Case Reference: 3273022

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 6, 8 to 9, 13, and 15 - 17 September 2021, and 6 October 2021
Site visit made on 22 September 2021
by O S Woodwards BA(Hons.) MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 2nd February 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/M2270/W/21/3273022
Hawkhurst Golf Club, High Street, Hawkhurst, Cranbrook TN18 4JS
• 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 a part-outline/part-full planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Cedardrive Ltd against Tunbridge Wells Borough Council.
• The application Ref 19/02025/HYBRID, is dated 11 July 2019.
• The development proposed is Hybrid Application:
Demolition of existing clubhouse, squash courts and ancillary structures, and
redevelopment of existing golf course.
Full planning permission sought for new relief road and associated earthworks and
junctions with A268 and A229.
Outline planning permission (all matters reserved for future determination) sought for
residential development, a C2/C3 care home, class D1 facilities such as a doctors'
surgery and/or community hall, public car park, public park and associated parking,
servicing, utilities, footpath and cycle links, formal and informal open space including
woodland planting and recreation facilities, ground and infrastructure works.
DECISION
1. The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused for demolition of
existing clubhouse, squash courts and ancillary structures, and redevelopment
of existing golf course for a new relief road and associated earthworks and
junctions with A268 and A229 (applied for in full), and residential development,
a C2/C3 care home, class D1 facilities such as a doctors' surgery and/or
community hall, public car park, public park and associated parking, servicing,
utilities, footpath and cycle links, formal and informal open space including
woodland planting and recreation facilities, ground and infrastructure works
(applied for in outline with all matters reserved), in accordance with the terms
of the application Ref 19/1810/HSE, dated 11 November 2019.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
2. Hawkhurst Parish Council and the Campaign to Protect Hawkhurst Village (the
R6 Party) were granted Rule 6 status for the appeal.
3. Minor alterations were made to the proposed drawings in the lead-up to the
inquiry. These alterations were agreed between the main parties and did not
make material changes to the proposal. The inquiry proceeded on the basis of
those revised drawings.
MAIN ISSUES
4. The main issues are:
• the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of
the area, including the landscape and scenic beauty of the High Weald Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the AONB);
• the effect of the proposed development on traffic congestion and highway
safety, with particular regard to the effect of the proposed new road;
• the effect of the proposed development on biodiversity, including
consideration of mitigation and biodiversity net gain; and,
• whether or not the appeal site is an appropriate location for development of
this type, both with regard to the principle of the site’s location and access
to services and facilities, including Hawkhurst village.
5. Concerns of the Council in relation to the provision of affordable housing and
mitigation of the effects on local infrastructure have been addressed by a s106
Planning Obligation (the s106), dated 21 October 2021. In light of that, these
matters were not pursued at the inquiry. There remains, however, dispute as
to the weight to be applied to the provision of affordable housing and I deal
with this as appropriate below.
6. In the lead-up to the inquiry, the Council questioned the viability of the
proposed new road. However, at the inquiry itself this issue was not contested
by the Council or the R6 Party. I have seen no substantive evidence that the
proposed road would not be viable and have made my decision on this basis.
REASONS
Planning Policy
7. The Development Plan includes the ‘saved policies’ of the Tunbridge Wells Local
Plan 2006 (the LP), the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010 (the CS), the Site
Allocations Plan 2016 (the SAP), and the Hawkhurst Neighbourhood Plan made
2018 and amended 2020 (the HNP). There is debate amongst the main parties
regarding the weight to be applied to some of the policies. I deal with this as
appropriate throughout my Decision letter.
8. There is an emerging Tunbridge Wells Borough Pre-Submission Local Plan (the
emerging LP). This will be the subject of further consultation and is likely to be
modified prior to adoption. I place limited weight on the emerging policies in
the emerging LP.
Character and Appearance
9. The appeal site is large and runs from an entry point on High Street, alongside
the back of the north western edge of the Highgate element of Hawkhurst
village, alongside the western side of Cranbrook Road, and then cuts back to
Slip Mill Road just below the Gills Green element of the village. It is a former
golf course which is not in use. A certain amount of re-wilding has taken place
but the character of the site is still recognisably a golf course. It is undulating
and there is also a stream and associated valley running across the narrowest
part of the site alongside Cranbrook Road. The club house and car park remain
alongside the High Street. The general landscape is managed in appearance,
with fairways and linear lines of trees, but remains attractive, open, and green.
There are thickly vegetated borders to almost all sides, although there are
some more open aspects in places where the site backs onto some existing
homes and their gardens.
10. The entire appeal site, the village, and a much wider area are all in the High
Weald AONB. The statutory purpose of AONBs is to conserve and enhance the
natural beauty of the area. The High Weald AONB Management Plan 2019,
which is also cross-referred in Policy HD1(b) of the HNP, sets out the key
characteristics of the AONB. Of particular relevance to the appeal site is the
physical and perceived separation of settlements, that villages and hamlets are
typically unlit, the importance of the incised landform and streams, the
absence of large scale settlement extensions, and the importance of woodlands
and ancient woodlands.
11. There are many other key characteristics of the AONB, but these are either not
related to the appeal site, or the appeal site has already lost them as a
consequence of the previous golf course use, such as medieval field patterns.
In my view, the effects of the golf course use are not reversible, because
although in principle this may be true, there are no proposals before me to
either let the course simply return to the wild, or for it to be used for entirely
rural purposes.
12. It is proposed to redevelop the appeal site to provide a substantial residential
development including a care home, a community facility, extensive
landscaping, and associated works. All of these elements are applied for in
outline. A new road, to bypass the existing cross-roads at the centre of
Highgate, is also proposed, and is applied for in full. The proposed built
development would be split into two broad ‘parcels’ – the ‘southern parcel’
between the existing properties of Highgate and Slip Mill Road, and the
‘northern parcel’ running east-west between Cranbrook Road and Slip Mill Road
to the south of the existing built-up area of Gills Green. The two parcels would
be split by the Slip Mill Stream valley and proposed landscaping to either side
of the stream.
