Page 1 of 25

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18) Consultation – Group Response

DATA PROTECTION AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

The information collected via this response form will be used by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to

inform future stages of Local Plan preparation.

When you send your response to this consultation, your contact details will be added to the consultation

database and you will be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents.

Please note that your responses will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. The

Council will publish names and associated responses but will not publish personal information such as

telephone numbers, e-mails or private addresses.

Your details (please give full contact details)

Name Simon Gentry

Responding on behalf of This response is made on behalf of the Residents Against Ramslye

Development group and the 669 signatories on the petition delivered to

Kate Jelly, Planning Services, TWBC

Email address simongentry@live.co.uk

Postal address 4 Summervale Road

Town Tunbridge Wells

Post Code TN4 8JB

Telephone Number 07599 819487

Signature Sent by email

Date 14 November 2019

Section 4: The Development Strategy and Strategic Policies

Policy STR 1 – The Development Strategy

1b states “An enhanced town centre development at RTW, including... the provision of flexible retail, leisure, and cultural uses, as well as new office provision…”. In December 2018 Kent Live reported “Empty shops in Tunbridge Wells could be the start of town centre shrinking as shopping habits change”. Last year the Courier reported that nearly a third of the RVP units were empty. There are still numerous empty shops so there is little point planning to build more until the current supply is exhausted. The same is true for office space. In past years office space in the town has been converted into residential space, the most obvious example being the Union House development of 127 luxury flats (none of which are affordable). Maybe AXA PPP healthcare would like to consolidate its offices at North Farm but it is not at all clear who would fill the existing/old ones if that were the case. TWBC needs to think more carefully about what the future of retail and office work is in an increasingly digitalised world rather than wishing for a return to the turn of the century’s shopping and working patterns.

Page 2 of 25

Policy STR 1 – The Development Strategy – Scale and distribution of development – Table 3

We challenge the need for such a large number of new dwellings in the Borough. Office for National Statistics data predicts the population of Tunbridge Wells will grow from 117,140 in 2016 to 131,092 in 2036 (the planning period). TWBC reports that housing stock in 2016 was 49,880. If the occupancy rate of dwellings remains at the 2016 level (i.e. 2.35 people per dwelling) then the need by 2036 will be a further 5,937 dwellings to the stock. Even if one were to allow for a decrease in the occupancy rate to two people per dwelling, the need would still be lower than 7,000, i.e. less than half of the number of dwellings the plan allows for. The Housing Supply and Trajectory Topic paper (September 2019) reports “Between 1st April 2016 and 31st March 2019, 1,552 dwellings were completed and, as of 31st March 2019, 3,127 dwellings have extant planning permission.” This leaves a need of 1,258 (@ 2.35 occupancy) to 2,297 (@ 2 occupancy) new dwellings between now and 2036. While we appreciate the housing requirement is set by national policy, we do not consider TWBC has appropriately represented the interests of its residents. The policy is eminently challengeable because it is fundamentally flawed. It effectively only considers supply side solutions to housing affordability when much of the house price inflation experienced in the last 10 years is a consequence of the macro–economic environment (principally interests rates at an historic low for over 10 years) i.e. demand side issues that do not relate to population growth. By accepting the allocation, TWBC has not acted to protect the rural nature and the associated landscape of the borough that is valued by its residents and is protected under law. The approach to date has been supine and cavalier with our environment and interests. TWBC must take steps to challenge the allocation on our behalf so as to protect our interests.

Policy STR 2 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development

“4.42 As set out within the NPPF, the role of the Local Plan is to plan for development over the plan period in a sustainable way in accordance with the Development Strategy. Accordingly, in planning for new development, consideration should be given to all three elements of sustainable development; the economic, social, and environmental objectives.” Your policy has taken this statement and presumed development, not that development where it takes place will be done in a sustainable way. The policy should not presume there will be development. The policy as drafted is too heavily in favour of development and in particular developers whose motives and incentives are often misaligned with the council and more importantly the residents.

Policy STR 3 - Masterplanning and use of Compulsory Purchase powers

Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) must only be used in very exceptional circumstances. The bar must be set an appropriately high level. Where a CPO is used, the market rate must be paid to the land owner. The use of CPOs must be monitored, to ensure particular individuals are not hounded over a period of time.

Policy STR 4 – Green Belt

“The release of Green Belt land has been undertaken through this Local Plan, and is detailed where relevant in the place shaping policies in Section 5. In order to protect the remaining Green Belt, as defined on the draft Policies Map, the Council will consider the proposal against the relevant policy in the National Planning Policy Framework, or the national planning policy at the time a planning application is being determined.” Your policy simply doesn’t adequately protect Green Belt. Your plan dedesignates 5.35% of the borough’s Green Belt, with no alternative land being protected. Will another 5% be dedesignated in 2036? The South East of England is already more densely populated than other parts of the country. The borough cannot build and build, and maintain what is special to this area. The policy should be more explicit about protecting those areas of Green Belt that are either more sensitive or contribute more to the Green Belt policy objectives. In addition, given the number of local plans around the country that propose the development of Green Belt land, we find it very difficult to believe that each district or borough can be exceptional – we think you must agree that would be an exceptional number of exceptional circumstances.

Page 3 of 25

Policy STR 5 - Essential Infrastructure and Connectivity – Education & Health

There is no need for a new secondary school in Tunbridge Wells. Tunbridge Wells already has six secondary schools: Tunbridge Wells Girls’ Grammar, Bennett Memorial, Skinners’, Skinners’ Kent Academy, St Gregory’s and Tunbridge Wells Grammar for Boys. In addition to these academy and maintained schools, there are a number of independent and special schools. The Draft Local Plan proposes that part of the land at site 137 / AL/RTW 18 should be used for the provision of a new secondary school (at an estimated cost of £30 million). The issues and options paper published by TWBC in 2017 is largely silent on the associated infrastructure development required with such a large house building program. Instead it is noted in the Consultation Statement that responses identified the need for appropriate infrastructure development (including but not limited to schools) if that many new houses are built. The case for a new secondary school in RTW has not been persuasively made at all. Clearly the need for an additional secondary school must take account of current (over) capacity and projected need. The KCC Education and Infrastructure Needs and Requirements (EINR) document would have been a useful document for you to refer to in your consultation document. In that document it reports there is currently 12.4% spare capacity in Tunbridge Wells secondary schools, which is above average for Kent, more than twice the KCC target capacity and makes Tunbridge Wells 5th out of 13 areas in terms of capacity. The EINR document goes on to project a need for an additional 1644 secondary school places in Tunbridge Wells by 2031. Given the current capacity has approximately 500 places before breaching the 5% target, the need for additional places is likely to be nearer 1100. The Tunbridge Wells Infrastructure Delivery Plan sets out plans to expand four secondary schools in the next few years by five forms of entry (classes) (i.e. 150 additional places per year group, so 750 new places), thus further reducing the additional capacity required. Of the planned expansion, four out of five of the new forms of entry will be in RTW. Given that less than 10% of the planned housing development will be in RTW, siting a new school at the south west edge of the borough is simply not appropriate (and in clear contravention of your own transport policies) when the need will be in the north. Given all of this, we are surprised that in conversation with your planning officers at the 26/28 September 2019 Royal Victoria Place exhibition they talked about an “urgent need” for a new secondary school in RTW. Indeed the Infrastructure Development Plan says “Land reserved for the establishment of a new secondary school in RTW post 2030 (Spratsbrook)”. Clearly within the plan period there is not an urgent need and we consider TW planning has been misleading in its statements to us. Furthermore if there is such a need for a new secondary school, we would have expected this to take a much more prominent place in the consultation process and an appropriate, detailed and transparent process of consideration of the available sites. To date TWBC has in our view failed in its duties to consult openly and transparently making this plan potentially unlawful. Notwithstanding the points made above, we consider the site of the Tunbridge Wells golf club (site 146) is better placed than site 137 / AL/RTW 18. Site 146 is not in the High Weald AONB (unlike site 137 / AL/RTW 18). Site 146 is also more centrally located in the borough but still on the south side of town, and would easily serve Langton and Speldhurst, and the wards of Rusthall, Culverden, Pantiles & St Marks as well as Broadwater. Site 146 is on a much less busy road so the traffic impact would be lower than site 137 / AL/RTW 18 and its position relative to so many other wards would give the council at least a fighting chance of meeting its targets on emissions and active travel. Lastly it is widely reported that the site is available. If it is not used for a school (or housing), what will it be used for? The policy expresses an aspiration to “ensure adequate healthcare infrastructure is provided as part of new development”. We note that recently RTW has witnessed the closure/merger of GP surgeries e.g. Rowan Tree, and registering with an NHS dentist is almost impossible. There is insufficient detail in the plan to judge whether the policy will be effective or meet resident reasonable expectations. Nor are there any clear objective measures that would enable residents to hold TWBC to account. This policy

