Case Reference: 3256877

Appeal Decision
Inquiry Held on 1st - 10th December 2020
Site visit made on 8th March 2021
by A Jordan BA (Hons) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 22 March 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/H2265/W/20/3256877
Land West of Winterfield Lane, East Malling
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an
application for outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Wates Developments Ltd against Tonbridge & Malling Borough
Council.
• The application Ref: TM19/01814/OA, is dated 18th July 2019.
• The development proposed is the erection of up to 250 new homes (40% affordable),
new community building, provision of a new country park and other areas of public
open spaces, areas of play, upgrade of existing footpaths, together with new vehicular
accesses onto London Road and Winterfield Lane creating a new link road and
associated parking and landscaping.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of
up to 250 new homes (40% affordable), new community building, provision
of a new country park and other areas of public open spaces, areas of play,
upgrade of existing footpaths, together with new vehicular accesses onto
London Road and Winterfield Lane creating a new link road and associated
parking and landscaping at land west of Winterfield Lane, East Malling in
accordance with application TM19/01814/OA and the plans submitted with
it and subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule.
Procedural Matters
2. The application is accompanied by a legal agreement dated 15 December
2020 which makes provision for affordable housing, off site highways
works, including the transfer of safeguarded land, a contribution towards
further off-site highways works, a public transport contribution and
provision of a travel plan. The agreement also makes provision for
contributions towards primary and secondary education including
contributions towards land acquisition costs, a community learning
contribution, a libraries contribution, a youth services contribution, a
social services contribution, a healthcare contribution, an outdoor sport
contribution and a contribution towards parks and gardens.
3. Following the submission of the appeal the Council initially indicated four
putative reasons for refusal: the impact of the proposal on the spatial
character of the area, the effect on the landscape character and
appearance of the area, the effect of the loss of agricultural land and
whether the appeal proposal would prejudice the outcome of the plan
making process. However, prior to the Inquiry the Council indicated that
they did not wish to defend the matter of prematurity. Furthermore, the
matter of agricultural land was not considered determinative in itself.
4. West Malling Parish Council and East Malling & Larkfield Parish Council as a
Rule 6 party chose to pursue all four of the Council’s putative reasons for
refusal.
5. The Council does not dispute that a five-year supply of housing land cannot
at present be demonstrated in the Borough. However, the main parties
dispute the extent of the identified shortfall. The following main issues are
therefore to be considered in the context of any shortfall, taking account of
any identified harms and benefits.
Main Issues
6. Accordingly, the main issues for the appeal are:
• Whether the appeal proposal would cause harm to the spatial character of
the area as a result of development taking place on land currently
designated as countryside.
• Whether the appeal proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the
landscape character and appearance of the area.
• Whether the appeal proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of the
best and most versatile agricultural land.
• Whether the appeal proposal would prejudice the outcome of the plan
making process.
Reasons
Housing Land Supply
7. The Council put forward the case that they have 4.3 years Housing Land
Supply (HLS). The appellant considers that only 2.08 years can be
demonstrated. The parties agree on the housing requirement of 888
dwellings per annum (dpa) derived from 846dpa with 5% buffer.
Disagreement comes from the sites included in the supply. At the base
date of 1st April 2019, the Council contended a 2.6 year supply of housing
land with 2,297 dwellings within the supply. The Council’s figure of 4.3
years is derived from including sites they consider have become deliverable
since the base date. These include sites in the emerging Local Plan that do
not fall within green belt, along with sites that had been granted consent
since the base date.
8. The 2019 revision to the National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework) definition of deliverable retains reference to “a realistic
prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years”. The
Court of Appeal judgment in St Modwen found that realistic prospect did
not mean a site’s deliverability must necessarily be certain or probable. The
Council cite support for the inclusion of new sites from a recent decision for
Woburn Sands1 where the Inspector considered that information that
1 APP/Y0435/W/17/3169314
became available after the base date could be taken into account to
determining whether or not a site was deliverable.
9. Whilst I see merit in using information that becomes available after the
base date to inform deliverability, I note that the Inspector in Woburn
Sands was referring solely to sites that were already identified in the
housing supply at the base date, in line with the approach taken in
Woolpit2. Indeed, he noted that to do otherwise would skew the housing
supply. I share this view. An assessment of housing supply which
introduces new sites would only be accurate if it also took account of lapsed
sites, completions and other factors which might reduce sites at that point
in time. The Council have not been in a position to supply all of this
information and have not reviewed the phasing of extant permissions or
indeed all of the permissions granted subsequent to the base date. I
therefore have no confidence that the Council’s approach would provide an
accurate assessment of the actual state of supply in the district and I must
therefore rely instead on the Council’s previous position as of 1st April 2019
as a starting point.
10. The Housing Land Supply (HLS) as at the 1st of April 2019 was put forward
by the Council as being 2.6 years. The Council have included 220 units
within the HLS to account for windfalls at 44dpa. The appellant contends
that windfalls within the first 3 years would already be accounted for within
the housing supply, they should only be counted for years 4 and 5. Whilst
I broadly agree with this contention I note that the Council only account for
50% of past rates within their windfall calculation. If the average past rate
of windfalls3 for the past 5 years were applied to only the last 2 years this
would amount to around 176 dwellings. Forty-four (44) dwellings should
therefore be removed from the supply. The Council have also since
accepted that a further 53 dwellings should be removed to account for
demolitions that were erroneously included in the supply.
11. The appellant has also raised doubts over the Council’s assumption of
delivery at Peters Pit. Part of the site is still awaiting a reserved matters
application at the time of writing, having originally been anticipated for
March 2020. I accept that the developer’s plans for the site4 are to
complete it before they move on to another site at Bushey Wood and so I
see no reason to doubt the developer’s commitment to the site and so have
some confidence that a further reserved matters application will come
forward in the near future. As such there is a realistic prospect that the
remaining part of the site will begin to come forward.
12. However, I find nothing in the evidence submitted which directs me to the
conclusion that the site will be developed out at the rate put forward by the
Council. The Council’s submission to the Examination in Public puts the
likely rate at around 160 dpa, based on 2 providers. This does not reflect
past delivery rates on the site5, the highest rate previously achieved being
139 dwellings per annum with rates dropping significantly below that in the
last available year of figures. In the absence of up to date evidence of
actual delivery rates on site I am therefore persuaded that a rate of 122
2 APP/W3520/W/18/3194926
3 CD5.19 para 3.22
4 Appendix 2 CD4.7 and the oral evidence of Mr Bailey
5 Para 9.7 of CD5.6 based on an extract from the SLAA
dpa6, as cited by the appellant is a more realistic estimate for future
delivery at the present time. This would amount to 610 dwellings, a
reduction of 230 from the Council’s assumptions.
