellings and is recommended for approval and therefore is reported to Planning Committee as required by the Council’s constitution.

WARD Hawkhurst &

Sandhurst

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL

Hawkhurst Parish Council

APPLICANT Cedardrive Ltd

AGENT AECOM

DECISION DUE DATE

09/10/17 EOT 09/12/2019

PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE

14/09/18

OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE

21.07.17 for site notices

08.08.17

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (including appeals and relevant history on adjoining

sites):

App No Proposal Decision Date

98/02021/OUT Outline (Means of access not reserved) -

Residential development – Refused for the

following reasons;

Development does not comprise

comprehensive development;

Lack of safe and satisfactory access by

virtue of inadequate visibility splays;

Proposal would affect a ALI;

No provision for recreation, proposal

should include an element of affordable

housing and small dwellings and the

access road would be outside the LBD.

Refused 17/06/99

94/00826/FUL Change of use to veterinary surgery Granted 01/09/94

94/00413/OUT

Renewal (TW/91/0193 REFERS) - Outline

(means of access not reserved) B1 light

industrial units

(Front of Brook House)

Granted 18/05/94

91/00193/FUL

Outline (means of access not reserved) - B1

light industrial units

Granted 04/07/91

88/01192/OUT Outline (access and siting not reserved) - Refused 11/10/89


Fourteen starter homes plus new vehicular

access to industrial site.

81/01290/FUL Retail shop and display area for garden centre Granted 04/02/82

WE/5/66/22 Outline permission for office accommodation

and storage sheds Granted 25/05/1966

Other relevant planning history

18/03385/OUT

Brook House

Cranbrook

Road

Outline (Access Not Reserved) - Proposed

Demolition of Existing Building and Erection of

25 Apartments with Affordable Housing, Parking

Provision, New Highway Access and Other

Ancillary Works

Refused 25/02/2019

17/03780/OUT

Brook House

Cranbrook

Road

Outline (Access not reserved) - Demolition of

existing building and erection of 25 apartments

with affordable housing, parking provision, new

highway access and other ancillary works.

(This application relates to the land to the south

east of the application site and forms the

remainder of the allocation, granted on appeal

with access only for consideration).

Refused

(non-

determination

appeal) and

granted on

appeal.

01/04/2019

MAIN REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE 1.01 The application site is located to the northern side of Hawkhurst. The busy

Cranbrook Road is located to the east, where the site takes access from. There are poplars along the northern boundary that are proposed to be removed. This part of the allocated site is currently grassed, with limited development, other than the existing access road.

1.02 Land levels rise to the north/ north-west and drop down significantly to the south of

the site. There are significant changes in levels on this site – down towards the residential dwellings at Oakfield. The golf course is located to the north and west. There are mature oaks to the western boundary, located within an area of protected trees. There are protected trees on both the western section of the site, but also to the north, along the proposed access.

1.03 There is an existing access that is currently shared with the vets and offices located

to the southern boundaries of the site, along with an electric substation immediately south of the access as shown, with industrial units located beyond this, on the land associated with Brook House. Brook House itself, is an office building. There are two vets fronting onto the Cranbrook Road and located to the south east of the site. There are residential dwellings beyond this, South of Brook House at Oakfield, with some bungalows, and semi detached dwellings are located opposite the site access on Cranbrook Road. There are protected trees to the north of the proposed access, along Cranbrook Road. Immediately north of the vets is a rough parking area, it is understood that there are no rights to park in this location.


1.04 The site is located within the Area of Outstanding natural Beauty. The northern boundary of the site forms the edge of the Limits to Built Development, with the site inside the LBD. To the south, and included within the site, is the Area of Landscape Importance designation, (ALI), that follows a similar line to the Tree Preservation Order to the south, (TPO). There are residential properties further to the south and to the east/north-east. The area of residential in character to the south and east.

2.0 PROPOSAL 2.01 The application seeks outline consent for up to 24 dwellings, with the means of

access to be determined only at this stage. Any reserved matters application may be for less than 24 dwellings to ensure that sufficient land is retained in any future layout for ecological mitigation, whilst avoiding the Area of Landscape Importance to the south.

2.02 The indicative layout sets out that a mix of detached, semi-detached and terrace

dwellings, with gardens, garaging, improvements to existing vehicular access and landscaping, could be provided on the site. Parking is indicated to be provided largely on plot with some off site, however, approval of the layout is not sought at this time. The final design and layout would be secured through reserved matters.

2.03 The development would be accessed from a single access point, north of the existing

electric sub station, onto Cranbrook Road. The existing access that runs south to north, east of the vets, would be retained. This is part of the wider allocated site but in separate land ownership.

2.04 The indicative layout has been revised during the course of the application to

demonstrate that the development can be achieved without incursion into the Area of Landscape Importance to the southern side of the site.

2.05 The scheme would provide 35% affordable housing. A scheme would be agreed

through the preparation of a S106 agreement. 3.0 SUMMARY INFORMATION

Existing Proposed Change (+/-)

Site Area 2.25 Ha 2.25Ha None

Land use(s) including floor area(s) Woodland/

fields

Residential Residential

Car parking spaces (inc. disabled) None Not Known Not Known

No. of storeys N/A 2 (indicative) +2

Max height N//A Not known Not known

Max eaves height N/A Not Known Not Known

No. of residential units

Mix

None Up to 24

Not known

+24

No. of bed spaces None Not Known Not known

No. of affordable units None Up to 8 +8

4.0 PLANNING CONSTRAINTS

- Agricultural Land Grade 3 Agricultural Land Classification Grade 3;


- Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty AONB;

- Biodiversity Opp Area Biodiversity Opportunity Areas;

- Limits to built development OUTSIDE LBD1 – (to the north, part of the site within the red line, that appears to accommodate visibility splays sits outside of the LBD);

- Limits to built development INSIDE LBD1, (the main application site sits within the LBD and allocated land for residential development);

- Potentially Contaminated Land Various Sites;

- Tree Preservation Order VAR ( trees protected by TPO are sited to the north of the proposed access and further north along Cranbrook Road. The Area of Landscape Importance to the south side of the site is also protected by TPO).

5.0 POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance 2019 (NPPG) Development Plan: Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010;

- Core Policy 1: Delivery of Development - Core Policy 3: Transport Infrastructure - Core Policy 4: Environment - Core Policy 5: Sustainable Design and Construction - Core Policy 6: Housing Provision - Core Policy 8 : Community Facilities Provision - Core Policy 13: Development in Hawkhurst

Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006

- Policy LBD1: Development outside the limits to Built Development - Policy EN1: Development Control Criteria - Policy EN8: Outdoor Lighting - Policy EN16: Protection of Groundwater and other water courses - Policy EN25: Development outside the LBD - Policy H2: Small and intermediate size dwellings - Policy H5: Infill development - Policy R2: Recreation open space in development of more than 15 bedspaces - Policy CS4: Development contributions to school provision for development over

15 bedspaces - Policy TP3: Residential development and meeting transport needs - Policy TP4: Access to the road network - Policy TP5: Vehicle Parking Standards - Policy TP9: Cycle Parking.

Site Allocations Local Plan 2016 AL/HA1 – Allocates the site for approximately 40 dwellings. A Development Framework should be prepared by the developer(s) with the involvement of the Borough Council, Parish Council and local community. The development framework plan should indicate the distribution, scale and quantum of development, together with areas of open space, vehicular access, parking provision and pedestrian routes into and within the site. Where the development is proposed on a phased basis it will be necessary to demonstrate that satisfactory development of the whole site is achievable and will not be prejudiced. Development on the site would be subject to the following;


- Strong landscape framework, informed by a landscape and visual impact assessment;

- New and enhanced green infrastructure links shall be provided within the site and pedestrian links to Hawkhurst (Highgate) should be explored (officer emphasis);

- Development must reflect an understanding of the unique landscape of the High Weald AONB and respect the character and pattern of settlement within the AONB;

- Area designated as an Area of Landscape Importance should be retained and reinforced with additional planting and further structural planting should be incorporated into the northern and western boundaries;

- Development must be informed by ecological assessment to identify features of ecological interest and conserve and enhance biodiversity of the site;

- Access improvements will be required as part of any development of the site and a new means of access may be required subject to highways specifications;

- Works to the highway to facilitate both vehicular and pedestrian access may be required (Officer emphasis);

- Development must include measures to attenuate noise from the substation and substantial tree planting will be needed to the south and west to improve visual amenity;

- Provide connection to the sewerage system as advised by the service provider; - Financial contributions would be required towards community facilities; and; - Proposals for redevelopment of part of the site must not prejudice the eventual

development of the whole allocation. Hawkhurst Neighbourhood Development plan made March 2018

Policy HD1(a) preference to be given to small scale sites, preference for redevelopment over greenfield sites.

HD (B) – exceptions – larger scale development will only be accepted if it can be demonstrated to be exceptional circumstances as prescribed by the NPPF.

Policy HD2 Future housing mix.

Policy HD3 – Modern living, variety in designs, accessible homes, suitable for the elderly and disabled, in particular bungalows will be encouraged, to meet lifetime homes.

Policy HD4 – Design Quality – design, form and detail should be principally informed by the traditional form, layout, character and style of the Parish’s vernacular architecture.

Policy AM1 – Highgate Hill Junction Supplementary Planning Documents: Renewable Energy 2007 Recreation and Open Space SPD 2006 Affordable Housing 2007 Borough Landscape Character Area Assessment: Second Edition Adopted 2011 Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells SHMA 2015 and 2017 Update Housing Needs Survey 2018 Other documents

Kent Design Guide Review: Interim Guidance Note 3 (Residential parking)

6.0 LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS 6.01 Three site notices were erected 21.07.2017 – two to the front of the site on

Cranbrook Road, south and north of the proposed entrance, and one in to the front of 9 Oakfield, located further south of the site. Erected for at least 21 days.


6.02 Re-consultation- 3 site notices erected in the same positions for 14 days – erected 24/08/2018 – expiry 08.09.2018.

6.03 8 Objectors from 8 Addresses – Objections can be summarised as set out below; 6.04 Affordable housing / Housing need

- Supportive of more affordable housing but these applications provide a token few

houses while adding more, expensive detached housing of which there are plenty;

and;

- The eight 3 and 4 bed houses could be replaced with houses for first time buyers and

single person households.

6.05 Character

- A very wide woodland strip needs to be retained on the boundaries to allow corridors

for wildlife;

- Little evidence that the southern boundary would be enhanced;

- Other infrastructure works, including the balancing pond, have needed to be located

on golf course land in order to bring this site forward; both features will have a

significant effect on the landscape and countryside;

- The applicants on the southern side of the site reference the need to avoid the

southern part of the site, the Area of landscape Importance (ALI) as set out in EN22.

8 dwellings would encroach; and;

- Site is also subject to TPO.