Page 4 of 25

should be revised to explain what “adequate” means by reference to availability of services within a distance that would also meet the active travel policy objective (i.e. walking distance).

Policy STR 7 – Place Shaping and Design

The policy as currently drafted is far too weak in respect of the requirements that will be put on developers. It is simply not enough to “aim” or “have regard” to the council’s design guidance. The policy must be strengthened to require developments to meet the adopted design guidance – this is particularly true for any development in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty that should be required to meet the HW AONB guidance published earlier this year.

Policy STR 8 - Conserving and enhancing the natural, built, and historic environment

We support this policy – and as a result are mystified as to why the plan has included site 137 / AL/RTW 18 as a potential site for development given its place in the AONB, and its sensitivity and contribution to the landscape. As things stand in this plan, it is not clear TWBC has any realistic chance of meeting this policy.

Policy STR 10 - Limits to Built Development Boundaries

It is very difficult to see that there is any point to this policy. It provides no controls around the LBD, acting instead as a carte blanche to developers to ignore the LBDs through the place shaping policies. If TWBC is serious about LBDs, this policy should be strengthened to say “Outside the Limits to Built Development, development will normally be limited to that which accords with specific policies of this Plan and/or that for which a rural location is demonstrated to be undeniably necessary.” The policy should additionally say “Specific policies of this plan will include a justification and appropriate detailed mitigation in the conditions of development so as to guard against urban creep.” Also see comments below: Appendix 5: Limits to Built Development Topic Paper

Section 5: Place Shaping Policies

Royal Tunbridge Wells

Policy AL/RTW 18

Land to the west of Eridge Road at Spratsbrook Farm

SHELAA reference: Site 137

Sustainability Appraisal This submission is made primarily in respect of site 137 but its content relates additionally to sites:

30 (with 100, 199 & 205) Land at Caenwood Farm & Whitegates Farm Reynolds Lane;

73 Land at Pembury Road South;

99 Land at Pembury Road;

114 Land at Sandown Park west of A21;

116 Land South of Pembury Road;

146 Tunbridge Wells golf club Langton Road;

280 Land at The Midway Nevill Court;

384 Land at Great Bayhall;

411 Land at Sandown Park between Pembury Grange & A21;

434 Tutty’s Farm Hawkenbury; &

459 (with 23, 111, 214, 326, 333, 341, 383 & additional land [300 & 65?]) Land at Kipping’s Cross.

(see Appendix 6: Submitted sites not included in this Draft Local Plan)

Page 5 of 25

We wish to challenge the ‘unsuitable’ decisions for the sites listed above, either because the

sustainability scores are inconsistent (sites 30, 73, 99, 114, 116, 146, 411 and 434) or because no

sustainability appraisal was even completed (sites 280, 384 and 459). At least some of these sites are

suitable for a school and therefore site 137 cannot be considered exceptional.

We wish to challenge the content and conclusions contained within the Sustainability Appraisal for

Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18), which as a consequence, we consider will change the ‘suitable’

conclusion contained in the SHELAA in respect of site 137 / AL/RTW 18 to ‘unsuitable’.

We consider many of the scores in the sustainability appraisal understate the negative impact of the

development of site 137. In addition, we do not consider the appraisal has been consistently carried

out when compared to sites in similar positions with a similar level of sensitivity. On reading the detail,

some other sites appear to have been appraised as unsuitable because a developer is no longer

interested in the site (e.g. 459), whereas site 137 is considered suitable because a developer is still

interested. This is not an appropriate way to develop a plan of this magnitude and developer interest

should not be a contributory factor to making the case for exceptional circumstances required to

release Green Belt or to develop on AONB designated land.

We attach a spreadsheet (below) which compares the sustainability objective scores and issues to consider across a selection of sites which TWBC has deemed unsuitable. As you can see from the spreadsheet, there are number of unexplainable inconsistencies. In particular we would draw your attention to the scores for:

Air: It is not clear how this score has been arrived at for site 137. “Air quality is scored as negative overall because of the large size of the development and likelihood that new vehicles will utilise the A26 as a through route”. “There is also a need to meet nitrogen dioxide reduction targets along the A26 in Royal Tunbridge Wells, which is identified as an Air Quality Management Area.” We can see no reason why the score should not be --/--- as per site 30 (“the substantial use of private vehicles in this location causes the noise and air objectives to score very negatively”).

Biodiversity: It is not at all clear why site 146 has scored so much worse than site 137. Even though site 137 is technically undesignated, the presence of protected species such as bats, dormice, adders and great crested newts should increase the negative score. The draft plan makes reference to site 137 being a Biodiversity Opportunity Area. The site provides wildlife corridors between Hargate Forest, Friezland Wood & Broadwater Warren. In addition, the site is only just outside the Ashdown forest 7km protection zone and we would expect a proper impact assessment to be carried out given the negative air quality score, as to our knowledge NO2 does not respect lines drawn on maps.

Education/Employment/Equality: It would appear these all score very positively compared to other sites because of the proposed siting of a secondary school. Other sites in the attached spreadsheet were also assessed for schools (sites 30, 73 & 146; 384 & 459 (mixed use) were omitted from appraisal) but they have not been scored anywhere near as positively. These scores should be reviewed and made consistent. Site 146 should also be considered alongside RTW9 (Lifestyle Motor Europe) which neighbours it & could be developed together, providing more flexibility.

Heritage: this score is too low and does not adequately take account of the Scheduled Monument (Historic England) that is in part in the site, along with other heritage constraints (listed buildings and historic farmstead). It is not clear why site 99 scores --/---.

Housing: the appraisals contain errors. With the exception of site 280, all sites listed here should be scored +++ as >150 dwellings are possible.

Page 6 of 25

Land use: the land is ALC Grade 3a and 3b and is therefore subject to the greatest level of protection under the “Best and Most Versatile” rules; as such it should be scored as - - - . Site 146 is already developed (it’s a golf course) so should score 0 or maybe - as loss of green space.

Landscape: Given the site is high value Green belt, in the AONB and is so visually prominent, it should be scored consistently with other sites (30, 99 & 116) at - - -.

