Case Reference: 3247977

Appeal Decision
Inquiry Held on 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 10 December 2020
Site visits made on 23 November and 14 December 2020
by Peter Rose BA MRTPI DMS MCMI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date:10th February 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/M2270/W/20/3247977
Land at Gate Farm, Hartley Road, Hartley, Cranbrook TN17 3QX
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the
decision of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council.
• The application Ref: 19/02170/OUT, dated 24 July 2019, was refused by notice dated
18 December 2019.
• The development proposed is the erection of up to 27 dwellings, with associated access,
parking and landscaping (and with all matters except access reserved).
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary matters
2. The appeal relates to an outline application with all matters reserved for
subsequent approval except access.
3. Only three plans are submitted seeking formal approval: a ‘Site Location Plan’
referenced DHA/13382/01 and dated July 2019; a ‘Land Use Plan’ referenced
DHA/13382/04 and dated July 2019 (the land-use plan); and an ‘Access
Design’ referenced 13658-H-01 P2 and dated 9 July 2019. The application also
includes an ‘Illustrative Proposed Site Layout Plan’ referenced DHA/13382/03
and dated July 2019 (the illustrative layout) and which, whilst not
determinative, has helped inform my reasoning.
4. The appeal is supported by an agreement between the appellant and local
planning authority made pursuant to section 106 of the Act and dated
17 December 2020.
5. The original description of the development refers to parking and landscaping
but these remain as reserved matters to be approved and not forming part of
this submission. As agreed with the parties at the Inquiry, I consider the appeal
on that qualified basis.
Main issues
6. The main issues are:
• the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the
appeal site and its surroundings, and including whether or not the
scheme would conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the High
Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the AONB);
• whether or not the proposal would preserve the significance of nearby
listed buildings;
• whether or not the scheme would provide safe and suitable access for all
users.
7. Further issues identified in the Council’s reasons for refusal included whether or
not the development would make appropriate contributions in relation to:
• biodiversity;
• education1, youth facilities and the Cranbrook Hub;
• affordable housing;
• health facilities.
These matters, and others, are the subject of the s106 agreement and the
Council has confirmed its previous objections in those regards are now
resolved.
Reasons
Character and appearance and the AONB
Background
8. The appeal site comprises some 1.48 hectares of agricultural land located in a
prominent position in Hartley at the junction of Hartley Road (the A229) and
Glassenbury Road (the B2085). The site falls within the High Weald AONB but
beyond the Limits to Built Development (LBD) of Cranbrook as originally
defined by the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted March 2006
(the Local Plan) and updated by the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Site
Allocations Local Plan Adopted July 2016 (the SALP).
9. To the north-east is a substantial post-war housing development at Campion
Crescent. On the opposite side of Hartley Road are the Hartley Dyke
Commercial Centre, including Hartley Coffee House and Farmshop, Junior’s Day
Nursery and several other commercial premises. Farmland is overlooked to the
south and further open land lies to the north. Some other buildings and
dwellings are located on the west side of Glassenbury Road. The surroundings
are generally characterised by a mixture of residential and commercial uses but
within a wider and predominant setting of farmland, agricultural buildings and
open countryside. There are several listed buildings in the vicinity of the appeal
site, including Hartley Gate Farmhouse adjacent to the boundary.
1 The Council’s reason for refusal refers to secondary education but the s106 clarifies the required provision to be
for primary pupils
10. Hartley is not a physically distinct settlement in itself with an identifiable
centre, and forms part of the wider area of Cranbrook. Historic mapping and
other evidence indicate Hartley’s origins around the
Hartley Road/Glassenbury Road and Hartley Road/Swattenden Lane junctions
in proximity to a number of ancient routeways and identify how this vicinity
includes the appeal site. It shows that residential development has taken place
to the north-east of the appeal site and to the south-west, but that the area
around the appeal site itself has remained largely one of fields and farms.2
AONB
11. The High Weald AONB Management Plan 2019-2024 (the management plan)
explains how the AONB is characterised by dispersed historic settlements of
farmsteads and hamlets. The High Weald AONB is described as one of
best-preserved medieval landscapes in north-west Europe.3 The management
plan sets out the vision of a landscape which retains its distinctive historic
landscape character and beauty.4
12. The special characteristics of the AONB relevant to its designation are set out in
the management plan’s Statement of Significance. This defines the natural
beauty of the High Weald with reference to five components of character that
have made the High Weald a recognisably distinct and homogenous area for at
least the last 700 years. In summary, these relate to: geology; dispersed
historic settlement; a network of historic routeways; ancient woodland; and to
field and heath (small, irregular and productive fields, bounded by hedgerows
and woods, and typically used for livestock grazing).5
Other landscape guidance
13. At national level, the site forms part of National Character Area 122, the High
Weald. At county level, the Landscape Assessment of Kent October 2004
similarly identifies Cranbrook within the Kentish High Weald. Its characteristic
features are defined to include undulating gentle ridges, a jumble of
small-scale fields, overgrown hedges and farm buildings.
14. The more local Tunbridge Wells Borough Landscape Character Assessment
Supplementary Planning Document February 2017 (the Borough SPD) identifies
the appeal site as part of ‘Character Area 4: Cranbrook Fruit Belt’. It defines
the settlement pattern of dispersed farmsteads and hamlets and the historic
field arrangement as valued features and qualities.6 The Borough SPD identifies
the wider context of the High Weald AONB, and the need for valued features
and qualities of the landscape to be conserved and enhanced.
Significance of farmsteads
15. Much attention was directed at the Inquiry to the issue of farmsteads. The
authority’s reasons for refusal do not make any reference to the need to retain
the appeal site as a farmstead and nor is any such development plan policy
cited to that specific effect.
