Residents from Istead Rise and Meopham took part in Sunday’s Kent Day of Action to protest against building in the Green Belt. They met in the fields either side of Norwood Lane in Meopham, which are under threat of development, to send a clear message that they will do their best to defend the Green Belt in next year’s Local Plan consultation. Alex Hills, CPRE Kent’s Gravesham chairman, said: “Having so many people turn up at short notice sent a clear message to the government and the local council that now is not the time for rhetoric – we want to see you are serious about protecting the Green Belt. “Food-supply shortages have shown that we need the Green Belt, which is the county’s larder, more than ever.” Many residents expressed concern that there is not the water or basic infrastructure to support the amount of development proposed for Gravesham.
Click here to catch up or watch again on this timely and relevant conversation with the Director of Catriona Riddell & Associates, covering the Planning Bill and what it might contain, what it means for Local Plans, and Green Belt protection.
The Guildford judgment referred to in the webinar can be found here
Despite a surge in demand for time in green space, the Green Belt – the countryside next door for 30 million people – is facing extreme and sustained pressure, according to new research from CPRE, the countryside charity. The State of Greenbelt 2021 report reveals there are 0.25 million (257,944) homes proposed to be built on land removed from the Green Belt – more than four times as many (475 per cent increase) as in 2013. With only one in 10 considered affordable, these new homes will do little to tackle the affordable housing crisis. This pressure is only set to increase under damaging changes to the planning system being considered by the government – the analysis reveals the new formula to determine housing supply proposed by the government could lead to at least a 35 per cent increase in housing on the Green Belt. The report highlights a number of local case studies where increased pressure on Green Belts is leading to the loss of valuable open land for local communities. This huge loss of countryside near where people live is in direct contradiction to overwhelming demand for access to quality time in green space and nature. A new poll, conducted by Opinium on behalf of CPRE, shows a surge in appreciation since the first lockdown for local green spaces, many of which are in our Green Belts, and found that: • More than two-thirds (67 per cent) of adults think protecting and enhancing green spaces should be a higher priority after lockdown • Almost half (46 per cent) reported visiting green spaces more since the start of lockdown – a dramatic 11 percentage point increase since April 2020 • A total of 59 per cent reported they are more aware of the importance of these local green spaces for our mental health and well-being since lockdown Commenting on the findings, Crispin Truman, CPRE chief executive, said: “Local countryside and green spaces have been a lifeline through lockdown. Our poll shows massive public support for protecting these places – their importance for our mental health and well-being is undeniable. “So, to see the growing level of threat faced by the Green Belt, the countryside next door for millions of people living in our towns and cities, is extremely worrying. “The government can and must act to stop the loss of Green Belt and ensure greater access to nature and green space is at the heart of our planning system. “This can be done by making best use of land that’s been built on previously before even considering development on the Green Belt. The public is crying out for more access to nature, green space and countryside – it’s time ministers realised this and put people and nature at the heart of their changes to the planning system.” Despite evidence that there is already enough space on previously-used land (known as brownfield) and other land already granted planning permission for the government to reach its housing targets for the duration of this parliament, the upcoming changes to planning look set to further increase pressure on the Green Belt. The report lays out the consequences of this approach as only 10 per cent of the developments planned for Green Belt land between 2015 and 2020 are considered to be affordable. On this trajectory, we risk losing ever more Green Belt while having no impact on the housing crisis and providing homes local communities are able to afford. To make sure we protect and enhance the Green Belt while allowing for the genuinely affordable new homes that are sorely needed, CPRE is urging the government to put people and nature at the heart of the forthcoming Planning Bill.