Noise: Sites 137, 30 & 146 are impacted by the Gatwick flight path to a similar extent. The A26 (site 137) currently gets 23,496 motor vehicles per day; the A264 (site 146) currently gets 9,034 motor vehicles per day. No data for Reynolds Lane (site 30). Site 137 should score --- or --/---. Site 30 should score much more favourably given its likely current traffic volume. Site 146 should score somewhere in between.

Services and facilities: It is not clear why this has been scored more positively than sites 30 and 146; all are similar distances to the town centre and housing (with site 30 close to a school and sports centre) so they should be scored consistently.

Travel: It is not clear why this has been scored so positively in comparison to sites 30, 73 & 146 (& 99). The site is on the borough/county boundary. Increased traffic is acknowledged, as is the borough’s low bus usage, and the existing cycle lanes on other sites are listed as issues not positive factors in relation to active travel. Site 146 is on the A264 which gets 62% less traffic (9,034 vehicles per day) than the A26 (23,496 vehicles per day). Development here would give a fairer distribution of traffic and less congestion; this should score ++. Site 146 also has good existing access as it’s to a golf course. There is some overlap here with services and facilities.

Microsoft Excel

97-2003 Worksheet

We also challenge why sites were omitted from the sustainability appraisal – surely the purpose of the appraisal process is to fully consider the positives and negatives, in a structured and documented way. Sites 459 and 384 are noted as “within the AONB and landscape impacts were considered too severe to warrant consideration”; can the same not be said for the sites we have listed here? We can find no mention of site 280; why was there no appraisal of this site? On further detailed examination of the sample of sites we have used for comparison purposes, we note all are listed as being in the High Weald AONB. However, based on the maps available on the High Weald AONB website and as confirmed by the HW AONB team the following sites are within the TW conurbation and are NOT in the AONB - sites: 30, 99, 114, 146, 280, 411 and 434. That being the case, these sites previously rejected must be considered ahead of site 137 / AL/RTW 18 in order to comply with the NPPF. We would also like to make the following factual corrections to the SHELAA for site 137 / AL/RTW 18. Firstly, the size of the site is not 55.79 ha; c.15 ha is available in the borough (with the remaining area in Wealden (with no defined boundary on the site) which has deemed it unsuitable for development). The ‘issues to consider’ section incorrectly grades the land as ALC Grade 4, Urban, when in fact the land is agricultural grade 3a and 3b – an assart field which is actively farmed. The heritage matters should more accurately record that the site includes part of a Scheduled Monument with archaeological potential (which further reduces the developable area). It is also adjacent to listed buildings and a historic farmstead. The site includes and is adjacent to ancient woodland. We consider that any objective assessment of the site with the corrections we have highlighted, coupled with the appropriate sustainability scores as set out in the attached spreadsheet, will result in the SHELAA assessment concluding the site is unsuitable. Furthermore, the spreadsheet we have included shows a small selection of sites with reasonable scale which have been excluded. While all of these sites appear to have been excluded at least in part because they are in the AONB/Greenbelt (which we are querying), they appear to be no more

Page 7 of 25

sensitive to development than site 137 / AL/RTW 18 and in some cases, as we have demonstrated, have fewer constraints. That being the case we consider that TWBC has failed in its duty to carry out an objective and thorough assessment and failed to demonstrate that all other sites have been exhausted before including site 137 / AL/RTW 18 in the Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18) and as such has not met the requirements of the NPPF. Site 137 does not meet the sustainability requirements and is therefore unsuitable for development. General comment

The Sustainability Appraisal of the Draft Local Plan states “To make meaningful progress towards a more sustainable way of living, it is essential that Local Plans are developed with a detailed consideration of sustainability issues from the outset. This is the purpose of a Sustainability Appraisal (SA). The process is a legal requirement under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004…” Table 8. Compatibility testing of Local Plan objectives with Sustainability Appraisal objectives.

This table gives a misleadingly positive view of the compatibility of the local plan objectives with the

sustainability appraisal objectives. For example, development needs will almost certainly be

incompatible with heritage, landscape and noise; it is not obvious why climate change would have a

positive relationship with employment and business growth. The compatibility test should be revisited.

Page 8 of 25

Given the significant deficiencies in preparing this compatibility test, we consider the sustainability

appraisal does not meet the legal requirements.

SHELAA issues to consider We want to register our strong objection to any development on site 137 and we make the following points in support of our objection: 1. Green Belt designation: The land is Green Belt and it must not be released for development We do not consider that the case has been made to release the portion of the Green Belt which is relevant to this site. The decision to declassify any Green Belt must meet the criteria set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In addition, the decision to declassify should be subject to significant analysis and challenge given the permanence of the decision – i.e. once it’s gone it’s gone. The expectation set out by government in the NPPF is that new Green Belt will not be designated, therefore the barriers to declassifying should be as high as they are for classifying new Green Belt. Paragraph 136 of the NPPF says: “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.” Paragraphs 143 to 144 go on to say: “Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” We do not consider the local plan meets the thresholds set in the NPPF to release the site from Green Belt. Beyond a superficial statement to the effect that there are special circumstances, the plan does not present detailed arguments or evidence, nor does it consider individual sites within the Green Belt which given the differently assessed impacts would be a minimum for each site. The Tunbridge Wells Green Belt Study Stage Two (TWGBSST) prepared in July 2017 assesses the degree of harm caused by the potential loss of this site (referenced as TW10 in the TWGGBSST) as high (the second highest rating). It also assesses that the contribution of this site to the NPPF criteria for Green Belt as relatively strong (the second highest rating) in three out of the four criteria assessed. The TWGBSST presents a strong evidence base to retain this site in the Green Belt. It is not apparent from the local plan that any other site has been proposed to be released from the Green Belt that would have the high degree of harm associated with losing this site in the RTW area. In any case, we consider the assessment of the site in the Green Belt Study Stage 2 is incorrect. Using the published methodology, we consider site 137’s (TW10 in the Green Belt study) contribution to purposes 3 and 4 should be reassessed to “Strong”. The site’s contribution to purpose 3 “Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment” is strong because it is undeveloped and is self-evidently separate from urban development. Its contribution to purpose 4 “Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns” should be changed to strong given its visual prominence and is characteristic of the AONB in being assart; the current assessment is incorrect in noting the site is adjacent to a scheduled monument when your own map clearly shows the scheduled monument is in part in the site.

Page 9 of 25

Further we consider the release of this site from the Green Belt is inconsistent with the policy STR8 (Conserving and enhancing the natural, built, and historic environment). In particular, it has not been demonstrated how its release would be consistent with clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5 of that policy. If we as local citizens are to be able to rely on these policies, it is of the utmost importance that the council adheres to all of its policies and manages the inevitable tensions in a transparent and robust way. We do not consider that given the high degree of harm to the Green Belt that would be caused by its release, that this site can ever be released in a way that is consistent with this policy and we therefore urge the council to withdraw this site from further consideration. 2. AONB (2 component parts): The land is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty (AONB) and is high grade agricultural land and as such it must be protected from development

Approximately half of the site sits within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The whole site is visually prominent and contributes to local recreational uses through its visual landscape, walking access to Friezland woods and being farmed. The Department for Environment Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) states:

“The primary purpose of AONB designation is to conserve and enhance natural beauty.

Subsidiary purposes – in effect, qualifications of the primary purpose – are those defined in a

Countryside Commission statement 1991, restated in 2006:

In pursuing the primary purpose of designation, account should be taken of the needs of agriculture,

forestry, other rural industries and of the economic and social needs of local communities.