6.06 Traffic issues

- Object to the location; exiting and entering the development is extremely dangerous

due to traffic speeds;

- Pedestrians would have to cross over Cranbrook Road- again dangerous even with a

new crossing given the volume and speed of traffic;

- Additional strain on traffic flow/grid lock through Hawkhurst;

- The timings of the existing bus routes are not convenient;

- Danger that this development would pave the way for another development on the

golf course;

- New development should be put on hold until all other developments are completed;

- Junction in Hawkhurst is recognised by KCC as being at capacity, with significant

delays experienced, particularly during peak hours;

- NPPF definition of “severe”;

- KCC officers consider that the junction is running at severely over capacity at peak

times;

- Conclusion- that additional traffic from new development would have a severe

adverse impact on the highway network, in terms of congestion and inconvenience to

local residents and other road users, and on strategic transport planning of the area

generally – contrary to the aims of para 32 of the NPPF that states that where the

residual cumulative transport impacts are indemnified as severe, development should

be refused. The application should be refused;

- Traffic on Cranbrook Road is beyond reason, with lorries including supermarket –

grain and ballast, large tractors and trailers, during harvest time 2 -3 at a time that

take up the road, in addition to cars and motorbikes;

- Woodbury Road and Vale Road are used as rat runs;


- Coming down Cranbrook Road hill the speed limits are not respected; in part caused

by the frustration at the lights;

- Access roads not wide enough; difficulties with manoeuvring; and;

- Various accidents in Hawkhurst have taken place.

6.07 Amenities/services

- Full impact of the current house building developments in Hawkhurst not known –

regarding availability of primary school places – full doctors surgeries, access to

emergency services, full car parks at Waitrose and Tesco’s.

6.08 Other matters

- Representative to the southern site comments that they are seeking to take on board

the comments of the LPA, KCC and Hawkhurst PC;

- Object on the basis of a lack of notice on other landowners;

- The applicant will not be able to implement the necessary highway works without the

consent of other landowners;

- Illustrative layout submitted appears to suggest this this is the final layout; and;

- Access road to the rear falls outside the allocated site boundary onto land that is

currently part of Hawkhurst Golf Club on land designated as open countryside;

6.09 One objection received following re-consultation – raising similar concerns previously

raised, from a previous respondent. 6.10 Since re-consultation has been undertaken - 6 (including a previous respondent)

further comments have been received, raising concerns similar to those previously identified, but also the following;

To build houses on parts of Hawkhurst is excessive and consumptive of AONB land in the village;

Increase in traffic existing onto Cranbrook Road where cars ignore the 30MPH speed limit; Loss of the parking area;

Pressure on village amenities;

Application ignores the small scale, local need developments preferred in the Hawkhurst Development Plan, there are 90 dwellings for sale in the Hawhurst area, why build more when there are houses in other developments to be sold;

RSA does not take into account the presence of the lane almost immediately opposite the proposed junction for the development – serving Little Sandrock and Nos 1-4 Sandrock Cottages – individual survey undertaken showing a greater number of vehicle movements – suggest that the access would not be a T junction but a crossroads;

More information should be requested as to how they will ensure that the proposed development access does not cause additional dangers, conflicts or complications to existing road users;

Affect of road and noise pollution; and;

Development assumes development of the golf course. 7.0 CONSULTATIONS 7.01 Hawkhurst Parish Council 11.06.2019

Infrastructure requests can be summarised as follows;

£50,000 or £719 per bedspace as Recreation Open Space SPD appendix iv, TWBC Local Plan 2006, Hawkhurst Parish Council five-year Strategy 2019 – 2014 (adopted


11th March 2019) towards Hawkhurst Community Hall – architect and project management costs. To be appointed 12th August 2019 (TWBC section 106 category Youth and Recreation)

£5,000 to upgrade the Bus Stop (Vale Road) as identified in the Hawkhurst Highway Improvement Plan – based on KCC costings.

£13,095 or £450.06 per bedspace (as Recreation Open Space SPD Appendix iii) for Play equipment at Heartenoak Playground

7.02 If requested the Parish Council support requests by Kent County Council and based upon Developing Infrastructure “Creating Quality Places” policy:

£8,500 towards a reclassification of A229 feasibility survey based upon recent costs and supported by Hawkhurst Parish Council five-year Strategy 2019 – 2014 (adopted 11th March 2019) as identified in the Hawkhurst Highway Improvement Plan (TWBC section 106 category Transport and Highways)

Kent County Council requesting educational contributions for Hawkhurst Primary School.

Kent County Council Adult Social Care requesting contributions to Hawkhurst Community Hall.

Kent County Council Library and Archives requesting contributions for Hawkhurst Library.

Kent County Council Economic Development requesting contributions to upgrade to broadband / connectivity in Hawkhurst.

West Kent CCG in requesting appropriate financial contributions to a new medical centre in Hawkhurst.

In terms of affordable housing, it is requested that it should be allocated in such a way as to provide a minimum of 2 x 2-bed and 3 x 3-bed social rent for Hawkhurst families, with the remaining affordable housing also being designated for Hawkhurst residents.

7.03 The parish Council oppose KCC requests for contributions to improved bus routes as

the current scheme has little or no benefit to the residents of Hawkhurst and more than four requests have been made which is against the Community Infrastructure Levy Act 2011 principle of pooling resources. 07.08.2017, 09.08.2017,

- There is encroachment outside of the AL/HA1 into some surrounding woodland on the northern boundary;

- There has been a lack of a collaborative approach either with KCC or the other landowners who have worked at length on a good site access;

- Development is outside the defined allocation, contrary to section 3.19 of the document;

- EN22 Area of Landscape importance has not been accommodated, with 6 houses plus shown in this area and removal of trees would be required in this area, conflicting with Core Policy 4;

- Volume of dwellings is felt to be over intensive and would be a shortage of visitor parking for the volume of dwellings proposed;

- Access is poor and seems to be the reason for additional land take and requires better planning;

- Insensitive approach to a site with landscape protection and strays outside the LBD and AONB land;

- Refer to Area Planning Committee due to the particular land sensitivity of the site. 7.04 Environment Agency 17.07.2017

No comments to make – as it falls outside our remit as a statutory consultee.


7.05 Medway Internal Drainage Board

No comments received but the site is outside of their remit. 7.06 Kent Police 02.08.2017

No reference made to crime prevention in the application, to date no communication has been received from the agent/applicant. There is merit in pre-application discussions. Proposals show rear gardens adjoining the golf course along the northern and western boundaries. It is extremely important that should this application receive approval, all garden boundary treatments are designed to conform with Secured by Design guidelines as part of the general security for the dwellings. Please draw the applicants attention to the Kent Design Initiative. Condition recommended or an informative.

7.07 Natural England 26.07.2017

No objection raised, based upon the information provided, NE advises that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites. The proposed development is for a site within or close to a nationally designated landscape, namely High Weald AONB. NE advises that the planning authority uses the national and local policies, together with local landscape expertise and information to determine the proposal. The policy and statutory framework to be followed conclude para 115 of the NPPF which gives the highest status of protection for the landscape and scenic beauty pf AONB’s and national parks. Para 116 sets out criteria to determine whether the development should exceptionally be permitted within the designated landscape. Development plan policy should also be considered. Advised to contact the AONB Partnership or Conservation Board.

In respect of protected species, Natural England have published standing advice, that should be applied. Advice provided if the proposal is on or adjacent to a local site e.g. local Wildlife site. The LPA should give consideration to securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant if minded to grant permission. The application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as roosting opportunities for bats or installation of bird nest boxes – such measures should be secured if the authority is minded to grant permission for this application.

7.08 Scottish Gas

31.08.18 – Previous comments of 03.08.2017, 19.07.2017 remain unchanged.

The mains record indicates low/medium/intermediate pressure gas main near the site. There should be no mechanical excavations taking place above or within 0.5m of a low/medium pressure system or above or within 3.0m of an intermediate pressure system. You should confirm, where required, the position using hand dug trial holes. Safe digging practices must be used.

7.09 Southern Water

31.08.2018 – comments in the original response to this application remain unchanged and valid for the amended/additional details.

03.08.2017 Initial investigations indicate that Southern Water can provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development.

A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required – informative required.


Initial investigations indicate that there are no public surface water sewers in the area to serve this development, alternative means of drainage surface water from this development are required. This should not involve disposal to a public foul sewer.

SuDs referred to – that relies upon facilities that are not adoptable by sewerage undertakers. The applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exists for the long term maintenance of the SUDS facilities, effectiveness to be in perpetuity.

Application details for this development indicate that the proposed means of surface water drainage for the site is to be via a watercourse. The Council’s technical staff and the relevant authority for land drainage consent should comment on the adequacy of the proposals to discharge to the local watercourse. Land uses such as hardstanding that may be subject to oil/petrol spillages should be drained by means of oil trap gullies or petrol/oil interceptors.

Details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA in consultation with Southern Water.

7.10 UK Power Networks

No comments received. 7.11 Kent Wildlife Trust 24.07.2017

Objection received – The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal makes the following recommendation; …..”Sensitive design of the development therefore must take into consideration maximising the retention of woodland, avoiding impacts rather than mitigating for the loss of this habitat”. Rather than demonstrating a more sensitive development layout of the woodland area, the illustrative layout drawing shows it to be treated in exactly the same way as the garden area of the former nursery, with no compensatory woodland planting proposed to off-set the loss of such valuable habitat.

For these reasons the proposal fails the test of saved planning policies EN1 and Core Strategy 4. It is not accepted that the retention and enhancement of the narrow landscape buffer along the southern boundary addresses these policy requirements.

7.12 KCC Highways

Numerous comments submitted. KCC Highways have confirmed that they do not consider that the most recent comments from DHA raise any new material.

01.08.2019 Background is provided and it is confirmed that the Highway Authority has consistently recommended refusal of this application on the basis that it cannot deliver safe, suitable and sustainable access to the site for all. Comments of KCC Highways are attached as Appendix A, in full.

Site is allocated for 40 units, but in separate ownerships with no co-operation. The highway authority has made strenuous efforts towards achieving a comprehensive approach to the development of this allocated site. The Highway authority expects a single point of access and access for pedestrians is essential. Adequate access to both bus stops and crossing the A229 should be delivered.

Partial re-development must demonstrate that vehicular and pedestrian access to the various uses, including industrial uses should not be jeopardised by the proposed development.


April 2019 – consent was granted at appeal for the creation of a signal controlled junction to serve part of the site to the south in separate ownership known as Brook House. The signalled junction will include a pedestrian phase and footway link to the north bound bus stop. In consideration of this scheme, the existing access which is to be modified as part of this current application, would have continued to serve only the vet practice and sub station. A number of scenarios are considered:

The scheme does not demonstrate adequate pedestrian facilities, or that the new access arrangements can accommodate all vehicles likely to use the access – refusal is recommended on the basis that the scheme fails to provide safe and suitable access for all.

No pedestrian island to assist in pedestrians crossing the A229 or accessing the north bound bus stop due to land ownership.

Two RSA in connection with Brook House both identified a problem with bus stop location and pedestrian facilities. The RSA Dated 12 July 2019 notes high vehicle speeds could lead to vehicle/pedestrian collisions.

February 2019 the LPA refused application 18/03385 Brook House which proposed a scheme without pedestrian refuge – inconsistent of the LPA to now support comparable arrangement at this neighbouring site.

The current proposals would result in a reduction in width and a tightening of the southern radius compared with the existing arrangements on site – RSA identified the refuse vehicle would need to cross the centre line of the minor road and in addition no swept path analysis has been made for other vehicles – KCC arrangements specifically requested inclusion of an industrial tipper and the 10.2 tipper was employed – at the Brook House site to the south.