13. The ‘southern parcel’ falls within The Hawkhurst Wooded Farmland Character
Area (LCA11) as set out in The Tunbridge Wells Borough Landscape Character
Assessment, 2017 by LUC. The LCA11 area is found to be of wooded character,
with many important rural lanes, dispersed hamlets, separation of built-up
areas, an intact rural character, and ghyll valleys. Further studies1 have come
to similar conclusions on the nature of the existing landscape character and
have found the sensitivity of the appeal site to be generally high, although
there are some small areas of lower sensitivity along the settlement edges. I
agree with these conclusions.
14. The proposed housing and building to the ‘southern parcel’ would partially form
an extension to Highgate, linking into the existing built form along the High
Street and also along the southern part of Cranbrook Road. A part of this
parcel, at the former Springfield Nursery, has in fact already been granted
planning permission at appeal2 for residential development. However, due to
1 e.g. The Tunbridge Wells - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of Proposed Allocation Sites within the High
Weald AONB by HDA; and, Landscape Sensitivity Assessment of additional settlements in Tunbridge Wells, 2018
by LUC
2 Ref APP/M2270/W/20/3245562, on 30 November 2020
the steeply sloped land to part of the southern boundary of the appeal site, the
proposed landscaped buffers to much of the appeal site boundary, and the
layout of the existing properties all of which turn their backs towards the
appeal site, the proposal would only be partially successful at integrating with
the existing Highgate village.
15. The ‘southern parcel’ would also stretch towards the rear of properties and
other land accessed from Slip Mill Road. Slip Mill Road is a rural lane and the
properties along it have a rural feel and setting, several with clear views over
the appeal site. The proposal would alter the setting and the character of this
area, introducing an urban form much closer to the road and the properties
along its western side than the existing Highgate village. The new road, in
particular, and its associated substantial engineering, would negatively affect
the setting of this rural lane and the properties along its eastern side.
16. It is agreed between the Council and the appellant that the ‘southern parcel’ is
acceptable in principle for some form of development and associated
infrastructure. I agree. However, the scale of the current proposal and the built
infrastructure, including the road, and the only partially successful integration
with Highgate, would result in material harm to the character and appearance
of this part of the appeal site and the setting of Highgate and Slip Mill Road. It
would result in the permanent alteration of character from an attractive, open
and green area to a heavily developed site. The proposed road, in particular,
would involve substantial engineering works, loss of trees, and would partly be
on a relatively high ridge across the site, further increasing its visibility and
impact. There would be an overall negative effect from lighting from the
proposed buildings, lighting for the road, and vehicle headlights, intruding into
an area which is currently almost entirely dark at night.
17. The Slip Mill Stream valley would be retained within a significant element of
landscaped open space in, and either side of the valley. Both ‘parcels’ propose
housing with access from Cranbrook Road and both are at a point on the road
where there is existing housing on the opposite side. However, there would be
development on currently open land, including the new road and the creation of
new access points to Cranbrook Road. This would lead to a physical and
perceived erosion of the separation between Highgate and Gills Green. This
would be exacerbated by the street lighting along the proposed road and the
general lighting that would occur from the proposed development and traffic
headlights using the new road. These factors would harm the character and
appearance of the area and the specific AONB key characteristics of separation
of settlements and the unlit nature of villages.
18. The ‘northern parcel’ falls within The Bedgebury Forested Plateau Character
Area (LCA15). This has many of the same characteristics as LCA11, but is more
remote and rural in character, with fewer developments and modern intrusions.
The sensitivity of the area to change is correspondingly higher than the
‘southern parcel’, particularly to large scale development.
19. The ‘northern parcel’ would border the existing development at Gills Green to
the far north western corner of the appeal site, and would partially front onto
Cranbrook Road, opposite existing dwellings. This would provide a degree of
physical and visual integration with existing built form. However, the majority
of this element of the proposal would be separated from Gills Green by existing
woodland, and poorly integrated with it. The proposal would also erode the gap
between Gills Green and Highgate to some degree, by partially infilling a
currently largely open part of the landscape. This part of the proposal would
harm the setting of the Slip Mill Road rural lane through the substantial
proposed housing directly adjacent to the road. As with the ‘southern parcel’,
the proposal would result in the permanent alteration of character from an
attractive, open and green area to a heavily developed site. Even considered
on its own, it is still of substantial scale.
20. I acknowledge that the existing golf course is a manicured landscape that is
quite different in character from agricultural fields or open countryside. This
would partially mitigate the effect of the proposed change. It is also proposed
to retain and reinforce the existing vegetated buffers to the appeal site’s
boundaries, providing further visual mitigation. The ancient woodlands would
be protected by the proposal and, although some of the existing trees on the
appeal site would be lost, a substantial proposed landscaping scheme, including
significant tree planting, is proposed and could be secured by condition.
21. These works could be controlled by the Landscape and Ecology Management
Plan as secured through the s106, and by conditions relating to the detail of
landscaping. However, even after the proposed screening, the built
development would be visible from several surrounding properties and from
public roads. Apart from the clubhouse and car park, the appeal site retains a
green and verdant character that reinforces the rural edge of the settlement
here. The proposal would fundamentally alter that with the introduction of
substantial, urbanising, built form, no matter what landscaped mitigation could
be provided. There would be material harm to the established character and
appearance of the area, and to the natural beauty of this part of the AONB, in
this regard.
22. Moreover, the proposal is for a large scale extension to the existing village. All
of these considerations would undermine the key characteristics that I have
identified above and which are integral to the landscape and scenic beauty of
the AONB. In addition, the scale of the proposal, the permanent loss of a
green, attractive and open part of the AONB, and the general harm to the
character and appearance of the area, would all also harm the special qualities
and character of the AONB.
23. Overall, I have found harm to the identified AONB key characteristics and I
have also found harm to the character and appearance of the area and the
wider landscape in general terms, which would also harm the natural beauty of
the AONB. I assess the level of harm to the ‘southern parcel’ to be minor to
moderate, due to the scale of the proposal and the proposed road, only
partially successful integration with Highgate, and, the harm to the setting of
the rural lane. I assess the level of harm to the ‘northern parcel’ to be
moderate, due to the intrusion into a rural landscape, harm to the setting of
the rural lane, poor integration with Gills Green, and erosion of the gap
between Gills Green and Highgate.