Particular regard should be paid to promoting sustainable forms of social and economic

development that in themselves conserve and enhance the environment.

Recreation is not an objective of designation, but the demand for recreation should be met so far as

this is consistent with the conservation of natural beauty and the needs of agriculture, forestry and

other uses.”

AONBs are designated by government to ensure that the conservation and enhancement of the landscape is given high priority. The High Weald AONB has a number of features:

rolling hills, dissected by steep-sided gill streams and studded by sandstone outcrops.

small, irregular-shaped fields and open heaths which are often the remnants of medieval hunting forests.

abundant, interconnected ancient woods and hedges. The dense forest which gave the Weald its name has largely vanished, but fine ancient broadleaved woodland is still abundant, particularly in the deep gills which incise the ridges. The Weald retains one of the highest levels of woodland cover in the country at over 23 per cent. Traces of the ancient Wealden iron industry, including hammer ponds, are found scattered throughout the woodlands.

scattered farmsteads and hamlets, largely developing from temporary dwellings in wooded areas or ‘dens’ where farmers from the Downs grazed their pigs. Buildings are characterised by distinctive stone, brick, tile and white weatherboard houses and oasthouses are common.

narrow, sunken lanes arising from pannage – the movement of animals from the Downs to the High Weald in the autumn to graze on mast in the area’s woodlands or dens.

The land on this site is a fine example of these characteristics and we understand it is considered to be medieval assart farmland. Given its close proximity to Tunbridge Wells, the site is currently easily accessible and available to the public for recreational purposes – its loss would clearly have a detrimental impact on the environment and the visual landscape.

We consider that in putting this site forward for consideration of development the council has failed in its duties under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CRoW) 2000 which reaffirms the primary purpose of AONBs: to conserve and enhance natural beauty. The CRoW sets out responsibilities for

Page 10 of 25

the management of AONBs. Specifically in identifying the site for development TWBC is not complying with:

Section 82 reaffirms the primary purpose of AONBs: to conserve and enhance natural beauty.

Section 84 confirms the powers of local authorities to take appropriate action to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of AONBs.

Section 85 places a duty on all public bodies and statutory undertakers to ‘have regard’ to the ‘purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty.’

Section 92 clarifies that conservation of natural beauty includes conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features.

Furthermore, the development of the site would not in our view meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework set out in section 170. Section 170 requires that Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in

a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from

natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland;

d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;

e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and

f) remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.

In permitting development on this site we consider TWBC will be in breach of all of the clauses set out above.

A development of the scale proposed for this site cannot comply with the requirements set out above in respect of AONB, BMV, CRoW or NPPF, and additionally TWBC’s own policy as set out in STR8 says: “The urban and rural landscapes of the borough, including the designated High Weald AONB, will be conserved and enhanced; The landscape character of the borough will be protected through retention and enhancement of the key characteristics or valued landscape features and qualities, as well as through the restoration of landscape character where it has been eroded;… Within the area designated as AONB and its setting, development will be managed in a way that conserves and enhances the natural beauty of the area, and developers will be expected to demonstrate (through relevant documentation submitted as part of a planning application) how proposals have had regard to the objectives of the High Weald AONB Management Plan. Proposals that would harm the natural beauty of the AONB will not be permitted unless it is clearly in the public interest to do so. In such instances, effective mitigation should form an integral part of the development proposals; A hierarchical approach to nature conservation and the protection of biodiversity will be applied across the sites and habitats of national, regional, and local importance within the borough. The objective is to achieve net gains for nature and protect and enhance sites of geological interest across the whole borough;…. The designated and non-designated heritage assets of the borough, including historic field patterns, listed buildings, conservation areas, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, archaeological sites, and Historic

Page 11 of 25

Parks and Gardens, will be conserved and enhanced, and special regard will be had to their settings;….” And EN7 goes on to say “Proposals that affect a designated or non-designated heritage asset, or its setting, will only be permitted where the development conserves or enhances the character, appearance, amenity, and setting of the asset; and in the case of historic parks and gardens, provides, where possible, improvement of access to it.” The fine words and sentiment set out in the policy that we support will be rendered empty and worthless if development on this site is permitted. Developing the site will result in its loss as a heritage and landscape asset and no amount of mitigations will meet the policy intent set out in the Draft Local Plan. Under the NPPF TWBC is obliged to give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land before permitting the development of greenfield sites. TWBC has simply not demonstrated appropriate consideration of the impact of developing this site and should remove it from consideration in the local plan. 3. Heritage matters (adjacent to Conservation Area): additionally, the site includes a

Scheduled Monument (with archaeological potential), and is adjacent to listed buildings and a historic farmstead.

The SHELAA (issues to consider and sustainability assessment) did not accurately reflect the heritage matters relevant to the site. Had all the matters been clearly listed at this stage of TWBC’s process (not later in Place Shaping Policy AL/RTW 18), we consider the site would have been deemed unsuitable, particularly when compared with the sites we have listed above. The Sustainability Assessment section says “Finally heritage score negatively due to the compromised setting of the Hill Fort (a Scheduled Ancient Monument)”, almost as if it was an afterthought instead of that status being recognised as the highest in the country. Indeed neither the SHELAA map nor the Policy map even show the Scheduled Monument. Historic England lists Scheduled Monument references 1002280 (prehistoric rock shelters and a multivallate hillfort at High Rocks, 309m ESE of High Rocks Inn) and 1003816 (prehistoric rock shelters and a multivallate hillfort at High Rocks, 309m ESE of High Rocks Inn) and consequently the prescribed processes must be followed in relation to any development which might affect it. The Schedule of Monuments has only 19,854 entries (2016) and TWBC is urged to continue to support the protection of this site. The draft local plan as it stands does not adequately address the requirements set out in sections 189-202 of the National Planning Policy Framework regarding heritage assets. In particular, the requirements to take account of the contribution made by their setting and that any adverse impact on a scheduled monument should only be sanctioned in “wholly exceptional circumstances”. We do not accept that any case has been effectively made for wholly exceptional circumstances. In addition, section 187 b requires authorities to “predict the likelihood that currently unidentified heritage assets, particularly sites of historic and archaeological interest, will be discovered in the future.” It seems clear given the overall scale of the Hill Fort it would be very likely that there lies a wealth of so far unidentified historically significant archaeology in the fields surrounding the Hill Fort and they should all therefore be conserved in accordance with section 187 b. Organisations such as RESCUE (British Archaeological Trust) and the Council for British Archaeology have confirmed our understanding and TWBC might be in receipt of separate objections from them.

Page 12 of 25

A scheduled monument is an historic building or site that is included in the Schedule of Monuments kept by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The regime is set out in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (1). Applications to schedule or deschedule a monument are administered by Historic England, who will carry out an assessment and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. The protected site of a monument may also include any land adjoining it essential for its support and preservation. Once a monument is scheduled any works to it, and flooding and tipping operations that might affect it, with few exceptions require scheduled monument consent from the Secretary of State, (not the local planning authority). Historic England manages the process of scheduled monument consent on behalf of the Secretary of State. Metal detecting on a Scheduled Monument is also illegal without a licence from Historic England. Historic England has written to us stating “it should be consulted on any planning applications which is likely to affect the site of a scheduled monument. We would expect to be consulted at pre-application stage for any large development which involved work on or adjacent to a scheduled monument. Our archaeological specialists would provide advice and recommendations to the local authority.” Additionally, the site is adjacent to two listed buildings (Ramslye Old Farmhouse and Ramslye Farmhouse), and Ramslye Old Farmhouse is a historic farmstead.

