Case Reference: 3289034

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held 21-23 June, 27-30 June, 1 July and 15 July 2022
Site visits made on 27 June and 1 July
by Mike Worden BA (Hons) DipTP MTRPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 2 September 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/M2270/W/21/3289034
Land at Sandown Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, TN2 4RT, 561147, 141082
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council.
• The application Ref 20/01506/OUT, dated 2 June 2020, was refused by notice dated 17
June 2021.
• The development proposed is outline application (Access not reserved) - Development
of a care community within Use Class C2 of up to 108 units of accommodation for older
persons in need of personal and nursing care; associated communal facilities and
services to meet residents' day to day needs and associated facilities for staff; car
parking for residents, visitors and staff of the community; associated landscaping and
outdoor amenity areas; and associated infrastructure.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The application was made in outline with all matters reserved apart from
access. I have considered the appeal on this basis.
3. The Inquiry was held virtually in the first week and in person in the second
week. The final day was held virtually.
4. The Friends of Sandown Park were given Rule 6 status and took part in some of
the Inquiry sessions.
5. I undertook a visit of the appeal site and its surrounding area on 27 June. I
followed an itinerary agreed by all three main parties and was accompanied by
their representatives. The site visit included Robingate Wood, Woodsgate
Corner, Pembury Road and Pembury Grange. I made an unaccompanied visit to
the junction of Blackhurst Lane/Sandown Park/Pembury Road during the
morning peak hour on 1 July, at the request of the Rule 6 party. During the
Inquiry I also visited the former cinema site in the town centre unaccompanied.
6. Following the close of the Inquiry, the Council provided an update on the status
of the planning application for the cinema site and the modification order for
the track through the site. I have had regard to this and the comments made
in response by the appellant in my decision.
Main Issues
7. The main issues are:
• The extent to which the proposal is consistent with the National Planning
Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies relating to
the Green Belt.
• The effect of the proposed development on the character and
appearance of the surrounding area with particular regard to the setting
of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
• The effect of the proposed development on the special interest of nearby
heritage assets with particular regard to the Royal Tunbridge Wells
Conservation Area and the setting of Pembury Grange
• The effect of the proposed development on existing trees and the
adjacent Ancient Woodland
• Other considerations to be weighed in the planning balance including the
housing land supply position and the need for specialist residential
accommodation
• Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm
including effect on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of
including land within it, would be clearly outweighed by other
considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances
necessary to justify the proposal.
Reasons
Green Belt
8. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes it clear that
inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and
should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. The parties
agree that the proposal is inappropriate development.
9. The Framework also states that substantial weight should be given to any harm
to the Green Belt and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the
potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other
harm arising from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
10. Paragraph 137 of the Framework states that the essential characteristics of
Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The proposal is for a
permanent form of development. There is agreement between the parties that
the proposal would harm openness, but they differ on the nature and level of
that harm.
11. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides advice on the role of Green Belts in
the planning system. With regard to openness, it sets out1 that three factors,
but not limited to those three, can be taken into account when assessing
openness. These are the spatial and visual aspects of openness, the duration of
1 PPG ID: 64-001-20190722
the development and the degree of activity likely to be generated, such as
traffic generation.
12. Core Policy 2 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy Development Plan
Document 2010 (the Core Strategy) sets out general principles relating to the
Green Belt, some of which are not fully consistent with the Framework.
However, the policy also states that new development should accord with
national planning provisions and in that sense, that part is by definition fully
consistent with the Framework and therefore I afford it significant weight.
13. Policy MGB1 of the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan 2006 (the Local Plan) sets out
some principles for assessing development in the Green Belt. Parts of it are
inconsistent with the Framework, but other parts such as its references to
openness are not. Unlike Core Policy 2 it does not make reference to national
policy, and I consider it should be afforded limited weight.
14. The appeal site is a greenfield site. It contains no built development other than
the small WW2 pill box in the tree belt close to Pembury Grange. The site has
the appearance of two open fields, mostly bounded by trees and separated by
a tree lined track, known as The Avenue. The appeal site lies between the edge
of the Sandown Park estate and the A21. The northern boundary is defined by
Blackhurst Lane. The southern boundary is less well defined but partly follows a
tree line and is partly open. The Sandown Park development is well screened
from the site by a substantial tree belt and the only built development visible
close by is the Hamptons, the lodge building to Pembury Grange. This lies just
outside of the site. Pembury Grange is also visible through the trees from part
of the site.
15. The proposal would introduce around 8000 m2 of residential accommodation,
and around 2485m2 of communal facilities along with around 142 car parking
spaces and internal roads. Whilst the submitted illustrative plan is just that,
whatever the detailed design of the proposal will be, it inevitably would
introduce significant and permanent built development into an area where
there is no built development at present. This would almost certainly also be of
a higher density than the adjoining Sandown Park development.
16. The proposal would fill part of the gap between the edge of the built
development of the town and the A21. Although only around 23% of the parcel
TW5 as defined in the Council’s Green Belt Study2, it would nevertheless be a
significant part of it.
17. This level and nature of development would have a significant impact on the
spatial aspect of openness.