24. The proposal would, therefore, fail to comply with those parts of Policy CP4 of
the CS and Policy EN25 of the LP, where they seek to preserve or enhance
landscape character, and resist detrimental impact on landscape setting of
settlements, and unsympathetic change to a rural lane of importance. The
proposal also fails to comply with the parts of Policy CP14 of the CS that relate
to the preservation and enhancement of landscape and the character of rural
areas. It would fail to comply with Policy HD1(b) of the HNP due to the effects
on landscape setting. I place full weight on the highlighted elements of all
these policies, which are consistent with the Framework. The proposal would
fail to comply with Chapter 12 of the Framework, which requires high quality
design. The proposal would result in harm to the AONB and would therefore fail
to comply with Paragraph 176 of the Framework, which gives the highest
status of protection to AONBs.
Highways and Transport
Highgate cross-roads
25. In the centre of Highgate is the intersection of the A229 and the A268. This is
the ‘cross-roads’. It is clear that the cross-roads currently operates above
capacity, on all arms, at peak times. It is heavily congested. It is predicted to
worsen over time, with traffic congestion to reach an average of 9 minutes per
vehicle by 2033 when factoring in traffic growth and committed developments.
This is uncontested between the parties.
26. It is proposed to provide a new road that would cut away from Cranbrook
Road, travel through the site, and then join up with High Street at a new
roundabout junction. The road would have footways where appropriate, and
bus stops at either end. Once constructed, it is then proposed to close
Cranbrook Road south of the proposed junction to through traffic.
27. This would result in significant numbers of vehicles, both existing and as
generated by the proposal, being able to by-pass the cross-roads. There would
also, though, be the requirement for some drivers to use the new road and
then cut back along High Street to the cross-roads before either carrying on to
the east or turning right to the south, in order to divert around the closed-off
Cranbrook Road.
28. The Transport Assessment accompanying the planning application was
conducted on the basis of 420 dwellings (more than that now proposed), and
incorporated allowances for allocated sites and extant planning permissions, as
agreed with the Council. This document assessed the effect of the proposal on
the operation of the cross-roads. I acknowledge that the introduction of puffin
crossings could reduce pedestrian crossing times but there is no reason why
they could not be introduced independent of this proposal. I have therefore
used the assessment where the appellant has assumed the same crossing
times for both as existing and as proposed, i.e. 12 seconds intergen, because
this is a fairer comparison between the two scenarios.
29. The proposal would result in a significant betterment of the traffic congestion,
measured in this manner, saving several minutes per vehicle to travel through
the junction on average, from nine minutes (2033 predicted) to three minutes
(2033 predicted). Even the High Street arm, which would be the subject of
more traffic due to the re-routing of south and east bound traffic, would
experience reduced queuing times due to the more efficient operation of the
three-arm junction versus its current four-arm configuration.
30. It is therefore clear that the proposed road would not only accommodate the
traffic generated by the proposed development but would also improve traffic
congestion through Highgate. The Council and Kent County Council agree that
there would be an overall positive effect on the cross-roads, over and above
mitigating the development’s own effects.
Highway safety
31. There is an existing footway alongside the A268 (High Street) running from the
appeal site to the centre of Highgate. There is an existing footway alongside
the A229 (Cranbrook Road) running along its entire length between Gills Green
and Highgate. The cross-roads has pedestrian crossing facilities on all four
arms. Accident data for High Street shows two accidents in a three year period,
and for Cranbrook Road seven accidents, none of which could be attributed to
highway design. The new road would be built to adoptable standards with all
associated safety features and sight lines provided. The Highways Authority
raise no objection in relation to highway safety. I am satisfied that there would
be no material effect on highway safety from the proposal.
Flimwell junction
32. The proposal would also result in increased traffic through the Flimwell cross-
roads to the west, both through general traffic generation and because it is
proposed to direct HGVs that currently travel north-south through the Highgate
cross-roads through this junction instead. This is a junction of the A268 and
B2087 with the A21. The A21 is part of Highways England’s Strategic Road
Network (SRN).
33. It is proposed to mitigate the increased traffic through the junction by
providing additional flared approach lanes on the eastern and southern arms of
the junction, a widened exit northbound and improved pedestrian crossing
facilities. After mitigation, the proposal would result in an overall improvement
to traffic congestion through the junction in the ‘am’ peak, with average
queuing times reduced from 302 seconds to 254 seconds in 2028. The ‘pm’
peak queuing would increase slightly from 196 seconds to 247 seconds. It
should also be noted that in the ‘am’ peak the northbound A21 queuing would
increase.
34. The overall effect of the Flimwell junction would be broadly neutral. There
would be some increase in queuing on some arms at certain times but this
would be balanced against improvements at other times. None of the increased
traffic congestion would be to a material degree. In addition, a Stage 1 Road
Safety Audit has been undertaken. Importantly, Highways England does not
object to the proposal, either with regard to road safety or traffic congestion.
Rat running
35. The cross-roads would operate more efficiently than as existing. For the most
part, therefore, there would not be a material increase in the pressure to, or
likelihood of, drivers ‘rat running’ to bypass the junction and/or the new road.
The exception is traffic using Delmonden Lane and North Hill Road as a cut-
through to the A229 and then onto the A21. I can foresee the temptation of
this as a ‘rat-run’ because of the new route forcing southbound drivers onto the
relief road, rather than through the cross-roads, and because of the longer
length of queues on the High Street arm, albeit shorter in time. I have driven
this route and the roads are very narrow country lanes, almost single track. In
my view, this would likely remove the temptation to use this route for the
majority of drivers, because it would be slow and inconvenient to drive along.
Whilst there may be a limited increase in use of this route, that would not be to
such a degree in my view, that it would have a material effect on highway
safety or traffic congestion.
Conclusion
36. The proposal, subject to the implementation of the proposed mitigation
measures, would result in an overall improvement to the operation of the
cross-roads over and above the development’s own traffic generation. It would
have a broadly neutral effect on the Flimwell junction. I do not foresee any
material increase in rat running. It has been successfully demonstrated that
there would be an acceptable effect on highway safety. Paragraph 111 of the
Framework states that development should only be refused if there would be
an unacceptable impact on highway safety or if the cumulative impacts of the
road network would be severe. Neither of these scenarios are true for the
appeal proposal, which would result in an overall betterment to traffic
congestion and would not harm highway safety, and complies with the
Framework.