Page 13 of 25

4. Highway matters: The existing road network cannot support a development of the size and nature proposed

We do not consider any development on this site can be consistent with Policy STR 6 Transport and Parking. The proposal to develop the site will add an unsustainable level of traffic to Eridge Road. Data from the Tunbridge Wells Park and Ride Feasibility Study shows Eridge Road supports almost the same amount of traffic as Pembury Road, which are both significantly busier than other access roads (see table 2 below reproduced). Table 2: DfT Estimated Daily Traffic Flows, 2016

Road Link Cars, Taxis All Motor Vehicles

A264 Pembury Road B2023 to Blackhurst Lane 19,408 24,215

A267 Frant Road B2169 to A26 11,560 14,138

A26 Eridge LA Boundary to A267 19,746 23,496

A264 Langton Road A264 Mount Ephraim to A26 7,855 9,034

A26 London Road A26 Mount Ephraim to Birchwood Avenue, Southborough

15,450 19,330

The RAC reports that in the Tunbridge Wells Borough, car ownership is 560 per 1000 population. On that basis, 270 new homes with the same occupancy rate as the current TW average (2.35 people) would add 358 cars to the current traffic flow. There is no existing road access to the site, only a private driveway to two houses, which is in fact in Wealden - we believe the draft local plan is incorrect on this point - and a new access road would be required creating additional road safety issues on an already very busy road with poor visibility. The introduction of a roundabout for example, would adversely affect the flow of traffic on the A26, creating the sorts of tailbacks already experienced on Pembury Road. The proposal to add signals (traffic lights) on the A26 at the junction of Broadwater Forest Lane/Bunny Lane simply moves the problem of volume back down the road rather than solving it. It would be easier/safer to pull out onto the A26, but that is likely to increase the overall volume further. In addition, school runs can add significantly to the traffic - estimates vary between 20% and 25% increases. Logistically it is not at all clear why it would be sensible or feasible to place a school serving the borough at the extreme South West of the borough. Such positioning will not only lead to an unsustainable increase in traffic on Eridge Road but also London Road (and other feeder roads) towards any school. School run traffic effectively creates four journeys (there and back twice a day) so putting a school at the far end of the borough should not be considered viable. Furthermore, Kent County Council reports that in 2016, 16,172 pupils attended secondary school in Kent, of which 803 came from out of county. Given Tunbridge Wells’s proximity to the Sussex border, it is reasonable to assume a much greater than average proportion of the 803 pupils will attend Tunbridge Wells schools than other parts of Kent. Building a school so close to the East Sussex border will only exacerbate this situation and therefore lead to even more traffic issues on Eridge Road as the key access. Given the Draft Local Plan has identified Capel, Tudely and Paddock Wood as areas for substantial housing development, from a transport perspective there can be no logical justification for building a new secondary school so far away from those settlements. Surely if TWBC is serious in its objective to promote active travel it should seek to facilitate that by putting new settlements and new facilities (such as schools) closer together. Placing a school in this site will in our view result in decreased opportunities for active travel and we do not agree with the assessment set out at appendix E of the sustainability appraisal document. The Draft plan says “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide (CO2) is critical in limiting the impacts of climate change. In 2008, the Climate Change Act set a legally binding target for reducing UK CO2 emission by at least 80 per cent by 2050”. If the Council is going to give effect to these words, it must rethink building a school so close the border. When considered against the evidence set out above, it is clear that the current road and parking infrastructure cannot support the level of intensive development proposed without some drastic form of

Page 14 of 25

intervention to divert existing and additional through traffic from the A26 to the A21 to the south of Tunbridge Wells. Further consideration should also be given to the impact on the existing residents of the Ramslye estate. The estate is currently a relatively quiet, green environment. It benefits from public open spaces that are used by the community, which adds to its character and general feel. The addition of a new secondary school will likely turn the roads into a congested car park for either school run or indeed older pupils seeking to park and walk through. We would refer you to the parking situation at the Fusion sports centre on St. Johns Road where many parking spaces are regularly taken by pupils of the neighbouring school (contrary to Fusion’s parking policy). As is the case with many semi-rural and suburban areas, many people are reliant on their cars even for short journeys. 5. Agricultural Land Classification: Grade 4, Urban

The SHELAA (issues to consider) incorrectly graded the land. Had the site been correctly graded at this stage of TWBC’s process (not later in Place Shaping Policy AL/RTW 18), we consider the site would have been deemed unsuitable, particularly when compared with the sites we have listed above.

Policy AL/RTW 18 confirms the site consists of managed agricultural land and the site is an assart field.

An ALC of land at Ramslye Farm undertaken in October 2014 by Vaughan Redfern Agricultural and Rural Development on behalf of TWBC stated the site is a mix of subgrade 3a1 and 3b. Grade 3a means it should be protected under the “Best and Most Versatile” (BMV) rules.

Note, this plan covering an area of 24.5 hectares extends beyond site 137, across the county border into Wealden.

1 Subgrade 3a - good quality agricultural land

Page 15 of 25

The National Farmers Union is calling on the government to make a strong commitment to British farming to ensure a secure supply of home-grown food for shoppers after new figures put the UK’s self-sufficiency at 61%. It says “Our self-sufficiency has declined over recent years and our political leaders need to take this seriously. While we will never be completely self-sufficient as a country it is vital that Britain takes its role as a food producer for its growing population seriously and does not rely on the rest of the world. When people buy British food they are buying into standards that protect and enhance our natural resources and iconic landscapes. They are buying into world-leading standards of animal welfare, and they are buying into the role farmers are playing in combatting the climate change challenge that is facing us all. We are ready and able to drive productivity while using less inputs and in smarter ways, we are ready and able to plant bigger hedgerows, more woodland, and secure more carbon rich soils, and we are ready and able to contribute more to renewable energy combined with carbon capture and storage in our grasslands used for grazing. British farming is the backbone of the country’s largest manufacturing industry; food and drink. It contributes more than £120 billion to the UK economy and employs almost four million people.”

We should not be building on this actively farmed land, which has again provided a very good crop in this last year. In the light of declaring a climate emergency, farmland and green spaces should not be destroyed.

6. Cross boundary The sustainability appraisal concluded there are no cross boundary issues with Wealden District Council. We dispute this conclusion. In the TWBC FOI (ref: FO08223) response supplied in respect of site AL/RTW 18 it makes reference to “likely cross boundary issues” and we understand discussions with Wealden have taken place although conveniently it would appear no notes were taken. 7. Noise – road and air

The SHELAA (issues to consider) did not list road noise as a problem. Had the site been correctly evaluated at this stage of TWBC’s process (not later in Place Shaping Policy AL/RTW 18), we consider the site would have been deemed unsuitable, particularly when compared with the sites we have listed above.

Road noise was mentioned in the SHELAAs (issues to consider) for sites 99, 114 and 116 (Pembury Road), but not for site 137. The A26 (site 137) currently gets 23,496 motor vehicles per day, and is only 3% less busy than Pembury Road. The A26 already experiences high levels of road noise. Noise from road traffic is the second most harmful environmental pollutant in Europe behind air pollution according to the World Health Organisation. Noise and disturbance from flights arriving at and leaving from Gatwick is a known problem affecting the local area. Organisations such as Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC), Tunbridge Wells Anti-Aircraft Noise Group (TWAANG), Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions (CAGNE), Gatwick Obviously NOT (GON) and Plane Wrong have been working for many years to try to minimise Gatwick’s impact. Flight paths were changed in 2014 (without consultation) and complaint numbers have risen significantly and consequently new groups have been established. Gatwick plans to substantially increase traffic by bringing its standby runway into daily use. TWBC must fully consider the current problem as seen by residents and the scale of the problem if Gatwick is allowed to grow as planned.