13. Removing the above reductions from the identified supply in the 2018/19
HLS Position Statement would leave the supply at around 1970 dwellings or
around 2.2 years.
14. The Council and the Appellant agree7 that 25 units should be removed from
the supply as they have expired. The evidence put to me8 shows only a
very small number of these permissions expired before the base date, with
some expiring since April 2019. To remove sites that have expired since
the base date without also adding in all permissions subsequently granted
would give an inaccurate picture of housing supply. Furthermore, whilst it is
proper that sites expired before the base date should be removed, as this
would appear to impact on only a small number of dwellings within the
supply, , it would not materially alter the above supply figure9.
15. To recognise that some consents may not be implemented, the appellant
argues that a 10 % non-completion rate on minor developments should
also be removed from the supply. Whilst it is clear that some permissions
on small sites within the supply will not be built out, in terms of small sites
I have no reason to conclude that this occurs at an unduly high rate within
the Borough. I therefore see no reason to apply a non-completion rate in
this case.
16. I am conscious that notwithstanding my conclusions below regarding the
status of the emerging Local Plan, the Council have identified a number of
recent approvals, which they contend indicates some prospect of an
improvement in supply when the 2019/2020 Assessment is completed.
However, the Council also relies heavily on other sites within the plan
without providing any evidence of their likely delivery other than their
proposed allocation. Most of these sites are without full approval, and
many may be subject to unresolved objections. In the absence of any
cogent evidence as to the delivery of these sites I see no basis for the
Council’s assumptions on when these will deliver homes, at least within 5
years. As such, on the basis of the information presented to me, I cannot
be assured that the Council’s figure of 4.3 years10 will be achieved
imminently, or that the current substantial shortfall is transient and likely
to soon be remedied.
17. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) directs in
paragraph 11(d) that where a five year supply of housing land cannot be
demonstrated, the presumption in favour of sustainable development
requires the application of the “tilted balance”11 in decision making. I
return to this below.
6 CD5.6 para 9.10
7 CD5.18 Housing Land Supply Statement of Common Ground
8 CD 5.6 para 8.4
9 Removing the 10 dwellings which are not clearly shown as expiring after the base date would alter the supply
figure from around 2.21 years to 2.20
10 CD3.1 para 6.2.12
11 Any adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole.
Spatial Character
18. East Malling, Larkfield and Leybourne now form a contiguous urban area,
and parts of the Parishes of Leybourne and East Malling & Larkfield lie
adjacent to the appeal site. The site lies outside the settlement boundaries
identified on the Local Plan Proposals Map - the boundary for Leybourne is
along the north side of the A20, and the boundary for East Malling is along
the eastern side of Winterfield Lane. Each was originally a separate
community but development over time has brought them together to form
part of what is known as “The Medway Gap”. West Malling is a separate
settlement located on the other side of the A288. The A288 is bounded on
both sides by open countryside, part of which is made up of the appeal site.
The Council and Parish Council consider that the proposal would cause
unacceptable coalescence, as the loss of greenfield land on the edge of the
existing settlements would diminish the separation between West Malling
and the adjoining built form of East Malling, Larkfield and Leybourne.
19. The parties are in broad agreement12 that the existing narrowest gap
between the built form of West Malling and the built-up area of East
Malling, Larkfield and Leybourne would remain at around 430m and would
not be reduced. The gap to the south west between Chapman Way and
West Malling is around 1150m and this would be reduced to around 730m.
In purely quantitative terms then, the settlements would still retain clear
separation and whilst I note the site is within West Malling Parish and would
therefore bring development in West Malling closer to East Malling, the
difference in administrative areas would make no difference to the physical
form of development on the ground.
20. The Council and appellant agree that an effective gap between settlements
should provide a perception of leaving one place, travelling through an
intermediate space and then arriving somewhere else. The extent and
nature of that gap will influence the perception of separation. I have
therefore considered whether the increase in built form would lead to a
perception of reduced separation, which in turn would harm the spatial
character of the area.
21. I noted on site that the agricultural appearance of the site provides a
marked contrast to the suburban form of development on the opposite site
of London Road. The settlement of West Malling cannot be clearly seen
from within the site, although the road noise from both the A20 and the
A288 gives the perception that built form and human activity isn’t far away.
The heavily engineered form of the A288 had a notably intrusive effect and
formed a watershed between the west, which comprised the leafier
environs on the outskirts approaching West Malling and the open fields to
the east, across which views of the urban form of The Medway Gap were
seen in panorama. The development would clearly encroach on the open
fields but given the extent to which the A288 forms a physical and
perceptual barrier, I am not convinced that the erosion of the rural setting
of The Medway Gap to the east would reduce the degree to which West
Malling is perceived as a separate entity to the west.
22. When travelling by car the short stretch of open fieldscape seen when
travelling along the A20 would be lost. Similarly, it is likely that the
12 Paragraph 15 Landscape Statement of Common Ground.
development would be apparent in occasional views through vegetation
from Winterfield Lane. The loss of these views would have a suburbanising
effect which would alter the character of this part of the Medway gap.
Nevertheless, the site lies alongside existing built form. Provided the scale,
form and layout of the development was sensitively handled, and
appropriate landscaping was integrated into the scheme in keeping with its
edge of settlement location, in views towards the site from open
countryside it would integrate into the existing urban area without harm to
the established character of the wider settlement. In this regard, and
taking into account the degree of physical separation that would remain
with West Malling, the loss of open countryside would not result in a
coalescence of built form or impinge upon the separate identity of West
Malling and the Medway Gap.
23. The Development Plan for the area comprises the Tonbridge & Malling
Core Strategy 2007 (CS); The Development Land Allocation DPD 2008
and The Managing Development & Environment DPD 2010 (DPD). CP6 of
the CS seeks to protect both the individual identity of settlements and to
ensure that new development does not harm the setting or character of a
settlement when viewed from the countryside or adjoining settlements.
The proposal would not unduly alter the existing spatial character of the
area and would not harm the character of The Medway Gap. Accordingly, I
find no conflict with this policy.