2 See, for example, Mr Chard’s Figures MDC 3a-3f and Ms Marsh’s statement
3 CD 5.1 p23
4 CD 5.1 p5
5 CD 5.1 p23
6 CD 4.4 p53
16. Significant historical evidence has been provided, however, all making
consistent reference to the site as a farmstead, including Kent County Council’s
Historic Environment Records.7
17. The Council’s Local Plan Farmsteads Assessment Guidance for Tunbridge Wells
Borough Supplementary Planning Document Adopted February 2016
(the Farmsteads SPD) defines a farmstead in the present tense and as ‘the
place where the farmhouse and working buildings of a farm are located’.8
Various buildings have been present on the appeal site in the past, as have
farming activities, but the site currently contains no farmhouse or associated
working facilities. Whilst the definition states some farms have field barns or
out-farms away from the main steading, there is little conclusive evidence as to
where any such main steading might recently have been, and the nearby
Hartley Gate Farmhouse itself has been in residential use for some considerable
time.9
18. The appeal site contains no working buildings and the historic mapping shows
how previous scattered structures have been eroded over time. The site does
contain various disused and derelict agricultural structures in a state of general
dereliction. These structures might generally be characterised as ruins and
cannot properly and reasonably be interpreted as the current working buildings
of a farm within the meaning of the Farmsteads SPD.
19. The direct relevance of the SPD is also qualified by its own terms. Its stated
focus is upon traditional farmsteads.10 It explains how traditional farmsteads
with the least change to their overall form and fabric are the most likely to
make a positive contribution to landscape character and how the
best-preserved groups have the greatest potential to have special
significance.11
20. I therefore find the SPD of limited direct relevance to the current composition
of the appeal site. Nevertheless, the site has been acknowledged historically to
have been a farmstead and I accept the likelihood of such a previous status.
Further, the planning character of the appeal site is undoubtedly consistent
with a wider prevailing pattern of farmstead settlement and of similar
accompanying landscape.
Assessment
21. The Inquiry received significant technical evidence from both main parties
relating to landscape and visual effects and reflecting relevant guidance and
methodologies recommended by the Landscape Institute/Institute of
Environmental Management and Assessment.12 This included two previous
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIA’s), a further updated
submission in evidence by the appellants, critiques of the available submissions
by the Council, and further work commissioned by the authority in conjunction
with its emerging local plan.
22. The suggestion, as demonstrated by the now jointly agreed Appendix 10 to
Mr Scully’s proof, is that the appellants and the Council broadly agree the effect
7 See Ms Salter’s proof
8 CD 4.7 para 1.12
9 Para 5.11 of Ms Davidson’s proof
10 CD 4.7 para 1.13
11 Para 3.23
12 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition 2013 (GLVIA3)
that the proposed development would have on landscape character. In the first
year post-development, the Council assesses the significance of the impact on
the site to be moderate-to-high, and the appellants assess it to be moderate.
Over time, the Council assesses the significance to have reduced to moderate,
and the appellants assess that it has reduced to minor-to-moderate.
23. The Council offered no evidence to support the contention in its reasons for
refusal that there would be a detrimental effect on the landscape setting of
Cranbrook, and its landscape and biodiversity witness (Mr Scully) confirmed
that the proposed development would not have any such implications.13
i) The site as existing
24. There is a marked contrast between the character and appearance of the site
when viewed from its immediate external surroundings and when experienced
from within.
25. Externally, the site is significantly enclosed by hedgerows and other planting
and affords only restricted views through. Notwithstanding this historically rural
character and setting, the site now outwardly contributes to an area of rather
more mixed use and includes a number of modern and distinctly urbanising
features. These include the adjacent Campion Crescent development, the built
form of the commercial premises opposite, high voltage overhead cables, and
other utility works and structures. These features are also set against Hartley
Road with its now relatively high volumes of passing vehicular traffic.
26. I agree with the assessment set out in the Council-commissioned Cranbrook
LVIA14 (the Cranbrook LVIA) when stating that Hartley Road,
Glassenbury Road, adjacent modern development and the nearby covered
reservoir are detracting features.15 The Intrusion Map set out in the Campaign
to Protect Rural England Intrusion and Tranquillity Mapping exercises dated
2007 identifies the appeal site as falling within an ‘Urban Area’ and with
accompanying characteristics of noise and visual disturbance.16
27. Internally, however, the character and appearance are far more tranquil and
distinctly rural. The site is substantively enclosed and has relatively little public
exposure. Aside from the redundant structures in one corner, the site reads as
an undeveloped natural field offering a very strong sense of rural calm.
28. Whilst historic features have been lost, remnants of its past significance
remain, including hedgerows and its generally unspoilt open rural character. It
was also accepted at the Inquiry that only in very recent years had the site
ceased to be used for livestock grazing, a feature consistent with one of the
defined components of AONB significance.17 The relatively harsh urban
presence of Campion Crescent is also generally less prominent internally than
in wider external views from the public domain.
29. The remaining disused and derelict agricultural structures do add to the
agrarian character of the site and, whilst not of historic significance in
themselves, do offer a poignant reminder of a former use and continuing
13 Mr Scully in cross-examination
14 Tunbridge Wells - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of Proposed Allocation Sites within the High Weald
AONB, Hankinson Duckett Associates, November 2020 (CD 3.16)
15 CD 3.16 p12-15
16 See Mr Chard’s Figures MDC-4a and b
17 CD 6.12 Photo 2 p9 and email from Mr Fleming dated 4 December 2020
character. Nevertheless, they are abandoned, most appear beyond repair, they
are generally relatively modern, and offer little value in terms of local
vernacular materials or form. Had an agricultural use continued in more recent
years, the possibility is they might already have been either cleared or
replaced.
30. Notwithstanding the relatively contained dereliction, I find the site overall
displays appreciable natural beauty consistent with its significance and status
as part of the AONB.
ii) Proposed built form
31. All matters of layout and design remain for further formal submission. The
illustrative layout indicates possibilities for a courtyard-type development, and
the appellants have acknowledged that details could be further evolved in
consideration of reserved matters.
32. The Council confirmed at the Inquiry that it had no concerns regarding the
proposed density of development.18 The National Planning Policy Framework
(the Framework) advises that planning policies and decisions should support
development that makes efficient use of land.19 Further, where there is an
existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it
is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being
built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the
potential of each site.20
33. Whilst the appeal scheme is presented as an opportunity to reflect the historic
settlement pattern and to restore it, the extent of built form as proposed is
clearly far greater than previously accommodated within the site. The aerial
photography presented by the appellants at Figures MDC-8a-e and the Historic
Mapping from 1839 through to 1973 presented at Figures MDC-3a-f all show a
significantly less intense pattern of structures occupying a considerably smaller
overall built footprint, and so contributing to and maintaining a very materially
different planning character to that now proposed.