Biodiversity
37. Although The Environment Act 2021 has now passed, secondary legislation is
required for it to be implemented. Therefore, the 10% biodiversity net gain
(BNG) requirement set out in the Act is not yet law and is not applicable to
these appeals. Whilst Policy EN9 of the emerging LP sets a requirement of 10%
BNG, I place limited weight on this because it may be the subject of
modification before adoption. Paragraph 174 of the Framework simply seeks a
net gain in biodiversity. It does not specify a specific percentage. Policy CP4 of
the CS requires no net loss of biodiversity, implying that either neutral or a
notional net gain is required. A ‘net gain’, of any percentage, is all that is
therefore required. It is common ground that Natural England’s Biodiversity
Metric 3.0, is the most appropriate tool available for measuring this.
38. It is common ground that the majority of the appeal site provides relatively
species poor grassland, because of its managed nature as a golf course, until
recently. Most of the existing biodiversity interest lies to the boundaries of the
site, which would largely remain unaffected. The appellant has run various
scenarios for biodiversity mitigation and enhancement on the site. These
assume that all gardens would be vegetated and that all non-developed areas
would be grassland. That is unlikely to be the case, given personal preferences
for the landscaping of gardens, and footpaths, drainage and other requirements
within landscaped areas. Making allowances for this would reduce the
calculated level of BNG. There is also the possibility that, in the detailed design,
further areas currently assumed to be used to improve biodiversity, may end
up being used for construction.
39. However, the proposal is at outline stage. A significant proportion of the site
would be controlled by parameters plans to be landscaped open space.
Significant planting is indicated throughout the site, and particularly within the
proposed open space areas and to the boundaries. The adjacent ancient
woodland, and the woodland with ancient characteristics within the site, would
be protected with buffers and enhanced with native species-rich planting. There
is no reason to believe that a scheme could not be devised within these
parameters, that would meet the over-arching assumptions set out in the
Metric, even if the detail were to change. This could be controlled by
condition(s). I am therefore satisfied that there is sufficient flexibility within the
appeal proposal such that a BNG could be achieved through the reserved
matters and condition discharges stages of the proposal.
40. It is common ground that there would be a long term minor-adverse effect on
bat habitat. Bats are a European Protected Species (EPS). The habitat relates
to roosts in the club house, which is to be demolished, and to flying routes.
However, measures could be undertaken to ensure that individual bats were
not harmed, even if their habitat was lost, for example through undertaking the
relevant construction works outside of the breeding and hibernating periods,
and the provision of suitable compensatory habitat. Lighting of the proposed
road, even if only at the junctions, would affect bat flying routes. However, this
could be effectively controlled at detailed design stage and/or by condition
discharge to minimise the effect on bats. The most sensitive area for flying
routes is around the stream and this area would be retained as open space.
41. Dormice are also an EPS. Dormice, and their nests, have been observed in a
number of locations in the appeal site, particularly to the eastern and northern
boundaries. Their habitat would be fragmented, particularly by the new road in-
between their habitat to the west boundary and the south east corner of the
appeal site. Dormice can cross roads although this is best achieved with
mitigation. This could be secured at the detailed design stage or by condition.
Overall, additional dormouse habitat would be created and it is common ground
between the parties that the overall effect on dormice would be neutral.
42. Consequently, it has been demonstrated that the proposal would result in a
suitable level of BNG, and that the EPS’s, particularly bats and dormice, would
be sufficiently protected subject to the proposed mitigation measures, which
could be controlled by condition. The proposal therefore complies with the
relevant part of Policy CP4 of the CS and Paragraph 180 of the Framework
which together, amongst other things, seek to protect such interests.
Location
Principle
43. The policies most important for determining an appeal for housing and other
works outside the defined settlement boundary of Hawkhurst are Policies CP1,
CP6 and CP14 of the CS, and Policy HD1(b) of the HNP. Policy CP1 is the over-
arching locational policy. It prioritises development of land within settlement
boundaries, and states that sites adjacent to or outside of settlement
boundaries will not generally be allocated or released for development. Policy
CP6 directly refers to Policy CP1 with regard to location of residential
development. Policy CP14 relates to development in villages, such as
Hawkhurst, and restricts development to sites within settlement boundaries in
accordance with Policy CP1, and seeks to protect the countryside for its own
sake. Policy HD1(b) sets out the ‘exceptional circumstances’ required to
support larger developments and the importance of the effect of proposals on
landscape setting and the AONB.
44. However, the greater the in-principle policy protection against development
outside the settlement boundary, the greater its conflict with the Framework,
which requires a balancing exercise. Because of this, I consider the relevant
parts of Policies CP1, CP6 and CP14 of the CS to be out of date. Policy HD1(b)
allows for large scale development outside the settlement boundaries if the
‘exceptional circumstances’ test of the Framework can be met. It is therefore
broadly consistent with the Framework and is not out of date. Policy HD1(a) of
the HNP was also discussed as part of the appeal, but it is largely in relation to
small-scale developments of 10 units or fewer, and is not, therefore, one of the
most important policies for determining the appeal.
45. The proposal is for a large scale residential-led development largely outside the
defined settlement boundary of Hawkhurst, save for a small section in the
Springfield Nurseries part of the site. It is also an unallocated site apart from in
that small section. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies CP1, CP6 and
CP14. However, they are out of date and I afford limited weight to this conflict.
I turn to the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test, and therefore Policy HD1(b),
later in this Decision.
Accessibility to facilities and services
46. Also of importance to the suitability of the appeal site location is the capability
of Hawkhurst to accommodate growth of the scale proposed, and the
accessibility of the appeal site to Hawkhurst.
47. Hawkhurst is a ‘small rural town’ as defined in the CS and is identified as one of
five ‘main settlements’ in the emerging LP. The Highgate section of Hawkhurst
provides two supermarkets, a range of shops, cafes and pubs, and a cinema.