If you care about the quality of life of your family, it is important that you make your voice heard in the Local Plan consultation currently taking place. If you don’t know what to say or how to respond, then you could use this standard wording, so long as you include your name and address, and send it to:
STOP THE GREEN BELT GRAB! The message from the Gravesham CPRE committee could not be clearer as it launches a website in the battle to save the district’s Green Belt. Urging people to get involved, the website warns us: “Our beautiful fields could be turned into housing estates under proposals by Gravesham Borough Council. “Across Gravesham a staggering 3,790 houses are proposed which would swallow up 21 areas of precious Green Belt. These include:
1,705 houses in Meopham and Sole Street across NINE green sites
1,810 houses in Higham across SEVEN green sites
275 houses in Istead Rise across FIVE green sites
“These proposed homes are set to house an extra 9,000 people in this borough alone. “WE MUST OBJECT TO THESE PROPOSALS NOW” It continues: “Gravesham Borough Council claims these extra 3,790 homes are needed to house a population that’s expected to burgeon over the next few years. However, the projected figures they base this on are highly debatable. “There are also several brownfield sites in the borough that could be developed, saving our farmland and open spaces from destruction. “Even though we are in lockdown and in the middle of a global pandemic, Gravesham Borough Council are continuing with this consultation. Even though many in the rural area are not online. “This consultation is threatening the fabric of our villages and way of life. We are already set to lose so much to the Lower Thames Crossing. We need to draw the line NOW!” Regulation 18 (Stage 2) consultation on the Local Plan closes at 5pm on December 31, 2020. That might sound a little jargon-heavy and potentially complex, but the process is important and the Gravesham CPRE website will help you contribute to it… and indeed the future of the district. It really isn’t that daunting – and you don’t need to respond to every element of the consultation – so do please spend just a little time to make your views known if you cherish the countryside of north-west Kent.
A group has been formed to fight proposals for 2,405 houses and commercial development in the Gravesham Green Belt. Operating under the banner of the CPRE Kent Gravesham district committee, the Greenbelt Campaign Group is bringing together people from across the borough who understand how important the Green Belt is. The more people who help, the stronger we will be: WE NEED YOU! Please get in touch if you can assist with:
Delivering leaflets in the Sole Street area
In this sort of campaign, local knowledge is vital. Do you know of planning applications for any of the sites under threat that have been refused? If so, please get in contact. Some of the threatened sites are rich in wildlife, so do you have proof of flora and fauna present? Again, if you do, please get in contact.
To join the Greenbelt Campaign Group, or to help out in any way, please email email@example.com
You can also help by joining CPRE Kent, who are supporting the group. Just log on here
In response to Gravesham Borough Council’s proposal to build 8,000 homes in the borough, many of which are planned to be built on the Green Belt, residents have formed an action group to examine and fight the proposals. They have formed a group under the auspices of CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England). It has four aims: • To defend the Green Belt • To challenge the number of homes to be built • Raise public awareness of air-pollution issues and how air quality can be improved • Campaign for all new houses in Gravesham to be zero carbon The challenges facing Gravesham are vast, but if we can all work together they have a greater chance of being resolved. Alex Hills, chairman of CPRE Kent’s Gravesham committee, said: “We are holding a public meeting at Istead Rise Community Centre – all concerned residents should attend. “This will be on a Friday towards the end of March and once the date is confirmed it will be published. “Please email firstname.lastname@example.org or visit our website, cprekent.org.uk, for information.”
A report by a cross-party
Parliamentary group shows that London’s Metropolitan Green Belt, some of which
lies in Kent, not only protects against urban sprawl but also provides vital
countryside on our doorstep for health and well-being. Benefits include:
267 hectares of Sites of Special Scientific Interest
• 5,400 hectares of local nature
• 44 per cent of London’s
Wildlife Trust sites
• 10,000 km of public rights of
way for use by walkers, cyclists and horse riders
• An area of which almost a
quarter (24%) is designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
A new report by the All-Party
Parliamentary Group for London’s Green Belt shows that the London Metropolitan
Green Belt (LMGB) not only protects against urban sprawl, it’s also the
‘countryside on our doorstep’, containing much of the capital’s natural
reserves and wildlife, which is vital for Londoners and those in neighbouring
counties to spend time in for their health and well-being.