Evident from the submitted plan that the refuse vehicle will require the whole width of the access road to manoeuvre and as a result this will not be able to accommodate another vehicle. This is not acceptable to the Highway authority and is considered to result in additional hazards on the highway. Given the character of the A229 and other uses including industrial– considers it is necessary that two large vehicles to be able to pass at the access. This requirement led to a widening of the priority junction at Brook House to the south. It is inconsistent to not employ the same principles here.

Visibility splay to the south would fall outside the applicant’s ownership but the applicant has indicated they are access rights across the land for the provision of the required splay-confirmation sought as to whether this could be appropriately conditioned.

Development of both sites with separate access would result in a second access very close to the signalled junction and from a highway planning point of view this would be less than desirable as it introduces further potential hazards on the main road and results in an uncomfortable and unnecessary arrangement.

Whilst accepting the existing access was considered within the appeal layout for the signalled junction, it only served the vet and substation. In contrast this would increase the vehicle movements through the junction with no signals – this arrangement was not considered by the Inspector.


Concerned that the RSA did not include reference to a combined plan and it would appear that the auditor was required to ‘join up’ two separate schemes rather than be presented with a combined scheme with priority junction and signalled junction.

Comment raised that the TS refers to an extant consent from the 1960’s for 1170 sq.m of B8 storage and distribution, although the unit has not been constructed. Asked the LPA for clarification regarding this permission. Conditions not yet discharged.

The highway authority would not be seeking refusal in terms of the impact on the Hawkhurst crossroads.

Numerous previous comments, as summarised as set out below;

16.05.2019 – The recommendation of the Highway Authority, set out in memo dated 09/10/17 and reiterated in memo dated 27/09/18 has not altered.

As stated the Highway Authorities expectations for the site have remained consistent whereby delivery of the allocated site should have a single point of access from the distributor route, and should make adequate provision for pedestrians with an island to assist in crossing the A229 and also footway links to both bus stops.

In allowing the recent appeal (April 2019) at Brook House (TW/17/03780) which also forms part of this allocation, the Inspector has approved a signalled controlled junction which in the highway authority view should now serve the whole of the allocated site.

To date, this current application for the former Springfield Nurseries has not addressed the issue of this now approved signalled controlled junction to serve the site and therefore at this stage the highway authority would recommend a further holding objection on this basis.

27.09.2018 – This round of formal consultation includes a letter from DHA Transport dated June 2018 to which KCC Highways have responded. The view of the highway authority is reiterated.

Proposals fail to address a number of essential elements required for the development of this allocated site. In particular it relates to adequate provision for pedestrians which should include an island to assist with crossing the A229 and pedestrian links to the bus stops. Any subsequent details provided have not satisfactorily addressed.

09.10.2017 The highway authority considers the application unsatisfactory on a number of counts.

Site is part of an allocated site and in keeping with good design principles, the highway authority expects the whole of the allocated site to be served by a single point of access from the A229, which is a primary distributor route. Also, in keeping with policies adequate provision must be made for pedestrians to include a pedestrian island to assist crossing the main road and links to both bus stops. These matters are considered essential elements in development of this site and have not been addressed in the current arrangements.


In addition, the highway authority employs a 11.4m refuse vehicle for design purposes and it should not be required to cross the centre line on the main road (as currently shown) and the access to the southern part of the site would be expected to provide a minimum of 20m clearance from the channel line on the main road. I would also request confirmation from TWBC regarding extant consents at the site and would query the suitability for parcel distribution which has been employed for purposes of comparison trip generation.

The visibility splay to the south is not included within the red line and the proposals appear to raise the issue as to whether a condition may be attached to a splay which falls outside of the boundary ownership but where the site has the benefit of a right of way across land within the splay. No assessment has been made of the implications of the bus stop within the splay.

To conclude, it is therefore considered that the proposals have failed to demonstrate safe, suitable and sustainable access for all and are therefore contrary to the NPPF and local policies, the highway authority would recommend refusal in these terms.

7.13 KCC Education

Updated request 07.02.18 (Confirmed no change to these figures 15.07.19). Primary School education - £79,776.00 towards Benenden Primary School Secondary school education - £98,760.00 Towards Phase 1 expansion of The Skinners School Libraries - £1,152.38 towards bookstock at Hawkhurst Library

30.08.2017 Request for the following contributions;

Primary School education - £79,776.00 towards Benenden Primary School Secondary school education - £56,635.20 Towards Phase 1 expansion of The Skinners School Libraries - £1,152.38 towards bookstock at Hawkhurst Library

Informative sought regarding access to superfast Broadband.

7.14 KCC Lead Flood Authority

31.08.2018 No further comment to make – reference previous comments.

4.08.2017 The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment prepared by DHA Environment (June 2017), that proposes a gravity drainage system directed to an attenuation pond with controlled discharge of 3.1 l/s to the ditch along Cranbrook Road. Though the FRA acknowledges that the portions of the site are underlain by the Tunbridge Wells Sand Formation which is expected to be free draining it does not propose infiltration given the presence of Wadhurst Clay Formation. KCC comments as follows;

- We would expect a significant portion of the site may be able to utilise infiltration to manage surface water from development; therefore we would require the submission of site specific ground investigation to inform detailed design and that infiltration is maximised.


- Recommend consideration be given to onsite control of runoff from house roofs and soakaways are provided within the curtilage of each dwelling where feasible.

- Not usual practice but in this instance it is accepted that flows may be transferred from the southern catchment to the northern catchment of the site. May prove beneficial to contributions to overland flow paths on the east of Cranbrook Road. Unlikely to impact on flows in the ditch on Cranbrook Road as flows are controlled to the 1 in 2 year greenfield runoff rate.

- It would be a requirement that the applicant demonstrates connectivity and condition of the ditch system to the northern watercourse and confirm the condition of the outlet from the site to the ditch.

- Conditions recommended regarding the following; detailed SuDs scheme, detailed design for the attenuation basin to be submitted to and approved in writing to include biodiversity enhancements, further detail of the infiltration methods, implementation of SuDs management scheme. It is also noted that it would be prudent to assume that a degree of off-site works may be required to improve the condition of the ditch (overflow ditch along Cranbrook Road). In addition to conditions it is recommended that S106 term be included to ensure that if off-site discharge is proposed that any off site drainage improvements are provided by the applicant. These should be agreed and confirmed through inspection and described within the Drainage Strategy.

- It is also noted that any feature capable of conveying water can be considered to fall under the definition of an ‘ordinary watercourse’ and we would urge the applicant to contact us prior to undertaking any works that may affect any watercourse/ditch /stream or any other feature which has a drainage or water conveyance function. Any works that have the potential to affect the watercourse or ditch’s ability to convey water will require KCC’s formal flood defence consent – applicant to contact [email protected] for further information.

7.15 TWBC Housing

11.07.2019 – There is limited detail as the application is in outline only. 8 dwellings confirmed in the Planning Statement, would equate to 35% of the development and therefore satisfies planning policy.

In order to meet best the housing need for Hawkhurst then the affordable housing should be split as 4 x 2 bed houses and 4 x 3 bed houses.

70% of the development should be provided as either affordable or social rent , the preference being for social rent. This should be 3 x 2 bed houses and 2 x 3 bed houses.

The remaining 1 x 2 bed house and 2 x 3 beds to be provided as shared ownership or other intermediate tenure.

All of the affordable housing should be built to Part M4 (2) of the Building Regulations and one home built to the higher standard Part M4(3) to be suitable for a wheelchair user.

The affordable housing should be secured via a Section 106 Planning Obligation Agreement

7.16 TWBC Environmental Protection 17.08.2017 & 17.10.2018

Initial comments requests a Contaminated Land Investigation Report – without this the Environmental Protection Team would be recommending refusal on the grounds of insufficient information. However, following discussion, it is commented that whilst this this a brownfield development the current uses do not seem to be of a nature that would cause particular difficulty in remediation such that it could make the scheme unviable. It is therefore acceptable to attach appropriate conditions - including the 4 part standard condition.

mailto:[email protected]


7.17 TWBC Landscape and Biodiversity Various including 22.08.2017, 05.2018, 10.05.2019, 31.05.2019 Final comments confirm that much can be secured through reserved matters,. The off site mitigation area raises a number of issues which the LBO is not clear can be addressed post granting of consent. Whilst consent is advised against planning can determine.

Most recent comments – confirm that the key additional information is the Mitigation and Enhancement Plan by Peak Ecology dated 27/07/2018 and a landscape strategy by LaDellWood revised March 18 showing a newer layout. The L & B Officer confirms – there is a good population of dormice on the site and mitigation measures that would secure a licence are not clear- i.e. there is no plan of which might be expected, which is unchanged and remains an objection.

It has not been demonstrated that there would be no net loss of biodiversity, which is unchanged and remains an objection. Whilst there is not a revised landscape strategy this could be combined with a LEMP. There is no indication of how the retained ALI and communal areas will be managed – that will be key to successful mitigation for biodiversity – this is unchanged and remains an objection.

Whilst the full suite of surveys has now been submitted – these do not provide an overall picture of how biodiversity is to be protected and enhanced through the development to ensure no net loss required by policy. The eventual scheme of mitigation should be secured by a Landscape and Ecological Management plan through condition and legal agreement- which impossible without a parameter plan setting the extent of the development and consequently the green space to be retained. The Mitigation and Enhancement plan, is believed to be intended to address dormice but does not deal with net loss or LEMP matters fully. Concern that private gardens appear include the boundary features that cannot be included within features retained for Biodiversity. Proposal would result in a loss of 0.18 Ha. Owing to quality of the land lost, following net loss/offsetting principles, the replacement should greatly exceed the area to be lost. There are concerns with the land offered in mitigation, it is outside the red line, does not appear to have a separate access, would affect the functioning of the golf course, it would take several years for the quality to be effective, and there is no information provided on the nature and condition of the site. There is therefore uncertainty as to whether this is a realistic, practical or suitable proposal. Loss should be the last resort, and should be fully justified, it would appear in the context of Hawkhurst, that this loss of woodland could be avoided. A licence would be required in relation to the dormice. In considering this Natural England would need to apply the three tests; a licence can be granted for the purposes of “preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons for overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences….”, “the appropriate authority shall not grant a licence unless they are satisfied “that there is no satisfactory alternative”, and “the appropriate authority shall not grant a licence unless they are satisfied that “action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned”…..the applicant has not addressed the test to assist the Council who must consider the likelihood of a licence being granted. The application is not supported as it is unlikely to be licensable.


Reptile Survey – its accepted overall numbers are likely to be low. Badger walkover – It is not possible to fully anticipate the likely effects on badgers, alternative provision may be required elsewhere. Further mitigation for bats would be required on site – mitigation in broad terms would be acceptable.