There are also employment opportunities in the centre of Highgate, and a
business park at Gills Green. There is no bank or leisure centre. There is a
primary school but no secondary school. However, it is not unusual to not have
a secondary school within walking distance in rural areas. Overall, the village
provides a range of amenities and employment opportunities and is a suitable
settlement, in principle, to accommodate residential-led development.
48. Although the layout is not yet fixed, the proposed road would bisect the site,
divorcing some of the dwellings in the ‘southern parcel’ from Highgate. In
addition, the dwellings in the ‘southern parcel’ would only be connected to
Highgate via either the High Street or Cranbrook Road entrances. Some of the
proposed dwellings would, therefore, be a relatively long walk from this centre,
potentially in excess of the 800m comfortable walking distance identified in the
Manual for Streets. However, this is not an unusual situation in a rural area.
Importantly, it would be possible, and would in fact be likely, that many future
residents would walk into the commercial centre of Highgate, even for many of
those beyond 800m, because of its relative proximity and the relative difficulty
of parking in the centre of the village.
49. The ‘northern parcel’ dwellings would be further away. However, this area
would be closer to the business park and pub at Gills Green. Even from the
‘northern parcel’, all of the proposed dwellings would be under the 2 km
distance set out in Manual for Streets as the greatest potential distance where
walking might replace car trips. These factors are not fatal to the suitability of
the appeal site for new housing.
50. There are five bus routes, and further specialist school services, serving
Hawkhurst. These provide services to Hastings, Tenterden, Maidstone and
Cranbrook, amongst many other smaller destinations. Some of the services are
hourly and also operate at weekends. The village is not served by rail but there
are two train stations providing services further into Kent and back towards
London at 6.5 km and 15 km away. The proposal would re-route some of the
bus routes along the proposed road, which would be provided with bus stops,
providing ease of access to the bus services. The overall access to alternative
methods of transport to the car would be high.
51. Consequently, in terms of accessibility to services, the appeal site is an
appropriate location for development of this type, both with regard to the site
itself, and Hawkhurst. It would comply with Policy HD1(b) of the HNP in these
respects. The proposal also complies with Section 2, and in particular
Paragraph 8, of the Framework, regarding achieving sustainable development.
OTHER MATTERS
Air Quality
52. It is common ground, and common sense, that air quality along Cranbrook
Road would improve as a result of the stopping-up of the road. This is
particularly beneficial because some of the properties along Cranbrook Road
suffer from poor air quality at present, to the extent that the Council has
declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The Council has provided
evidence that the air quality would improve even without the proposal due to
the increasing use of cleaner vehicles, such as electric cars. Furthermore,
because of the AQMA declaration, the Council is looking to take further
measures to improve air quality, such as parking restrictions and traffic light
sequencing to improve traffic along the road. They expect the AQMA to no
longer be required as of end-2024.
53. However, these are predictions based on vehicle trends not yet realised, and on
traffic control measures not yet implemented and the detail of which are not
before me. The reductions cannot therefore be guaranteed. In addition, the
closure of Cranbrook Road would further improve air quality over and above
any improvements achieved by the AQMA measures.
54. The proposal would also alter traffic patterns. The displaced traffic would travel
along the new road but then some of it would then return along High Street. It
is common ground that this would result in a worsening of air quality to
receptors along High Street, which includes residential receptors. However,
traffic speeds through the cross-roads junction would be increased, as
discussed above, which would moderate this.
55. Overall, the significant improvements to Cranbrook Road would go beyond any
worsening to High Street and to the natural, and AQMA related, improvements
to air quality that are expected in any event.
Heritage Assets
56. The appeal site lies within the setting of nine listed buildings. The open aspect
and semi-rural character of the site provides limited contribution to their
heritage significance. The appeal site is not a substantial element of the
experience of the listed buildings and is only visible in partial, glimpsed views.
Slip Mill Cottage would be most affected due to a more open aspect toward the
site, and its proximity, but even this building’s significance would only be
slightly eroded by the proposed development. Nevertheless, there would be
some, if limited, harm to the setting of the listed buildings due to the scale of
the proposed development. This would cause less than substantial harm to the
heritage significance of those assets. This is common ground and I agree,
although I place the level of harm at the lower end of less than substantial,
rather than to the middle as set out by the Council. This is because of the
limited effect of the proposal on the setting of the listed buildings, and because
future reserved matters submissions could ensure that specific issues of
typology, size and design of the proposals be appropriately considered to
partially mitigate this harm.
57. The public benefits of the proposal include the provision of significant housing
including specialist housing, improvements to traffic congestion through the
cross-roads, biodiversity net gain, overall improvements to air quality, and
short and long term economic effects. These factors are all expanded upon
elsewhere in this Decision. The benefits would clearly outweigh the less than
substantial heritage harm. There would be no conflict, therefore, with
Paragraph 202 of the Framework.
Housing Land Supply
58. It is common ground that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of
housing land. The degree of the under-supply is disputed, with the Council
stating it sits at 4.89 years and the appellant that it is 3.08 years.
Need
59. The Council’s Local Plan is more than five years old. In such circumstances, the
‘standard method’ for calculating housing need should be used. This gives rise
to a need for 677 dwellings per annum (dpa). The Housing Delivery Test
figures for the Council indicate a delivery rate over the past three years of 97%
against this need figure. At the time of the inquiry, this figure was 85%, using
the 2020 rather than the recently released 2021 housing delivery figures. It
was common ground that an 85% delivery rate did not equate to significant
under-delivery and therefore a 5% buffer was required. 5% is the minimum
buffer and the recent improvement to housing delivery does not change this.
The need is therefore 711 dpa.
60. The Council has consistently under-delivered housing. That remains the case
despite the uptick in performance demonstrated by the latest housing delivery
figures which, although improved from 85% to 97% over a three year average,
are still below the target delivery rate. However, the PPG3 confirms that the
‘standard method’ accounts for past under-delivery, and, as established above,
the level of under-delivery does not even trigger the 20% buffer, as set out at
Paragraph 74 of the Framework. I do not, therefore, see a requirement to set a
different need figure to that using the ‘standard method’ + 5% buffer.