The findings by the group of MPs in their report A Positive Vision for London’s
Green Belt show that the LMGB is home to public rights of way used by walkers
and cyclists, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Wildlife Trust sites and
open farmland – all of which provide important long-term benefit for all those
living in and around the capital.
Findings highlight the value of ‘green-prescribing’ and the positive impact of
the Green Belt on people’s mental health, physical well-being, local food
production and the capital’s ability to address the climate emergency, such as
supporting the targets set out in the government’s 25 Year Environment Plan.
However, despite these benefits, research also shows that the purpose of
London’s Green Belt is under threat from new housing development. There are
advanced plans for some 100,000 houses – with more than double this number in
the planning pipeline – yet “little evidence that any of these homes will be
‘affordable homes’ for key workers, young people and young families”.
This is even though there is space for well over 280,000 homes on previously
developed brownfield land within Greater London alone.
The report recommends bold new measures to protect the Green Belt for those
living in and around the capital:
• An advisory council be set up
to conduct a comprehensive review of the LMGB and create a 25-year strategy for
its future, following the objectives set out in the government’s 25 Year
• Funding be provided on the same
basis as that for National or Regional Parks to improve the landscape,
biodiversity, water retention and carbon sequestration abilities of the LMGB to
ensure it delivers multiple benefits for local communities
• Action be taken to ensure that
everyone in and around London, and further afield, feels able to access the
benefits of the countryside close at hand
• A review of the National Policy
Planning Framework to ensure that the Green Belt is better protected from
MP Crispin Blunt MP, co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for
London’s Green Belt, said: “The APPG for London’s Green Belt was set up in
response to the rapidly increasing pressure for development on Green Belt land
that has escalated over the last few years and is now reaching a crisis point.
“As a society, we have to decide whether or not we value the Green Belt
sufficiently to prevent its erosion and subsequent disappearance in the coming
decades. We have chosen to focus on the positive benefits of London’s Green
Belt as we want these to complement its importance as the central defence
against urban sprawl. Once Green Belt has been developed, it is impossible to
get it back again.”
Tom Fyans, CPRE deputy chief executive, said: “Green Belts provide a huge
opportunity to help us in our efforts to address the climate emergency and
wildlife crisis while supporting the improved health and well-being of people
living and working in and around London, which is continually being ignored.
“Now is the time to take new and bold action to keep this valuable green
resource for future generations.”
He was supported by Richard Knox-Johnston, chair of the London Green Belt
Council and vice-president of Kent CPRE: “Accessible open countryside adjoining
urban London has a vital role to play in assisting in the climate emergency,
improving health and well-being, giving opportunities for recreation and
providing fresh and nutritious food close to the city centre.
“At present, there is no overall organisation with responsibility for the use
of land in London’s Green Belt that would be able to create a long-term
strategy for its beneficial use and protection.
“We need a clear vision and strategy for London’s Green Belt to ensure it can
provide its important resource for those living and working in and around
It’s been described as “the biggest threat to Tonbridge and our Green Belt in a generation” and indeed plans from Tunbridge Wells Borough Council for mass housebuilding seem set to change landscape and life in west Kent in an almost unimaginable way. The proposals for 2,800 new houses at Tudeley and another 1,500 at East Capel sparked the creation of Save Capel and last month John Wotton, CPRE Kent chairman, gave a speech to the campaign group pledging this organisation’s support in the bid to halt a policy destined to ruin the quality of life for so many. Here is that speech, made on Wednesday, September 18, in full: “CPRE is the countryside charity. It exists to protect the English countryside, to make sure it is valued and accessible to all and that it supports a viable and sustainable rural economy. “Here in Tunbridge Wells, we are privileged to live in the beautiful and historic farmed and wooded landscape of the Weald of Kent. We are all custodians of the countryside, none more so, I would suggest, than our local planning authority. “So, how does the draft Tunbridge Wells Local Plan measure up in terms of protecting our cherished countryside? Not well, in my estimation. “The plan is, of course, the product of a broken planning system, driven by political and commercial interests that are wholly divorced from the needs of the population as a whole and wishes of local communities, including this one. “It is inconceivable that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council would have come up with a plan of this nature in the absence of the housing and other targets imposed by national planning policy. “There is now no pretence that the targets are based on genuine predictions of household growth and housing need, for the most up-to date Office of National Statistics data on population growth and household formation have been ignored by national government, in order to adhere to a totally arbitrary and unachievable target of building 300,000 homes a year (that is homes built anywhere and of any type, regardless of housing need). “The