18. The parties disagree on the extent of the visual impact of openness.
19. I will come onto consider the impact on character and appearance of the area
later. Given the vegetation around the appeal site and its location, I consider
that the proposed development would not have a high visual impact on
openness too far outside of the appeal site, at least from public viewpoints.
From within the site, and from the public viewpoints at the end of Sandown
Park and by the Hamptons and on parts of Blackhurst Lane adjacent to appeal
site, there would be a strong adverse impact of visual aspects of openness.
There would clearly be built form where there is none presently and this would
2 CD05.22 Green Belt Study Stage 2 LUC 2017
be prominent to those who would walk past the site, but particularly those who
would walk through the site via The Avenue, irrespective of season.
20. Having regard to the PPG, there would also be an adverse impact on openness
as a result of the permanent nature of the proposal and due to the expected
levels of activity on the site. Although traffic generation would be relatively low,
there would still be activity on the site, where currently there is almost none.
21. The limiting of the visual aspects of openness to the site, around the access
points and immediate areas nearby does not diminish the harm to openness
with regard to the internal visual impacts and the spatial aspects. The two
dimensions of openness should not be netted off. Overall, I consider that the
proposal would have a significant harmful impact on openness.
22. Paragraph 138 of the Framework sets out the five purposes of Green Belts. Of
most relevance to the proposal are purposes a) b) and c). The parties agree
that there would be harm to these purposes. Purpose d) is less relevant and
purpose e) is not relevant.
23. In relation to the first purpose, to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-
up areas, the proposal would result in an expansion of the built form of the
town outwards towards the A21. The appeal site currently checks this
expansion and there is a well-defined and well-treed eastern boundary with the
Sandown Park estate.
24. The proposal would expand the urban area outwards to the east. Whilst the
proposal would be well planned and there is no dispute over quality or design
and indeed that is not before me in relation to this outline stage, it would
nevertheless lead to sprawl. The appeal site serves a valuable role in meeting
this purpose and there would be harm caused as a result of the proposal.
25. The second purpose relates to preventing neighbouring towns from merging
into one another. The two towns which are relevant are Tunbridge Wells and
Pembury. The latter settlement is not a town, but the parties accept that for
the purposes of Green Belt assessment it can be treated as such. The
settlement of Pembury is focussed further to the south-west, across the A21.
There is a significant part of parcel TW5 which would remain should the appeal
site be developed, and I consider that would be sufficient to form a buffer,
along with the A21, to act to prevent the merging of Tunbridge Wells and
Pembury at that point. Pembury extends northwards along Tonbridge Road and
there is a hotel, a garden centre, a permission for built development at
Owlsnest, and the Tunbridge Wells Hospital. These are not within any defined
settlement boundary of Pembury.
26. I consider that as a result of the buffers, gaps and the A21 corridor, and the
offsetting of the appeal site in relation to the core settlement of Pembury, the
harm to this purpose would be more limited but nonetheless there would still
be harm.
27. The third purpose is to assist the countryside from encroachment. The
appellant considers the appeal site to be urban fringe land with some
characteristics of countryside as it is in agricultural use. The A21 is to the east
of the site but I do not consider that this alone would mean that the appeal
site, the land between Sandown Park and the A21, should be seen as urban
fringe. I consider that the general appearance of the appeal site is of
countryside whereas I would normally expect urban fringe land to have
different characteristics. For example, looking back towards the town from the
appeal site, there are few signs of urbanising influences. I consider that the
proposed development represents encroachment into the countryside and that
harm to this purpose would result.
28. The fourth purpose relates to preserving the setting and special character of
historic towns. Tunbridge Wells can be considered as an historic town.
However, the appeal site is some distance from the historic core of the town
and there are more recent developments between the historic core and the
appeal site. I consider the appeal site to make a relatively weak contribution to
this purpose and I see very limited harm as a result of the proposal.
29. Overall, I consider that the proposed development would have a significant
impact on openness. In addition, there would be other Green Belt harm due to
the contribution of the appeal site to most of the of the purposes of including
land within the Green Belt and harm to them which would result. I consider
that these harms add to the significant harm to openness to which substantial
weight would need to be given in accordance with paragraph 148 of the
Framework.
Character and appearance
30. The appeal site has no landscape designation. It lies between the edge of the
built-up area and the A21 to the east. To the south of the appeal site, fields run
down towards a brook and then rise again to the Pembury Road. The area is
well wooded with groups of trees and woodland forming an attractive area of
land. The woodland which sits alongside the A21 is well established. Part of it
next to the appeal site is designated as Ancient Woodland.
31. To the north of the appeal site lies Blackhurst Lane which becomes a dead end
by the Hamptons. It has the appearance of a narrow country lane until the
houses are reached further to the west. On the other side of Blackhurst Lane is
Robingate Wood, a private woodland which has some permitted access on an
informal basis. It lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(the AONB), the southern boundary of which locally, is Blackhurst Lane. In
accordance with paragraph 176 of the Framework, great weight should be
given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National
Parks, the Broads and AONB.
32. The Avenue runs through the site from the end of Sandown Park to meet
Blackhurst Lane by the Hamptons. The Avenue is currently an unmade path
with trees either side. It has the appearance of an attractive country footpath.