Supply
61. The supply of housing is contested. The Framework is clear that for sites to be
considered as ‘deliverable’, there must be a realistic prospect that housing will
be delivered on them within five years, and for sites either without permission
or with only outline permission this must be demonstrated through clear
evidence. I take the disputed sites in turn below:
• The Gas Works - the site is not within the control of a developer, and,
although a demolition notice has been served, there is a lack of information
on any further remediation works that might be required. Associated with
this, there is no clear evidence on timings or numbers of homes that could
3 Paragraph: 031 Reference ID: 68-031-20190722
be delivered on the site. The 70 dwellings should therefore be removed
from the supply;
• The Former Plant and Tool Hire – a planning application is imminent, a
developer is on board, and no site specific constraints have been
highlighted. However, the imminent application is for 42 dwellings, not the
45 as used in the supply calculation, and therefore 3 dwellings should be
removed from the supply;
• Turners Pie Factory – no application has been made, there is no detail or
certainty on the quantum of dwellings or clear evidence of material progress
on the site. The 100 dwellings should therefore be removed from the
supply;
• Brick Kiln Farm – the site benefits from outline consent but no reserved
matters application currently sits with the Council. There is no evidence of
current involvement by a housebuilder. The 180 dwellings should therefore
be removed from the supply;
• Brook House - the Council has agreed to remove these 25 dwellings from
the supply;
• Springfield Nursery, Hawkhurst – this is part of the appeal site but it must
be looked at independently of this for the purposes of the housing land
supply calculation. The appellant has confirmed that the site could be
delivered independently of the appeal scheme. It is relatively small scale
and has a developer on board. The 24 dwellings should be retained in the
supply;
• Bassetts Farm, Horsmonden – a reserved matters application has been
submitted, pre-commencement conditions have been submitted, and a
housebuilder is on board. It is of a moderate size that should be able to be
built relatively quickly, and no substantive evidence has been provided of
any material site constraints. The 20 dwellings should be retained in the
supply;
• Land at Common Road, Sissinghurst - a reserved matters application has
been submitted, a housebuilder is on board, it is of a moderate size that
should be able to be built relatively quickly, and no substantive evidence
has been provided of any material site constraints. The 18 dwellings should
be retained in the supply; and,
• Triggs Farm, Goudhurst – the site has outline consent but this is due to
expire shortly. There is no concrete evidence of housebuilder involvement or
on progress on the site. The 11 dwellings should therefore be removed from
the supply.
62. I do not view the inclusion of a non-implementation discount rate for small
scale developments to be justified, because these sites all benefit from full
planning permission and there is no clear evidence that they would not be
delivered within the five years. Moreover, the housing need figure already
includes a buffer.
63. Prior notification applications are a very simple process which leads to deemed
consent in the absence of a decision to the contrary by the Council. There is
not a second stage of ‘permission’ to be granted and I treat them in a similar
way to full planning permissions. There is no substantive evidence before me
that the identified supply from this category would not be delivered within five
years. The dwellings from this process should therefore remain in the supply
calculation.
64. The windfall rates adopted by the Council are cautious, with a 20% reduction
on historic rates for small sites and a substantial reduction from 139 dpa to
25 dpa for large sites. I view these assumptions as reasonable and robust.
Conclusion
65. The five year need for housing, including the 5% buffer, is 3,554 homes. The
Council’s evidence is that the supply is 3,504 homes. However, as set out
above, I have discounted 389 of these homes from the supply. The supply
figure for the purposes of this appeal is therefore 3,115 dwellings. This equates
to a housing land supply of 4.38 years.
Neighbour Letters
66. Several hundred letters of objection were received. The letters of objection
raised various concerns in addition to those addressed above, including: the
adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbours by reason of noise,
disturbance, overlooking, loss of privacy, and overshadowing; inability of
existing infrastructure to cope with the new residents, for example doctors
surgeries are oversubscribed, public transport is strained, local schools are full;
there is no parking in the village to sustain this volume of additional residents;
and, land ownership issues.
67. Where relevant, I have dealt with these issues in my Decision. I particularly
note that a s106 Planning Obligation (see below) secures mitigation for many
of the effects on local infrastructure. No substantive evidence has been
provided of unacceptable harm to living conditions. The proposal would provide
car parking and this would be controlled by the submission of future reserved
matters and/or condition discharge applications, leaving the Council in control
of securing suitable parking provision so that there would not be unacceptable
levels of overflow car parking.
68. Letters of support have also been received, particularly noting the
improvements to Cranbrook Road from the proposed stopping-up of the road. I
have covered this elsewhere in my Decision.
PLANNING OBLIGATION
69. A draft s106 Planning Obligation was considered in detail at the inquiry.
Following this, a final, agreed document (the s106) was engrossed on
21 October 2021.
70. The s106 secures 35% of the dwellings to be affordable housing, of which 60%
would be social rented units and 40% intermediate units (where the rent does
not exceed 80% of the market rate). It also secures up to eight self-build plots
on site, subject to a marketing period of 18 months, after which, in agreement
with the Council, these plots can revert to normal units.
71. The s106 further secures open space of at least 4.6 ha, including a public park
of at least 2.8 ha, several play areas, and a nature trail.
72. The provision of necessary community facilities is secured. This would either be
through a community facility as part of the proposal or, through the use of a
contribution towards either a community centre, a sports pavilion or upgrade
works, or playing pitches or upgrade works.
73. A number of further measures and contributions are proposed and secured
through the s106. However, as these are required to mitigate the effect of the
proposal on community facilities, health facilities, traffic congestion generated
by the proposal, waste facilities, and education facilities, they attract no
positive weight in the planning balance.
THE AONB AND EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
74. In this section, and the next, I have adopted the following ascending order of
weighting – limited, moderate, significant, substantial, great.
75. The proposal comprises major development in an AONB. Paragraph 177 of the
Framework states that such development should only be allowed in exceptional
circumstances and where it is in the public interest. Determining this should
include an assessment of the following:
a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national
considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the
local economy
76. Providing more housing is one of, if not the most important, aspiration of local
and national planning policy. As established above, the Council is failing to
meet its housing land supply target. The shortfall is relatively modest but still
equates to 439 dwellings. Addressing this shortfall and providing more housing
is therefore important. In this regard, the Council has started to undertake
measures, including using additional resources to discharge planning conditions
and to negotiate s106 agreements. It has also engaged Homes England to
investigate how they could help to progress stalled sites. However, there is not
yet any substantive evidence that these measures are materially improving
housing land supply. In this context, the appeal proposal for up to 374 homes
would be a significant contribution to supply, and I place substantial positive
weight on the proposed housing.