34. There would also be potential for a fairly exposed opening at the scheme’s
junction with Hartley Road so potentially affording significant views of urban
development leading into the site. It also follows from the extent of built form
that the character would be shaped by greater levels of domestic comings and
goings compared to enclosed grazing land.
iii) Proposed mitigation
35. The development parameters set out in the land-use plan demonstrate how the
impact of built form could be mitigated to some degree through appropriate
design and landscaping. The scheme would include extensive landscaping and
the plan shows how a significant proportion of the site would remain unbuilt.21
36. Existing historic boundary hedgerows would be retained and strengthened and
possibilities would be considered for reinstatement of previous internal
enclosures to support the historic field pattern. Proposed landscaping and
18 Mr Hazelgrove in answer to my question
19 Framework para 122
20 Framework para 123
21 Mr Chard in cross-examination
ecology areas would be subject to a landscape and biodiversity management
strategy to ensure appropriate implementation and maintenance.22
37. The scheme would also offer some opportunity to mitigate the existing
relatively harsh boundary to Campion Crescent to the extent that such limited
views exist from within the site to the north-east, and which both parties
agreed is not particularly responsive in its design to the sensitivities of the
AONB.
iv) Summary of findings
38. The Council’s planning witness and the authority’s landscape and biodiversity
witness each confirmed to the Inquiry there was no objection to the principle of
a housing development on the appeal site.23 A similar conclusion was reached
by the CLVIA.
39. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the existing urbanising influences described,
farmstead character and appearance are the distinctive features of the wider
tapestry of AONB sites and to which the appeal site also positively contributes.
The evidence shows a significant number of other historic farmsteads in the
immediate vicinity of the appeal site24, and how they all make for a pattern of
dispersed layout distinctive to the Weald and as part of a series of interlocking
spaces and small fields.25 This high density of historic farmsteads is a key and
distinctive characteristic of the AONB.26
40. The legacy of its previous use, including the site’s open, natural form and
remaining hedgerows, are characteristic of farmsteads and of the wider
significance of the AONB. The appeal site may not technically be a farmstead in
its existing composition and disuse, but it still contributes physically and
visually to a not dissimilar and distinctive pattern of character and appearance.
41. I agree the relatively enclosed and contained nature of the site and the
absence of some of the traditional Farmstead SPD characteristics do serve to
limit the overall contribution of the site. The Council similarly acknowledged
that the impact of the scheme would be ‘limited and localised’27, and the site’s
relatively enclosed form would also help to contain the visual effects of any
development. The Council further accepts that only two of the five elements of
AONB character would be impacted by the scheme: settlement, and field and
heath.28
42. Whilst the site may have potential for reintroduction of some sensitive built
form, a reasonable balance still has to be struck in relation to the legibility and
distinctiveness of the AONB.
43. The extent of housing proposed would effectively create a continuing sweep of
built form from Campion Crescent through to the historically significant
Glassenbury Road/Hartley Road junction. Up to 27 dwellings would appear
incongruous and overwhelming relative to the predominant rural farmstead
22 Appendix 6 to Mr Chard’s proof
23 Mr Scully and Mr Hazelgrove in answer to my questions
24 See maps attaching to History of Hartley and Turnden by Dr N Bannister, and in Hartley, Cranbrook Desk-based
Landscape Assessment
25 Ms Marsh’s note and accompanying evidence of Dr Bannister
26 CD 5.1 p31
27 Mr Scully in cross-examination
28 Mr Scully in cross-examination and proof at para 3.28
character which still distinguishes the contribution of the site to its
surroundings. The extent of housing would inevitably mean that the
sensitivities and natural beauty of the AONB would, at best, appear as distinctly
subordinate and secondary features. The historic settlement pattern would not
be restored but undermined.
44. The scheme would thereby be contrary to Objective S2 of the management
plan which seeks to protect the historic pattern and character of settlement,
and to Objective S3 which looks to ensure development reflects the character
of the High Weald in its scale, layout and design. Objective FH2 also seeks to
maintain the pattern of small irregularly shaped fields bounded by hedgerows
as a key component of the medieval landscape.
45. Details of reserved matters would have no significant bearing upon, and would
not serve to otherwise offset, the overwhelming extent of built development
proposed and the corresponding harm likely to arise from up to 27 dwellings.
46. Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000 requires me to have
regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the
AONB. The Framework similarly advises that planning policies and decisions
should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by
protecting and enhancing valued landscapes in a manner commensurate with
their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan, and by
recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.29 It further
requires that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing
landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, and which have the highest status of
protection in relation to these issues.30
47. A development of up to 27 houses would be excessive in extent relative to the
sensitivities of the AONB and would intrude jarringly across the wider pattern
of settlement and landscape which predominantly characterises the area and to
which the site contributes. Rather than integrating and complementing, the
scheme would have an unduly urbanising and transformative effect upon this
important corner of the AONB and so eclipse the natural beauty of the site and
its contribution to its surroundings. The legibility and distinctiveness of the
appeal site would be lost, and its relationship to the wider significance of the
AONB would thereby be compromised.
48. As such, the scheme falls very significantly short of both the statutory duty and
of the accompanying Framework expectations. Notwithstanding the mitigation
proposed, the harm arising is a matter to which I attach considerable weight.
v) Conclusions against development plan policy
49. The scheme would, by virtue of the extent of built development proposed, be
significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site and its
surroundings, and would fail to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the
AONB. It would thereby be contrary to Policies EN1 and EN25 of the Local Plan
and contrary to Core Policies 4 and 14 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local
Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document Adopted
June 2010 (the Core Strategy). These seek, amongst other things, to ensure
that design of proposals, including scale and site coverage by buildings, should
respect the context of the location, should have a minimal impact on the
29 Framework para 170
30 Framework para 172
landscape character of the locality, and that both the designated High Weald
AONB and the landscape as a whole should be conserved and enhanced.