rationale for this target has been challenged in recent research by Ian Mulheirn, published by the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence, which concludes that no more than 160,000 homes per year need to be built to cater for housing need. “This topic is highly controversial, but for us in Tunbridge Wells, the key point is that the right homes for the people in this borough are built in the right places. “The homes which are built should be affordable to those in need of a home and built in the most environmentally sustainable places, not simply the sites that yield the highest profit to developers. “This means that houses should preferably be built on brownfield or urban infill sites, or as limited urban extensions, always making the most efficient use of land, rather than in new settlements on greenfield sites, and especially not in protected landscapes. “The council seems to agree with this in principle, but not in practice. CPRE naturally wishes to see Tunbridge Wells adopt a sound Local Plan as this will give the local authority a measure of control over future development and better defences against inappropriate, speculative development proposals. “However, a sound Plan is not a panacea. Factors beyond the council’s control may (and probably will) undermine the Plan during its 15-year life, probably sooner rather than later. “These factors include changes in the deliverability of individual sites, failure to build out planning applications which have been granted and, in these febrile political times, changing requirements of national policy. “As soon as the council’s housing policies are shown to be out of date, the developers will again have the whip hand. “A ‘Sound Plan’ is therefore not to be bought at any price and the price of this draft Plan is, in CPRE’s view, far too high. “Tudeley Village is just the most egregious example of the sacrifice of greenfield sites for substantial housing development in the Green Belt, in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and elsewhere in the borough. “This sacrifice is made in pursuit of housebuilding objectives that, even in the unlikely event of their being achieved, would do little to meet the genuine local need for housing, at prices local people can afford. “The council say that they place the highest priority on protecting the AONB and then the Green Belt, but this is not the impression I gain from the proposed site allocations throughout the borough. “If Tudeley Village is intended to relieve the pressure on the rest of the borough, it does not achieve this, even in protected areas. In my own parish of Cranbrook and Sissinghurst in the AONB, for example, the housing allocation exceeds assessed local needs by about 50 per cent. “What can the council do, though, in the face of seemingly implacable national policy requirements? “In our view, national planning policy does allow Tunbridge Wells to provide for less than the so-called objectively assessed housing need, in view of the high proportion of the land in the borough which is protected as Green Belt or AONB. “This ability is fundamental to the effective protection of the Green Belt and AONBs. If it were not there, the Green Belt and AONB would be less protected in those districts in which they form a large proportion of the land area than in those where only small areas are protected. “This is not the law, or the policy of government. “The council say that they have not even considered the possibility of providing for less than assessed housing need, because their Strategic Housing Land Assessment shows that the borough can accommodate this need. However, it is hard to see how they have reached this conclusion. “Their Sustainability Assessment shows that the council’s housing objective is compatible with only five of the 19 sustainability objectives they have set themselves and incompatible with nine of them. “It is the only objective in the Plan which fails the council’s sustainability tests in this way. This is a fundamental contradiction in the Plan. It does not provide for sustainable development in Tunbridge Wells on the council’s own terms, and it must be changed. “I haven’t said much about how the technicalities of planning policy apply to the overarching subject of the climate emergency, which rightly moves ever higher up the political agenda, including the planning agenda. “It is far from clear to me that the council gives adequate weight to mitigating climate change in this Plan. That is a wider topic than we can embark upon today, but an aspect of it is specifically relevant to the Tudeley Village proposal. “Under the government’s climate change guidance, planning authorities are advised that the distribution and design of new settlements and sustainable transport solutions are particularly important considerations that affect transport emissions. “The planning inspectors have within the past week rejected the draft West of England Spatial Plan, saying that high levels of dispersed development across the West of England, unguided by any strategy, would not be sustainable. I understand that this Plan included a number of so-called ‘garden settlements’ on greenfield sites. “It would seem that garden settlements are going to be looked at closely by inspectors and this should make Tunbridge Wells Borough Council think twice before trying to meet its housing objectives in this way. “Tudeley Village is the poster child for the unsustainability of this draft Plan. It represents unsustainable, environmentally harmful destruction of the countryside, replacing a beautiful, unspoilt and protected site with a dormitory for City commuters and their families, heavily reliant on their private cars for transport. “It will destroy local communities and ruin local residents’ lives. It must be stopped and CPRE Kent will support you in your campaign.”