77. The s106 secures that 35% of the dwellings would be affordable, at a ratio of
60% social rented and 40% intermediate. The proposal therefore meets the
requirements of Policy CP6 of the CS, in this regard. Policy H3 of the emerging
LP sets a target of 40% of the total number of proposed dwellings be
affordable. However, this is an emerging policy that will be the subject of
further consultation. The evidence base informing the policy is more up-to-date
than the evidence base informing the adopted policy. However, it has yet to be
fully tested at an Examination-in-Public and cannot be relied upon fully. No
compelling reason has been provided that the proposal needs to provide more
than the adopted policy requirements in this regard. I therefore place
substantial positive weight on the proposed affordable housing provision.
78. Up to eight plots for self-build housing are proposed, as secured through the
s106. A need for 518 self-build units has been identified and is agreed between
the Council and the appellant. The provision of self-build units to meet demand
is encouraged at Paragraph 62 of the Framework. However, the Council do not
have a forensic assessment of how this need is being met, pending further
research, and convincing evidence of the completion of self-build units has not
been provided. However, only eight units are proposed. I therefore place
significant positive weight on the proposed self-build housing provision.
79. The description of development includes reference to a C2/C3 care home. A
condition could secure this provision, including a restriction on the age of
occupants and the number of units to be provided. The appellant has indicated
their willingness to accept such a condition. Subject to this condition, the
provision of such specialist accommodation would provide useful
accommodation in its own right and would also free-up some existing normal
housing by allowing existing standard class C3 accommodation to be vacated
and placed back into the market. The provision of elderly people’s housing to
meet demand is encouraged at Paragraph 62 of the Framework. I place
significant positive weight on this provision.
80. The proposal includes the new road, which is a benefit that goes beyond
mitigating its own traffic generation. However, development is not currently
blocked by the traffic congestion issues at the cross-roads. Since 2017, 153
dwellings have been consented in Hawkhurst. Further dwellings are currently
being considered through applications and appeals with no highways reason for
refusal. Alternative mitigation measures to a new road could also unlock further
development potential in the area, as shown by the Turnden case4 where
improvements to signals at the cross-roads have justified the traffic
implications of the 165 proposed new homes. However, it is clear that
development of the scale proposed by the appeal, or similar, would not be
possible in this area without substantial mitigation, such as the new road
detailed in the appeal proposals. The improvements to traffic congestion over
and above the traffic generated by the proposals would also inevitably unlock
development potential on other sites in the area at some point, even if that
stage has not yet been reached. I therefore place significant positive weight on
the proposed traffic congestion benefits from the new road and associated
works.
81. Permitting the proposal would provide a boost to the local economy, both in the
short-term through construction, and in the long-term through the jobs to be
created at the health centre and care home, and also the expenditure by future
residents in the local economy. There would be some theoretical loss of
employment opportunities from the golf club, if it were to re-open, and also
actual loss of existing employment from the other community and business
interests which currently operate on the site such the squash courts and the
market that is held in the car park. However, there would be an overall benefit
to the local economy due to the scale of the proposal. I place moderate positive
weight on this.
b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or
meeting the need for it in some other way
82. The Borough is heavily constrained by the AONB (70% of the Borough) and to
a lesser extent by the Green Belt (5% in addition to the AONB land). The
Council acknowledge that some land within the AONB will need to come
forward to meet its housing need. It has allocated 82 ha of such land in its
emerging LP.
4 Land Adjacent To Turnden, Hartley Road, Cranbrook, Kent TN17 3QX; Ref 20/00815/FULL
83. I acknowledge the difficulties placed on the Borough through the AONB and
Green Belt designations. However, the Borough does also include significant
areas that are not so constrained and may be more suitable for development,
such as in and around Tunbridge Wells. The remaining 25% of the Borough
equates to thousands of hectares most of which is more suitable for large scale
development, whether allocated or not, as well as the 82 ha of land identified
in the AONB for smaller scale, but still cumulatively substantial, development.
84. I am satisfied that development of the scale proposed in Hawkhurst would not
be possible without improvements to traffic congestion at the cross-roads.
Although amendments could be made to the cross-roads themselves, these
would not improve traffic congestion to the extent that development of the
scale proposed would be acceptable in traffic terms. There are no alternatives
before me to the new road proposed as part of the proposed development.
However, the proposal is for large scale development that would harm the
AONB. The correct forum for establishing the need for such development is
through a comprehensive review of the entire Borough, not just Hawkhurst, as
is being carried out as part of the emerging LP. Development of the scale
proposed, and which would harm, the AONB should not be granted permission
without such an exhaustive and comprehensive review process.
85. For example, the comprehensive review process may conclude that only
smaller scale development is required in and around Hawkhurst as part of the
Borough’s overall strategy for meeting its housing requirements. As it stands,
this is precisely the approach adopted by the Council and the appeal site is not
allocated for housing in the emerging LP, save for a small part of it where it
overlaps with the Springfield Nurseries site. This document has limited weight
at this time, but it still provides an important outline of the Council’s emerging
approach to allocating sites in the AONB.
86. Overall, in the absence of a fully comprehensive or detailed Borough-wide
assessment to justify departing either from this emerging site allocation
position, or simply to justify the identified harm to the AONB from the proposal,
it has not been demonstrated that there are not suitable alternatives to
meeting the Council’s identified housing requirement.
c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and
recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be
moderated
87. As established above, there would be harm to the AONB, both through harm to
the character and appearance of the appeal site, and also through harm to
some of the key characteristics of the AONB.
88. At the detailed design stage, landscaping and the treatment of boundaries
could partially mitigate the harm, and this could be secured by condition and
through the reserved matters stages. There would also be an improvement
over time, if managed correctly, to the proposed landscaping as the trees and
hedgerows matured. However, this could not overcome the fundamental harms
caused by the large scale proposed development and extensive engineering
works required for the provision of 374 homes and a new road, amongst other
works.