24. Policy CP11 of the CS provides a list of the urban areas in the Borough,
including Leybourne, East Malling and Larkfield, where development will be
concentrated. The policy states that development adjoining these urban
areas can be permitted where there is an identified need and no suitable
sites are available within urban areas. In such cases priority is given to the
use of previously developed land. It is common ground between the
parties that the emerging plan puts forward sites within both open
countryside and green belt in order to meet the need for housing within the
plan period. I am therefore satisfied that at the present time there is an
identified need for housing and that this cannot be met within the urban
areas identified in the plan. Neither have I been presented with any
compelling evidence that there are brownfield sites available to meet that
need.
25. CP14 of the CS seeks to concentrate most development in and around
urban settlements including extensions to existing settlements in
accordance with policy CP11. I therefore find no conflict with policies CP14
or CP11 of the CS.
The Impact of the Proposal on Landscape Character and the Appearance of the Site
26. Policy CP24 of the CS seeks to achieve a high-quality environment by
ensuring new development is well designed and amongst other things
makes a positive contribution to the appearance of the area. Policy SQ1 of
the DPD seeks to secure new development which protects, conserves and,
where possible, enhances the character and local distinctiveness of the
area.
27. The site and its surroundings do not lie within any national or local
designations and views of the adjoining conservation area are very limited.
The main parties agreed that the landscape and visual effects of the
proposals would be mainly focused upon the site and its immediate locality
and would not result in significant landscape or visual effects on the Kent
Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), although views of the
AONB from the site would be affected13. The proposed development would
also result in no significant landscape or visual effects for either Clare Park
and Blacklands or West Malling Conservation Areas. A Zone of Theoretical
Visibility diagram submitted with the proposal14 also shows that the site is
not prominently visible in the wider landscape. I see no reason to dispute
these views.
28. Both the Council and the Appellant’s assessment of the landscape and
visual impacts of the proposal have had regard to the methodology set out
in GLVIA315. This sets out that the landscape and visual effects of
development can be quantified by identifying the magnitude of change a
development will bring about over time (or nature of the effect) in relation
to the value and quality of the receiving landscape and its sensitivity to
change. By quantifying these variables, which will require some value
judgements, a picture of the likely landscape and visual effects of
development can be arrived at. Landscape effects can be defined as the
effects of the proposal on the landscape as a resource in itself, and visual
effects are the effects of a development on views and visual amenity as
experienced by people. I deal with these separately below.
Landscape Character
29. The site forms part of a broad wedge of undeveloped land to the south of
the built envelope of Leybourne and Larkfield. East Malling lies to the east
of this open area and West Malling lies on the other side of the A228,
further to the west. Land to the east of the A228, including the appeal site
is largely in agricultural use, with open fields separated by hedgerows.
Land to the west is more enclosed, with more mature tree cover.
30. The appeal site is not within an area covered by a protected landscape
designation and the main parties agree that the site is not a valued
landscape in the sense of that defined in paragraph 170 of the Framework.
The site lies on the northern edge of the Greensand Fruit Belt - Malling
Landscape Character Area, as identified within the Kent Landscape
Character Assessment. This covers a relatively wide area and at a local
level the landscape character in and around the site varies significantly.
31. I noted during my side visit that the area north of the site made up of the
urban edge and the area to the east, which includes the Clare Park and
Blacklands Conservation Area was enclosed parkland. The site itself, and
land to the south is made up of agricultural land which is more open in
character. The rolling fields were punctuated with small groups of trees and
intermittent field boundaries. Due to the proximity of the site to the urban
edge in views to the north the fieldscape provided a stark contrast with the
urban form of the adjoining settlement and moving traffic along the A20
and beyond. Views to the south, east and west were also punctuated with
glimpses of built form.
13 Landscape Statement of Common Ground
14 Zone of Theoretical Visibility Diagram drawing LE003 in CD1.2 p 73
15 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition 2013 by the Institute of Environmental
Management and Assessment and the Landscape Institute.
32. The area in and around the site is attractive due to the available views of
an open rolling fieldscape interspaced with mature hedgerows and clusters
of trees. However, it’s value in terms of landscape is not elevated by its
rarity of the possession of any special features or associations. The
Council’s view that the landscape is of high value is primarily derived from
the extent to which they attribute emphasis on the role of the landscape as
a buffer between existing settlements. Furthermore, in terms of landscape
quality, the Council’s assessment downplays the extent to which detracting
visual elements around the site, and noise from the A20 and the A228,
particularly towards the north and west, intrude on rural character.
33. Some elements of the landscape have a high sensitivity to change. The
contrast the open fields currently provide with the adjoining settlement is
to my mind the key attribute which provides the site with much of its
character and is highly valued by the local community and these will be
lost. Some longer-range views of the AONB would also be lost as a result
of the development. Nevertheless, the location of the site on the edge of
the settlement and the extent to which this influences the character of land
towards the north also leads me to the view that the Council’s assessment
of the sensitivity of the landscape to change is overstated.
34. In relation to the extent of change the proposal would bring about to the
landscape, the introduction of housing onto the site would lead to a high
level of change in immediate views. Having regard to the value and quality
of the landscape and its sensitivity to change this would lead to significant
landscape effects at a localised level. However, due to the proximity to
existing housing and the lack of visibility of the site in longer range views,
the level of perceived change at a wider landscape level would be relatively
low. In this regard the proposal would have a limited effect on the
character of the Greensand Fruit Belt - Malling Landscape Character Area.
Visual Effects
35. Visual effects are normally taken to mean the effects of a proposal on those
who would see the development, such as local residents in their homes,
walkers, or those driving in the area. The scheme is submitted in outline
form but is accompanied by indicative drawings16 showing the likely extent
of development on site. Supporting information also shows that the visual
assessments undertaken by both the Council and the appellant assume
development that is generally 2 to 2.5 storeys17 in height. If the
development were to be allowed, the main parties agree that a condition
could be imposed requiring that the proposal be in general accordance with
the extent of development shown on these plans. I have therefore used
these plans as a guide to how development is likely to take place on site.
36. Footpaths MR119 and MR120 run through the length of the site from north-
east to south-west and from east to west. For users of these footpaths
the experience of using the route would change completely, from that of
walking through rolling arable fields to that of walking through a suburban
housing estate for a significant part of the route. This effect would not be
diminished by the setting back of development from these pedestrian
routes through the site. Even for the part of the route to the south where
16 CD1.5 Drawing LE20 and CD 1.6 6273-01G
17 Design and Access Statement Section 4.8
the site is intended to be retained as undeveloped open space, it is likely
that the current experience of being within an unmanaged natural
environment would be lost. I noted on site that the footpaths were well
used by casual walkers and by those accessing the nearby railway station
on foot. The proposal would result in very significant adverse visual effects
for these users.