Listed buildings
Background
50. Reference has been made to six listed buildings in the vicinity of the site.
Site 1: Hartley Gate Farmhouse, Hartley Road (Grade II)
51. Hartley Gate Farmhouse (the farmhouse) lies immediately adjacent to the
appeal site and would be set against the development in views from Hartley
Road.
52. The farmhouse dates from the seventeenth century and comprises a
timber-framed house in-keeping with its High Weald farmstead setting. Whilst
the house may have had only limited functional association with farming and
with the appeal site itself31, and may or may not have been built to function as
a farmhouse, the building and surrounding fields remain an evocative reminder
of the importance of scattered, small-scale rural buildings and of the
accompanying distinctive character of the AONB. The open rural setting forms
part of that significance, along with the architectural and historic value of the
building itself.
53. Notwithstanding the mitigation proposed and various modern works
undertaken to the rear, the scheme would lead to some erosion of the asset’s
rural setting. The development would cause harm to the building’s significance
by undermining an appreciation of the interest and legibility of the asset
against its historically exposed setting to the side and rear.
54. Viewed in its wider context, the appeal site is only one aspect of the
farmhouse’s setting which is also significantly shaped by its prominent
road-side position. As those other elements of its setting which also contribute
to its significance would remain unaltered, and aside from its unaffected
architectural and historic value, I consider the harm would be limited.
55. The harm would be less than substantial and at a relatively low level that would
not seriously affect the significance of the designated asset. Nevertheless, this
less than substantial harm still needs to be weighed against public benefits32
and I return to this balance later in my decision.
56. In contrast to its current concerns, I also note that no similar heritage
objection appears to have been raised by the authority in a decision in
December 2017 relating to another proposal for housing development at the
adjacent site to the north-east and which also fronts Hartley Road.33
Site 2: Bull Farmhouse, Glassenbury Road (Grade II), and
Site 3: Barn 50 yards north of Bull Farmhouse, Glassenbury Road (Grade II)
57. The significance of these assets arises as seventeenth century timber-framed
agricultural buildings and mainly reflects their architectural and historic value.
Setting is a part of their significance but in the context of a small and relatively
31 Para 5.11 of Ms Davidson’s proof
32 Framework para 196
33 Appeal Ref: APP/M2270/W/18/3203543
self-contained collection of historic farmstead buildings to the west of
Glassenbury Road.
58. Bull Farm lies on the opposite side of Glassenbury Road to the appeal site. The
intervening road-side frontages create a strong sense of enclosure and are
heavily planted. This leaves little direct opportunity to appreciate the Bull Farm
listed buildings from within the appeal site other than in fairly glimpsed views.
59. The elements of setting which contribute most to the significance of these
assets include their curtilages and immediate surrounds, their relationship with
Glassenbury Road, and their group value. The orientation and position of the
buildings relative to the appeal site mean those key views which best reveal
their significance would be unaffected by the appeal scheme.
60. In relation to Sites 2 and 3 I also note reference made to the Council’s previous
assessment of an earlier proposal for development on the western side of the
current appeal site adjacent to Glassenbury Road. This included demolition of
derelict agricultural buildings and construction of four detached dwellings
(Application Ref: 17/00795). Whilst withdrawn prior to decision, the wording of
the Committee Report dated 14 February 201834 notes that there are several
listed buildings in close proximity to the site but, due to the distances involved
and intervening vegetation and road, it was not considered that the proposal
would be harmful to their setting.
61. The appeal scheme would result in a change within the wider surrounds of
assets at Sites 2 and 3, but their immediate settings and accompanying
significance would be unaffected and no harm would be incurred.
Site 4: Hartley Farmhouse, Hartley Road (Grade II), and
Site 5: Hartley House, Hawkhurst Road (Grade II), and
Site 6: Hill Cottages, 1 and 2 Hawkhurst Road (Grade II)
62. These listed buildings lie further away from the appeal site and in contrasting
locations. The parties agree no harm would be incurred to each. The three
assets are physically and visually separated from the appeal site and, from an
assessment of the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree.
Summary of findings, and conclusions against development plan policy
63. The Framework advises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource, and
requires them to be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.35
When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of
a designated heritage asset, it requires great weight to be given to the asset’s
conservation, and irrespective of harm.36
64. The harm I have identified to the farmhouse would be less than substantial.
Nevertheless, the scheme would not preserve the significance of the listed
building and would thereby be contrary to Policy EN1 of the Local Plan and to
Core Policy 4. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that proposals
should respect the context of the site, that the Borough’s heritage assets
should be conserved and enhanced, and that special regard be given to their
settings.
34 CD 5.12 para 10.37
35 Framework para 184
36 Framework para 193
Access
65. The proposal involves a single point of vehicular and pedestrian access to and
from Hartley Road as detailed on the ‘Access Design’ drawing referenced
13658-H-01 P2. This would lie between Hartley Road’s two existing junctions
with Swattenden Lane and Glassenbury Road.
66. Much reference was made at the Inquiry to issues around three particular
pieces of evidence: the appellants’ Transport Assessment dated July 2019
(the TA)37, a Road Safety Audit Stage 1 dated 19 July 2019 (the Audit)38, and
the appellants’ subsequent Road Safety Assessment dated 28 February 2020
(the Assessment)39.
67. The Council’s objections relate to a number of specific issues arising from the
Audit and to other associated concerns.
Problem 3.3.3 (insufficient distance for the left/right stagger movement
between Swattenden Lane and the proposed access)
68. The Audit suggested left/right traffic movement between Swattenden Lane and
the access road could lead to collisions. The recommendation was that queuing
lengths should be checked to ensure any waiting vehicles on Hartley Road do
not impede safe visibility for such movements.
69. Whilst available data primarily assesses capacity at the junctions and relies
upon the surveys in the TA for one day only, there is little in that evidence to
suggest any issue with queuing. The TA demonstrates that the existing junction
operates well within capacity before development, that it would do so after,
and that there are no queues of any consequence.40
70. The highway authority’s anecdotal statements were not substantiated in any
detail, and no alternative survey data was presented.