The two fields which form the bulk of the appeal site and lie either side of the
track, have the appearance of countryside.
33. The track is well used as I could see from my site visit. It links to Robingate
Wood, Blackhurst Lane and over the A21 via a footbridge and from my
observations people were using these links on their walks. There is quite a
distinct and sudden change in character when walking along Sandown Park
with its suburban feel to then encountering open countryside at the western
end of the track. This is an essential part of its character.
34. There is no evidence that the route of the track would be closed as part of the
proposal and it is not within the ownership of the appellant. It is currently the
subject of a process to make it a defined footpath although the appellant has
stated that it will object to the draft order. Nevertheless, it is shown on the
illustrative masterplan submitted with the application and if the development
were to be allowed, a suggested condition agreed by all three main parties
could have been imposed to ensure continued public access.
35. The proposals would introduce built form of up to 108 residential units and
supporting infrastructure including roads on to the site. Although the proposals
would incorporate a detailed landscaping scheme which would be designed to
integrate the development into its context over time, I consider that the
proposed development would have a major adverse effect on the character and
appearance of the immediate area, particularly as experienced by users of the
track. It is not a designated rural lane as set out in the Council’s Rural Lanes
Supplementary Planning Guidance 1998. Nonetheless. I am sure that its
countryside character is appreciated by the many people who walk along it.
36. The boundary of the appeal site to Blackhurst Lane is reasonably well wooded.
In summer the trees would screen most of the development although the
creation of the emergency access point would open up views of the site which
do not exist currently. In winter the impact would be greater and be significant.
It would have an adverse impact on the countryside lane character of this part
of Blackhurst Lane.
37. Robingate Wood lies in the AONB. It is not disputed that the appeal site forms
part of the setting of the AONB at this point. The AONB extends northwards
from Blackhurst Lane through the wood and eastwards across the A21 to
include areas of woodland north of Pembury. Robingate Wood is reasonably
dense in character, but this would be less so in winter, and the proposed
development would be likely to be visible and detract from the visual character
of the AONB at this point. The proposed development would border the AONB
on Blackhurst Lane and be harmful to the setting of the AONB. I consider that
the adverse impact of the proposal on this part of the AONB would be
moderate.
38. From the footbridge over the A21 I consider that the impact of the proposed
development would be minor given the existing vegetation and the
embankment. I consider that impact from the A21 itself would be negligible
and in any case since there is no footpath alongside the highway, it would only
really be seen by occupants of vehicles passing along this road to which the
national speed limit applies.
39. I consider that the views of the proposed development from the A264 bridge
over the A21 would be very limited and would mostly be of glimpses in the
distance, even in winter. I consider there would be a negligible adverse impact
especially given the presence of significant highway carriageway, infrastructure
and vehicular activity at this point.
40. The A264 Pembury Road is a designated Important Landscape Corridor within
the Local Plan. The appeal site lies some distance from Pembury Road and the
parties are in dispute about whether development would be visible from it. The
Council considers that traffic on Pembury Road is visible from the site in winter.
On my site visit in summer, it was not, and I do not have the benefit of being
able to undertake a site visit in winter. Pembury Road is well outside of the
agreed Zone of Visual Influence3 (ZVI) for summer.
41. The winter ZVI extends to cover a short section of Pembury Road, between
viewpoints 12 and 13. There are groups of trees and landform changes in the
distance between that section on Pembury Road and the appeal site. The
layout, heights and form of the proposed buildings and landscaping and
lighting, are not yet known as this is an outline application and these matters
would be within the control of the Council through the imposition of suitable
conditions if the appeal was allowed.
42. Based upon this, the undisputed GPS verified wire diagrams4 submitted by the
appellant and my observations from the site visit, I consider that if the
proposed development would be visible from Pembury Road, it would only be in
winter and would be of part glimpses. I consider that a cyclist or car driver
travelling along the road or cycle path would not really notice such views and
the pedestrian might only so if looking out towards the appeal site. I therefore
consider that there would be no conflict with Policy ENV23 of the Local Plan
which seeks to protect Important Landscape Approaches from harm.
43. In the light of my conclusions on the impact of the proposal from Pembury
Road, I do not consider that there would be any negative impact on the
character and appearance of that part of the AONB south of Pembury Road
including the area around Oakley School and the Coach House.
44. The appellant invites me to consider the overall landscape character of the area
not just the immediate impact. I have found generally no more than minor
adverse impact away from the environs of site and moderate harm to the
AONB. However, this does not net off or reduce the major adverse impact
within the site itself and some of its immediate vicinity. In reaching this view I
have had regard to the Landscape Institute’s Technical Guidance Note on
Assessing Landscape Value5 including references to the Inspector’s views in the
appeal case6 at Coggleshall but unlike her find that this appeal site does have
characteristics of value and importance and that in this case the interactions
between people and place (as in relation to track) are important in drawing
perceptions of landscape.
45. I consider that a landscaping scheme for the site could make a stronger
southern boundary to the appeal site than is present now, but this would not
mitigate or reduce any harm to Green Belt that I have found.