37. Some of the properties along London Road which currently enjoy a clear
and open view of the appeal site from within their dwellings would have
their view replaced with views of the proposed development. These views
would be framed by the traffic on the A20 in the foreground. Nevertheless,
for a small number the existing rural outlook would be lost and taking into
consideration that residents’ homes would have a high sensitivity to such
changes, this would result in a significant adverse visual impact for these
users. For other properties, further to the west, due to the presence of
existing vegetation, the development would be seen in indirect views and
so the impact on these properties would less severe, but nonetheless
significant.
38. To the south the properties of Winterfield Barn and Winterfield Farm would
view the development from an elevated position above the site and would
lose the open fieldscape that currently separates these properties from
those on London Road. Due to the extent of change in the view, and the
residential nature of these properties, the development would lead to very
significant adverse visual effects for these residents. Distant views would
also be available form Broadwater Hall, although the intervening distance
would lessen the impact of the visual change and result in only a moderate
adverse visual effect. No. 41 London Road sits to the east of the appeal
site but is separated by an open field which lies outside the development.
The likely elevation of parts of the site would mean that parts of the
development would be visible from the property, despite the intervening
field and hedgerows. This would have a moderate adverse visual impact.
To the east of Winterfield Lane some views of the site are likely to be
available from the upper floor of some of the properties on Dickens Lane,
although these would be partially screened by existing vegetation. As
such, these residents would be likely to a slight adverse visual impact.
39. There would also be visual effects for road users in and around the site.
Those passing the site along the A20 to the north would have clear views of
the development at the eastern end of the site and potentially some filtered
views through vegetation towards the western end of the site, particularly
in winter. In these views the loss of the existing open and attractive
farmland would be clearly apparent. Some views of the development would
also be available to users of Winterfield Lane and Lucks Hill, although these
would be filtered by the roadside hedgerows. Views from the A228 would
be likely to be available only in winter, in glimpses through established
roadside planting. Taken together, and taking into account the extent to
which such views are likely to be transient, I consider the proposal would
result in a moderate adverse visual effect for these users.
40. My attention has also been drawn to the effects of lighting from the
proposal at night. The site does not lie in an area which is protected for its
dark skies. I acknowledge that the extent of development would be
apparent outside daylight hours due to lighting on site. However, this
effect would not be marked, due to the proximity of the development to
existing light sources along the A20. Furthermore, whilst I note that many
residents value the quieter quality of the landscape, and I acknowledge
that this would be lost, the site could not accurately be described as
tranquil, given the continuous presence of noise from the A20 and A228
which I noted during my site visit.
41. The visual impact of the proposal would lessen over time as the proposed
landscaping became established. Nevertheless, due to the fact that the site
rises towards the south a significant portion of the site would remain visible
in most, if not all of the views identified above. Taken together, and
considering the collective visual and landscape impacts of the scheme, I
find that the impact on local landscape and the character of the area would
therefore be limited in the long term but would nonetheless have significant
short term localised impacts for residents and road users. The impact for
footpath users would be very significant and this would not be materially
diminished over time.
Conclusion on Landscape Character and the Appearance of the Site
42. Policy SQ1 of the DPD states that “proposals for development will be
required to reflect the local distinctiveness, condition and sensitivity to
change of the local character areas as defined in the Character Area
Appraisals SPD”. The Medway Gap Character Area Appraisal SPD includes
an assessment of the area around the site, referred to as London Road
Leybourne. Within this the appraisal notes18 that the long panoramic views
over the site create a spacious character and this is identified as a locally
distinctive positive feature.
43. As I have identified above, the proposed development would lead to a loss
of open countryside and the panoramic views that this provides,
particularly when viewed from the north. This would diminish the spacious
character of the area. These effects would be localised and would lessen
over time as landscaping around the site became established.
Nevertheless, the loss of open views would have a significantly harmful
effect on the character of the area around the site. As a result, the
proposal would be contrary to Policy SQ1 of the DPD. It would also conflict
with guidance in the Framework which seeks to recognise the intrinsic
character and beauty of the countryside.
44. The Council consider that the proposal is also contrary to Policy CP24 of the
CS, which seeks to achieve a high-quality environment. At the Inquiry it
was also put to me that as policy CP24 of the CS was a detailed design
policy and the scheme was presented in outline form, it was not relevant to
this proposal.
45. I accept that the terms of the policy relate to how development should take
place on site, rather than matters of principle. Any built development
would alter the appearance of a site and development of a greenfield site
would bring with it some element of harm arising from the loss of
countryside to built form. To apply CP24 in such a broad sense would
therefore almost always lead to conflict in this regard and would not be in
line with the broad intentions of the policy, which is to seek high quality
18 Page 20 Medway Gap Character Appraisal Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
development, rather than to direct development to particular locations or to
protect others.
46. Nevertheless, I do not accept that the policy is of no relevance in this case.
The proposal is in outline form but specifies the number of dwellings to be
provided within the site. I am therefore required to consider whether the
extent of development proposed, in terms of the number of dwellings,
would be able to be provided within the site confines whilst providing a
high-quality environment.
47. The application is accompanied by 2 indicative plans19. These show 250
dwellings comfortably accommodated towards the north of the site, with
large areas of open space to the south of the development providing a soft
buffer between the built-up area and open countryside. Whilst I am
mindful that the plans are indicative, they demonstrate that subject to
appropriate details of appearance, layout and landscaping, a form of
development could take place on site which would, over time, assimilate
comfortably with the existing urban fabric and which would not be
detrimental to the built environment.
48. Therefore notwithstanding the harm the loss of countryside would cause to
the character of the area, which is explicit in the conflict with policy SQ1 of
the DPD, the proposal would nonetheless be capable of providing a high
quality environment, and would not conflict with policy CP24 of the CS.
Agricultural Land
49. The parties agree that the proposal would lead to the loss of at least 17.5
hectares20 of Best and Most Versatile (BVM) agricultural land, the majority
of which is classified as Grade II. Furthermore, the adjoining land to the
north west comprises a field of around 2.9 hectares which is accessed via
the appeal site. Even if appropriate access arrangements were made, the
size of the adjoining land and the fact that it could no longer be farmed
alongside the appeal site is likely to reduce its attractiveness as a prospect
for agricultural use should the appeal site be developed. This field has not
been surveyed, but is understood to also be grade II agricultural land.