89. The harm from the ‘northern parcel’ would be greater than that from the
‘southern parcel’. I have given consideration to whether a split decision could
be issued, with only the ‘southern parcel’ and the new road to be approved.
However, there would still be harm from the ‘southern parcel’ works,
particularly from the proposed road. In addition, both parcels of land are
required to be developed to cross-fund the construction of the new road, and a
permission solely for the ‘southern parcel’ would not be viable.
Overall
90. I recognise that the identified benefits in relation to housing matters, both
directly from the proposed housing and in terms of the benefits from the new
road, would clearly be in the public interest. However, the reality is that the
circumstances of the housing shortfall, including challenges around providing
for affordable housing, self-build, custom-build, and care home housing, are
not unusual. The other benefits identified are commonplace and do not add
significantly to the balancing. Overall, my view is that these considerations do
not together present exceptional circumstances. I conclude that when they are
balanced against the harm to the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB
that I have identified, a development of this scale in this location would not be
in the public interest. Consequently, the proposal does not comply with
Paragraph 177 of the Framework.
PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
91. The starting point for reaching a conclusion on the provisions of Paragraphs
176 and 177 of the Framework is that great weight should be given to
conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of an AONB, which
has the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. As such, the
scale and extent of development within these areas should be limited, and
planning permission should be refused for major development other than in
exceptional circumstances.
92. There would be benefits from the proposal. These include: substantial benefits
from the housing and affordable housing; significant benefits from the
proposed self-build housing, care home, and improvements to traffic
congestion over and above mitigation at the cross-roads from the new road;
moderate benefits to the local economy, and from the proposed publicly
accessible areas of open space which would benefit the wider community as
well as the new residents; and, limited benefits from the overall improvement
to air quality, the upgrade to the nearby footpath WC172 which would benefit
the wider community as well as the new residents, and from the biodiversity
net gain.
93. Set against that, not only have I found harm to the character and appearance
of the area generally but more significantly, I have found that the development
would fail to preserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the
AONB. Whilst I have recognised the efforts to moderate these impacts through
layout and green infrastructure, this would not significantly address the effects
of the degree of physical and visual intrusion that I have identified.
94. The Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. As a
consequence, the policies most important to my determination of the appeal
are out of date. However, Paragraph 11di) of the Framework sets out that
where the application of policies within the Framework that protect areas of
particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the development, then
the so called ‘tilted balance’ in favour of granting planning permission, which
would otherwise have been engaged, does not apply. Therefore, in light of
Footnote 7, given my conclusion in respect of the AONB, this case falls to be
determined on the ordinary unweighted planning balance, to which I now turn.
95. The benefits in this case, substantial though they are, are not sufficient in this
instance to outweigh the great weight to be afforded to the harm to the AONB,
and the other harms set out above.
96. I therefore conclude, on balance, that the appeal be dismissed.
O S Woodwards
INSPECTOR
ANNEX A: APPEARANCES
For the Local Planning Authority:
Emalline Lambert, of Counsel. She called:
Kevin Hope MRTPI Principal Planner, Tunbridge Wells Borough
Council
David Scully CMLI Landscape and Biodiversity Officer, Tunbridge
Wells Borough Council
Tanya Kirk CMLI Director, Hankinson Duckett Associates
Nick Ireland Director, Iceni Projects
Joanna Kirk Director, Kairus Ltd
For the Appellant:
Hashi Mohammed, of Counsel. He called:
Paul Lulham CMILT Director, DHA
Jonathan Buckwell MRTPI PIEMA Director, DHA
Eleanor Trenfield CMLI Director, ETLA
Helen Lucking MIEEM BES Director, Corylus Ecology
David Bedford MRTPI Director, DHA
For the Hawkhurst Parish Council and The Campaign to Protect Hawkhurst
Village:
Philip Robson, of Counsel. He called:
Clare Escombe Chairman, Hawkhurst Parish Council
Mike Hibbert Managing Director, TTHC
Interested Parties:
Peter Brudenall Local resident
John Hunt Local resident
Simon Spanswick Local resident
ANNEX B: DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING AND AFTER THE INQUIRY
ID1 HDA3 Overlay Referencing Tree Survey Data Drawing, Ref 0139-L022
Rev 2
ID2 Trees To Be Removed As a Result of the Relief Road Schedule
ID3 Photograph Schedule
ID4 Highways England Email, dated 19 August 2021
ID5 Statement by Peter Brudenell
ID6 Presentation Slides by Peter Brudenell
ID7 Planning Committee Report for Turnden Planning Application Ref
20/00815/FUL, dated 27 January 2021
ID8 Mr Hunt Various Submissions
ID9 Highways England Email, dated 23 September 2019
ID10 Highways England Email, dated 22 July 2020
ID11 Rother District Council Objection, dated 8 January 2021
ID12 Essex County Council Objection, dated 13 August 2020
ID13 Statement of Common Ground between Kent County Council and Vectos,
Turnden Phase 2
ID14 ES Volume 2, Appendix 4.1 Transport Assessment by DHA, Turnden
Phase 2
ID15 Hansard Quote from the Minister of Housing Regarding the Housing
Delivery Test, dated 6 September 2021
ID16 Email Regarding Delivery Timescales for The Gas Works Site, from
Richard Hopkinson Architects, dated 26 August 2021
ID17 Email Regarding Application Timescales for the Former Plant & Tool Hire
Site, from Ridge, dated 31 August 2021
ID18 Landscape Betterment Plan by LDA Design Ref 6958_SK_017E, Turnden
Phase 2
ID19 TWBC Infrastructure Delivery Plan, dated March 2021
ID20 Simon Spanswick Speaking Notes
ID21 Final Biodiversity Position Statement, dated 13 September 2021
ID22 Highways Definition Plan, by Kent County Council
ID23 Visibility Splay Plan
ID24 Site Assessment Sheets for Hawkhurst Parish, Strategic Housing and
Economic Land Availability Assessment – Regulation 18 Consultation,
dated July 2019
ID25 Peter Brudenell Email, dated 17 September 2021
ID26 ES Volume 2, Appendix 2.1 Development Specification, dated April 2020