71. The highway authority accepted at the Inquiry that the junction stagger
distances comply with design guidance. The minimum distance should be 60m
and the distance proposed is 75m.41 This would appear to be consistent with
the minimum distance identified by Highways England’s Road Layout Design CD
123 Geometric Design of At-Grade Priority and Signal-Controlled Junctions.42 A
similar distance is identified in the Kent Design Guide.43
Problem 3.3.4 (insufficient distance between the proposed access and
Glassenbury Road)
72. This issue concerns the Audit’s suggestion of insufficient distance between
junctions. The suggestion is that the proposed access would mean two closely
spaced junctions on the same side of the carriageway. The proximity of the
access road and Glassenbury Road/Hartley Road junctions and the low number
of vehicle movements at the access road could mean south-west bound
vehicles on Hartley Road that indicate right for the access road might be
37 CD 6.10
38 CD 6.9
39 CD 8.5 Appendix F
40 CD 6.10, p22-23
41 Mr Lulham’s proof Appendix G para 4.18
42 CD 5.18
43 CD 4.1.2 Creating the Design Step 3 - Designing for movement
mistaken by other road users for the right turn manoeuvre into
Glassenbury Road. The concern is that such confusion could lead to collisions.
73. The highway authority accepted at the Inquiry that the stagger distance
between Glassenbury Road and the proposed access would comply with design
guidance.44 I have little further evidence to justify the concern raised.
Associated concerns - accident data
74. The 5-year accident data up until 30 September 2018 identifies four incidents
between the Glassenbury Road/Hartley Road and
Swattenden Lane/Hartley Road junctions. These involved two incidents at each
junction.
75. The evidence provided does not suggest any particular pattern of causation or
necessarily direct relevance to the proposed access, and there were no
incidents identified since August 2017.
76. I am not convinced this accident record for a priority intersection between an
A-class primary route subject to a 40mph speed limit and a B-class secondary
route should be cause for concern, and nor is it indicative of road users
experiencing any inherent difficulties with the highway layout.
Associated concerns - pedestrian facilities and lane widths
77. This part of Hartley Road is not well served by footpaths. It contains partial,
narrow footways and set against relatively fast-moving traffic, including lorries.
Whilst this is a relatively intimidating pedestrian environment, there is no
suggestion of any pedestrian incidents in the vicinity of the proposed access
and the Audit had no outstanding concerns in this regard beyond provision of
dropped kerbs. The existing lane width in Hartley Road would remain
post-development at 3.0m and would not directly infringe any guidance.45
78. The current access plan would introduce a 1.8m wide pedestrian refuge and
would only provide a 1.8m wide footway on the northern side of Hartley Road.
79. The highway authority suggests a pedestrian with a buggy or a wheelchair user
would be discouraged from using the proposed refuge. The Assessment46
accepts that with a lane 3m wide the width of the refuge should normally be
2m to allow for a pedestrian pushing a pram or for a wheelchair user, with a
margin for error, moving onto and stopping on the refuge. It further explains
how this could be achieved possibly with a widening of the carriageway. I also
note that guidance requires a minimum standard of 1.2m and 1.5m for
wheelchair users and a preference for 2.0m.47
80. The widths of existing pavements appear not to have been maintained over
time and it was not disputed that the available space could be increased simply
by further maintenance of the vegetation.48
81. I consider the presence of kerbs in the design of the refuge would afford some
further protection to the island. The refuge would also in itself serve to visually
44 CD 7.1 identifies an agreed distance of ‘approximately 59 metres’ between centre lines
45 Confirmed by Ms Parker in cross-examination
46 Para 4.22
47 CD 5.21 para 15.3.2
48 Mr Lulham and Ms Parker in cross-examination
narrow the carriageway at this point, so encouraging approaching traffic to
slow slightly to the benefit of local road safety.49
82. I also note the highways authority’s apparent endorsement of lane widths of
approximately 3.0m in the accommodation of pedestrian refuges in
circumstances elsewhere.50
Associated concerns - swept paths
83. The submitted swept path analysis for refuse vehicles demonstrates that an
appropriate vehicle could exit the site and be safely aligned for the refuge well
before arriving at the island itself.51
Other
84. The Assessment demonstrates that vehicle generation would be less than ten
cars an hour52 and it is further agreed there is no issue in terms of highway
capacity.53
85. Comparisons have been drawn with the appeal decision relating to a new
access to serve proposed housing at the adjacent site to the north-east.54
Whilst that decision considered similar accident data, the main issue on which
the appeal was dismissed was the inability to provide appropriate visibility
splays to the kerb in accordance with guidance. No objections have been raised
by the highway authority regarding visibility splays from the access in this
appeal scheme.
Summary of findings, and conclusions against development plan policy
86. The A229 is a busy classified road. It reflects the accompanying dangers and
relatively harsh pedestrian environment that might be expected, and
improvements can always be made. Nevertheless, the evidence presented
demonstrates the local highway network has no particular design flaws, and is
capable of withstanding the relatively modest increase in vehicle and
pedestrian movements that would arise from the scheme without incurring
further undue additional risks or inconvenience. I also note possibilities for
further detailed refinements to the scheme, particularly in terms of facilities for
pedestrian movement, and which were discussed at the Inquiry in relation to a
possible planning condition should the appeal be allowed.
87. The Framework requires that development should only be prevented or refused
on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway
safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be
severe.55 The evidence against the proposed scheme falls significantly short of
such a threshold.
88. I therefore conclude that the proposal would provide safe and suitable access
for all users and would not be contrary to Policy TP4 of the Local Plan to the
extent that it seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that proposals provide a
49 As identified by the Road Safety Assessment at para 4.21 and implicitly recognised in appeal decision
Ref: APP/M2270/W/18/3203543
50 Mr Lulham’s rebuttal statement p3 Table 1
51 And confirmed by Mr Lulham in cross-examination
52 CD 6.10 Table 5-5
53 Confirmed by Ms Parker in cross-examination
54 Appeal Ref: APP/M2270/W/18/3203543
55 Framework para 109
safely located access with adequate visibility and that the traffic generated by
the proposal would not compromise the safe and free flow of traffic or the safe
use of the road by others.
Other impacts, including biodiversity, education, youth facilities, the
Cranbrook Hub, affordable housing and health facilities
89. The s106 agreement sets out contributions by way of mitigation in relation to
off-site biodiversity, primary education, youth facilities, the Cranbrook Hub,
NHS Healthcare, and sustainable transport, and arrangements for affordable
housing.