46. Overall, I consider that there would be significant harm to the character and
appearance of the area as a result. This would be contrary to Policy EN25 (1) of
the Local Plan which requires development to have a minimal impact on the
landscape character of the locality; Core Policy 4 of the Core Strategy which
seeks to protect the Borough’s built and natural environments including its
urban and rural landscapes and the AONB; and Core Policy 9 of the Core
Strategy which seeks to ensure amongst other things, that development in
Royal Tunbridge Wells conserves and enhances the landscape including the
AONB. I find that each of these policies are broadly consistent with the
3 CD10.01 Statement of Common Ground May 2022 - Appendix
4 CD07 11.02.03 Appendix to Mark Gibbins Proof of Evidence
5 CD 05.26 The Landscape Institute technical guidance note on assessing landscape value
6 APP/Z1510/W/16/3160474
Framework in their relevance to this proposal and should be afforded significant
weight.
47. I have had regard to the purpose of the High Weald AONB under Section 85 of
the Countryside and Rights of Way Act in coming to this view.
48. Although it is listed on the decision notice, I do not find that the proposal would
be contrary to Policy EN1 of the Local Plan which sets out general development
criteria and would be more relevant to the consideration of a detailed, rather
than outline, proposal.
Heritage
49. The parties agree that there would be no harm to the significance of the non-
designated asset the WW2 pill box, and after visiting the feature, I agree.
50. The Royal Tunbridge Wells Conservation Area (the Conservation Area) lies
along the Pembury Road corridor and into the town centre. It has an arcadian
character and its significance is strongly related to its main entrance route to
Tunbridge Wells. The appeal site lies some distance outside of the Conservation
Area but is within its setting. I have already found that views of the proposed
development from Pembury Road would tend to be of glimpses and these
would be limited from a short stretch and be seasonal. I consider that such
limited glimpses would not represent a visual change to the appreciation of the
Conservation Area. For these reasons, I consider that there would be no harm
to the significance of the Conservation Area.
51. The appeal site is part of the setting of Pembury Grange. The two main parties
agree that there would be less than substantial harm to the significance of
Pembury Grange as a result of the proposal. They differ on the extent of that
harm.
52. Pembury Grange dates from around 1869 and was built as a mansion within
the Calverley Estate. It has since been converted into individual residences
and apartments. There have been some new residential properties built on its
sides away from the appeal site. Many of the prominent rooms of Pembury
Grange face in the direction of the appeal site. The appeal site would have
formed part of the parkland which Pembury Grange would have, and still does,
overlook.
53. Whilst I have not been able to visit the site in winter, photographs7 taken in
winter and submitted by the Council clearly show Pembury Grange visible
through the trees from the appeal site. These are supported by Mr Hood’s
photographs8 taken from within Pembury Grange looking towards the appeal
site.
54. I have already found that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the
character and appearance of the Avenue. It would permanently sever the open
link and spatial association between the lodge (the Hamptons) and Pembury
Grange and effectively break the lodge-avenue-house sequence which is the
historical character of approach. This would be harmful to the setting of
Pembury Grange.
7 CD 08.13 Proof of Evidence of Debbie Salter Figure 2
8 CD 09.11 Proof of Evidence of Charles Hood Appendix 10
55. Whilst suburbanisation has occurred on the Sandown Park side of Pembury
Grange, it has not on the appeal site side. I also consider that the proposed
development would reduce the opportunities to understand and appreciate the
historic extent of the Pembury Grange estate.
56. For the reasons set out above I consider that the proposed development would
lead to harm at the higher end of less than substantial harm. Paragraph 199 of
the Framework states that great weight should be attached to asset’s
conservation.
57. The proposal would be contrary to Core Policies 4 and 9 of the Core Strategy. It
would also be contrary to criterion 5 of Core Policy 14 which seeks relates to
development in the villages and the rural areas including the conservation of
designated buildings of historic or environmental importance. Although not in a
village, the appeal site lies in the countryside and outside of the limits of built
development. The Policy is generally consistent with the Framework and affords
significant weight.
58. Paragraph 202 of the Framework states that proposed development which
would lead to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset should
be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where
appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. I will turn to this when I come on
to this when I consider the planning balance.
Trees
59. During the Inquiry the parties reached agreement that there would be no harm
to the significance of the Ancient Woodland between the appeal site and the
A21 if an agreed condition was imposed which would define a buffer and its
appropriate protection and management. I agree with the parties on this.
60. The woodland in the western part of the appeal site is covered by a TPO and
this includes the trees that run alongside the Avenue. Two horse chestnut trees
on the track, T4 and T5, are proposed to remain but the Council is concerned
that short- and long-term pressure on these trees may lead to their removal or
loss. They are valuable trees which contribute to the character of the Avenue.
61. The reason for refusal relating to trees stated that insufficient information had
been provided to assess the impact of the proposed development on those
trees which make a positive contribution to the visual amenity of the locality.
At the round table session on trees, the wording and effectiveness of an
appropriate condition relating to the submission of more detailed information
was discussed.