Taken together, this would lead to the loss of at least 20.4 hectares of the
best and most versatile agricultural land.
50. Policy CP9 of the Core Strategy relates to the allocation of sites rather than
decision making. The Framework directs that where significant
development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of
poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality but
again this relates to plan making not to decision taking. The appellant has
not done a comparative assessment in this regard to indicate that no lower
grade land is suitable and available, but the Framework does not require
such a sequential test for planning applications and to my mind it would be
unreasonable to require it.
51. Neither does the Framework define what “significant” development might
comprise. In this case the amount of land in question would go beyond the
threshold for consultation21 and is predominantly Grade II land. The site
19 6273-01 Rev G and indicative landscape layout referenced LE-20
20 The site area of 18.2 hectares minus 0.7 hectares of land not suitable for agricultural production
21 Schedule II of the General Development Procedure Order
and adjoining field are currently in cultivation and I have no reason to
believe that it would not remain so if planning permission were not granted.
Notwithstanding the absence of an objection from Natural England, having
regard to the amount and quality of the land in question and the relative
scarcity of such land as a national resource, I consider that the loss of land
from agricultural production as a result of the proposal would be significant.
The Framework recognises the economic and other benefits of maintaining
a supply of such land. I therefore conclude that the loss of agricultural land
which would arise in this case is an adverse impact which must weigh
against the proposal in the planning balance.
Prematurity
52. Paragraph 49 of the Framework is clear that an argument that an
application is premature is unlikely to justify a refusal of planning
permission other than where the emerging plan is considered to be at an
advanced stage. The Council have chosen not to pursue prematurity as a
ground of appeal, but the matter is one of concern for the Parish Council.
53. The emerging Local Plan designates the site as Green Belt. On the 15
December the Inspectors examining the Local Plan wrote to the Council
advising them that they considered that the plan had failed the Duty to
Cooperate. This was later confirmed in a further letter on the 2nd of March.
It is therefore clear that the Council’s assumptions in relation to when the
Plan might be adopted, of late 2021, is no longer based in fact.
Furthermore, it is unclear in what form, if any, the currently submitted plan
will be taken forward.
54. I am therefore of the view that the plan cannot be considered to be at an
advanced stage and I cannot be assured that proposals to designate the
site and the land around the site as Green Belt, or any of the other aspects
of the plan, will come forward in their current form. I also note that the
Council, as the plan making body, make no argument that the proposal is
premature.
55. Accordingly, given the great deal of uncertainty as to how, if at all, the plan
will progress, I cannot accept the Parish Council’s view, advanced at the
Inquiry, that the proposal would undermine the plan-making process by
predetermining decisions about the location and scale of development. It
follows that I find no conflict with the Framework in this regard and whilst I
accept that the evidence base for the emerging plan is a relevant
consideration, I give no weight to the policies in the emerging local plan.
Other Matters
Heritage Assets
56. The effect of the proposal on heritage assets is a matter of concern for
some. Clare House, a grade I listed building, is located around 200m south-
east of the appeal site. It sits within the Clare Park and Blacklands
Conservation Area.
57. S66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
requires special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving a listed
building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic
interest which it possesses. S72(1) of the Act requires special attention to
be had to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or
appearance of a Conservation Area.
58. Clare House is a grand Palladian residence set in extensive grounds. Its
significance lies primarily in its architectural interest. It is a good surviving
example of a building of this style executed at a domestic scale. A
reduction over time in the size of the grounds, which would originally would
have been extensive, and the enclosure of the site by extensive planting
has reduced the extent to which the building is appreciated within an open
planned setting. The property is now heavily enclosed, and the wider
setting of the asset does not contribute to its significance.
59. The north western boundary of the Conservation Area extends to
Winterfield Lane, which forms the south-eastern boundary of the site. The
Conservation Area comprises the remains of the landscaped park originally
constructed around Clare House. Its significance is derived from the
historic association of the parkland with Clare House and in the
architectural interest of the listed buildings within it. The extensive
planting along both sides of Winterfield Lane largely obscures views of the
site from the Conservation Area and so the wider setting of the
Conservation Area does not make a marked contribution to the significance
of the asset. As such, whilst there may be some limited perception of the
development when within the Conservation Area, this would not detract
from its significance.
60. The Church of St Mary the Virgin in West Malling lies around a kilometre
from the site. It contains Norman remnants with 13th, 14th, 15th, and 18th
Century additions. Its significance lies in its historic and architectural
interest and in its value as a community building. Glimpsed views of the
spire are available form parts of the site and the proposed development
would be likely to obscure some of these views. However, having regard to
the extent of the wider setting of the asset and the extent to which that
setting already comprises substantial elements of built form the proposal
would have no discernible impact of the significance of the asset.
61. I am therefore satisfied that the development would not harm the
significance of nearby heritage assets and find no conflict with the
Framework, which seeks to sustain and enhance such assets.
Other Matters
62. The effect of the proposal on local services, was also a concern for some
residents. The application is accompanied by a legal agreement which
includes provision for education, public transport, healthcare and a number
of aspects of community provision and I am satisfied that these
contributions would mitigate the effects of the additional population from
the development on local services.
63. With regard to the effects of the proposal on air pollution, I am satisfied
with the findings of the air quality assessment22 which shows that the likely
changes in traffic flows arising from the development are not anticipated to
have a significant effect on local air quality, including within the Larkfield
Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). Furthermore, subject to mitigation
measures, which can be secured by condition, the proposal would not have
22 Wates Development Air Quality Assessment by ARUP 5th July 2019
a significant effect upon air quality as a result of activity during
construction.
64. In relation to highway safety, I share the view of Kent County Council
Highways that the proposed access arrangements, including the offsite
works, are sufficient to ensure that site can be safely accessed without an
adverse effect on the flow of traffic on the A20 or the wider highway
network.
65. I also note that the development of the site provides the opportunity to
provide a bridleway through the site. The application is made in outline
form, and so how access through the site is achieved is not a matter before
me. However, based on the information put to me I am satisfied that
should the Local Authority consider it appropriate, such measures could be
achieved on site as part of a detailed scheme.
66. I have considered the effects of the proposal on local wildlife. The
application was accompanied by an ecological assessment23 which found
that the effects of the proposal on local wildlife were likely to be minimal.