90. Core Policy 1 seeks, amongst other things, for development to be delivered in a
managed way that meets the Borough’s known development needs. Policy CS4
of the Local Plan seeks to ensure the availability of adequate primary or
secondary school provision necessary to serve development. Policy R2 of the
Local Plan requires for new residential development to provide appropriate
recreation open space for youth and adult use.
91. I return to affordable housing and biodiversity as separate matters in my
consideration of the scheme’s benefits, but otherwise find the mitigation set
out in the s106 agreement addresses the outstanding impacts and that the
scheme would thereby be compliant with Core Policy 1 and with Policies CS4
and R2.
Other considerations
The Cranbrook LVIA (the CLVIA)
92. The Inquiry heard how the Council had commissioned the CLVIA as an
independent, professional review to help inform its response to Regulation 18
consultations in connection with the emerging Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
Local Plan (the emerging local plan). That version of the emerging local plan at
the time of the Inquiry identified the appeal site as part of a larger allocation
CRS 6 extending both sides of Glassenbury Road. The overall description of
proposed development was ‘90 dwellings (including land at Bull Farm), plus
employment (B1/B2/B8), and community uses’.
93. The CLVIA divided the wider site into areas 6A and 6B with the appeal site
falling in the southern part of the former. It confirmed that Parcel CRS 6B, to
the west of Glassenbury Road, is highly sensitive and is generally not suitable
for development. It also recommended protection of the northern fields within
the original allocation and retention of their rural character and land use.
94. An assessment was made of effects of the allocation against the
representativeness of AONB qualities and against character components of the
management plan. It found there would be no effect of the allocation upon
geology, and no loss of woodland. It suggested development would be partly
consistent with the settlement pattern and whilst the historic routeways would
not be changed, there would be some urbanising effect.56 Although panoramic
views are identified from within the allocation, it confirmed how public views
into the site itself are difficult to perceive from the wider landscape due to the
effect of topography, surrounding development and vegetation.57
56 CD 3.16 p14-15
57 CD 3.16 p12
95. The CLVIA found that the southern part of parcel 6A had some ‘limited’
potential for development58 subject to various caveats, including that the
northern half is enhanced and that the characteristic hedgerow boundaries are
retained and protected, and that the design of the proposed development
responds positively to the historic farmsteads on and adjacent to the site.
96. It recommended that the draft allocation should be split, with a reduced
housing allocation to the east of Glassenbury Road broadly corresponding to
the appeal site and land beyond the appeal site, and an employment allocation
retained within the redeveloped agricultural buildings associated with Bull
Farm.
97. The Inquiry heard that Council officers intended to support draft allocations to
meet the Council’s up-to-date housing needs on sites elsewhere in the Borough
and without the appeal site or the larger proposed draft allocation of which it
formed a part, and subsequent Council decisions have followed.59
98. Nevertheless, and whilst recommendations have not been pursued in relation
to this site, the CLVIA still retains some significance to the appeal and cannot
be unduly discounted. The context is of an up-to-date, professional assessment
of the potential to accommodate major development in Cranbrook and
elsewhere and submitted to the Inquiry by the Council as local plan evidence.
It specifically assessed the appeal site and found some favour in its
development potential.
Relationship to possible development of other land
99. The Inquiry heard unchallenged oral evidence from the appellants of previous
overtures by Council officers to withdraw the appeal scheme post-submission in
favour of a more comprehensive, larger-scale development as then anticipated
by the emerging local plan allocation.
100. No case was substantiated, in either planning or highways terms, as to why
any potential for development of the appeal site could only be considered in the
context of a wider development.
Housing land supply
101. Both main parties agree, based upon the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
Five-Year Housing Land Supply Statement 2019/2020 (September 2020)60,
that the Council can only demonstrate a required 5-year housing land supply
(5YHLS) of 4.83 years. No other detailed evidence has been presented to
question the extent of available supply.
102. The improved position relative to 1 April 2019 (from 4.69 years to 4.83) is
noted. Notwithstanding the Council’s agreed 5YHLS figure and the progress it is
seeking to make in housing delivery through its emerging local plan, I also note
that the annual housing delivery target within the last monitoring year was
missed by 204 units.61
58 Conclusions para 3
59 See Mr Hazelgrove’s email of 5 February 2021
60 CD 5.6
61 CD 7.1 Statement of Common Ground para 6.4.4, and Mr Bedford’s proof para 3.4.22
Constraints upon possibilities for development of alternative sites
103. The Council accepts that the level of housing need in the Borough is
significant and that it is highly likely that some additional housing sites within
the AONB will be required. It further concedes that there is very limited scope
for developing sustainably located housing for Cranbrook outside the AONB.62
104. The Inquiry heard how the emerging local plan is now proceeding to identify
possibilities for housing development elsewhere in the AONB.63 The appellants’
indication was that some 50 AONB sites are under consideration for
approximately 2,500 homes. The Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (TWBC)
Local Plan Exhibition Summary Leaflet September 2019 confirms there is little
scope for growth outside the High Weald AONB or the Metropolitan Green Belt
and which together cover some 75 per cent of the Borough.64
105. The Inquiry was told by the Council how officers’ intentions to abandon the
CRS 6 allocation meant that local housing need can now be met in some other,
but as yet unspecified way. The Inquiry cannot compare alternative sites in the
absence of detailed evidence. That would also remain as a matter for full and
proper review as part of the local plan processes.
106. It also does not follow that a decision not to take an allocation of the appeal
site forward necessarily yields an ‘irresistible’ inference that other less sensitive
sites do exist within the AONB and would so provide alternative scope for
delivering the required 5YHLS. I attach little weight to this assertion as it
reflects matters which would remain to be fully tested and demonstrated.
Besides, even if that were to prove to be the case, the Framework still seeks to
significantly boost housing supply and the 5YHLS threshold is not set as a
maximum.65
Market housing
107. There is no dispute that the scheme would be consistent with the
requirement of the Framework that, in rural areas, planning policies and
decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing
developments that reflect local needs.66 I also have regard to the recent
publication of the government’s Housing Delivery Test: 2020 measurement
dated 19 January 2021 and the parties’ comments in that regard. In the
context of the Council’s 5YHLS and latest test results, and the housing
expectations of the Framework, I attach moderate weight to the benefit of
market housing.