62. I consider that if the appeal were to be allowed, such a condition would give
the Council sufficient control to protect the two trees during the construction
and operational phases. I therefore consider that the proposal would not lead
to any harm in respect of trees and would accord with Policies EN1 and EN13 of
the Local Plan. Policy EN1 sets out general development criteria and Policy ENV
13 seeks to avoid harm to protected trees. Both policies are broadly consistent
with the Framework.
63. I therefore weigh no harm to trees into the planning balance.
Other Matters
Highways
64. The Council did not put forward any reason for refusal on the grounds of
highway safety or the operation of the highway network.
65. Local residents have expressed deep held concerns about the impact of the
proposal on the highway network, especially at peak times. Skinners Kent
Academy also presented evidence against the proposal. However, the expected
trip generation rates from the proposed development are very low, amounting
to around 19 additional vehicle movements on the morning peak and 22 in the
afternoon peak.
66. I observed queuing traffic at the Sandown Park/Blackhurst Lane/Pembury Lane
junction during the term time weekday morning peak. My observations tally
with the submitted statistical evidence. The traffic queued but moved along
Sandown Park and through the junctions. At no point in the morning peak visit
did the queue on Sandown Park reach beyond Thornfield Gardens. Morning
peak hour traffic movements are very influenced by vehicles dropping off pupils
at the Skinners Kent Academy. During the afternoon site visit outside of peak
time, the parties could walk along the Sandown Park carriageway such was the
lack of vehicular traffic.
67. Clearly the current peak time congestion and fears of potential highway safety
issues is a concern for local people, but the evidence does not indicate that
there is a record of accidents. I do not consider that proposed development
would cause any harm to highway safety or lead to an unacceptable impact on
the highway network.
68. I have placed significant weight on the position of the highway authority who
raise no objection. The proposal would accord with Paragraph 111 of the
Framework which states that development should only be refused on highway
grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the
residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. As a result,
I do not weigh any harm on highways grounds into the planning balance.
Infrastructure
69. The main parties submitted an executed Section 106 agreement. I am satisfied
that should the appeal have been allowed, the planning obligations set out
would have provided appropriate mechanisms for mitigating the impact of the
proposal on infrastructure. Consequently, there is no harm in relation to
infrastructure to weigh into the planning balance. Since I am dismissing the
appeal, I do not need to consider the Section 106 further.
Renewable Energy
70. One of the reasons for refusal was the absence of sufficient information
submitted to meet the Council’s Renewable Energy Supplementary Planning
Document. The parties agreed that this matter could be dealt with by condition
and since I am dismissing the appeal, I do not need to consider it further.
71. Other considerations
Need
72. Paragraph 61 of the Framework requires that the size, type and tenure of
housing needs for different groups in the community including older people
should be assessed and reflected in planning policies. The glossary defines
older people as people over or approaching retirement age.
73. There are three principal areas of need which are in dispute between the
parties. These are: population projections; prevalence rates to be applied to
projections and the need figures which result; and the supply position.
Projections
74. There is no standard method for assessing extra care need as there is for
general housing need. Both parties have used the 2018 based ONS population
projections and there is no significant difference between them on this. The
2014 projections that were used in the Tunbridge Wells Submission Local Plan
2021 (the Submission Local Plan) evidence only produced a difference of 11
units over the plan period.
75. The Planning Practice Guidance for Older and Disabled People (PPG older
people) makes reference to online tool kits. It recognises that the need to
provide housing for older people is critical and the proportion of older people in
the population is increasing. It also states that the health and lifestyles of older
people will differ generally, as will their housing needs which can range from
accessible and adaptable general needs housing to specialist housing with high
levels of care and support.
Prevalence rates and need figures
76. There is no defined guidance on the use of prevalence rates. The Council
argues that a rate of 45/1000 is appropriate and is consistent with evidence
supporting its Submission Local Plan and with some appeal decisions9. It is also
consistent with the HPC needs assessment report10 for this proposal submitted
with the application.
77. The appellant considers that a prevalence rate of 40/1000 should apply to the
over 75 age group. The appellant states that this is in line with recent appeal
decisions11. It has adopted the Housing in Later Life (HiLL) toolkit. The
appellant’s position is that analysis of need should include those between 65
and 74 years of age and that this would add a further 25/1000 to the
prevalence rate.
78. There was some discussion at the Inquiry about evidence presented to the
Local Plan Examination on prevalence rates, but this is generally not before me
and I can only rely upon evidence presented in this Inquiry. My Inspector
colleagues may have taken different positions to each other in the appeal cases
presented to me. Some of the evidence that they were presented with was
unchallenged and in some cases evidence was not given by an expert witness,
9 CD6.16 APP/K3605/W/20/3263347 Homebase Elmbridge and CD 6.12 APP/G2245/W/21/3271595 Edenbridge
Sevenoaks
10 CD02/05 HPC Needs Assessment Sandown Park February 2020 p14
11 CD6/11 APP/W0530/W/21/3280395 Stapleford and CD 6.14 APP/F0114/W/21/3268794 Bath
both of which are not the case here. The Inspector in the Homebase appeal12 in
Walton on Thames still used a prevalence figure of 45/1000, recognising that
the need figures for the 65-74 age group were uncertain. In the Edenbridge
decision13 the Inspector considered that the overall need figure should be
adjusted to take account of this cohort but could not quantify it and stated that
she could not reach a definitive conclusion on overall need.
