Tag Archives: Sevenoaks

And now for the good news: two appeal decisions confirm status of protected countryside

Posted , filed under Planning
The ‘presumption’ penalty does not apply in the Kent Downs AONB (pic Dimitry, flickr)

While the recent Housing Delivery Test results might have brought despair to CPRE Kent, this week brings far better news for those who care about the county’s countryside, with two extremely significant appeal decisions being handed down.
On Monday (January 31) the Planning Inspectorate dismissed an appeal for 800 homes in the Green Belt at Broke Hill, north of Sevenoaks. Then on Wednesday we had an appeal for 374 homes, a care home and relief road dismissed for a site within the AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) at Hawkhurst Golf Club.
Common to both appeals was confirmation that, where planning policies protect areas of particular importance and provide a clear reason for refusing the development, the so-called ‘tilted balance’ presumption in favour of granting planning permission does not apply.
For Broke Hill, the policies of particular importance related to protection of the Green Belt. For Hawkhurst, it was protection of the High Weald AONB that was important. For both relevant councils – Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells  – the presumption in favour of granting planning permission is otherwise engaged (as reported last week).
This is to be welcomed as there has been erosion of this protection over recent years, with inspectors increasingly finding the need for housing more important than Green Belt or AONB protection.  
These appeals, however, reaffirm that within Kent’s Green Belt and AONBs the ‘presumption’ penalty does not apply while also providing precedent that the need to provide housing does not automatically override this protection.
This is good news.  
There is always a flip side, though. And that is the continued pursuit of housing numbers over all else only increases pressure on those areas of countryside without Green Belt and AONB protection. Here it can be expected that the ‘presumption’ penalty will be imposed with even more vigour.
That is why CPRE Kent will continue to support calls for the presumption penalty to be scraped and a refocus on housing quality over quantity.
Nigel Britten, CPRE Kent’s Sevenoaks chair, made representations and spoke at the Broke Hill appeal, while the Tunbridge Wells committee made written representations to the Hawkhurst appeal.

  • The Broke Hill appeal decision can be viewed here 
  • The Hawkhurst Golf Club appeal decision can be viewed here

Friday, February 4, 2022

Sevenoaks knocked back again in Local Plan dispute

Posted , filed under News
Sevenoaks now wants to meet Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick

The latest attempt by Sevenoaks District Council to defend its Local Plan has fallen in the High Court.
The local authority in November failed in its judicial review of a planning inspector’s refusal to approve its Local Plan.
The local authority had brought the review of inspector Karen Baker’s conclusion that it had failed to comply with the required duty to cooperate when preparing its Plan.
But in the Planning Court, Mr Justice Dove rejected the council’s challenge, saying Sevenoaks had engaged fully with neighbouring local authorities only when it became clear at the Reg 18 stage that housing need could not be met, rather than as part of the whole process.
Sevenoaks went on to contest that verdict, but on Friday, April 9, a High Court judge dismissed the challenge.
Peter Fleming, council leader, said Sevenoaks would now seek a meeting with Robert Jenrick, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in a bid to agree a strategy on developing a new Local Plan.
Until that happens, it is feared the district could be vulnerable to speculative development proposals. Nigel Britten, CPRE Kent’s Sevenoaks chairman, said: “We are in a slightly difficult position as we do not have a set five-year land housing supply.”

Sunday, April 18, 2021

Judicial review of inspector’s Sevenoaks Local Plan verdict fails

Posted , filed under News

Sevenoaks District Council has failed in its legal challenge against a planning inspector’s refusal to approve its Local Plan.
The local authority had brought a judicial review of inspector Karen Baker’s conclusion that it had failed to comply with the required duty to cooperate when preparing its Plan, as detailed in section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Sevenoaks challenged the finding on four grounds:

  • The inspector erred in law in failing to apply a margin of appreciation when considering the test under section 33A of the 2004 Act
  • The inspector failed to correctly interpret and apply the duty to cooperate, and in reality conflated that duty with the requirement that a Plan be sound
  • The inspector failed to have regard to material considerations and in particular to consider the material evidence that was placed before her
  • The inspector’s reasons were inadequate