Affordable housing
108. The Council’s Sevenoaks & Tunbridge Wells Strategic Housing Market
Assessment September 201567 found the Borough would require 341 affordable
homes per annum to meet its housing needs. The more recent Borough of
Tunbridge Wells Housing Needs Study July 201868, prepared to accompany
work on the emerging local plan, found there is a net annual imbalance of 443
62 Mr Hazelgrove’s proof paras 7.22-7.25
63 Mr Hazelgrove and Mr Bedford in cross-examination
64 CD 11.10
65 Framework para 59
66 Framework para 77
67 CD 3.8
68 CD 3.19
affordable dwellings across the Borough. This is further adjusted by the
Council’s Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Housing Needs Assessment Topic
Paper for Draft Local Plan - Regulation 18 Consultation August 201969 which
concludes affordable housing need over a 15-year period to be 391
dwellings/year.
109. In terms of past delivery relative to the identified need, Table 26 of the
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Authority Monitoring Report 2018/19
December 201970 outlines the overall completion rates for affordable units. It
identifies an average delivery rate of just 82.5 affordable units per annum for
the period from 2006 to 2019.
110. The provision of 35% of the dwellings as affordable housing would help to
meet a clear and pressing need. Of the affordable units, 60% would be housing
for rent and 40% intermediate housing. The s106 agreement also requires the
appellant not to occupy more than 40% of the open market dwellings until the
affordable housing units have been completed and transferred to a registered
provider.
111. Core Policy 6 seeks to ensure affordable housing will be provided as a
proportion of the total number of dwellings on sites capable of delivering 10
dwellings or more. Developments on sites providing affordable housing will
generally be required to provide 35% of the total number of dwellings as
affordable homes.71 The proposal is fully compliant with Core Policy 6 and
would thereby provide an appropriate contribution of affordable housing. I
attach moderate weight as a benefit.
Prospects for early delivery
112. The site is immediately available and the appellants anticipate early delivery
of the development if approved.72 The appellants are prepared to reduce the
submission period for reserved matters to 2 years to underline that
commitment. This is significant in a heavily constrained area without an
up-to-date development plan in relation to housing need and at least an
18 month period from the Inquiry before a new plan is in place.73 I have also
noted the appellants’ various references to the Council’s previous record of
below-target housing delivery.74 I attach modest weight as a benefit.
Location
113. The site is located some distance from the Cranbrook LBD, and therefore
away from the most sustainable parts of nearby settlement.
114. In terms of public transport, there are bus stops within walking distance of
the site providing services to Maidstone Town Centre, Loose, Staplehurst,
Cranbrook and Hawkhurst. Staplehurst, approximately 10km to the north of
the site, provides a regular train service to London. The scheme would be
moderately well located for local schools and close to the local but limited
69 CD 3.4
70 CD 5.5
71 The Council’s Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document October 2007 sets out further details of
how the policy is intended to operate (CD 4.2)
72 Mr Bedford in answer to my question
73 The Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Local Plan Local Development Scheme identifies an adoption date of
June 2022, and confirmed by Mr Hazelgrove in cross-examination
74 For example, Mr Bedford’s proof, p16
range of services and facilities opposite. Limited footpath links along this part
of Hartley Road contribute to a relatively unsympathetic pedestrian
environment and there is little accommodation for cyclists.
115. Aside from those matters which would be addressed through the proposed
mitigation, there is no suggestion from the Council that a proposal for up to 27
homes would be excessive relative to other existing facilities serving Hartley or
their accessibility.
116. The Framework75 requires that significant development should be focused on
locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to
travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. It notes that
opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between
urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both
plan-making and decision-making.
117. The appeal site is clearly not an isolated rural location, but neither is it
particularly accessible other than by car. My assessment is the scheme enjoys
a moderately sustainable location.
Ecology
118. The proposal includes a commitment to net biodiversity gain consistent with
the Framework.76
119. The appellants are also committed to retaining all existing vegetation where
possible.
120. The development would need to be carried out under a Natural England
European Protected Species mitigation licence due to the presence of great
crested newts elsewhere in nearby ponds. There is no suggestion that a licence
would not be forthcoming and no harm nor impediment is identified in that
regard.77
121. It is also agreed by both parties that the measures set out in the appellants’
Corylus Ecology Protected Species Report78 would provide an appropriate
package of mitigation.
122. The development would thereby conform with Core Policy 4 to the extent
that it seeks, amongst other things, to avoid net loss of biodiversity and pursue
opportunities for biodiversity enhancements. Given the land available, I attach
modest weight to the benefit of net gain.
Economic factors
123. The economic benefits of development would include investment in
construction and related employment for its duration, and an increase in
subsequent local household expenditure and demand for services.
124. The Framework requires that, to promote sustainable development in rural
areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality
of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages
75 Framework para 103
76 CD 7.1 para 8.4, and para 170 of Framework
77 CD.7.1 paras 8.4.2-8.4.3, and CD 6.8
78 CD 6.8
to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services.79 The
scheme would be consistent with this aim and I attach modest weight to these
economic factors as a benefit.
125. I disregard any suggestion of financial contributions to the local authority
through Council tax receipts or similar as a possible benefit of the scheme. The
Planning Practice Guidance (the Guidance) states that whether or not a local
finance consideration is material to a particular decision will depend on whether
it could help to make the development acceptable in planning terms.80 Further,
it advises that it would not be appropriate to make a decision based on the
potential for a development to raise money for a local authority or other
government body. I therefore attach no weight in this particular regard.
Proactive engagement
126. Reference was made by the appellants to various dissatisfaction towards
both the local planning authority and the highways authority in their attitude
and response to the proposal. In particular, the Inquiry was reminded that the
Framework requires authorities to approach decisions on proposed
development in a positive and creative way.81 They should work proactively
with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social
and environmental conditions of the area, and decision-makers at every level
should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where
possible.
127. Those criticisms were not accepted by the authorities but, nonetheless, they
concern matters of service/procedure and not of planning substance, and this
decision focuses upon the particular merits of the cases otherwise advanced by
the parties.