The site is to the north edge of Hawkhurst abutting the golf course within the High Weald AONB on an allocated site, as such the principle of development is acceptable and para 116 of the NPPF need not be considered. The policy has specific requirements with regards to landscape (with particular reference to the AONB) green infrastructure, ecology, design and requires the retention and protection of the identified Area of Landscape Importance. It is noted that the site is well described, and that application is supported by a number of studies, and that the site is in outline with all matters reserved save access for 24 dwellings. Landscape and Visual Appraisal February 2017 BMD Ltd – report prepared by a suitable professional to a recognised methodology and as such it is broadly accepted as providing useful information on the likely landscape and visual effects of the proposal. No substantive disagreement with the conclusions but not necessarily in agreement with all the report. The assessment has considered development for up to 30 residential units and results in a Landscape Strategy Plan which shows the full retention of the ALI, retention of poplars to the north and landscape buffers to other boundaries, with indicative development parcels of medium to low density development. Supporting text recommends;

Mix of single and two storey properties;

Development set back from and avoiding the ALI;

Increased structural planting to northern and western boundaries;

A net of corridors and buffers utilising native species;

Internal street tree planting;

A long term management plan for the ALI. The site layout plan does not appear to have followed these recommendations and a further landscape strategy plan also appears to largely ignore these findings. The later drawing appears to spring from the recommendations in the Arboricultural Survey which appears to be ignorant of the ALI (and findings of the ecological survey) which indicates a higher value to the trees than that ascribed by the report. Will leave the Tree Officer to comment, however, it is noted that proposals will require the removal of 15 trees and 10 groups – which is more than half the site total. Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Peak Ecology Limited 26/01/17) – report has been carried out by suitable professionals to a recognised methodology and as such the findings are broadly accepted. The recommended approach is to maximise the retention of the woodland “avoiding impacts rather than mitigate the loss of this nationally important habitat”. It is noted that trees TN4 and TN5 have bat potential and are to be felled and that further survey work is recommended for Bats, badgers, great crested newt’s reptiles.

Design and Access Statement – whilst detached, repeating house types which does not appear to respond to the landscape assessment/site context. Layout options are shown following a plan giving an identified developable area. The developable area does not follow the protected area of landscape importance or appear to reference either the landscape or ecological report. Even so the submitted plan transgresses even this reduced boundary between the developable and non-developable area.


There are outstanding ecological surveys required before consent can be given – otherwise all material considerations may not have been considered. Both landscape and ecological studies have identified the ALI or greater area as being a constraint which the applicant appears to have ignored. The tree survey ignores the constraint but is in any event a report on the impact of the chosen layout rather than being used to inform it. Clearly the proposal does not comply with the adopted policy in that it is harmful to the Area of Landscape Importance and has not taken on board the findings of the required reports for landscape and ecology. The findings seem to indicate that the capacity of the site may be more limited than the policy envisaged but smaller house types and a more mixed development may yield more than the scheme proposed.

It is considered that there could be some flexibility in the boundary of the Area of Landscape Importance and that development secured in the long term management plan but what is proposed so far would go beyond what was envisaged by the Policy and on the basis of the evidence provided would be considered unacceptable. As all matters are reserved the council could consider approving the scheme subject to reserved matters making it clear that the indicative layout, house types/numbers and details are unsatisfactory but it is hard to see how that can be done when the proposal is so clearly not policy compliant. Ideally the developable area would be established which has not been done. 14.07.2017 Allocated site, on face of it, it appears compliant with policy and has a suitable landscape strategy the details of which can be secured through condition. However, there are no levels or sections which make judging suitability of the proposal difficult. In terms of ecology, further surveys are required – these should be prior to determination – a general scheme of mitigation and enhancement can be secured through condition.

7.18 TWBC Planning Policy

29.01.2019 – Policy considerations - The site forms part of a site allocation for development AL/HA1: Former Springfield

Garden Centre in the Tunbridge Wells Site Allocations Local Plan 2016.

This policy seeks the development of 40 dwellings across the whole allocation and

that a development framework for the whole site be prepared.

Key requirements of Policy AL/HA1:

Landscape – Provide Framework/green infrastructure, protect Area of Landscape

Importance and minimise impact on AONB

Improved access – both vehicular and pedestrian

Ecological considerations

Noise attenuation (adjacent substation)

Proposals for redevelopment of part of site must not prejudice future development of

whole allocation

It is noted that a masterplan has been submitted with the application to show the comprehensive development of the whole site allocation, with new access, all new housing and that the landscape strip designed as an ALI to the south is to be retained and enhanced.


There are concerns at this stage about the proposed access and how this would work for the site allocation as a whole given a separate application has been submitted for the remaining part of the site allocation showing a different access point, potentially resulting in a conflict of highway safety. Of course this would be subject to any comments received from the Council’s Highways Officer. The neighbouring site is included within the “call for sites” – being the Golf course, that should not be compromised if this site is allocated for future development. Significant weight should be attached to the policies set out in the NDP, HD1(B) is of particular relevance.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. 8 affordable units would result in less than 35% affordable. Housing Needs Survey 2018 should be referenced. The impact of the proposal on the AONB and wider landscape would need to be fully assessed, there are concerns at this stage about the proposed access and how this would work for the site allocation as a whole in highway safety terms, given the separate applications.

7.19 TWBC Client Services 14.07.2017

Each property will require the relevant bin/boxes to be placed adjacent to the boundary of the property for collection. Bins to be purchased from TWBC prior to occupation. Recycling boxes currently provided free of charge.

7.20 TWBC Parking Services 19.07.2017

No comment to make on this application. 7.21 TWBC Trees Various including 22.08.2017, 18.06.2019

Final comments- following review of the updated information, it is not considered that there are sufficient concerns to justify refusal of the scheme on arboricultural grounds. It seems plausible that the access could be constructed in such a way to allow the retention of all significant trees to the north, with minimal pruning to facilitate sight lines. Conditions are recommended seeking a detailed tree survey and tree protection plan and arboricultural method statement to be submitted to and approved in writing.

15.10.2018 Following the submission of additional information, the Tree officer comments that whilst he is satisfied with the proposals for inside the site, more detail is required as to what will happen adjacent to the entrance in terms of visibility splays/level changes existing and proposed trees.

Initial concerns raised regarding encroachment into the ALI and associated tree loss. The presence of the trees, regardless of their individual or group grading under BS:5837, are major contributors to the landscape character and this does not seem to have been fully identified in terms of the constraint it presents. The Tree Officer is not too concerned with the Poplars at the top (Golf Course) end of the site, provided that any changes take into account the impact on the tree group as a whole, and provided they are adequately replaced with native species. More information would be required on any loss of vegetation at the entrance for the site lines.


7.22 High Weald AONB Unit 16.08.2017 It is the responsibility of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to decide whether the application meets the legislative and policy requirements in respect of AONB’s.

It is noted that the application site forms part of the site allocated under Policy AL/HA1 of the Site Allocations DPD 2016, it is also acknowledged that only the principle and means of access is to be determined at this stage. However, the illustrative layout and supporting information seems to assume the submitted layout will be the final layout. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment has used this layout to assess that the proposals will require the removal of 15 trees and 10 groups of trees including 9 features of moderate value (B Category) and 15 features of low value (C Category). This seems to be an excessive removal of B category trees and it is recommended that the layout be reviewed to avoid the removal of category A and B trees. The developed area should also avoid the southern part of the site which is designated as an Area of Landscape Importance. It is possible that these changes could be accommodated without reducing the number of units of there were less detached 3 and 4 bedroom houses and more 2-3 bedroom semi-detached and terrace units.

8.0 APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING COMMENTS (summary of key points)

- The proposed development would significantly contribute to the housing set out in the site allocation and will provide much needed homes to meet the needs of Hawkhurst and the wider local authority area within the early stage of the plan period.

- The proposal would provide eight affordable units which equates to 35% and would accord with the core strategy.

- The proposed development would utilise the existing access which currently serves the Springfield Industrial Estate, sub-station and Cinque Ports vets. The access will be upgraded to ensure it can accommodate the proposed development and the visibility splays of the access onto Cranbrook Road. The applicant owns land to the north of the site and enjoys access rights to the south of the site to enable the delivery of the visibility splays.

- The proposed development is not expected to result in any adverse impacts in regards to flood risk, landscape, trees or traffic and transport. With regard to biodiversity, a phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken and confirmed that the site is considered to be of low ecological value in terms of botanical interest but has potential to be used by species including badger, bats, great crested newt, dormice, reptiles, birds and hedgehogs.

9.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS AND PLANS

3776/e01Existing Site Layout Plan

2502/17/B REV A Landscape Strategy

3776/p01 Site Location Plan

3776/PO3 rev B Site layout plan

T-21 P1 Long section

T24 P3 11.4 refuse track

T25 P1 Layout Plan

T26 P1 Vis splays

T 27 P1 Pedestrian visibility Splays

P-02 Rev P1 Proposed site access

P-03 Rev P1 Proposed access and signal junction

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Feb 2017


Arboricultural Impact Assessment June 2017 rev A

Flood Risk Assessment June 2017

Landscape and Visual Appraisal February 2017

Noise Impact Assessment June 2017

Planning Statement June 2017

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal January 2017

Transport Statement June 2017

Design and Access Statement 17.06.15 Updated November 2017

Mitigation & Enhancement Plan 07.2018

Hazel Dormouse Survey 11.2017

GCN Survey 10.2017

Reptile Survey 10.2017

Tree Inspection for Bats 10.2017 10.0 APPRAISAL

Principle of Development 10.01 The site is largely located with the site allocation of policy AL/HA1 in the adopted Site

Allocations Local Plan 2016 and largely within the LBD (Limits to Built Development), however, the balancing pond and access to the north of the site would lay outside the LBD and the site allocation. The adopted development plan policies seek to direct new residential development to the most sustainable locations within the LBD. The site is located within the LBD of Hawkhurst, where adopted (but now out of date) Policy H5 of the 2006 Local Plan makes it clear that infill and redevelopment for residential development would be acceptable, providing that the comprehensive development of the site would not be prejudiced. Hawkhurst is a second tier settlement. New development is encouraged within the defined LBDs to ensure a managed and sustainable delivery of housing. The site is allocated for residential development, and in this respect, the proposal is considered to accord with Development Plan policy and the policies in the NPPF. The proposal would contribute to housing supply whilst being located in a relatively sustainable location.

10.02 Notwithstanding the above, work on the Council’s new Local Plan has been progressed, with the Regulation 18 draft out for consultation, and an anticipated submission date of December 2020. Recent updates to Planning Policy Guidance and the NPPF (2019) have changed the way that local authorities must calculate their housing targets.

10.03 Para 73 of the NPPF requires the Council to identify and update a supply of specific

deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in adopted strategic policies, or against their local housing need. The Council has identified that (inclusive of any buffer required by the NPPF 2018) it can currently demonstrate a housing land supply of 4.69 years. Therefore despite progress which has been made in identifying sites and granting planning permissions the Council still considers that it cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply.

10.04 In view of the above, the spatial strategy for the delivery of housing in TWBC (such

as Core Strategy policies 1 and 6) are considered to be out of date, it is necessary to consider whether the development is sustainable in the context of the NPPF, whether there are any adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when considering the Framework when taken as a whole and whether specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be refused.