However, in the Planning Court, Mr Justice Dove rejected the council’s challenge. The key point appears to be that the council engaged fully with neighbouring local authorities when it became clear at the Reg 18 stage that housing need could not be met, rather than as part of the whole process.
Nigel Britten, CPRE’s Sevenoaks chairman, expressed his disappointment with the outcome: “We are very concerned that the judgement will only achieve new threats to the countryside.
“It’s likely that the council will have to repeat a whole round of consultation – including the duty to cooperate – and finish up with much the same result as before.
“But in the meantime, developers will sense an opportunity and put in applications for sizeable developments in the Green Belt and AONB, claiming that the Local Plan is not up to date.
“The council says it is, but pressures from the so-called housing-need algorithm will test it to the limit.”
Peter Fleming, leader of Sevenoaks District  Council, said: “We are clearly disappointed and somewhat bemused by the ruling from the Honourable Mr Justice Dove, especially as the duty to cooperate, the reason given by the planning inspector to reject our plan, is set to be abolished in the government’s own proposed planning reforms.
“In our opinion, the removal of the duty to cooperate is an open admission that it is neither effective nor workable in the Local Plan-making process. “However, despite this, we believe we both met and exceeded the requirement. The government’s own Planning Advisory Service and a number of former senior planning inspectors also supported this position.
“Court action is never something we would enter into lightly. But our Plan reflects our communities’ priorities of protecting the rural nature of the district and the Green Belt whilst providing much-needed new homes and improved local infrastructure. We will always stand up for the communities we serve.
“We are reviewing the judgement in detail and considering our options.”
The council’s website statement added: “The existing Local Plan, with all its current protections, will continue to be used to help decide planning applications until a new Plan is agreed.”

  • For more on this story, click here

Tuesday, November 17, 2020

We support council in its Local Plan challenge, says Sevenoaks chairman

Posted , filed under Planning
‘If the judicial review goes ahead, many councils will be hoping Sevenoaks succeeds’

CPRE Kent has backed Sevenoaks District Council’s decision to begin judicial review proceedings in its challenge to the Planning Inspectorate.
The council’s move had been in response to a government-appointed inspector’s refusal to endorse its new Local Plan.
Nigel Britten, the countryside charity’s district chairman, said: “CPRE Kent supports the action being taken by Sevenoaks District Council to resolve the impasse over its Local Plan.
“The main argument about technical procedure exposes the crude and uncompromising system that is forcing councils like Sevenoaks to give priority to development over protection of the countryside.
“Sevenoaks district is almost entirely Green Belt and largely within two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
“The planning system does quite clearly give the council the right not to sacrifice these areas of national importance, yet the inspector seems unwilling to recognise that fact and to wish to impose impractically high thresholds for any deviation from the government’s artificial and unrealistic housing targets.
“If the judicial review goes ahead, many councils – and CPRE – will be hoping that Sevenoaks District Council succeeds”

  • For more on this story, click here

Monday, May 11, 2020

‘We fundamentally disagree with the inspector’s conclusions and believe key parts of the Local Plan requirements have been incorrectly interpreted’: Sevenoaks begins judicial review proceedings in planning battle

Posted , filed under News
The authority is making good on its warning that it would not back down

Sevenoaks District Council has taken its challenge of the Planning Inspectorate to the next level by beginning judicial review proceedings.
The move comes in response to a government-appointed inspector’s refusal to endorse the council’s new Local Plan.
The inspector, Karen Baker, wrote her final report on the examination of the Plan on March 2, concluding it was not legally compliant in respect of the council’s duty to cooperate.
She had advised the council of her view in a letter to the local authority in October in which she wrote: “I have significant concerns about a number of aspects of the Plan, both in terms of legal compliance and soundness.
“My main concern relates to the lack of constructive engagement with neighbouring authorities to resolve the issue of unmet housing need and the absence of strategic cross-boundary planning to examine how the identified needs could be accommodated.”
However, not only did the council, which is being told its Plan should include the building of 11,312 homes, refuse to withdraw it but its leader, Peter Fleming, gave a fierce response to the inspector’s letter:
“It is clear to me the way this has been handled calls into question the integrity of the whole Plan-making system in this country…
“To call into question an evidence-led approach comes to the root of our concerns with the actions of the inspector. If we are not to follow the evidence to make our Plan then the government may just as well dictate how many homes an area should have and then pick sites, we need to put an end to the thinly veiled charade that Local Plans are in any way locally led.”
Cllr Fleming is now making good on his warning that the council would not back down: “I will be writing to the Secretary of State on this matter and urgently asking him to intervene,” he said in October.
“It appears something is very wrong with the system if a council with its communities works hard for four years to produce an evidence-based Plan that delivers housing, jobs and infrastructure investment, whilst protecting the environment, only to be halted by a single individual.
“We will not be withdrawing our Local Plan and the inspector will produce her report in due course. We will then take the strongest action open to us.”
The council says its Plan submission included more than 800 pages of evidence detailing how it had worked with neighbouring authorities during its production of the Plan. It adds that those councils and other organisations involved in its development supported the council’s evidence and approach.
And on Friday last week (April 17) Cllr Fleming said: “Taking legal action is not something we would undertake lightly and demonstrates we are serious about standing up for our residents and our cherished environment, against what we believe is a fundamental failure by the Planning Inspectorate to take account of the weight of evidence in front of them.
“Working with landowners, communities and developers, our new Local Plan put forward innovative solutions to deliver almost 10,000 homes and improved infrastructure while protecting nearly all of our Green Belt. It’s a huge frustration that, after so much work, we cannot take our Plan forward at this time.
“In our view, concluding we failed to cooperate with neighbouring councils was the only way to halt the examination. We reject this. We gave the planning inspector detailed evidence of our work with our neighbours and, from the start, they said they couldn’t accommodate the homes we could not deliver.”
Julia Thornton, cabinet member for development & conservation, added: “Our Local Plan is the first in the country to be assessed under a new planning framework. We believe, whilst this is not the reason the inspector has given, failing to meet the government’s housing figure would potentially impact on subsequent Local Plans across the country.
“If the inspector did have significant concerns over our duty to cooperate, these should have been raised soon after we had submitted our Plan, not months later. We fundamentally disagree with the inspector’s conclusions and firmly believe key parts of the Local Plan requirements have been incorrectly interpreted.
“We feel have no choice but to take this course of action.”
Robert Jenrick, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is responsible for the Planning Inspectorate, will have the chance to respond before a judge decides if the case should proceed.