Land capable of consistently producing moderate to high yields of a narrow range of arable crops, especially cereals, or moderate yields of crops including: cereals; grass; oilseed rape; potatoes; sugar beet; less demanding horticultural crops.

Page 16 of 25

From 24 hour Webtrak videos of planes crossing within audible distance of Ramslye (3km), it is calculated any new houses and a school would be exposed to an average of 221 overflights a day, half of Gatwick traffic. From DOT calculations, World Health Organisation night noise limits would be exceeded for those living there. It would be dishonest to offer houses for sale in a location which is severely impacted by Gatwick, and will be even more so if Gatwick traffic increases by 40% as per the airport’s plan.

Source: Tunbridge Wells Anti-Aircraft Noise Group website – Annual Report 2019 – Ed Crutchley 8. Ancient woodland

The SHELAA (issues to consider) did not acknowledge the ancient woodland on part of site 137 and the ancient woodland which is adjacent to the site. Had the site been correctly evaluated at this stage of TWBC’s process (not later in Place Shaping Policy AL/RTW 18), we consider the site would have been deemed unsuitable, particularly when compared with the sites we have listed above.

Site 384 is less impacted by ancient woodland yet its SHELAA (issues to consider) says “ancient woodland considerations related to access (outside of the site)”. Landscape and Biodiversity Officer’s assessment Set out below is an excerpt from an email from your Landscape and Biodiversity Officer, obtained via TWBC FOI ref: FO08223. This email dated April 2019 details far more issues than the SHELAA for site 137 dated July 2019. Examples: “High Rocks to the north west is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and a SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) [see Draft Local Plan Appendix 1: Biodiversity/ geodiversity sites within TW borough]]. A Public Right of Way extends east west just south of the site and Friezland Wood [see Appendix 1: Biodiversity/ geodiversity sites, Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) TW23] to the north is used for informal recreation…”.

Page 17 of 25

As the SHELAA was incomplete, either the site must be rejected as not suitable or it must be compared again to the SHELAAs for the sites listed above. Place Shaping Policy AL/RTW 18 makes reference to many of the issues, but this cannot be relied upon as other sites had already been discounted based on the information documented on the SHELAA and therefore an accurate comparison had not been made.

Page 18 of 25

Name of site

It is not clear why this site is named Spratsbrook Farm, as when an Ordnance Survey map is consulted, the name Spratsbrook Farm appears on the east of the A26, on the south side of Strawberry Hill Farm. There are buildings on the west of the A26, opposite the name Spratsbrook Farm, but site 137 borders Ramslye and can much more accurately be described as Ramslye Farm. The absence of ‘Ramslye’ from the site name means local people might have overlooked it when considering the draft local plan.

Planning Portal

A number of respondents have tried to submit comments via the portal but many seem to have lost them when returning to the system later. Kate Jelly has very kindly assisted by offering to upload letters and emails etc, but inevitably doing an offline response means some aspects of the plan e.g. topic papers will have been overlooked.

Conclusion

Site 137 was concluded to be suitable because “it lies adjacent to the main urban area and is likely to be sustainable in this context. It is also adjacent to the A26 Eridge Road a key distributor road”. We have provided much evidence to challenge the sustainability assessment which is too positive and TWBC’s own study shows the A26 is already a very busy road with only 3% less traffic than Pembury Road.

Several sites large enough to accommodate a school and/or housing were concluded to be unsuitable because they are in the High Weald AONB/Green Belt/there is a landscape impact, there is heritage impact and there is high traffic. Some of these sites have been incorrectly classified as AONB and rated too highly in terms of Green Belt value. Site 137 has an Ancient Monument, yet other sites were dismissed for less significant heritage reasons. Traffic is already a major issue for the A26.

Site 137 has been scored inconsistently and more favourably than other development sites. By failing to include sites not in the AONB, TWBC’s Draft Local Plan does not comply with the NPPF requirements to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to develop site 137.

We have set out a compelling and reasoned case to remove this site from the Draft Local Plan.

Page 19 of 25

Section 6: Development Management Policies

Policy EN 6 – Historic Environment

Sections 6.67–6.69 state there will be a presumption of non-development on sites that will damage or disturb Scheduled Monuments and these sections specifically list the High Rocks Scheduled Monument on site 137. On that basis, we conclude any development of the site is incompatible with policy EN6.

Policy EN 7 – Heritage Assets

The policy states “Proposals that affect a designated or non-designated heritage asset, or its setting, will only be permitted where the development conserves or enhances the character, appearance, amenity, and setting of the asset”. We do not see any reasonable case where development of site 137 can comply with this policy, given the existence of the Scheduled Monument on the site and the likely archaeological value of the surrounding area.

Policy EN 11 - Net Gains for Nature: biodiversity

The policy states that development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there will be a measurable long term net gain for biodiversity. Section 6.129 refers to desk based information from the Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre (KMBRC) but it is woefully out of date and totally inadequate for site 137. No reliable assessment of net gain can be made by TWBC. TWBC ought to be consulting sources such as the RSPB (particularly given its nearby Broadwater Warren reserve) and its results from its Garden Birdwatch scheme and iRecord which allows local people to record wildlife sightings. Species missing from the KMBRC list include the following examples:

Kingfisher

Heron

Sparrow Hawk

Red and black lesser spotted Woodpecker

Red and Green common Woodpecker

Lapwing

Buzzard

Greenfinch

Bullfinch

Pheasants

Mallard Ducks

Moorhens

Mandarin Ducks

Swifts

Swallows

Coal tit

Marsh tit

Chaffinch

Goldfinch

Brambling

Yellow hammer

Dormice

Deer

RSPB Broadwater Warren website sightings in April and May included:

ring ousels

wood warbler

tree pipit

blackcaps

garden warblers

willow warblers

chiffchaffs

peregrine falcon

ravens

spotted flycatcher

common toad

common frog

smooth newts

comma butterfly

brimstone

orange tip

Holly blue

green hairstreak

peacock

small tortoiseshell

Beautiful Demoiselle

Azure Damselfly

Large Red Damselfly

Blue-tailed Damselfly

Emperor Dragonfly

Hairy Dragonfly

Downy Emerald

Broad Bodied Chaser

Four Spotted Chaser

Given its proximity to site 137, it is likely many of these species will be present

Policy EN 12 - Protection of Designated Sites and Habitats

Natural environment: we consider any development of site 137 is incompatible because of its proximity to Ashdown Forest SPA and SPAC. In addition, any development of this site would compromise the accessibility to important geological sites.

Policy EN 15 - Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees

Any development of site 137 would not be compatible with this policy because it would result in the loss of veteran trees which are outside of protected ancient woodland. On investigation, we identified at least two ‘valuable’ oaks i.e. >4.7m girth, and at least seven ‘potentially interesting’ oaks i.e. >3.2m girth. The policy says “development proposals shall not be allowed unless there are wholly exceptional reasons”. No case has been made for the exceptional circumstances that necessitate their loss.

Page 20 of 25

Policy EN 20 – Rural Landscape

Point 2 says “The development will be required to:… not cause significant harm to the landscape setting”. Any development of site 137 would cause irreparable harm to the landscape as shown in the sustainability assessment and therefore development of this site cannot be compatible with this policy.