Presumption in favour of sustainable development 10.05 Where a Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year housing supply,

Paragraph 11 (d) of the NPPF is engaged. This states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless: “i. the application of policies in this Framework (listed in footnote 6) that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or (officer emphasis) ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”

10.06 In this case it is not considered that Footnote 6 indicates a clear reason for refusal. Whilst the site is located in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (where the tilted balance does not apply), the site has been assessed as suitable for residential development through the Site Allocations Local Plan 2016, and therefore Paragraph 172 of the NPPF is considered to be addressed. The need for housing is established through the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2015/2017. Alternatives have been considered through the development plan process and any impact on the environment, landscape and recreation will be addressed in the report below. Paragraph 12 of the NPPF also re-iterates that the “presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan for decision making”. It is not considered that there is a clear reason for refusing the application in relation to protected areas. Locational sustainability

10.07 A large proportion of the site lies within the LBD and within a Tier 2 settlement within the Borough and therefore the location can be considered sustainable. In addition, the site has been subject to review through the adoption of the Site Allocation Local Plan 2016, the location is considered to be acceptable for residential development.

Housing and economic considerations

10.08 This proposal would have a density of some (10.6 dph) the scheme and would contribute directly towards housing, but also with 8 units of affordable (as set out in the Planning Statement), this would also contribute towards the social element of sustainability. The proposal could also potentially provide for a range of house types, including terrace, detached and semi detached, although the final layout is to be determined through reserved matters. Significant weight can be attached to this in considering whether the proposal constitutes sustainable development, under the ‘social’ considerations of sustainable development. In conjunction with the southern part of the allocated site, Brook House, the scheme would deliver 49 dwellings, 9 above the 40 anticipated through policy AL/HA 1. Subject to other material considerations, as set out below, 49 units across the site is considered to accord with the policy but also meet housing need.

10.09 The development would result in additional population to support local services,

which is also considered to be a modest contribution in the balance of considerations, along with the impact on employment during the construction phase.

Environmental 10.10 The environmental impact of the scheme also needs to be considered. The visual

impact will be addressed in the paragraphs below, however, the scheme has been submitted in outline form and the layout and design yet to be determined, therefore it


is considered that a scheme could be developed that would be suitable and respect the context of this part Hawkhurst.

10.11 In terms of ecology, this is addressed in paragraphs 10.21-10.27 below, however, it is

considered that, through conditions and reserved matters, a suitable scheme could address biodiversity and enhance ecology, providing suitable mitigation, given that the scheme is in outline at present. It is not considered that there are matters that could not be addressed through conditions/reserved matters.

Conclusion in respect to principle of development

10.12 The location of the site is considered to be sustainable, the contribution to the social element of sustainable development and economic development would be significant and with conditions and through the submission of reserved matters, it is considered that environmental gains can be achieved. In accordance with the NPPF, these benefits are to be weighed against any adverse impacts.

The key matters in the consideration of this application are therefore whether; The development would cause significant visual harm which would outweigh its

contribution to housing land supply; Impact on neighbouring amenity; Impact on Access, traffic and parking; Impact on trees and landscaping; Impact on ecology; and; Other matters.

Visual Impact 10.13 The proposal has been submitted in outline, and an indicative layout has been

submitted that shows 24 units can be achieved on the site, with parking and gardens for each dwelling. At present, it is only the access that is applied for in full. The access is to be located in a similar position to that which exists.

10.14 In terms of the housing, the indicative layout could reasonably be considered to be a

form of development that would be adopted in the future. In allowing the appeal to the southern side of the site for 25 apartments, with new access, the Inspector accepted that the site ownerships would result in a split allocated site – he was of the view that “it is unlikely that a single scheme for the whole housing site allocation that could potentially utilise a single site access will come forward due to the on-going land ownership issues”. The Inspector went on to comment that “The appeal proposal seeks to develop the part of the housing allocation that is within the control of the applicant, whilst ensuring that the remaining part of the site which is in different ownership could be brought forward at a later date”. The development the subject of the appeal was also in outline, however, it was accepted that it is likely that the final design solution would be unlikely to differ greatly due to the constraints of the site. The Inspector accepted that two apartment blocks could be used as a broad guide but there was potential for an alternative site layout and arrangement, although the access would be fixed.

10.15 In terms of the impact on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, it was concluded that the apartment scheme would be contained by the natural topography of the site and its surroundings, and the effect would therefore be localised. These views were not considered out of context in the setting


of Hawkhurst, a nucleated settlement that already has built development particularly to the south and south east of the appeal site. A sensitively planned and implemented landscaping scheme consistent with the landscape character of the area would ensure that the proposal would be viewed as an organic extension of the settlement. It was concluded that the development would not appear cramped in this site specific context.

10.16 This application therefore seeks permission for 24 dwellings on the northern part of the site. Policy AL/HA1 sought a development framework for the whole site. The application includes details of the development to the south side, with the existing businesses to be retained within the centre of the wider application. This arrangement was accepted by the Inspector when granting the application at Brook House to the south side. The indicative layout shows that a scheme could be designed to ensure that the constraints of the site, being the Area of Landscape Importance to the south would be retained, whilst utilising and enhancing the existing access that runs to the north of the vets and the sub station. This would be the only fixed element, the internal estate road could be finalised through conditions. In the context of the wider site allocation, a higher density would be achieved, where the land levels drop down into the brook/stream area that runs through the wider allocation to the south side of the allocation. On the application site, that is on rising land, the less dense development could be designed and laid out to compliment, lower density development would be on the higher ground. The layout of the access now for consideration, would not prevent comprehensive development of the wider site, and with all matters reserved, can be designed to reflect the character and pattern of the settlement in the AONB, in accordance with bullet points 3 and 4 of policy AL/HA 1 of the Site Allocation Local Plan. The proposal would also meet the final point in this policy that “proposals for the redevelopment of part of the site must not prejudice the eventual development of the whole allocation”.

10.17 It is considered that a development of suitable design and appearance could be developed on this site and would be subject to reserved matters/conditions approval. In terms of the impact on the landscape, the application is supported by a landscape and Visual appraisal that notes that the site is located in the Hawkhurst Wooded Farmland LCA and displays typical landscape characteristics associated with LCA including sloping valley sides, a stream, and wooded character due to the existing vegetation cover. It goes on to state that the site lies within the northern peripherals of the village, characterised by lower lying tributary valley sides, which features low density, modern twentieth century, single to two storey residential development on Oakfield, set within a strong landscape.

10.18 Features that are particularly valued include the pattern of dispersed historic farmsteads and hamlets and locally distinctive buildings which add important character to the landscape and a sense of history, woodland – particularly ancient woodlands, chills and shaws. Detractors include some unmanaged hedging, Hawkhurst is a busy settlement with some detracting features including standardised or low quality materials that may benefit from repair, and the busy A268 and A229 impact on the rural character. The landscape strategy should include controlling further development proposals which would adversely affect the rural character of the landscape and tip the scales to a more urban character; limit new large-scale development wherever possible because it is rare within the area and has the potential to impact ridge lines; avoid deterioration of the currently high quality built environment and vernacular heritage and recognise the profile of the area as a link way for recreational users.


10.19 The proposal would utilise the existing access onto Cranbrook Road, albeit widened out to the north side of the access. The proposal would not result in a new, heavily engineered access but would utilise an existing access, thereby reducing the impact on the wider landscape setting of the site. The site is to the north of Hawkhurst, largely within the LBD and therefore provides a natural extension to the village. The design and layout is for later consideration and therefore the applicant would need to ensure that any design would be of a high quality and respect local vernacular. It is considered that there is sufficient evidence in the submitted documents that a suitable scheme could be developed to respect the character of this part of Hawkhurst. The building heights would be appropriate in this location and the protection of the ALI to the south should ensure that the site remains enclosed and that key features of the character of the area are maintained. The impact on the landscape character, with careful design, would be acceptable. Any development, when viewed from the north, would be seen against the existing residential development on the approach into Hawkhurst.

10.20 The submitted Landscape and Visual Appraisal concludes that lower density development should be sited on the upper parts of the site including the visually sensitive northern and western parts, whilst lower areas of topography, to the middle and south could accommodate a higher density. It also recommends the scale and density of development should reflect that of the adjacent residential development in Oakfield, comprising a low density mix of single and two storey residential properties set within a strong landscape framework. In this case – the density of the development would be low, and, would complement the appeal site to the south, that would provide a higher density on the lower part of the site, and lower density on the higher land to the north (the application site). The LBO notes that the Landscape and Visual Appraisal has been carried out by a suitable professional, and whilst not all conclusions are agreed with, there are no substantive disagreements in regards to the conclusions. Whilst the LBO comments that the drawings do not appear to follow the recommendations and findings, the application is in outline form only, with only access to be considered at this stage. The site and the associated blue land are extensive and it is considered that this would provide adequate space for a scheme of up to 24 dwellings with associated parking, access and amenity space, whilst incorporating suitable land for ecological mitigation. Impact on Landscaping and Ecology

10.21 The development is supported by a Landscape Strategy that indicates key planting within the ALI is retained . Landscaping and planting can be finalised and secured through conditions and reserved matters. The application is also supported a suite of ecological surveys. The LBO initially commented that the landscape strategy was suitable and that as all matters are reserved, the Council could consider approving the scheme subject to reserved matters, although further ecological surveys were required prior to determination. It was noted that the proposal would not be policy compliant. These surveys have now been submitted. Whilst ideally the developable area would be established through this application, this is an outline application with all matters reserved, which the applicant is entitled to do. Since the initial comments from the LBO, the indicative layout has been revised to remove dwellings from the ALI. Given the extensive area of the blue line, it is not considered reasonable to refuse the application based on this lack of detail given the nature of the application. The applicant is able to submit the application in outline and given that Brook House to the southern part of the allocation has been granted outline consent on appeal, it is considered reasonable to condition the application and control the layout at the reserved matters stage.


10.22 The layout also relates to the ecology in respect of the mitigation required and the associated land required to provide that mitigation. A preliminary Ecological Appraisal was submitted with the application, which identified the need for further survey work. These surveys have now been submitted, including a badger walkover survey, bat, Great Crested Newts, Dormouse and reptiles. The Landscape and Biodiversity officer raised concerns that there is a good population of dormice on the site and the mitigation measures that would secure a licence are not clear, i.e. there is no plan to support what might be intended. Concern was also raised that it has not been demonstrated that there would be no net loss of biodiversity, there is no indication of how the retained ALI will be managed.

10.23 The applicant had commented that “in summary, all of the reports confirm that mitigation measures are required and that the mitigation measures can only be confirmed once a final design has been prepared. As such the reserved matters application will set out the final design together with the necessary mitigation measures to ensure that no species are harmed as a result of the development”, it was envisaged that the mitigation measures would be secured through condition.

10.24 In respect of dormice, the report discusses the possibility of there being a need for both on and off site mitigation, the LBO comments that this is not a matter that can be left to reserved matters as it is not certain mitigation can be provided. However, the blue line associated with this site is extensive and therefore it is considered that there would be opportunities to provide mitigation within this blue line, and can be covered by condition.

10.25 In terms of the tree inspection for Bats, the report found no evidence of bats in those trees that had potential. The mitigation proposed, in broad terms, would be acceptable in terms of avoiding direct harm but it should go further and recommend that bat boxes are provided on site in case bats are disturbed, further mitigation should be provided. Such mitigation could be sought through a biodiversity enhancement condition.