You can read the latest Save Capel newsletter here
To a mixture of horror at what it
includes and relief that it has finally seen the light of day, the Tunbridge
Wells draft Local Plan has finally been published.
Covering the period 2016-2036, the Plan is aimed at replacing the local authority’s
2010 core strategy, 2016 site allocations plan and saved policies from its 2006
Most contentiously, the draft looks to axe more than 5 per cent of the
borough’s Green Belt, primarily to accommodate 14,776 new homes, a figure that
includes a 9 per cent buffer above the government’s Objectively Assessed Need
total of 13,560.
The homes are apparently going to be built at a rate of 678 a year, a target
substantially more than double the 300-a-year featured in the 2010 core
strategy, produced in line with the former South East Plan.
Disappointingly, the draft does not designate any land to compensate for the
Green Belt that is set to be lost, which, as it stands, amounts to 5.35 per
cent of the current total.
The largest housing allocations are at Paddock Wood (4,000 dwellings in addition to the 1,000
already allocated) and Tudeley (2,500-2,800, with some 1,900 to be built
during the Plan period), as well as some 800 dwellings in the AONB at Cranbrook and 700, also in
the AONB, at Hawkhurst.
Liz Akenhead, chairman of CPRE Kent’s Tunbridge Wells committee, said: “The Plan states that, overall, some
5.35 per cent of the Green Belt within the borough is to be de-designated and
that ‘in accordance with the NPPF the Plan does not designate other land as
“replacement” Green Belt to replace that to be removed, but rather sets out how
compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of
remaining Green Belt land can be made’.
“On a first reading, I have not noticed any evidence in the Plan that these
improvements will actually materialise.”
Consultation on the draft Plan begins on Friday, September 20, and is scheduled
to end on Friday, November 1. It is anticipated that the Plan will be adopted
in December next year.
For more on the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan, see here
Now the dust has settled from May’s local elections, we can reflect on some dramatic changes across the South East’s political landscape, even if Kent was not as affected as some of its neighbours. Such was the widespread shift in allegiances that the London Green Belt Council was moved to comment: “One of the lessons of [the] local elections is that voters place greater emphasis on protection of the environment than on almost any other issue. “According to research by the LGBC, the ruling groups in local authorities that allocated Green Belt countryside and green spaces for housing development in their Local Plans have been decisively punished by the electorate for doing so. “Analysis by the LGBC of [the] council elections shows that where authorities had proposed development on Green Belt land, the ruling party in each case had been voted out of office or its majority substantially reduced. “While in other parts of England, Brexit and other national issues may have determined the course of the recent elections, it is clear that in counties such as Surrey, Berkshire, Essex and Hertfordshire, which are within the London Metropolitan Green Belt (LMGB), the outcome of district and borough councils had been influenced more by communities’ anger at proposals to build housing estates on Green Belt land than by any other concern.” It was in Surrey, perhaps politically the bluest of counties, that the swing was most striking. The Conservatives, the ruling party in the majority of the county’s district and borough councils, lost 117 councillors (out of 1,269 losses in total), meaning Surrey accounted for almost 10 per cent of all Conservative losses in May’s local elections. Throughout England the Conservatives lost control of 41 councils, six of them in Surrey. According to the LGBC, the Conservative electoral performance was worst in the three Surrey districts where the Local Plans threatened Green Belt land for housing: Tandridge, Guildford and Waverley. In each of these areas, Conservatives lost control of the local councils to residents’ associations, local campaign groups and independent candidates opposed to the Local Plans and who were pledged to defend the Green Belt