This is largely due to the fact that the parts of the site proposed for
development are predominantly arable land. Those parts of the site of
greater value, the woodland, hedgerows, and scattered trees are of greater
value as a habitat and could be largely retained, subject to being included
within an appropriate landscape scheme for the site. Therefore whilst I
accept that the introduction of housing onto the site would be likely to have
some effect on the value of these areas as a habitat, I am satisfied that on
balance, and subject to mitigation measures outlined within the ecological
report, the effects on local wildlife would not be significant.
67. A number of residents have questioned whether there is a need for a
community facility within the development. Although I note that the
community facility is also supported by some local residents and the local
police, I also find no evidence that there is a deficit of such facilities in the
local area. Nevertheless, this is not a matter which weighs against the
proposal. Furthermore, I find no evidence to support the view that the
development, and the open space within it, would lead to an increase in
crime in the area, including anti-social behaviour.
68. I note comments from some local residents who dispute that the proposed
affordable housing is genuinely affordable. The legal agreement which
accompanies the application uses a definition of affordable housing,
including affordable housing for rent which is in line with the definition of
that in the National Planning Policy Framework. I am therefore satisfied
that this would ensure that such housing is genuinely provided at rent
levels significantly below the market rent for the area.
The Planning Balance
69. The proposal would provide 250 homes. Furthermore, 100 of the 250
dwellings would be affordable housing units. Having regard to the impetus
to increase the supply of housing of all types which is explicit in the
Framework, and the identified need for such housing in the Borough, I
23 Land South of London Road Leybourne, Kent Ecological Impact Assessment July 2019
attribute the provision of housing, including affordable housing, very
substantial weight.
70. The proposal includes enhancements to the public footpaths through the
site and the provision of publicly accessible open space towards the west of
the development. These aspects of the development represent an
improvement for users in the wider local area and is a benefit to which I
attribute moderate weight. The development also includes a community
hall. I have no convincing evidence that there is a deficit of such provision
in the local area and so I attribute this matter no weight as a benefit.
71. The proposal would bring some economic benefits through construction and
through the additional spend generated by new residents, who would also
help to sustain local services and I attribute these benefits moderate
weight.
72. Highway improvements around the site are broadly necessary to offset the
impacts of the scheme and so carry no weight in favour of the proposal.
Similarly, the biodiversity improvements put to me are in effect mitigation
measures to be set against the ecological impacts of the development and
so carry no weight as a benefit.
73. Having regard to the quantity and quality of the agricultural land on and
adjoining the site, I attribute moderate weight to the harm that would arise
from its loss from agricultural production.
74. The impact on local landscape and the character of the area would be
limited in the long term but would have significant short-term localised
impacts and would be contrary to Policy SQ1 of the DPD. Notwithstanding
the fact that the visual harm identified would lessen over time, taking into
account the significant change that would occur, and the extent to which
the site is used by local residents for informal recreation, I attribute
significant weight to this harm.
75. Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
states that applications should be determined in accordance with the
provisions of the Development Plan unless other material considerations
indicate otherwise.
76. The Framework indicates that where the local planning authority cannot
demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites the policies in
the development plan are to be considered out of date. In such cases
planning permission should be approved without delay unless any adverse
impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme.
77. The harm that would arise to landscape and the character of the area,
taken together with the loss of agricultural land would not significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the very substantial benefits the scheme would
provide in relation to housing provision and other identified benefits.
78. The proposal would therefore amount to sustainable development when
assessed against the Framework, taken as a whole. This is a material
consideration which would outweigh the identified conflict with policy SQ1.
Planning permission should therefore be granted.
Conditions
79. The conditions set out in the accompanying schedule are based on those
agreed by the Council and the appellant. Where necessary I have amended
the wording of these in the interests of precision and clarity, in order to
comply with advice in the Planning Practice Guidance.
80. For clarity I have imposed conditions to define the reserved matters, to
identify the approved plans and to set the timescale for submission of
reserved matters and implementation. I am satisfied that the reduced
timescale for submission of reserved matters of eighteen months is
necessary to ensure that the housing is delivered quickly to meet identified
need.
81. The approval of details of external materials, landscaping and of levels on
site are necessary to ensure the finished development has a satisfactory
appearance and conditions in this regard is reasonable. A condition
requiring details for waste storage and screening is also necessary to
ensure such facilities are provided to an appropriate standard.
82. In order to meet the needs of future residents in relation to open space and
play provision and in the interests of health and wellbeing, it is reasonable
and necessary to require that appropriate provision is made for this within
the proposed development along with a timetable for implementation. I am
satisfied that the requirement, as set out within the condition, meets the
provisions set out in the Council’s adopted Policy OS3 of the Tonbridge and
Malling Managing Development and the Environment Document 2010
(DPD) and is reasonable and necessary.
83. A number of conditions relating to highways matters have been imposed.
These require details of parking and turning areas, provision of the access
from the A20, details of roads and other highways infrastructure within the
site and enhancements to the Public Rights of Way MR119 and MR120
along with details of linkages to the surrounding highways network. These
details are necessary in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety to
ensure appropriate access and circulation within the site. The requirement
of vehicular charging points is necessary to secure measures to mitigate
the impact of climate change.
84. A construction management plan is necessary to minimise disruption from
construction, both in the interest of residential amenity and wider highway
safety. Similarly, in the interests of protecting air quality during
construction I have also imposed a condition requiring that the necessary
mitigation measures outlined in the Air Quality Assessment are adhered to.
85. To ensure the site is appropriately serviced and drained, and to reduce the
risk of off-site flooding I have imposed conditions relating to foul and
surface water drainage. To protect human health, ground water and the
wider environment it is also necessary to impose a condition requiring a
site investigation for contamination, and if required all necessary
remediation.
86. In the interests of protecting any archaeological interest that may exist on
site, it is necessary to impose a condition requiring a field evaluation and if
relevant the preservation of remains and further investigation if relevant.
In order to mitigate against any harm to ecological interests on site a
condition is also necessary to require mitigation measure as outlined in the
submitted ecological assessment.
The Legal Obligation
87. The application is accompanied by a planning agreement made under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
The agreement makes provision for a number of matters which I deal with
below in turn.
88. Having regard to the DPD and the submissions at the Inquiry24 I am
satisfied that the provisions of the undertaking in respect of affordable
housing, education, healthcare, parks and gardens and sports provision are
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The
sum for highway improvements is in addition to the works required at the
access and is necessary to mitigate the effects of the proposal on the wider
highway network. Similarly, the public transport contribution and the
travel plan also serve to mitigate the effects of the proposal on the wider
higher network.