79. The Amber Valley report submitted by the appellant sets out14 a number of
different prevalence rates used different models. One of those, the Housing LIN
toolkit recognises that working out what provision should be is a matter for
local determination15. Both parties agree on a 40/1000 - 45/1000 range for the
over 75 age group should be the starting point but differ on how that figure
should be developed taking account of other need evidence.
80. Taking into account that the current figure in the borough is around 16/1000
for the over 75 year age group and that the figure proposed by the Council is
around three times that level; the uncertainties as to how the 65-74 age group
should be accounted for; the better than average health profiles in the
borough; and the different approaches used in cases presented to me, I
consider that a prevalence figure of 45/1000 is not an inappropriate or
unreasonable rate to use in this case.
81. I also consider that the local authority boundary catchment approach put
forward by the Council is appropriate. It accords with work being undertaken to
support the Submission Local Plan and means that the impact of existing and
emerging planning policies on potential provision can more easily be
considered. I agree with the appellant that once selected, the local authority
boundary approach should be strictly adhered to, and that the Little Mount
Farm site in neighbouring Wealden District should not be brought into
consideration.
82. The appellant considers that the net need for private extra care would be 337
units in 2025 increasing to 408 units by 203816. The Council’s figures are set
out differently and are gross. Under the Council’s Scenario A approach17, the
gross need for market extra care housing would be around 173 in 2026 and
280 in 2038. This is also set out in the Council’s Housing Needs Topic Paper
(the HNTP) prepared for the Submission Local Plan which refers to the use of
the SHOP@ model projections.
83. The HNTP also refers to modelling by Kent County Council but those figures
have to be adjusted as a result of errors. The Kent County Council figures are
lower than those which the Council refer to. In the Council’s Scenario B18
approach based on an adjusted prevalence rate of 40/1000 cross tenure, the
figures for market extra care would be 195 by 2026 and 363 by 2038.
12 CD6.16 APP/K3605/W/20/3263347 Homebase Elmbridge
13 CD 6.12 APP/G2245/W/21/3271595 Edenbridge Sevenoaks
14 CD 7.10.02 Table 10.11 in Amber Valley Icenci report in Appendix to Jessamy Venables PofE
15 CD 7.10.02 Page 42 of the Housing LIN tookit, in Appendix I to Jessamy Venables PofE
16 ID 14 Appellant’s closing submission paras 162 and 163 and paras 178 and 179
17 CD 08.10 Table 4.30 of Appendices of Nick Ireland Proof of Evidence
18 CD 08.10 Table 4.32 of Appendices of Nick Ireland Proof of Evidence
Supply
84. There is agreement that there are currently around 183 extra care units in the
borough. 121 of these units are private. There is agreement too on the pipeline
schemes at the Arriva Bus Depot which is under construction and will deliver 89
units and St Michaels which will deliver 72 units but which is not within the five
year supply as Listed Building Consent is required. All of these will be private
units. The appellant’s need figures are net of these.
85. Other sites which could contribute to supply are in dispute. These are the two
strategic sites at Paddock Wood and Tudeley Village and the Submission Local
Plan allocation (PE6) at Woodsgate Corner Pembury. In addition, the potential
contribution of the former Cinema Site in Tunbridge Wells town centre is in
dispute.
86. The Submission Local Plan policies for the strategic site allocations require at
least one sheltered scheme and one extra care scheme to be provided on each
site. There are unresolved objections to those allocations. The Council is in
active discussion with the site promoters for both sites. I have no reason to
doubt that the extra care element of both schemes would not be delivered post
the adoption of the Submission Local Plan should those sites be confirmed as
allocations, albeit that they would be outside of the five-year period and the
quantum is yet undefined.
87. The Submission Local Plan includes an allocation at Woodsgate Corner in
Pembury. It lies to the south east and across the A21 from the appeal site. It
lies in the AONB. It is allocated in the Submission Local Plan for either extra
care of up to 80 units or residential care of up 120 units, or a combination of
the two.
88. During the Submission Local Plan examination, Natural England raised concerns
about some sites, but the regulation 19 letter of June 202119 setting out these
concerns does not refer to the Woodsgate Corner site. The Council maintains
that Natural England do not see the proposal on this site being major
development in the AONB. I have no demonstrable evidence to indicate
otherwise.
89. The parties disagree on the likelihood of whether the Woodsgate Corner site
would come forward for extra care or for affordable care provision, and the
attractiveness of it for an extra care facility operator. It is unquestionable that
the site is not as visually as attractive as the appeal site but appears to be well
served by public transport and is adjacent to a major supermarket. I have no
evidence which would indicate that either use is more likely, and in any case if
the allocation is confirmed as proposed it would mean that it had been found
sound for an extra care facility following a local plan examination.
90. The Submission Local Plan examination is ongoing and the site or the policy
relating to it may not be confirmed. Nevertheless, the plan has some weight
given the stage that it has reached. I consider that the Woodsgate Corner site
should therefore be capable of being counted towards supply in the plan
period.