Policy EN 21 – High Weald AONB

Any development of site 137 would not be compatible with this policy because it simply cannot “conserve and enhance its landscape and scenic beauty”. In addition, as set out elsewhere in this response, sites have been dismissed that are outside of the HW AONB that would meet the need, and so compliance with the NPPF would not be achieved.

Policy EN 22 – Agricultural Land

This policy requires a presumption of development in favour of poorer land. Site 137 is a mix of ALC 3a and 3b and therefore its development would not be compatible with this policy.

Policy EN 23 – Air Quality

Any development of site 137, especially the siting of a new secondary school at the extreme edge of the borough, will result in significant additional traffic along an already very busy road, likely further reducing the air quality to unacceptable levels in that area.

Policy H 5 – Affordable Housing

We do not believe the proposed development of site 137 will comply with policy H5, specifically: Overall approach 1. Sites comprising predominantly greenfield land (i.e. non previously developed land) delivering a

net increase of more than nine dwellings will be expected to include a minimum of 40% of the gross number of residential units as on-site affordable housing provision.

In conversation with your planning officers at the 26/28 September 2019 Royal Victoria Place exhibition they said the requirement to build 40% affordable housing would be waived if a school was built. One of the Broadwater Ward councillors said he supported development of this site because he believed affordable housing would be included.

Policy TP 1 – Transport Assessments, Travel Plans and Mitigation

Transport and Parking Any development of site 137 cannot demonstrate “that the impacts of trips generated to and from the development are accommodated, remedied or mitigated to prevent significant residue impacts” because of the volume of traffic already using the A26 road.

Appendix 5: Topic Papers and other supporting documents

The list of Topic Papers and supporting documents does not match the documents available via the link – there are vastly more than are listed, i.e. 9 Housing documents, 6 Employment/leisure/retail documents, 15 Environment/landscape, 9 Transport/infrastructure.

Distribution of Development Topic Paper

Sections 4.8-4.11: these identify a need for many thousands of square metres of additional retail floor space. This number should be reduced to take account of the many empty retail units in the town centre. This would release more land to housing, saving more sensitive sites which are currently identified for potential development.

Section 6E: table 2 in dismissing some sites provides evidence that developer interest in a site is given undue weight in this process, over environmental and sustainability factors.

Page 21 of 25

Section 6F, table 6.62: notwithstanding our fundamental objection to releasing AL/RTW 18 / site 137 from the Green Belt, the mitigation should include buffering to the south (not north) in order to strengthen the boundary with the Green Belt and the Wealden border.

Section 6I: please refer to our comments in respect of the transport and infrastructure issues relating to AL/RTW 18 / site 137.

Section 6J: please refer to our comments in respect of the sustainability appraisal issues relating to AL/RTW 18 / site 137.

Appendix 1: AL/RTW 18 / site 137: we consider the contribution to purpose 3 – encroachment, and purpose 4 – settings/character/historic towns, should both be rated as ‘strong’, and buffering should be changed as per our comment above.

Appendix 3: AL/RTW 18 / site 137: we consider the setting of the AONB part of the site is poorly related to the urban settlement. It should also be noted part of a Scheduled Monument is in the site. We also dispute that this is the only site suitable for a new secondary school in this part of the borough, having already identified at least one other available site which is not in the AONB.

For these reasons, and the sites we have identified that are not in the AONB, we do not consider the Plan demonstrates that “great weight” has been placed on protecting the AONB (or Green Belt) and consequently the case for exceptional circumstances is not made.

Housing Supply and Trajectory Topic Paper

Given the challenges acknowledged in many places facing the borough, and the proposals to release Green Belt and build on AONB land, it is not at all clear why the Draft Local Plan proposes to build more dwellings than is actually required. We have already set out in our response why we consider the number is too high in the first place based on population growth projections. For TWBC to propose even more dwellings are built seems very strange. We strongly recommend the final draft of the plan should reduce the number of dwellings to the required level and remove sites from the plan based on the sensitivity of the site.

We note that according to correspondence with the developer, the plan anticipates build-out rates for Policy AL/RTW 18 / site 137 will commence in 2024 and run until 2028. However we also note that the proposed secondary school will be built post 2030 (see Infrastructure Delivery Plan). If development on this site does go ahead, no housing should be permitted until the school is complete. Not only will this preserve the AONB/Green Belt in the meantime, but it also ensures the developer at least part funds the build of the school and this will not necessarily be the case if the homes have already been built – the developer could cease trading between 2028 and post 2030.

Limits to Built Development Topic Paper

Royal Tunbridge Wells and Southborough LBD Boundary Amendments (SOUTH; site reference 13-30)

Map reference 19: The proposed boundary amendment in respect of Policy AL/RTW 18 / site 137 is contrary to many of the criteria set out in this Topic Paper (see examples below) and consequently we strongly challenge it.

“The definition of LBDs is an established policy tool to provide both certainty and clarity to residents, landowners, developers, and other interested parties on where new development would generally be acceptable in principle. By drawing LBDs around settlements (including land to meet growth needs), LBDs help focus growth to sustainable locations/settlements, while protecting the surrounding, more rural areas from inappropriate and intrusive development.

Page 22 of 25

LBD boundaries should normally follow physical features, e.g. roads, walls, field boundaries…

Any amendment to LBDs should:…

(c) have no adverse impact on landscape character

(d) have no adverse impact on designated areas of national and local landscape, archaeological, geological, ecological or heritage importance

(e) be of a scale/nature in keeping with the form and function of the settlement and result in no harm to its character, appearance or setting - does it relate more to the built environment or to the surrounding countryside?

Exclude:

IV. Large rear gardens or paddocks stretching well out from the built form of the settlement. Where there is an obvious variation in the rear line of garden curtilages along the edge of a settlement, then a striking line will be applied through these to form a uniform edge to the settlement

XIV. Heritage assets with important landscape settings

Site allocation AL/RTW 18 (land to the west of Eridge Road at Spratsbrook Farm) incorporated, with landscape buffer excluded. Policy wording in the Local Plan ensures this site will be appropriately developed and the natural boundaries suitably retained where appropriate and taking into account local landscape sensitivity. As there is at present insubstantial site layout information for the school part of the site, the LBD boundaries will be reviewed at the first Local Plan review 5 years post-adoption of the Local Plan. This site (excluding landscape buffers) will form part of a Green Belt release. (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), III, and XIX”.

Map reference 28: We challenge the LBD boundary in respect of map reference 28 and the land to the east of Rusthall currently used by TW golf club, which appears to be outside the LBD. The site was offered for development but for the purposes of this draft plan deemed unsuitable, a decision we are challenging. There are far fewer and less significant criteria which apply to this site; in fact only “(b) not result in coalescence – important gaps should be retained” is relevant.

“Extent of The Spa Hotel grounds within the LBD on the northern side of Langton Road, adjacent to the Tunbridge Wells Golf Club, reduced as this is a large, landscaped, partly open and wooded area in the Conservation Area on the edge of the settlement. VI and XIV”

Also see comments above:

• Section 4: Policy STR 10

Residential Parking Standards Topic Paper

The ONS 2011 census data is eight years old and therefore not necessarily accurate. The basis of the plan seems sound, but the amount of residential street parking suggests current provision is inadequate, making for slalom driving and bus access issues in some cases. Proposed development site AL/RTW 18 / site 137 is outside the LBD and consequently is subject to zone C requirements.