  • You can read more on this story here and here

Wednesday, April 22, 2020

Sevenoaks sticks to its guns and refuses to withdraw draft Local Plan from examination

Posted , filed under Planning

Sevenoaks Council District Council is on collision course with the Planning Inspectorate after refusing to withdraw its draft Local Plan from examination.
Planning inspector Karen Baker in October last year warned the local authority that she would issue a report concluding its Plan was unsound if it was not withdrawn.
Her letter, sent on Thursday, October 17, said: “I have significant concerns about a number of aspects of the Plan, both in terms of legal compliance and soundness.
“My main concern relates to the lack of constructive engagement with neighbouring authorities to resolve the issue of unmet housing need and the absence of strategic cross-boundary planning to examine how the identified needs could be accommodated…
“Furthermore, I have significant concerns about the soundness of the Plan in respect of a number of areas including the approach to sustainability appraisal, the chosen strategy for growth, the assessment of the Green Belt and housing supply and distribution.”
Council leader Peter Fleming promptly gave a stinging response : “It is clear to me the way this has been handled calls into question the integrity of the whole Plan-making system in this country…
“To call into question an evidence-led approach comes to the root of our concerns with the actions of the inspector. If we are not to follow the evidence to make our Plan then the government may just as well dictate how many homes an area should have and then pick sites, we need to put an end to the thinly veiled charade that Local Plans are in any way locally led.”
The council has stuck to guns and on Wednesday, January 8, put a forthright statement on its website:
“In the latest response to the planning inspector, Sevenoaks District Council has vowed not to withdraw its draft Local Plan, despite continued pressure to do so,” it read.
“The council’s strategic planning manager, James Gleave, confirms in the response dated 3 January that the council will not voluntarily withdraw its Local Plan from examination and continues to disagree with the conclusions made by the planning inspector.
“The government-appointed planning inspector, Karen Baker, wrote again to the council on 13 December 2019 urging it to withdraw the Local Plan from examination.
“She repeating her belief that the council has not carried out its duty to co-operate with neighbouring councils to find sites for new homes that cannot be delivered due to constraints such as the Green Belt.
“The inspector believes the council had not done enough to address the ‘unmet housing need’ despite the proposals achieving almost 90 per cent of the government’s housing target.
“Mr Gleave goes on to say while the planning inspector highlights the council’s perceived failings, she does not provide a clear understanding of what constructive engagement with neighbours should be.
“She fails to take the pragmatic approach expected in the legislation and ignores significant evidence, much of it from the council’s neighbours and independent experts.”
The council statement is concluded by leader Cllr Fleming, who says: “I will be writing to the Secretary of State on this matter and urgently asking him to intervene.
“It appears something is very wrong with the system if a council with its communities works hard for four years to produce an evidence-based Plan that delivers housing, jobs and infrastructure investment, whilst protecting the environment, only to be halted by a single individual.
“We will not be withdrawing our Local Plan and the inspector will produce her report in due course. We will then take the strongest action open to us.”