91. The cinema site is located in Tunbridge Wells town centre. It has a long and
complex history and has been vacant for some time. The site is cleared and is
19 ID9 – Letter from Natural England Regulation 19 – June 2021
boarded. It has been derelict for around 20 years and previous planning
approvals for redevelopment have not been delivered.
92. At the Inquiry the Council referred to a new planning application which was due
to be submitted and, as part of a mixed-use scheme, would propose around
165 units of extra care provision. This application has now been submitted.
93. Clearly the site presents challenges to bringing development to fruition,
including the underground railway tunnel. The site is prominent, and it is
possible that proposals for its redevelopment may be subject to local
opposition. Nevertheless, given the evidence of the Council’s planning witness
to the Inquiry, who has been involved in pre-application discussions, and the
commitment of the Council at senior level to bring forward the regeneration of
this high-profile site, I would expect that there would be likely to be workable
solutions to those challenges. The application may not of course receive
planning approval and the scheme does not fall within the definition of
deliverable as set out in the Framework. Nevertheless, I consider that there is
a reasonable prospect of the site being able to contribute to supply in the five-
to-ten-year period.
94. It is entirely possible that windfall sites may come forward and such sites have
contributed towards supply in the recent past. The Council states that over the
last five years windfall sites have delivered around 125 units for extra care.
Although the actual historic numbers are disputed, windfalls will have a part to
play in contributing to supply. Policy H6 of the Submission Local Plan which
seeks to secure housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people
supports suitable specialised schemes on appropriate windfall sites. In addition,
there are also other ways to meet need other than extra care and sets some of
those out including adaptations and securing older persons housing as part of
residential development proposals, as set out in Policy H6. I give some weight
to this Policy as it provides an indication of how the Council seek to support the
provision of older persons accommodation during the plan period.
Conclusion on need
95. It is clear that local authorities need to plan for the needs of older people and
that these needs are becoming more critical as the number of older people in
the population increases. Extra care provision is one form of accommodation
for older people. The private type of extra care provision, as proposed in this
scheme, is one type of accommodation which can help to meet need.
96. I consider that the Council’s position on prevalence rates is more convincing
than that put forward by the appellant, for the reasons I have set out above. I
therefore consider the consequential need figures advanced by the Council
more appropriate.
97. I consider that it is reasonable to assume that there is a prospect that provision
for extra care will be delivered on the two strategic sites, and on Woodsgate
Corner and the old cinema site. These would more likely deliver in the plan
period rather than in the next five years. It is also appropriate that some
contribution will be made from windfall sites. I will consider the need and
supply issue further in the planning balance.
Benefits
98. The scheme would deliver a number of benefits agreed by the parties. The
weight attached to each is in dispute.
99. The scheme would contribute towards meeting the borough’s unmet housing
land supply and the need for specialist accommodation. I attach significant
weight to these.
100. Given the nature of the proposed scheme, there is the potential that larger
homes in the borough which may be under occupied could be released for other
households. I attach moderate weight to this benefit.
101. There would be some benefits to having health and wellbeing facilities on
site but these would primarily be for residents of the scheme. Nonetheless,
these facilities on site would no doubt help with the mental and physical
wellbeing of those residents and would reduce the need to travel for them off
site. Although the Council produced a letter from the NHS which seemed to
suggest that the scheme would put added pressure on local health services, I
would expect it to be the reverse and I heard nothing in evidence to dissuade
me. I therefore attach significant weight to this benefit.
102. There would be some economic benefits in terms of the scheme creating
new jobs in both construction and in the operation of the facility. It is agreed
that the operational jobs connected to the development would be around 50-
60, some of which would be part time. The actual proposed FTE numbers were
not explained in evidence. Taking account of the prevailing levels of
unemployment levels in the area and having regard to my Inspector colleague’s
decision20 presented to me, I attach moderate weight to this benefit.
103. There would be a biodiversity gain which at around 21% would be in excess
of policy requirements and would be a significant benefit. I do not attach any
particular or additional weight to the proposed buffer between the development
and the Ancient Woodland. It does not add to the significant weight that I
attach to the biodiversity gain benefit.
Planning Balance
104. I have found that the proposal would lead to significant harm to the
openness of the Green Belt and to harms relating to the purposes of the Green
Belt. Paragraph 147 of the Framework states that inappropriate development
should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 148
requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt and that
very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green
Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm arising from the
proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
105. I have found that the proposal would have a major adverse impact on the
character and appearance of the area and moderate harm to the setting of the
AONB. Overall, there would be significant harm to the character and
appearance of the area. I have also found that there would be less than
substantial harm, but at its higher end, to the designated heritage asset of
Pembury Grange.
20 CD6.17 APP/M0655/W/20/3256101 Rixton, Warrington
106. The proposal would deliver a number of benefits. Some of these would
attract significant weight. The proposal would also deliver new housing in an
area where the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable
housing land. This has been the position for some time, although the extent of
the shortfall is not great. The potential of the proposal to help address this
shortfall would afford significant weight.
107. There is clearly a need, and an increasing need, for older persons
accommodation in Tunbridge Wells. The scheme would contribute towards
meeting that need through the provision of a quality single centre development
supported by health and other facilities. However, there is no commonly agreed
methodology and in this case the parties took different approaches to assess
need.