from development. In Guildford, the newly-formed Guildford and Villages group, which stood on a platform of defending the Green Belt, won 15 seats, and an existing local party, the Guildford Greenbelt Group, won an additional seat, giving them a total of four. This, together with the seats won by the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, almost all taken from the Conservatives, resulted in a reduction in the number of Conservative councillors from 31 to nine. The defeated council leader admitted that concerns about building on the Green Belt had been crucial in determining the outcome. Hertfordshire saw the Conservatives lose control of three district councils – North Hertfordshire, St Albans and Welwyn & Hatfield – due to opposition to Local Plans proposing loss of Green Belt. In each of these districts there could have been even greater losses had the whole council been up for election. In Kent, although the Conservatives suffered some losses, there was nothing like the groundswell of change experienced in neighbouring counties. That might be something to think about. Richard Knox-Johnston, chairman of the London Green Belt Council and CPRE Kent vice-president, said: “The electorate punished the ruling party in boroughs and districts where they wanted to build housing estates on Green Belt countryside. “In the local elections, dozens of pro-Green Belt councillors were elected in Tandridge, Guildford and Waverley, overturning once-impregnable Conservative majorities. “There is a powerful lesson here for all political parties in London and the Home Counties that tampering with the boundaries of the Green Belt will result in further losses of councils to independent and single-issue Green Belt campaign groups. “Proposals to remove land from the Green Belt in order to build on it are always extremely unpopular, as people rightly value and cherish their access to countryside and open spaces. “In the cases of Tandridge, Guildford and Waverley, it is clear that the Green Belt has become a major election issue, with profound consequences for the ruling party. “The elections prove that the environment is a ‘hot issue’ in many areas. Local Plans should protect the Green Belt and should concentrate new development on urban and brownfield sites in need of regeneration.”
What future for our Green Belt? This countryside is in Sevenoaks district (pic Susan Pittman)
The scale of the attack on the Metropolitan Green Belt is increasing.
Data collected by eight CPRE branches in and around the capital show that 56 of 66 local authorities are targeting Green Belt land for residential development.
The third report from the London Green Belt Council, entitled ‘Safe Under Us?’ – Two Years On, says the number of homes planned for the MGB has increased by 64 per cent in two years, with some 202,700 homes now proposed, up from 159,300 last year and 123,500 in 2016.
Predictably, there also has been a hike in the number of sites threatened, the current figure of 519 comparing with 403 in 2017 and 203 in 2016.
Most residential proposals were in advanced Local Plans, with further homes counted through planning applications.
Hertfordshire had the greatest number of homes proposed for the Green Belt (70,787), followed by Essex (67,826) and Surrey (29,381).
There is no room complacency in Kent, however, where a relatively low figure reflects the fact that many local authorities in the county are in the early stages of developing their Local Plans.
At district level, the local authorities planning the largest number of homes on Green Belt land are Thurrock (29,635), Dacorum (14,360) and East Hertfordshire (13,450).
The LGBC report highlights the 4,934 hectares of brownfield land in the 66 local-authority areas that could accommodate more than 260,000 new homes; it also notes that the percentage of genuinely affordable housing within London Green Belt residential developments is less than 10 per cent.
Richard Knox-Johnston, who is both chairman of the LGBC and CPRE Kent vice-president, said: “This year’s data shows a further dramatic increase in threats to the London Metropolitan Green Belt. Having predicted that this would be the case, we fully expect a further increase in 2019, despite reassurances from government that the Green Belt is to be properly protected.