  • For more on this story, see here

Monday, January 20, 2020

Sevenoaks leader savages ‘huge abuse of the process’ after council advised to withdraw Local Plan from examination

Posted , filed under News

Sevenoaks District Council has responded fiercely to the recommendation from a government inspector that it should withdraw its Local Plan from examination.
Inspector Karen Baker wrote to the local authority on Thursday, October 17, saying: “I have significant concerns about a number of aspects of the Plan, both in terms of legal compliance and soundness.
“My main concern relates to the lack of constructive engagement with neighbouring authorities to resolve the issue of unmet housing need and the absence of strategic cross-boundary planning to examine how the identified needs could be accommodated…
“Furthermore, I have significant concerns about the soundness of the Plan in respect of a number of areas including the approach to sustainability appraisal, the chosen strategy for growth, the assessment of the Green Belt and housing supply and distribution…
“I am currently preparing a short letter setting out my concerns which will be with you shortly. I will not reach any final conclusions on the way forward for the examination until I have had the opportunity to consider your response to that letter…
“… I consider it is necessary for me to advise you that, at this point, I consider the most appropriate way forward for the Sevenoaks District Local Plan would be for the council to withdraw it from examination.”
Unsurprisingly, the missive has not been met with unbridled joy by the local authority.
A stinging statement on its website from council leader Peter Fleming says: “It is clear to me the way this has been handled calls into question the integrity of the whole plan-making system in this country.
“The inspector had our submission for six months and asked over 500 questions. What’s more, the draft Plan was independently verified and found sound by three external parties including the government’s own Planning Advisory Service.
“Had there been a fundamental problem, I would have expected the examination not to have gone ahead from the start.
“As a council we decided early on that we would follow an evidence-led approach, not prejudging any site and going where our Plan-making policy and the evidence took us.
“To call into question an evidence-led approach comes to the root of our concerns with the actions of the inspector. If we are not to follow the evidence to make our Plan then the government may just as well dictate how many homes an area should have and then pick sites, we need to put an end to the thinly veiled charade that Local Plans are in any way locally led.
“But the most damning comment has to be left for the inspector’s approach to publish her brief note before allowing the council to either see her full reasoning or have a chance to respond. This suggests her mind is far from open and she and her masters have made their minds up.
“Sevenoaks District Council will stand up for its residents and the district’s environment against what we believe is a huge abuse of the process by the Planning Inspectorate and the government department responsible.
“We will not allow them to run roughshod over the huge weight of evidence we have amassed, community views we have collated and the few powers we have left as a planning authority.”

Monday, October 21, 2019

Sevenoaks: the sites that could be taking a housing hit

Posted , filed under News

Are the diggers heading your way?

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.

  • For more on this story, see here
  • To read the papers for the cabinet, see here
  • To track the changes being made to the Local Plan, visit Appendix 5 of the Cabinet papers here

Monday, December 3, 2018

Sevenoaks: where will the bricks and mortar be landing?

Posted , filed under News

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.

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Learn about the draft Sevenoaks Local Plan: you still have time to comment

Posted , filed under News

More demand on the River Darent seems certain (pic Glen Humble, flickr)

Consultation on the Sevenoaks draft Local Plan (2015-35) ends on Monday, September 10.
CPRE Kent has taken calls in recent weeks from residents across the district concerned what a proposed housing target of 13,960 new homes might mean for them and for the status of the Green Belt.
In response, we have produced a briefing that covers the core issues relating to new-housing allocation within the draft Local Plan. We also make our own observations on the document.
You can see the briefing and our observations here
Sevenoaks District Council has organised a series of drop-in sessions, where you can learn more about the Local Plan. You can still make two of these:

  • Swanley Link (BR8 7AE): Wednesday, August 29, 2pm-8pm
  • Sevenoaks District Council (TN13 1HG): Wednesday, September 5, 2pm-8pm

We can not stress strongly enough that if you have concerns about what is proposed by the council in its Local Plan, or you simply want to be involved in the future of Sevenoaks district, you need to respond to the consultation by Monday, September 10.
You can do that here

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Sevenoaks draft Local Plan: a briefing and CPRE Kent observations

Posted , filed under Planning

What future for the Green Belt in Sevenoaks district? (pic Susan Pittman)

Sevenoaks District Council’s Local Plan strategy

The draft Local Plan (2015-35) sets out the council’s strategy of:

  • providing 13,960 homes to meet its local housing need
  • focusing growth at existing settlements and maximising supply (through increased density)
  • redevelopment of previously developed land (and of locally-defined brownfield land in sustainable locations)
  • development of greenfield Green Belt land only in exceptional circumstances, where social and community infrastructure is being proposed in addition to housing, which could help address evidenced infrastructure deficiencies in the local area

 

Locally-defined brownfield land
Sevenoaks District Council is seeking to introduce the concept of locally- defined brownfield land as a means of gleaning as many housing sites as possible to contribute towards the requirement of 13,960 homes.
This definition goes beyond the (Nationally Planning Policy Framework) NPPF definition of previously developed land (PDL) – and could have serious repercussions for other Kent Green Belt authorities.