Infrastructure Delivery Plan

The IDP states the Spratsbrook site (AL/RTW 18 / site 137) is reserved until post 2030 for a new secondary school. Notwithstanding our significant objections to developing site 137 in the first place, if, come 2030, it transpires there is no need for a new school, TWBC should publicly commit to leave the whole site undeveloped.

Page 23 of 25

In addition, the IDP states the new secondary school should be 6FE (form entry classes) whereas the place shaping policy states it will be a 7FE school. The plan should be consistent on these things.

Transport Strategy Review: Context and Way Forward

See comments above:

Section 5: 4. Highway matters: The existing road network cannot support a development of the size and nature proposed

Section 6: Policy TP 1 – Transport Assessments, Travel Plans and Mitigation

“Policy Implementation: Ensure provision of new infrastructure through working with developers, submit bids for funding (e.g. Local Growth Fund) for infrastructure improvements to deliver growth, take balanced approach to parking standards in new development and parking provision in town centres, public realm improvements in town and village centres, work with businesses to reduce travel footprint grants to businesses to support active travel.”

Nobody is likely to disagree with these policy implementation statements, but they don’t really offer tangible solutions.

The detail provided for each proposed development site should include specifics. Policy AL/RTW 18 / site 137 simply says “Development shall accord with the following requirements: Transport assessments and travel plans, as well as enabling a means of active travel to serve the new secondary school”. TWBC has published thousands of pages of plans, reports and appendices, but we don’t know what is proposed in terms of access roads for this site. The Policy then says “It is expected that contributions will be required towards the following if necessary to mitigate the impact of the development: The provision of sustainable and active transport mitigation measures, highway works within the vicinity of the site, including the provision of pedestrian crossings…”. This essentially says the developer might have to do NOTHING.

The footpath adjacent to the A26 Eridge Road is a very unpleasant place to walk, until the location of the speed camera is reached. HGVs thunder past, so it is not a footpath for the faint hearted. The ‘best’ time to walk is when traffic is queuing to get into TW (although of course you then have to contend with poor air quality/increased emissions created by stop-start traffic). There have almost certainly been more accidents on Eridge Road than reported. On 16 October 2019 a car left the road, crossed the footpath, and ended up in the woods at the side of the road. It was dark and raining so the driver was most likely going too fast. The incident was reported to Kent police (ref 160169) but they did not want to attend the scene. The car knocked over the 30mph speed limit sign and gas main pipeline marker. KCC’s solution has been to remove the 30mph sign (ref 457498).

Appendix 6: Submitted sites not included in this Draft Local Plan

Rusthall

146 Tunbridge Wells Golf Club, Langton Road, Tunbridge Wells TN4 8XH We wish to challenge the ‘unsuitable’ decision for this site because the sustainability scores are inconsistent. We consider this site is suitable for a school and/or housing development. This site has also been inaccurately assessed, for example, it is listed as being in the High Weald AONB when it is not. As such the sustainability assessment is unsound. In addition, we consider the Green Belt assessment of this site is incorrect. The score of “Strong” contribution to “preserving the special character of historic towns” is too high given the land is not visually prominent and is only adjacent to the common. The score should therefore be adjusted to “relatively strong”.

Page 24 of 25

RTW

30 Land at Caenwood Farm and Whitegates Farm, Reynolds Lane, Royal Tunbridge Wells We wish to dispute the ‘unsuitable’ decision for this site because the sustainability scores are

inconsistent. We consider this site is suitable for a school and/or housing development.

This site has also been inaccurately assessed, for example, it is listed as being in the High Weald AONB when it is not. As such the sustainability assessment is unsound.

73 Land at Pembury Road (south), Tunbridge Wells We wish to challenge the ‘unsuitable’ decision for this site because the sustainability scores are inconsistent. We consider this site is suitable for a school and/or housing development. This site has also been inaccurately assessed, for example, it is listed as being in the High Weald AONB when it is not. As such the sustainability assessment is unsound.

99 Land at Pembury Road, Tunbridge Wells TN2 We wish to challenge the ‘unsuitable’ decision for this site because the sustainability scores are inconsistent. We consider this site is suitable for a school and/or housing development. This site has also been inaccurately assessed, for example, it is listed as being in the High Weald AONB when it is not. As such the sustainability assessment is unsound.

114 Land at Sandown Park, west of A21, Royal Tunbridge Wells TN2 4RT We wish to challenge the ‘unsuitable’ decision for this site because the sustainability scores are inconsistent. We consider this site is suitable for a school and/or housing development. This site has also been inaccurately assessed, for example, it is listed as being in the High Weald AONB when it is not. As such the sustainability assessment is unsound.

116 Land south of Pembury Road, Tunbridge Wells We wish to challenge the ‘unsuitable’ decision for this site because the sustainability scores are inconsistent. We consider this site is suitable for a school and/or housing development. This site has also been inaccurately assessed, for example, it is listed as being in the High Weald AONB when it is not. As such the sustainability assessment is unsound.

280 Land at The Midway, Nevill Court, Tunbridge Wells, Kent We wish to challenge why this site was omitted from the sustainability appraisal – the purpose of the appraisal process is to fully consider the positives and negatives, in a structured and documented way. This site appears to have been rejected because it is “within the AONB and landscape impacts were considered too severe to warrant consideration”. Other sites within the AONB with equally adverse landscape impacts have been taken forward and without a full suite of sustainability assessments it is not possible to make properly evidenced based policy. As such this omission renders the sustainability appraisal unsound as a whole. This site has also been inaccurately assessed, for example, it is listed as being in the High Weald AONB when it is not.

384 Land at Great Bayhall, Tunbridge Wells, Kent We wish to challenge the ‘unsuitable’ decision for this site because the sustainability scores are inconsistent. We consider this site is suitable for a school and/or housing development.

Page 25 of 25

This site has also been inaccurately assessed, for example, it is listed as being in the High Weald AONB when it is not. As such the sustainability assessment is unsound.

411 Land at Sandown Park between Pembury Grange and A21, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent We wish to challenge the ‘unsuitable’ decision for this site because the sustainability scores are inconsistent. We consider this site is suitable for a school and/or housing development. This site has also been inaccurately assessed, for example, it is listed as being in the High Weald AONB when it is not. As such the sustainability assessment is unsound.

434 Tutty's Farm, Hawkenbury, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent We wish to challenge the ‘unsuitable’ decision for this site because the sustainability scores are inconsistent. We consider this site is suitable for a school and/or housing development. This site has also been inaccurately assessed, for example, it is listed as being in the High Weald AONB when it is not. As such the sustainability assessment is unsound.

Brenchley and Matfield

459 Kippings Cross 23 Kippings Cross farm land, Hastings Road, Tunbridge Wells TN12 7HB 214 Land at Kippings Cross (rear of Blue Boys and north of Cryals Road), Brenchley 333 Kippings Cross Distribution Centre, Hastings Road, Kippings Cross, Kent 383 Land to the south of the A21 and east of Dundale Road, Kippings Cross, TunbridgeWells, Kent We wish to challenge why the Kipping’s Cross site was omitted from the sustainability appraisal – the purpose of the appraisal process is to fully consider the positives and negatives, in a structured and documented way. This site appears to have been rejected because it is “within the AONB and landscape impacts were considered too severe to warrant consideration”. Other sites within the AONB with equally adverse landscape impacts have been taken forward and without a full suite of sustainability assessments it is not possible to make properly evidenced based policy. As such this omission renders the sustainability appraisal unsound as a whole.