“Government at all levels, supported by developers, claim that development in the Green Belt will provide more affordable housing, especially for young people but, as this report shows, this is not the case. Young people are being cruelly misled.
“Unless the government takes urgent action, we believe that the threats will continue to increase. Councils are being pressurised by government to set targets which are much higher than the likely need and are, on occasions, forced to accept even higher housing numbers to accommodate growth from neighbouring authorities.
“There appears to be no lessening of pressure on the Metropolitan Green Belt for housing, despite its importance for farming, recreation, climate change, flooding and a major role in health and welfare, especially for those suffering from mental health symptoms, as described in the government’s 25-year environment plan – A Green Future.”
Mr Knox-Johnston concluded: “Action is needed more urgently than ever if we are to avoid irreparable damage to the integrity of London’s Green Belt. The Government should be taking steps to reduce the pressure on councils to build on Green Belt land by focusing on brownfield land and genuine housing need and restricting the ability of councils to de-designate Green Belt land.”
To read ‘Safe Under Us?’ – Two Years On, click here: Safe Under Us
Monday, February 4, 2019
Planners at Sevenoaks District Council have revealed the Green Belt sites they have identified for major housing development – greenfield sites with no development at present.
They are satisfied there are “exceptional circumstances” to justify changing the Green Belt boundary for these cases, their verdict coming after this summer’s consultation on the district’s draft Local Plan.
If the proposals are approved by cabinet on Thursday (December 6) they will be included in the final consultation on the Plan (the Regulation 19 stage) before it goes to public inquiry in the spring.
The government’s Objectively Assessed Need formula has arrived at a figure of 13,960 properties to be built in Sevenoaks district from 2015-2035. Sites on previously developed land (PDL) are expected to take some 6,000 properties.
At the Draft Plan consultation stage (Regulation 18), 12 ‘exceptional circumstances’ Green Belt sites were proposed for potential development. Of those, the following are being taken forward to consultation:
Four Elms Road, Edenbridge (350 units)
Sevenoaks Quarry (600 units)
East of London Road, Dunton Green (240 units)
In addition, Pedham Place, land in the AONB near Swanley, is identified as a “broad location for development” for 2,500 houses.
At the Planning Advisory Committee meeting on Thursday, November 22, councillors voiced strong objection to the site, but a motion to exclude it was lost by a 5-6 margin.
Further consideration will be given to the release of this site from the Green Belt when the Plan is reviewed in the mid-2020s.
The local authority received 8,500 comments on the draft Plan from some 6,000 representors, including CPRE’s Sevenoaks committee, the majority objecting to the allocation of these ‘exceptional circumstances’ greenfield sites in the Green Belt.
Nigel Britten, the chairman, said: “Justification for making changes to the Green Belt boundary now is justification for making more changes in the future.
“But the Green Belt and the two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are what define the special quality of the Sevenoaks countryside and we will do our utmost to protect it.”
The council received additional site submissions for greenfield Green Belt sites during the draft Plan consultation. The following are considered potentially suitable for inclusion in the Local Plan and will be consulted on alongside the Regulation 19 consultation:
South of Redhill Road, New Ash Green
Between Hartfield Road and Hever Road, Edenbridge
West of Childsbridge Lane and south of the recreation ground, Kemsing
North and south of Kemsing station
The Regulation 19 version of the Plan will include the associated Supplementary Planning Documents – Affordable Housing SPD, Development in the Green Belt SPD and Design Review Panel SPD.
The council will ultimately publish the Regulation 19 version on the basis that it considers it to be sound, legally compliant and prepared in accordance with the ‘duty to cooperate’ with neighbouring planning authorities.
Prior to the submission of the Plan for examination, the council will prepare an Issues Paper to demonstrate that an appropriate approach has been taken with regard to density.
It must also show the supply of housing sites is deliverable (for the first five years of the Plan) and developable (years 6-10). Further, it must provide evidence that all non-Green Belt sites have been fully explored before going through a peer review process with the Planning Inspectorate.