Locally-defined exceptional circumstances
The council is also seeking to include a local definition of exceptional circumstances.
The draft NPPF states that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
The council is exploring in its draft Local Plan whether its Green Belt boundaries should be altered to meet its housing need. Twelve exceptional-circumstances sites have been put forward for consideration.
The council acknowledges that Sevenoaks is a highly constrained district, with 93% being Green Belt and 60% (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) AONB.
It is explained at para 1.14 of the draft Plan that consultation is taking place on all these sites to receive stakeholder comments… and that the inclusion of these sites in this consultation does not guarantee their inclusion in the final draft Local Plan.
The table below lists the 12 exceptional-circumstances sites.

Location                               Policy            No. of units            Site area (hectares)

Sevenoaks
Sevenoaks Quarry                 MX43             600                            94

Land west of Chevening        MX49             26-30                        1.7
Road, Chipstead                    HO53

Land east of London             MX50             40                              8.5
Road, Dunton Green             HO70

Swanley
Land between Beechlea       MX54a/b         750                            39.5
Lane and Highlands Hill,      HO188
Swanley

Pedham Place, Swanley/      MX48             c2,500                       117.6
Farningham/Eynsford

Edenbridge
Land south and east of        HO189 &        515                             27.2
Four Elms Road or              HO190
———————————— MX25 &
———————————–  MX26
———————————— HO223

Land at Crouch House        MX51              250                             18.4
Road or                              HO158

Land at Breezehurst            MX10             450                             18
Farm

and
Land west of Romani          MX44             80                               6.7
Way

Westerham
Land north and east of        HO371 &       600                             21.8
Westerham                          HO372
————————————-HO373 &
———————————— HO374
———————————— EM17

Fawkham/Hartley
Corinthian and                     MX52 &         Corinthian 570        74.6
Banckside                            MX53             Banckside  230
———————————— HO162 &
———————————— HO163

Halstead/Pratt’s
Bottom
Broke Hill golf course        MX41             800                             60.2

Subtotal       6,800

CPRE Kent observations on the Sevenoaks Local Plan

In general, CPRE Kent supports a development strategy that meets the following criteria:

  1. Prioritises the redevelopment of appropriate, sustainably-located previously-developed land. It does not support development on locally-defined brownfield land in unsustainable locations.
  2. Does not lead to the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, Green Belt, AONB and other designations.
  3. Focuses growth at existing settlements and maximises supply through increased densities at sustainable locations.
  4. Recognises the acute need for rural affordable housing.

 

CPRE Kent is concerned about the level of housing proposed. It is noted that the 2015 SHMA sets out objectively assessed need based on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2012-based sub-national population projections and 2012-based household projection figures.
These figures will need to be reviewed in light of the 2016 mid-year figures and the household projections (expected next month).
Following the decline in population (2012-2016), it would seem reasonable to assume that household projections will also be in decline. However, we wait with interest to see what the government’s stance on this will be.

CPRE Kent has serious reservations that the construction industry will be capable of delivering the proposed level of housing. Average housing completions for the district are noted as 250dpa (dwellings per annum) over the last 10 years. With the suggested local housing need of 13,960, this would rise to 698dpa.

CPRE Kent has serious reservations over the need to deliver homes in accordance with the standard methodology for calculating local housing need, for the following reasons:

  1. The NPPF states that the government attaches great importance to the Green Belt – it states that “once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of Plans. Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries, having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the Plan period”.
  2. One of the Green Belt purposes is to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Resisting development in the Green Belt will help encourage the bringing forward of previously developed land in the urban area.
  3. New housing in the Green Belt is likely to be for large properties that won’t meet the demand of local people who genuinely require housing in the villages and settlements within, or washed over, the Green Belt.

CPRE Kent does not consider that allocating land to meet local housing need with the promise of social and community infrastructure sufficiently demonstrates exceptional circumstances.
CPRE Kent is concerned that the harm caused to the purposes of the Green Belt designation and other considerations would not be outweighed by the requirements of the local housing need requirement.

Wednesday, August 22, 2018