10.26 The LBO accepts the overall conclusion that the reptile numbers are likely to be low, although not agreeing fully with the survey methods. The general approach is one of avoidance and displacement which can be acceptable but refers to displacement off site which without the necessary security of the land/land owners consent is not an acceptable approach, however, this can be established prior to the reserved matters application or the layout can be amended to ensure sufficient habitat on site. The badger walk over survey indicates that further setts were anticipated, the report indicates that setts can be closed but such an action may require alternative provision elsewhere, further information is requested including a plan of the setts and how it is intended that they be accommodated in the development, no mitigation for comment species of Great Crested Newts is provided. Without a parameter plan to the show the extent of the developable area the LBO is concerned that it would be difficult to secure the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan.

10.27 Whilst the concerns of the Landscape and Biodiversity officer are noted, it is considered that, by virtue of the outline nature of this application, (with all matters except access reserved), there is flexibility in the exact position and final number of dwellings which would allow flexibility in the retention of landscaping and introduction of any replacement landscaping to further minimise the ecological impact and provide habitat enhancement. As the application is in outline, the exact position and extent of development cannot be provided and therefore the resulting impact on protected species (together with necessary mitigation) cannot be fully assessed. A suitably


worded condition would enable the future design of the site to be informed by the detailed ecological surveys.

10.28 In terms of the impact on trees, as set out, the amended layout would enable the protection of the ALI. Tree officer comments did not object to the tree removals within the site, that include specifically Groups 7 and 9 to the north, and 12 and 16 within the site and adjacent to the commercial buildings and the ALI. Groups 7 and 9 comprise of poplars, whilst and G12 16 are mixed, Elder, Silver birch, Goat willow, Ash, Sycamore and Oak, Group 16 being C category. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment commented that the removal of these trees would reduce tree cover and associated benefits in the immediate area but should not adversely affect the overall character, amenity and habitat value of the local landscape. Whilst come concern was initially raised regarding the impact of the access, it is considered that access could be installed and associated visibility splays whilst retaining the best specimens. It is also important to note that the final layout would affect tree removals and conditions are recommended seeking a detailed tree survey, protection plan and method statement.

10.29 The application site is an allocated site and overall, there is not considered to be any significant landscape or ecological impact which would warrant refusal of this application, that could not be addressed through the detailed design of the scheme. This application can only deal with the general principle of this type of development on this site and therefore it is recommended these matters are addressed through conditions and reserved matters. On balance, this is considered to be a reasonable approach. The design of the scheme and the required mitigation and enhancement can then be considered and detailed within any future reserved matters submission.

Residential Amenity 10.30 In respect of neighbouring amenity, there are significant distances to neighbours to

the south side, with the Brook House site and established landscaping separating the proposed dwellings from these neighbours. Cranbrook Road intervenes between the site and the dwellings to the east. It is not considered that proposed development would be harmful to neighbouring amenities.

10.31 There are businesses to the southern side of the site. Environmental Health have

only commented on the issue of contamination, that can be resolved with conditions. 10.32 Whilst the proposal would operate in close proximity to vets to the south, and a

number of other businesses along the southern boundary, it is considered, that if the application were to be approved, that conditions could be applied regarding acoustic protection for future occupiers. The relationship to these neighbouring uses is therefore considered acceptable. The allocation of the site in the 2016 Site Allocations Local Plan did not anticipate that the businesses in the centre of the site would be retained, however, provision is made for the phased development, within the policy that seeks to ensure that development of part of the site would not prevent development of the remainder of the site. The application site forms part of a wider site, and EHO do not object to the scheme as presented and therefore, with conditions, the impact is considered to be acceptable.

Highways Access 10.33 In terms of the access, this is the only element to be considered in detail. KCC

Highways have consistently objected to the scheme, and the neighbouring site at Brook House, and have commented that the scheme is unacceptable on a number of


counts. Whilst they have raised a number of concerns some of these have been addressed and the latest comments relate to the following;

1. the site is part of an allocated site and in keeping with good design principles, the

highway authority expects the whole of the allocated site to be served by a single point of access from the A229;

2. adequate provision must be made for pedestrians to include a pedestrian island to assist crossing the main road and links to both bus stops;

3. the proposal would result in refuse vehicles taking up the whole width of the access road to manoeuvre and as a result this will not be able to accommodate another vehicle – the Highway authority consider this would result in additional hazards on the highway;

4. Inconsistencies with the decision on Brook House to the south of the site TW/18/03385/FULL.

10.34 Regarding land ownerships, the applicant has served notice on the neighbouring

landowner, for the avoidance of doubt. The applicant has not submitted a Lawful Development Certificate to demonstrate that there is an extant permission covering the north access as proposed, however, they have submitted a letter from TWBC dated 14th January 1975 that confirms WE/5/66/22 for the erection of office accommodation and storage sheds is valid and that the development may be carried out in accordance with that permission subject to its conditions. There is an approved plan showing an access in the location of the proposed internal access road. It is not necessary for a view to be determined on the lawful position under this application, but on the facts, there is confirmation of an extant permission on the site, with an access road to the north of the application site. Notwithstanding the above, the access to be utilised is in existence and would be enhanced. At present, this access serves the 2 veterinary surgeries, the offices and commercial buildings. It is likely that large vehicles are already using this access to service the uses within the site.

10.35 It is stated in application that the access can serve the entire allocation, including the

commercial buildings in the middle of the site and the approved dwellings at Brook House, although the Brook House scheme has had a separate access already approved by the appeal Inspector. A letter submitted on 19th of August 2019 also comments that KCC Highways are taking a disproportionate stance on a modest scheme. They comment that the forecast trip generation would be a modest increase of 15 vehicle movements through the site access during the AM and PM peak hours and the existing crash record for the last three year period was reviewed as part of the TS and showed no existing record of incidents in the close vicinity of the access. It goes on to state that TWBC can have confidence that the access is safe and suitable to serve the proposals in principle.

10.36 The matters on landownership were discussed on appeal at the Brook House site to

the south, and the Inspector concluded that

“I am of the view that it is unlikely that a single scheme for the whole housing site allocation that could potentially utilise a single site access will come forward due to the on-going land ownership issues”. Given the comments of the appeal Inspector, it is considered that the Inspector would have considered that two access points would be a likely scenario in the event that the approved the Brook House scheme. Therefore, whilst officers agree with KCC Highways in relation to a single access to serve this allocation being preferable, it is considered that the recent decision by the Planning Inspectorate accepts there would be two accesses to serve the site, and is more up to date than the Site Allocations


Plan, which sets out “a new access may be required”, it does not set out a single access is required. Therefore, officers give great weight on this issue to the decision of the Inspector at Brook House.

10.37 The developer on the southern part of the allocation at Brook House is stating that

their access would also serve the entire site. If this development were constructed the commercial vehicles could travel south and not through the northern access on the Springfield Nurseries site. Due to land ownerships and access rights, the spur in front of the vets to the south, is to remain open. If this development did not proceed, then the existing uses, in addition to the proposed dwellings would utilise the existing, altered access proposed at the application site, which the applicant justifies due to the limited number of vehicle trips going through the junction. The commercial vehicles are currently using this access, in addition, up to 24 dwellings would need to use this access. The applicant also comments that in the current situation, “the access safely accommodates refuse and delivery vehicles associated with the existing uses”. They go on to state that the proposed development would be an improvement upon the current situation whereby cars regularly park within the access,…. Which acts to constrain the effective width. The access has been shown to function safely in respect to visibility”. This has been observed by officers during visits. KCC Highways have commented that the southern radius would be reduced, through its realignment, which would result in the incursion into the opposite side of the road. The applicant has remained consistent in their view that the RSA and recent appeal decision, comment that visits by larger vehicles would be infrequent and their movements should not dictate the access design. They further comment that such drivers are professional and would enter and egress with due care and attention to ensure no conflict with opposing vehicles. They also re-iterate that parking within the access acts to constrain its effective width but has caused no recorded highway safety issues. In addition, this is an edge of village location and an over engineered entrance should not, in design terms, be one of the first things seen on the approach to the village from the north.

10.38 The applicant proposes to utilise the existing access, that was in use at the time of

the appeal and acknowledged by the Inspector. The applicant has also submitted plans showing the existing and proposed access, that shows a revision to the alignment of the existing access on the northern and southern sides. The applicant has also submitted a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit on the proposed access, this has been reviewed by KCC Highways, who continue to raise concerns. However, for the reasons set out above, it is not considered that it would be reasonable to prevent the use of the existing access to release the remaining part of the allocation. It is clear in the policy that development of the remainder of the site should not be prejudiced, and the Inspector, in granting permission for the southern part of the site, did not intend to prevent development of the remainder of the site and acknowledged that, whilst unfortunate, that a single access to serve the entire allocation was unlikely due to land ownerships. Therefore it seems reasonable, given the existing use of the access and planning history, to serve the remaining part of the allocation through the existing access. The consideration is then, the additional traffic flows from up to 24 residential units.

10.39 The change would be from the use for 24 residential properties from the existing

vets, businesses and office, Brook House, that all currently use this access. This would also be the change if Brook House were not developed. The applicant for this site maintains that third party land is not required to upgrade the site access and the applicant enjoys the right to provide and ensure the necessary visibility splays across land to the south. They confirm that no trees are located within the splays and that the bus shelter to the south of the access would also not infringe upon them. It is


confirmed that the history of the site would enable an extant permission to be implemented to provide the access road along the proposed alignment.

10.40 In view of the above, and with reserved matters and conditions addressing the

outstanding matters, it is not considered that the access can be refused, as the access currently serves the whole site. The applicant argues that the trips generated would result in safe use of the existing upgraded access. KCC Highways have been consistent in their views on this site and the Brook House site but there is a balance to be made between an existing situation and the addition of up to 24 residential units. The Local Planning Authority must consider all material considerations, including the recent appeal decision which is afforded significant weight. Therefore, it is not considered that a reason for refusal can be sustained on the use of the existing access rather than trying to force the remaining part of the allocation through the signalled junction to the south. Points 1 and 3 of KCC Highways concerns are considered to be addressed.

10.41 In respect of pedestrian access, there is now a permitted scheme that includes a

pedestrian refuge. The two sites would remain linked by virtue of the retained access spur in front of the vets, that would effectively join the two sites. It has been necessary to retain this spur due to existing access rights. The applicant’s transport engineer comments that the carriageway is insufficiently wide to provide an appropriate and safe refuge facility particularly for users of wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pushchairs. They consider that pedestrians would prefer to cross the road in one attempt, utilising dropped kerbs with tactile paving, allowing safe access. From officers visits it is considered that this is a reasonable conclusion. The policy highlights that new access may be required and works to the highway to facilitate both vehicular and pedestrian access may be required. It is therefore not considered that a refusal can be substantiated on highway grounds. This is an existing access, to be altered. If the scheme at Brook House is developed, there would be pedestrian facilities associated with that scheme, if this scheme is not developed, a dropped kerb pedestrian crossing, incorporating tactile paving is proposed to the south of the site access. It has always been the view of the applicant that crossing in one movement would be safer than encourage them to pause in the centre of a relatively narrow carriageway. KCC Highways comment that the both RSA’s carried out at Brook House identified a lack of direct link to the bus stop and pedestrian facilities. However, it should be noted that there are links to the east of the site, with a footway. Users of the site currently have to cross to access this route into Hawkhurst, but also to access the north bound bus stop, then re-cross as there is no footway link currently to the front of Brook House. Again, the Inspector at Brook House disagreed with the Council and Kent Highways in this regard. In view of the above, it is not considered a refusal on the basis of pedestrian facilities could be sustained in relation to paragraph 109 of the NPPF. Pedestrian facilities can be secured through condition, as set out in Section 11 of the report.