It is anticipated public consultation on the pre-submission version of the Plan will take place from Tuesday, December 18, to Sunday, February 3, followed by submission and examination in the spring or summer of next year, with adoption by the end of 2019.
River Darent at Shoreham (pic Glen Humble, flickr)
People in and around Sevenoaks should have a clearer idea this month about where future housing development in the district could be targeted.
With the government’s Objectively Assessed Need formula arriving at a figure of 13,960 properties to be built from 2015-2035 in a district that is 93 per cent Green Belt and two-thirds AONB, the publication on Thursday, November 15, of papers for Sevenoaks District Council’s planning advisory committee will detail the sites put forward for housing.
Sites on previously developed land (PDL) are expected to take some 6,000 properties, but that of course leaves a huge gap of almost 8,000 new homes.
To cover the gap, the council is focusing initially on PDL within the Green Belt and, finally, greenfield sites within the Green Belt for which there may be “exceptional circumstances”.
Possible site allocations range from fewer than 50 to the staggering 2,500 at Pedham Place, near Swanley.
There is concern over how the local authority might interpret PDL, which might not qualify as such according to the National Planning Policy Framework definition.
Nigel Britten, chairman of Sevenoaks CPRE, said: “We have objected in detail to the major Green Belt sites while not supporting any of them.
“The council knows it won’t get away with an unrealistic housing figure so must produce something that will satisfy the Local Plan inspector while not causing a mayhem of protest.”
A protest march against one potential development in the Green Belt is being held in Sevenoaks at the weekend.
The event has been organised by the Halstead Green Belt Future group to highlight plans for almost 2,000 homes in the village, 800 of which would be on Green Belt land.
Marchers will meet at Sevenoaks railway station at 2pm on Saturday, November 10, and head to the district council offices for 2.30pm, when letters of objection to the district’s draft Local Plan will be handed over.
Is nothing sacred? The Green Belt at Lullingstone (pic Susan Pittman)
Anyone who believed Green Belt designation might mean land was safe from development would appear to be sadly misguided if CPRE analysis is anything to go by.
This organisation’s figures reveal that almost half a million new homes are targeted for land to be released from the Green Belt – and very few of those will be classed as genuinely affordable.
Our analysis by the charity revealed that last year 72 per cent of the homes built on greenfield land within the Green Belt could not be classed as affordable under the government’s own definition.
That depressing figure is set to rise to 78 per cent for the 460,000 homes planned for land due to be released from the Green Belt, according to CPRE’S State of the Green Belt report.
Tom Fyans, CPRE director of campaigns and policy, said: “We are being sold a lie by many developers. As they sell off and gobble up the Green Belt to build low-density, unaffordable housing, young families go on struggling to afford a place to live.
“The affordable-housing crisis must be addressed with increasing urgency while acknowledging that, far from providing the solution, building on the Green Belt only serves to entrench the issue.
“The government is failing in its commitment to protect the Green Belt – it is being eroded at an alarming rate.
“But it is essential, if the Green Belt is to fulfil its main purposes and provide 30 million of us with access to the benefits of the countryside, that the redevelopment of brownfield land is prioritised, and Green Belt protection strengthened.”
The charity argued that brownfield land, which has previously been used for housing or industrial development, could accommodate more than one million homes in England.
Local authorities with Green Belt land have enough brownfield sites for more than 720,000 homes, says the CPRE report.
The government has, however, defended its position on the Green Belt. A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “We are clear that building the homes our country needs does not mean tearing up our countryside.
“Last year the number of new homes built was the highest in a decade, and only 0.02 per cent of the Green Belt was developed for residential use.
“We are adding more certainty to the planning system and our new planning rulebook strengthens national protections for the Green Belt.”
As well as a genuine ‘brownfield first’ approach to development, CPRE is urging the government to:
Retain its commitment to protect the Green Belt by establishing long-term boundaries
Halt speculative development in the Green Belt
Develop clear guidance for local authorities on housing requirements to protect designated land
Support the creation of new Green Belts where local authorities have established a clear need for them