89. The evidence submitted shows that the youth services contribution,
libraries contribution and community learning contribution are all required
to meet a need directly arising from the development, and are all related to
services that are reasonably close to the development and therefore able to
serve future residents.
90. A social services contribution is also sought. In seeking the contribution
reference is made to the provision of assistive technology systems,
adapting community facilities, the provision of sensory facilities and the
provision of accessible facilities and the contribution is calculated using an
element for each of these measures. However, the agreement refers
instead to the provision of extra care accommodation. Whilst I have no
reason to consider that such accommodation is not needed in the borough,
the evidence submitted does not relate to the provision of such
accommodation. As such I cannot conclude that the sum involved is
reasonably related to the measures proposed. Furthermore, the distance of
10 miles provides me with no surety that if such facilities were provided,
they would be directly related to the development in question. I therefore
do not consider that this element of the obligation is necessary.
91. I am satisfied that the obligations which I have set out above as being
justified are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning
terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related
in scale and kind to the development. However, as they simply fulfil policy
expectations, they attract no positive weight in support of the scheme. In
accord with the Community Infrastructure Regulations I have not taken
account of the social services contribution part of the undertaking.
24 Inquiry Documents 23,24,25 and 37
Conclusion
92. Accordingly, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is
allowed.
Anne Jordan
INSPECTOR
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1. Approval of details of the layout and appearance of the development, the
landscaping of the site, and the scale of the development (hereinafter called
the "reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority.
2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local
Planning Authority before the expiration of eighteen months from the date of
this permission.
3. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the
expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the
expiration of one year from the date of approval of the last of the reserved
matters to be approved, whichever is the later.
4. Applications for the approval of the reserved matters shall broadly accord
with the design principles shown in the indicative layout referenced 6273-01
Rev G and indicative landscape layout referenced LE-20 received 10
December 2019.
5. The details submitted in pursuance to Condition 1 shall be accompanied by a
contoured site plan and full details of the slab levels and ridge levels at
which the dwellings are to be constructed and development shall be carried
out in accordance with the approved details.
6. The details submitted in pursuance of Condition 1 shall be accompanied by a
scheme of landscaping and boundary treatment. The scheme shall broadly
accord with the design and landscaping principles shown indicatively on
Drawing LE20 received 10 December 2019 and follow the recommendations
set out in the Arboricultural Implications Report received 1 August 2019. The
scheme shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and
shall be implemented by the approved date. Any trees or plants which within
10 years of planting are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased
shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and
species.
7. The details submitted in pursuance of Condition 1 shall show land reserved
for the parking and turning of vehicles. None of the dwellings hereby
approved shall be occupied until these areas have been provided, surfaced,
and drained in accordance with the approved details.
Thereafter no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015
(or any order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order) shall be
carried out on the land so shown (other than the erection of a private garage
or garages) or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to reserved
vehicle parking areas.
8. The details submitted pursuant to condition 1 shall show details of vehicle
charging points. The charging points shall be approved by the Local Planning
Authority and be installed prior to the first occupation of any dwelling, and
thereafter maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details.
9. The details submitted in pursuance of Condition 1 shall show the proposed
enhancements to the Public Rights of Way MR119 and MR120 through the
site and in broad conformity with the indicative layout referenced 6273-01
Rev G received 10 December 2019. None of the dwellings hereby approved
shall be occupied until these routes have been provided, surfaced, and
drained in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained and
maintained at all times thereafter.
10. None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until the linkages of
the Public Rights of Way MR119 and MR120 to the surrounding highway
network have been substantially completed.
11. None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until the access
from A20 London Road as shown in principle on drawing numbers ITL11317-
GA-014 Rev D or ITL11317-GA-014- Rev H has been substantially
completed.
12. The proposed road, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting,
sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, vehicles
overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, carriageway
gradients, driveway gradients, car parking and street furniture to be laid out
and constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved
by the Local Planning Authority.
13. No dwelling shall be occupied until details of a scheme for the storage and
screening of refuse has been submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the
development is occupied and shall be retained at all times thereafter.
14. The details submitted in pursuance of Condition 1 shall show the proposed
areas of amenity, natural and formal open space, Neighbourhood Equipped
Area of Play, a centrally located Local Equipped Area of Play and Local Areas
of Play, along with a timetable for their implementation. The details shall be
approved by the Local Planning Authority and be installed in accordance with
the approved plan(s)/scheme and maintained and retained at all times
thereafter.
15. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or
successors in title, has secured the implementation of: i. archaeological field
evaluation works in accordance with a specification and written timetable
which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority;
and ii. following on from the evaluation, any safeguarding measures to
ensure preservation in situ of important archaeological remains and/or
further archaeological investigation and recording in accordance with a
specification and timetable which has been submitted to and approved by
the Local Planning Authority.
16. The details submitted in pursuance to Condition 1 shall provide details and
samples of all materials to be used externally. These details shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
17. The details submitted in pursuance of Condition 1 shall incorporate the
mitigation and enhancement measures detailed in chapter 5 of the Ecological
Assessment received 1 August 2019. The measures shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and implemented in
accordance with an agreed timetable and retained thereafter.
18. The details submitted in pursuance of Condition 1 shall incorporate the
mitigation measures detailed in the Air Quality Assessment received 1
August 2019. The measures shall be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority, and implemented in accordance with an agreed timetable
and retained thereafter.
19. No above ground works, other than ground investigations work or site
survey works, shall commence until a scheme to connect all plots to mains
foul drainage has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied
until the approved scheme to provide all plots with mains foul drainage has
been implemented.
20. No development shall take place other than as required as part of any
relevant approved site investigation works until the following have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
(a) results of the site investigations (including any necessary intrusive
investigations) and a risk assessment of the degree and nature of any
contamination on site and the impact on human health, controlled waters
and the wider environment. These results shall include a detailed
remediation method statement informed by the site investigation results and
associated risk assessment, which details how the site will be made suitable
for its approved end use through removal or mitigation measures. The
method statement must include details of all works to be undertaken,
proposed remediation objectives, remediation criteria, timetable of works
and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site
cannot be determined as Contaminated Land as defined under Part 2A of the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 (or as otherwise amended). The
submitted scheme shall include details of arrangements for responding to
any discovery of unforeseen contamination during the undertaking hereby
permitted. Such arrangements shall include a requirement to notify the Local
Planning Authority in writing of the presence of any such unforeseen
contamination along with a timetable of works to be undertaken to make the
site suitable for its approved end use.