10.42 To conclude on access matters, whilst it is unusual for KCC Highways advice not to

be followed, the LPA must determine applications on their merits and in a timely manner. This application has been subject to lengthy negotiation, and it is not considered that the above matters can be agreed. Verbal comments from KCC Highways confirm it is not considered there would be a ‘severe’ impact in line within the NPPF in terms of cumulative impacts on the road network, but that there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety due to the tightened access and lack of pedestrian facilities. It is considered that it is not reasonable to refuse the application for the reasons set out above.


10.43 Whilst comment is made regarding a consistent approach of the LPA, the Inspectors decision was issued after the determination of the 2018 application at Brook House. This was refused for a number of reasons including that the development did not demonstrate safe and suitable access for all. Objections related to the pedestrian facilities, the ability of two large vehicles to pass and the visibility splays. The Inspector commented on the earlier scheme (signalled scheme) that there was no evidence to suggest the traffic signals would “increase traffic congestion or materially increase the displacement of on-street parking to the detriment of highway safety”. This decision must be taken in account and given significant weight when considering this application.

Parking 10.44 In terms of parking, the final layout is to be determined, along with the internal access

roads. However, some 49 parking can be provided, through on-plot, integral garage and shared parking areas. This would be subject to the final design and layout but the submitted layout indicates that the parking can be achieved to adopted standards. The proposal would accord with policy TP 5 in this respect.

Other Matters

Drainage 10.45 AL/HA1 does not identify any site specific surface water issues that would need to be

addressed as part of any subsequent application. The site is located in Flood Zone 1, these are the locations that the NPPF steers development towards due to the lowest probability of flooding. The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment that concludes there are opportunities for bespoke infiltration SuDs, On site infiltration testing is recommended at the detailed design stage. KCC as the Lead Flood Authority comment that they would expect that a significant portion of the site may be able to utilise infiltration to manage surface water, a specific ground investigation would be required.

10.46 KCC Flooding raise no objections subject to conditions and also comment that S106

term be included to ensure that if off-site discharge is proposed that any off-site drainage improvements are provided by the applicant, these should be agreed and confirmed through inspection and described in the Drainage Strategy. It is considered that these matters are usually addressed through condition and not through planning Section 106 agreements. As the scheme is in outline, with limited detail, it is recommended that conditions be applied.

10.47 Southern Water have been consulted and do not raise any objections to the scheme.

In terms of the foul sewage disposal, Southern Water confirm that they can service the proposed development, a formal application for a connection would be required. There are no public surface water sewers in the area to serve the development, and alternative means of draining surface water are therefore required. Any proposal should not involve disposal to a public foul sewer. As set out above, the applicant has considered alternative means of disposal for the surface water and final details would be submitted through condition. Southern Water request a condition seeking details of foul and surface water disposal, this is included within section 11 of this report.

Noise and contamination 10.48 The Environmental Protection have not commented in respect of noise. The

dwellings would be constructed to a modern standard, however, due to the proximity of the sub station, a noise condition is required, as set out in Section 11 of this report.

10.49 In respect of contamination, EHO confirms that following initial comments, when

viewing the location plan, the current uses do not seem to be of a nature that would


cause particular difficulty in remediation such that could make the scheme unviable and therefore they are satisfied that the standard land contamination condition be attached. This is therefore included within the recommendation within section 11 of this report.

Air Quality 10.50 In respect of air quality, the site is not in an air quality management area (AQMA),

however, as a major development, the applicant has been asked to accept conditions that would seek to improve the air quality, including the provision of electronic vehicle charging points. It is understood that there are concerns regarding impact from the crossroads and air quality. However, it is not considered that this development would result in an unacceptable impact on air quality from the additional traffic generated from this scheme.

Legal agreement

10.51 Legislation requires that planning obligations (including Legal Agreements) should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:

- Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; - Directly related to the development and; - Fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the development.

10.52 In this regard, the affordable housing element of the proposal will be secured and

included within the legal agreement in accordance with the provision as outlined above. Whilst it is noted that the Planning Statement makes provision for 8 units, that would not be policy compliant at 33%. However, the applicant has agreed to 35% affordable housing to the included within the legal agreement provisions. The final layout and number of units is yet to be finalised through reserved matters, but the legal agreement would secure a policy compliant level of affordable housing when expressed as 35%.

10.53 In addition to this, the requirement for developments to provide or contribute towards

the services for which they create a need is set out in Core Policy 1 of the Core Strategy and requirements relating to various types of contributions, for instance for education, recreation, transport etc.

10.54 In this case, KCC has assessed the proposal for contributions towards meeting the

additional needs for community services including primary and secondary education and libraries. KCC Regeneration justified the requests when consulted on this application and have recently confirmed the amounts are accurate. However, it is noted that the Primary school contribution would in this case be towards Benenden Primary School, and the Secondary Education sum to The Skinners School. The Hawkhurst Golf Club application, 19/02025/HYBRID, seeks a sum towards the expansion of Hawkhurst Primary School, that is more local than the requests made on the application site. In addition, a Secondary sum has not been requested on the Hawkhurst Golf Club site. KCC Regeneration have been asked to clarify for consistency and to ensure that the request is CIL compliant and Members will be updated at the meeting regarding this matter.

10.55 The parish Council have requested a contribution of £719 per bedspace under the

recreation SPD (Youth and Adult Recreation), towards the proposed community hall at The Moor, Hawkhurst. Since other applications have been considered at Hawkhurst, the Parish Council have developed the scheme further, with a progression towards appointing architects and a project manager. There is a lapsed permission for a community hall, at The Moor, that included changing rooms, table


tennis rooms and snooker rooms at ground floor level with assembly hall, office and kitchen at first floor level. Permission 09/00828 was renewed under 12/00793/Full but this has now lapsed. The site is included within the draft local plan, although this does not yet have weight, as a community use for a community facility. It is considered that this request is justified. Under the Recreation Open Space SPD 2006/2013/14, the contribution would be used to improve the quality of the existing facilities. Contributions of £450.06 per bedspace is also sought towards the play equipment at Heartenoak Playground, that is considered to be reasonable.

Conclusion

10.56 In conclusion, it is considered overall that this development would provide a new sustainable housing development on a site which is allocated as such within the Site Allocations Local Plan 2016. The delivery of this development would contribute to the overall supply of housing as well as positive economic impacts and would not lead to significant visual harm or harm to the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB. Ecological and landscape matters can be addressed through reserved matters and conditions. It is considered that, as an existing access, for the reasons set out in this report, the access proposed would not be a justified refusal in its own right.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION

A. GRANT SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF A LEGAL AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND COMPENSATION ACT 1991, IN A FORM TO BE AGREED BY THE HEAD OF LEGAL PARTNERSHIP MID KENT LEGAL SERVICES BY 09 DECEMBER 2019 UNLESS A LATER DATE BE AGREED BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES TO SECURE THE FOLLOWING;

(i) Developer Contributions towards: - £79,776.00 (£3324.00 per house) towards Benenden Primary School

Secondary school education - £98, 760.00 (£4,115.00 per house) Towards Phase 1 expansion of The Skinners School

- Libraries - £1,152.38 (£48.02 per house) towards bookstock at Hawkhurst Library to mitigate the demand from the new borrowers from this development.

- Contribution towards Children’s recreation at Heartenoak Playground - £450.06p Per applicable bedspace

- £719 per bedspace for Youth/Adult Recreation Open Space towards Community hall/sports pavilion at King George V playing fields The Moor Hawkhurst, to deliver a community hall scheme.

(ii) Secure a minimum of 35% affordable housing. (iii) One affordable home to be built to the higher standard Part M4 (2) of the

Building Regulations. (iii) Payment of the Council’s reasonable legal fees for the negotiation and

satisfactory completion of the legal agreement. and subject to the following CONDITIONS;

1/ Approval of the details of the layout, scale, appearance, internal access roads, and

landscaping of the development (hereafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before development commences and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: Reason: In Pursuance of section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act


1990.

2/ Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority no later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Reason: In Pursuance of section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3/ The development hereby permitted shall be begun no later than the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: Reason: In Pursuance of section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

4/ The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

3776/p01 Site Location Plan

T 27 P1 Pedestrian visibility Splays

P-02 Rev P1 Proposed site access Reason: To clarify which plans are approved.

5/ The development hereby permitted shall be for up to 24 dwellings.

Reason: To ensure the development is delivered in accordance with the details hereby approved and in the interests of visual amenity and ecology.

6/ The details of scale to be submitted in accordance with Condition 1 shall not exceed the storey heights indicated within the Design and Access statement Updated November 2017, being no more than 2 storeys in height unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To control the development of the land in the interests of protection the visual amenity of the area.

7/ Details pursuant to Condition (1) shall show the provision and distribution of affordable housing. Development shall be carried out in accordance with those approved details. Reason: In order to ensure that the development and location of the affordable housing is appropriate.

8/ Details pursuant to Condition 1 shall include details of hard and soft landscaping and a programme for carrying out the works. The submitted scheme shall include details of hard landscape works, including hard surfacing materials; and details of soft landscape works, including planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with the plant and grass establishment) and schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate. The submitted scheme shall demonstrate that the ecological enhancement and mitigation proposals are incorporated fully within the submitted landscaping scheme. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with an implementation programme approved by the local planning authority.


Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority give prior written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity grounds.

9/ No development shall take place until a detailed tree survey in accordance with the

current edition of BS 5837 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The survey shall detail all trees on, and immediately adjacent to the site independent of, and prior to, any development design. Reason: To safeguard existing trees to be retained and to ensure a satisfactory setting and external appearance to the development. This is a pre-commencement condition to ensure protection and retention of trees important to the character of the area.

10/ No development shall take place until a Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural

Method Statement in accordance with the current edition of BS 5837 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All trees to be retained must be protected by barriers and/or ground protection. Reason: To safeguard existing trees to be retained and to ensure a satisfactory setting and external appearance to the development. This is a pre-commencement condition to ensure protection and retention of trees important to the character of the area.

11/ Details pursuant to condition 1 shall include facilities for the parking and turning of vehicles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of above ground construction works. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and completed prior to the first occupation of the dwellings they serve. The parking and turning areas shall thereafter be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the development, and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on that area of land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.