108. I consider that there is a reasonable expectation that the Submission Local
Plan allocated sites at Woodsgate Corner and the two strategic sites will deliver
extra care housing within the local plan period. I also consider that there is a
reasonable prospect that the cinema site will too. Whilst each site does not
have certainty in the planning process and have other challenges, I think that
they should not be discounted. Although not certain for the reasons I have set
out, these sites could total around 445 extra care units21. The proposed
allocations in the Submission Local Plan carry some weight given the stage it
has reached.
109. These sites may not deliver within the five-year period and do not accord
with the definition of deliverable as set out in the Framework. The planning
application which is the subject of this appeal was made in outline, but it was
not disputed that the site could be delivering units by 2025. I have weighed
that potential early delivery in the balance, but I have also taken into
consideration that other sites which I have referred to could be expected to
start to deliver in the five-to-ten-year period. Overall, I consider that the sites
identified, together with windfalls, would be likely to meet need for extra care
housing over the plan period. This reduces the weight I attach to the benefit of
the extra care housing which this proposal would provide.
110. Set against these benefits and considerations are the harms to the Green
Belt to which substantial weight has to be given and the other harms including
significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and less than
substantial harm to the designated heritage asset. The Framework requires
great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the scenic beauty in the
AONB and to the conservation of a designated heritage asset.
111. I find that the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the
totality of harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special
circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. Even if the
need and supply position was as the appellant argues, this would not outweigh
the harm of the proposal.
112. With reference to paragraph 202 of the Framework, I conclude that the less
than significant harm to the designated heritage asset of Pembury Grange is
not outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.
21 CD 8.10 Proof of Evidence of Nick Ireland from Table 4.25
113. The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing
sites. However, the appeal site is in the Green Belt. In accordance with
paragraph 11d(i), the application of policies in the Framework that protect
areas or assets of particular importance (which include the Green Belt as set
out in footnote 7 to the Framework), provide a clear reason for refusing the
development proposed. The tilted balance is therefore not invoked.
114. The proposed development is contrary to Policies 2, 4, 9 and 14 of the Core
Strategy and MGB1 and EN25 of the Local Plan, all of which carry weight in the
decision-making process for the reasons that I have set out.
Conclusion
115. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Mike Worden
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Gregory Jones QC Instructed by Pro Vision
He called:
Katherine Miles BA (Hons) MSc MTRPI Director Pro Vision (Planning)
Mark Gibbins BA (Hons) CMLI Director Indigo Landscape Architects
(Landscape)
Jessamy Venables BSc (Hons) MSc Director, Carterwood (Need)
MRICS
Andrew Blacker MSc MCIHT CMILT Technical Director WSP (Transport)
Phil Brophy HNDArb MArborA MICFor Associate Director Barrell Tree
Consultancy (Trees)
Edward Hawkins MSc IHBC ACIfA Associate Director RPS (Heritage)
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Emmaline Lambert LLB (Hons) of Instructed by Mid Kent Legal Services
Counsel
She called:
Antonia James BSc (Hons), MA, MSc, Principal Planning Officer TWBC
MRTPI (Planning)
Tanya Kirk BSc (Hons), PGDip, CMLI Director HDA (Landscape and Green
Belt)
Nick Ireland BA (Hons) MTPI, MRTPI Director, Iceni Projects (Need)
Jeff Mashburn BSc (Hons) MSc Consultant (Trees)
Debbie Salter BA (Hons), MA IHBC Conservation and Design Officer TWBC
(Heritage)
FOR THE RULE 6 PARTY
Noemi Byrd of Counsel Instructed by the Friends of Sandown
Park
She called:
Charles (Ted) Hood Friends of Sandown Park
Rob Shorrick Local resident
Martin Alderman Local resident
Zoe Baker Local resident
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Councillor Hugo Pound TWBC
Councillor Paul Barrington-King Kent County Council
Councillor Lance Goodship TWBC
Councillor Bob Backhouse Southborough Town Council
Stephanie McMahon Local resident
Les Adey Local resident
Dr John Pomeroy Local resident
Stuart Forder Local resident
Guy Eve Owner of Robingate Wood
Simon Hicks Estates Manager, Skinners Kent
Academy
Helen Firth Local resident
Bob Hughes Local resident
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE INQUIRY
ID1 Opening Statement – Appellant
ID2 Opening Statement - Council
ID3 Opening Statement – Rule 6 party
ID4 Section 106 agreement
ID 5 Letter submitted by Appellant regarding Local Plan examination
ID6 Attachment to ID5
ID7 Document TWLP/063 of Local Plan examination. Submitted by TWBC
ID 8 Document TWLP/044 of Local Plan examination. Submitted by TWBC
ID 9 Response of Natural England to Local Plan reg 19 consultation June 21
ID 10 Statement of Councillor Hugo Pound
ID 11 Appellant’s response to ID10
ID12 Amended agreed list of suggested conditions
ID 13 Closing Submissions - Council
ID14 Closing Submissions – Appellant
ID 15 Closing Submissions – Rule 6 Party