(b) prior to the commencement of the development the relevant approved
remediation scheme shall be carried out as approved. The Local Planning
Authority should be given a minimum of two weeks written notification of the
commencement of the remediation scheme works.
21. Following completion of the approved remediation strategy, and prior to the
first occupation of the development, a relevant verification report that
scientifically and technically demonstrates the effectiveness and completion
of the remediation scheme at above and below ground level shall be
submitted for the information of the Local Planning Authority. The report
shall be undertaken in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment
Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR
11’. Where it is identified that further remediation works are necessary,
details and a timetable of those works shall be submitted to the Local
Planning Authority for written approval and shall be fully implemented as
approved. Thereafter, no works shall take place such as to prejudice the
effectiveness of the approved scheme of remediation.
22. 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 be
based upon the DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT, ref C85673-R400A and 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 without increase to flood risk on or off-site.
The drainage scheme shall also demonstrate (with reference to published
guidance):
• that silt and pollutants resulting from the site use can be adequately
managed to ensure there is no pollution risk to receiving waters.
• appropriate operational, maintenance and access requirements for each
drainage feature or SuDS component are adequately considered, including
any proposed arrangements for future adoption by any public body or
statutory undertaker. The drainage scheme shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved details.
23. No building on any phase (or within an agreed implementation schedule) of
the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until a Verification
Report, pertaining to the surface water drainage system and prepared by a
suitably competent person, has been submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority. The Report shall demonstrate the suitable modelled
operation of the drainage system where the system constructed is different
to that approved. The Report shall contain information and evidence
(including photographs) of details and locations of inlets, outlets and control
structures; landscape plans; full as built drawings; information pertinent to
the installation of those items identified on the critical drainage assets
drawing; and, the submission of an operation and maintenance manual for
the sustainable drainage scheme as constructed.
24. No development hereby permitted shall commence until a Construction
Management Plan, to include details of:
(a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors;
(b) loading and unloading of plant and materials;
(c) storage of plant and materials;
(d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management);
(e) measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway;
(f) on-site turning for construction vehicles;
(g) measures to ensure protection of protected species and habitats during
construction;
(h) access arrangements; and APP/H2265/W/20/3256877 Land West of
Winterfield Lane East Malling ME19 5EY
(i) the days of the week and hours of the day when the demolition and
construction works will be limited to and measures to ensure these are
adhered to, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The construction of the development shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved Construction Management
Plan.
End of Schedule
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Sasha White QC of Landmark Chambers
He called:
Mr Alastair Field Reading Agricultural Consultants
Mr Jeremy Smith SLR Consulting Ltd
Mr Asher Ross Jones Lang LaSalle
Mr Towell of for the Conditions Round Table
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Tom Cosgrove QC of Cornerstone Barristers
He called:
Mr Matthew Berryman CLM Ltd
Mr Jon Etchells Jon Etchells Consulting
Mr John Escott Robinson Escott Planning LLP
Mr Ian Bailey of TMDC for the Housing Land Supply Round Table
Mr K Toogood for the Conditions Round Table
FOR THE PARISH COUNCIL AS RULE 6:
Clare Parry of Counsel
She called:
Mr Kevin Goodwin KG Creative Consultancy
INTERESTED PERSONS
Mr Gibbons Local Resident
Mrs Simpson Local Resident
Mr Markham Local Resident
Mr Mansell Local Resident
Mrs Langston Local Resident
Mr Johnson Local Resident
Rev Mark Hayton Local Resident
Mr Archer Local Resident
Mr Dean Local Resident
Mrs Woodger Local Resident
Mr Brooks Local Resident
Mr Walker Local Resident
Mr Shire Local Resident
Ms Dobson Local Resident
Mr Arnold Local Resident
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED AT THE INQUIRY
1. Brampton Field Committee Report ref: TM/18/02966/OA
2. 2018 Annual Monitoring Report (issued to PINS earlier for the HLS round
table – see attached)
3. ED19 – Bailey Letter
4. 2020 Visualisations for Mr Smith’s Submission
5. Appellant Opening Statement
6. LPA Opening Statement
7. Rule 6 Opening Statement
8. Mr Gibbon’s Submission
9. CIL Statement
10. Agreed Conditions
11. Section 106 Agreement
12. Mrs Simpson’s Submission
13. Late Submission from the British Horse Society
14. Statement from Mr Dean
15. KCC Consultation Letter Response dated 4th October 2019
16. KCC CIL Compliance Statement with Appendices
17. Email from KCC to Wates Developments Regarding Education Provision
18. Submission from Mr Field – Aerial view of land farmed in the vicinity of
the appeal site.
19. KCC Economic Development Comments
20. KCC Highways and Transport Comments
21. Statement of Mr R Brooks
22. Natural England Consultation Letter and Response
23. Comments from Clinical Commissioning Group regarding CIL
requirements
24. KCC Local Transport Plan 4
25. LDF Managing Development and the Environment DPD – Policy Annex
OS3, Open Space Standards and Open Space Calculator
26. Agreed List of Plans, dated 3rd December - to accompany the Statement
of Common Ground
27. Comments from Mrs Woodger
28. Schedule of Conditions V4 3rd Dec 2020
29. Further Comments of Mrs Liz Simpson
30. KCC Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2018-2028
31. Village Design Statement
32. Strategic Commissioning Statistical Bulletin – 2019 Mid-year Population
Estimates: Ward Level Population in Kent
33. Woolpit Appeal Decision ref: APP/W3520/W/18/3194926
34. Email from Rev Hayton to the Inspectorate Received: 09 December 2020
12:10
35. MHCLG Affordable Housing Figures
36. Update agreed Conditions V6
37. Winterfield Lane, East Malling - Appeal ref: 3256877 TM/19/01814
KCC Contributions – Additional Information
38. Email for Tonbridge and Malling Inspector dated 9 December 2020 13:10
Regarding Population Estimates for the Borough.
39. Closing Statement for the Council
40. Closing Statement for the Parish Council as R6
41. Closing Statement for the Appellant
42. Inspectors’ Letter to the Council dated 15 December 2020
43. Council’s Comments on the Inspectors’ Letter in Relation to the Appeal
44. Parish Councils’ Comments on the Inspectors’ Letter
45. Appellant’s Comments on the Inspectors’ Letter