Reason: To ensure the provision and retention of adequate off-street parking and turning facilities for vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

12/ Prior to the commencement of the construction works, a Construction Environmental Management Plan relating shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The construction of the development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan and BS5228 Noise Vibration and Control on Construction and Open Sites and the Control of dust from construction sites (BRE DTi Feb 2003) unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The Scheme shall include details of: a) an indicative programme for carrying out the works, including set up, preparation and clearance of the site


b) details of the number and frequency of construction vehicle movements, c) construction vehicle routes to and from and within the site with distance details, d) a Construction Workers' Travel Plan, and e) a detailed Traffic Management Plan to control traffic during the construction phases. f) details of on-site parking and site operatives', contractors and construction vehicles, g) buildings, enclosures and staff facilities, h) measures to minimise and control noise, vibration, dust, odour, exhaust, smoke and fumes during construction; i) construction delivery hours, j) Design and provision of site hoardings k) Measures to minimise the potential for pollution of groundwater and surface water l) measures to protect water resources m) measures to protect ecology. n) the arrangements for public consultation and liaison during the construction works o) measures to prevent the transfer of mud onto the highway p) construction hours. q) details for soil management in accordance with the DEFRA Construction Code of Practice for Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites. The construction of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the area, air quality, water resources and ecology during the construction phase. This is a pre-commencement condition to ensure necessary measures of protection are in place prior to works that may cause harm to the environment, impact on highway safety and/or impact neighbouring amenity.

13/ The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the following

components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: - all previous uses - potential contaminants associated with those uses - a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors - potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2) A site investigation, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3) A remediation method statement (RMS) based on the site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2). This should give full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. The RMS should also include a verification plan to detail the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the RMS are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

4) A Closure Report is submitted upon completion of the works. The closure report shall include full verification details as set out in 3. This should include details of any


post remediation sampling and analysis, together with documentation certifying quantities and source/destination of any material brought onto or taken from the site. Any material brought onto the site shall be certified clean;

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented as approved.

Reason: These details are required prior to the commencement of development to ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

14/ No development shall take place until details for the disposal of foul sewage have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To avoid pollution of the surrounding area. This is pre-commencement to ensure that suitable drainage is designed at early stage to prevent flood risk.

15/ Development shall not begin until a detailed sustainable surface water drainage

scheme for the site has been submitted to (and approved in writing by) the local planning authority. The detailed drainage scheme shall demonstrate that the surface water generated by this development (for all rainfall durations and intensities up to and including the climate change adjusted critical 100 year storm) can be accommodated and disposed of within the curtilage of the site to the maximum extent feasible without increase to flood risk on or off-site. If infiltration is shown not to be feasible any peak discharge off-site shall not exceed 3.1 l/s. The drainage scheme shall also demonstrate that silt and pollutants resulting from the site use and construction can be adequately managed to ensure there is no pollution risk to receiving waters. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the development is served by satisfactory arrangements for the disposal of surface water and to ensure that the development does not exacerbate the risk of on/off site flooding. These details and accompanying calculations are required prior to the commencement of the development as they form an intrinsic part of the proposal, the approval of which cannot be disaggregated from the carrying out of the rest of the development. This is a pre-commencement condition to ensure early consideration of appropriate drainage for this site.

16/ A detailed design for the attenuation basin shall be submitted to (and approved in

writing by) the local planning authority, prior to commencement of development. The attenuation basin shall be designed with appropriate side slopes, such that it may be unfenced and provide an area of permanent water to provide biodiversity enhancements. The detailed design shall include, but not be limited to details of all outfall structures, cross-sections, and landscaping specifications for within the pond and surrounds. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated and delivered within this proposal to appropriately manage flood risk. This is a pre-commencement condition to ensure early consideration of appropriate drainage for this site.


17/ Where infiltration is to be used to manage the surface water from the development hereby permitted, it will only be allowed within those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority’s satisfaction that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters and/or ground stability. The development shall only then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect vulnerable groundwater resources and ensure compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

18/ No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until details of the implementation,

maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include:

a) a timetable for its implementation, and b) a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage system throughout its lifetime. Reason: To ensure that any measures to mitigate flood risk and protect water quality on/off the site are fully implemented and maintained (both during and after construction), as per the requirements of paragraph 103 of the NPPF and its associated Non-Statutory Technical Standards.

19/ Written details including source/manufacturer, of bricks, tiles and cladding materials

to be used externally shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any above ground construction is commenced and the development shall be carried out using the approved external materials.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity

20/ Prior to commencement of any above ground works, details of off site works to include provision of improved pedestrian crossing facilities in Cranbrook Road as shown for indicative purposes only on plan P-02 Rev P1 Proposed site access, shall be submitted for approval in writing by the local planning authority and the agreed works shall be implemented in keeping with highway authority standards and specification. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

21/ Prior to their installation, details of any external lighting shall be submitted to, and

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This submission shall include a layout plan with beam orientation and a schedule of light equipment proposed. The approved scheme shall be installed, maintained and operated in accordance with the approved details unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to the variation.

Reason: To protect the appearance of the area, the environment and wildlife from light pollution.

22/ Prior to the commencement of above ground construction works, details of the

storage and screening of refuse shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the


Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the refuse facilities shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: To facilitate the collection of refuse, preserve visual amenity and to reduce the occurrence of pests.

23/ No construction works shall take place on above ground works, until details of

boundary treatments details (including walls, fences and railings) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwellings they relate to are first occupied and in accordance with a timetable previously agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented in full and shall be permanently maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance for the development in the interests of visual amenity and to secure a reasonable degree of privacy for occupiers of the proposed dwellings.

24/ Prior to commencement of above ground construction works, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of the existing and proposed ground levels detailing any changes to levels and including finished ground floor slab levels and any retaining structures and areas of cut and fill. Such matters to be demonstrated through long-sections showing how the site relates to surrounding development. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: This information is required prior to the commencement of construction works, to ensure changes to the land levels can be properly controlled in the interests of visual amenity.

25/ Prior to the commencement of above ground construction, a detailed scheme for

biodiversity mitigation and enhancement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall take account of any protected species that have been identified on the site, and in addition shall have regard to the enhancement of biodiversity generally. It shall be implemented in accordance with the approved proposals within it and shall be carried out in perpetuity, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: This information is required prior to the commencement of development in the interests of biodiversity.

26/ A landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP) following the principles set out

in British Standard 42020:2013 Biodiversity — Code of practice for planning and development shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the local planning authority prior to the commencement of above ground construction of the development. The content of the LEMP shall include as a minimum the following:

a) Description and evaluation of the landscape and ecological features to be managed and note any features or areas covered by other management agreements or prescriptions e.g. play areas or drainage schemes.


b) Ecological trends and constraints on site and wider environmental issues that might influence management and in particular consider the likely effects of climate change.

c) Landscape and ecological aims and objectives of the management.

d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives.

e) Prescriptions for management actions for each identified habitat and feature covered.

f) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period) with recommendations for periodic review.

g) Details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan and the resources both financial and personnel by which the LEMP will be implemented. This shall include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured post development with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery.

h) A scheme of community engagement geared towards raising awareness of landscape and biodiversity issues, active volunteering and social cohesion operated by a experienced provider approved by the Council such as Kent Wildlife Trust or Kent High Weald Partnership.

i) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures including regular review by accredited professionals including setting out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning landscape and biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme.

The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

NOTE To ensure that some form of covenant is in place to ensure that the management body that takes on long-term responsibility for implementation of the LEMP (management of the ecological areas) is to do so in strict accordance with the details contained therein.

Reason: In the interests of ecology, the landscape and scenic beauty of the area

27/ Prior to the occupation of any of the units hereby approved, details of the provision of at least 2 'fast charge' electric vehicle-charging points, including a timescale for its provision, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The charging points shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with an agreed timescale and retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development that meets the needs of current and future generations.

28/ Prior to the commencement of above ground construction works, written and illustrative details for renewable energy technologies shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.


Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which meets the needs of current and future generations.

29/ Prior to the commencement of above ground construction works, written details for water conservation, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of water conservation.

30/ Prior to the commencement of above ground construction works, written and illustrative details for energy conservation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development, which meets the needs of current and future generations.

31/ Prior to the commencement above ground works, a scheme to demonstrate that the internal noise levels within the residential units will conform to the standard identified by BS 8233 2014, Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings - Code of Practice, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work specified in the approved scheme shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the premises and be retained thereafter. Reason: in the interest of the future amenity of occupiers of the site. INFORMATIVES

1/ “A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in

order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, Please contact Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2SW (Tel: 0330 303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk”.

2./ Your attention is drawn to the Mid Kent Environmental Code of Development

Practice, the terms of which should be met in carrying out the development. 3/ This development is the subject of an Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990. 4/ Kent County Council recommends that all developers work with a telecommunication

partner or subcontractor in the early stages of planning for any new development to make sure that Next Generation Access Broadband is a fundamental part of the project. Please liaise with a telecom provider to decide the appropriate solution for this development and the availability of the nearest connection point to high speed

broadband. For advice please contact [email protected]

5/ The applicant's attention is drawn to the comments of Southern Gas Networks, and

the need to ensure safe digging practices, in accordance with HSE publication HSG47 "Avoiding Danger from Underground Services" are used to verify and establish the actual position of mains, pipes, services and other apparatus on site before any mechanical plant is used.

mailto:[email protected]


6/ The applicant, agents, or successors in title, are encouraged to undertake discussion

with external bodies such as Kent Police Crime Prevention Design Advisors (CPDAs) to ensure that a comprehensive approach is taken to Crime Prevention and Community Safety. CPDA Team are; Kent Police Headquarters, CPDA Team, Sutton Road, Maidstone ME15 9BZ.

7/ Any clearance of bird nesting habitats such as demolition of buildings, removal of

trees and hedgerows should be undertaken during the period October to February (inclusive) to avoid the bird nesting season. If this is not possible, prior to the commencement of works that may impact on bird nesting habitats, a check for nesting birds should be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist. Any active nests will need to be left in situ until the birds have stopped using it.

B. IF THE APPLICANTS FAIL TO ENTER INTO SUCH AGREEMENT BY 09

DECEMBER 2019 THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL BE AUTHORISED TO REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS (UNLESS A LATER DATE HAS BEEN AGREED BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES):

1/ In the absence of a completed legal agreement for affordable housing to meet a local

need, the proposed development would fail to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 paragraphs 56-57 62-65, and Core Policies 1, 6 and 13 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010, and the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2007.

2/ In the absence of a completed legal agreement the proposal fails to make adequate

provision for local community services/facilities, such as libraries and education. The proposed development therefore fails to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 Paragraphs 56-57, 91, 92 & 94, National Planning Policy Guidance - Health and wellbeing, and Planning obligations and Core Policies 1, 8 and 13 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010.

3/ The proposed development fails to make adequate provision for local community

services/facilities, including recreation and open space. The proposed development therefore fails to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 Paragraphs 56-57, 91, 92 and 96, National Planning Policy Guidance paragraphs Health and wellbeing, Open Space, sports and recreation facilities, public rights of way and local green space and Planning Obligations and would be contrary to Core Policies 1, 8 and 13 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010, policy R2 of the of the Tunbridge Wells 2006 Local Plan, and Recreation Open Space SPD 2006, (updated 2013/14) .

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

- The proposal w - The proposal would provide a policy compliant … · 2019. 10. 9. · Planning...

Documents

Transcript of - The proposal w - The proposal would provide a policy compliant … · 2019. 10. 9. · Planning...