Other concerns raised by local interested parties
128. Local interested parties have raised a number of issues, most of which are
reflected in the Council’s reasons for refusal and are addressed as above.
129. A concern has been raised regarding loss of agricultural land. The Council
confirmed it had no objection in this regard given the limited size of the site82,
and I have no reason to disagree.
130. A number of detailed points relevant to local interested parties would be
addressed as part of any subsequent scheme or though associated conditions if
a permission were to be granted.
Other decisions
131. I have had regard to all other decisions referred to in evidence, but none
dissuade from me from the particular findings I have reached in the specific
circumstances of this proposal as identified.
Section 106 agreement
132. The main parties confirmed at the Inquiry they were satisfied with the form
and content of the agreement as a deed. I find the agreement to be compliant
79 Framework para 78
80 Para 011 Reference ID: 21b-011-20140612
81 Framework para 38
82 Mr Hazelgrove in answer to my question and para 7.18 of his proof
with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (as
amended) and to be generally fit-for-purpose. Accordingly, I take into account
the commitments and accompanying terms as considerations of my decision.
Summary of benefits
133. The scheme would provide up to 27 units of much-needed housing and 35%
would be units of similarly required affordable housing. Delivery would be in
the context of a slight shortfall in 5-year housing land supply. Further, the
scheme is considered to be immediately deliverable and in a moderately
sustainable location. The scheme would involve a net biodiversity gain. There
would also be economic benefit as described above, and the proposal would
re-engage currently unused land.
134. Rather than bland83, the benefits would be real and distinct, and amount to
significant collective weight in favour of the scheme.
Assessment against the development plan as a whole
135. It follows from my assessment of the main issues and other considerations,
that the policies which are most important for determining this appeal include
those already discussed.
136. The parties have identified 15 policies most important for the determination
of this application.84 Of these, 5 are not referenced in the Council’s reasons for
refusal.
137. Of the 15, I have identified conflict with Policies EN1 and EN25 of the Local
Plan and with Core Policies 4 and 14.
138. I find Policies EN1 and EN25 of the Local Plan and Core Policy 4 up-to-date
insofar as they relate to the need for the proposal to respect the context of the
site, to have a minimal impact on the landscape character of the locality, and
to conserve and enhance the AONB and the landscape as a whole. The same
applies to Policy EN1 and to Core Policy 4 insofar as the Borough’s heritage
assets should be conserved and enhanced, special regard should be had to
their settings, and proposals should respect the context of the site.
139. Whilst Policy EN25 refers to sites outside the LBD, it does not preclude
development beyond that area and its substance relates to a general need to
safeguard landscape character and the built environment in rural parts of the
Borough. Core Policy 14 is out-of-date, not just in terms of its underlying
housing need but also in seeking to protect the countryside for its own sake
contrary to the wording of the Framework.85 Nevertheless, it still seeks to
maintain the local distinctiveness of particular localities and to enhance
biodiversity.
140. I apply full weight to Policies EN1 and Core Policy 4 and limited weight to
Policy EN25, and very limited weight to Core Policy 14. Core Policy 4 also
weighs in favour of the scheme in relation to biodiversity enhancements.
141. Of the other policies, whilst Core Policy 6 is out-of-date in relation to housing
land supply, other aspects remain relevant including recognising the need for
83 As described by the Council in closing
84 CD 7.1 section 5. The parties confirmed CP 8 is missing an asterisk
85 Framework para 170
affordable housing. Core Policy 6 weighs in favour of the scheme in that
regard. LBD1 deals with restraints to development. Whilst cited by the
authority in its decision notice, the policy is out-of-date in relation to both
housing need and the expectations of the Framework and can attract only very
little weight.
142. I also find Policy TP4 out-of-date insofar as it again refers to the LBD and
seeks to preclude additional access onto primary and secondary routes in such
areas. I attach very little weight. Whilst Core Policy 1 is out-of-date in terms of
its underlying database and relationship to the LBD, it still commits the Council
to meeting known development needs and identifies general priorities and
opportunities for development. I attach limited weight. Policies R2 and CS4 are
each relevant to matters of mitigation, are up-to-date and attract full weight in
those regards.
143. Most of the other 15 policies, whilst relevant and generally not out-of-date,
have a secondary importance relative to the main issues in dispute and are
either broadly neutral, are not conflicted, or remain to be fully addressed
through further submissions of reserved matters and other details. For those
reasons, I attach only relatively limited weight in determining the principle of
this outline proposal for AONB land.
144. This includes Policy TP3 and Core Policy 3 which deal with general transport
implications, Policy TP5 which concerns vehicle parking, Core Policy 5 which
addresses sustainable design and construction, and Core Policy 8 which refers
to general provision of open space and other matters.
Summary of accord and conflict
145. I find the overall basket of most important policies described to be
reasonably up-to-date, subject to the detailed qualifications identified.
146. The Framework requires I attach great weight to conserving and enhancing
landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB, and to preserving and enhancing the
farmhouse as a designated heritage asset. The statutory duties in these
regards under s85 and s66 are matters of considerable importance and weight.
In that context, I find the corresponding weight attaching to the conflict with
Policy EN1 and Core Policy 4, and the lesser weight in connection with conflict
arising from Policies EN25 and Core Policy 14, to be such that the proposal
cannot be said to accord with the development plan as a whole.
Conditions
147. I have found the development to be unacceptable for the reasons identified.
In accordance with the advice of the Framework86, I have considered whether
use of conditions could serve to make otherwise unacceptable development
acceptable. Given the nature of the harm I have identified relative to the
substance of this particular scheme, I find conditions would not serve such a
purpose.
86 Framework para 54
Planning balances and related matters
Heritage balance
148. The farmhouse would not be preserved87 and this is a matter to which I
attach considerable importance and weight.
149. The Framework requires that where a development proposal would lead to
less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset,
this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.88
150. Given the relatively low level of harm I have found in relation to the
farmhouse and the significant housing and other positive attributes I have
identified from the scheme, I find the heritage harm arising would be
outweighed by the public benefits identified. Accordingly, the Framework does
not provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed in this
specific regard.
Paragraph 172 and implications for the tilted balance
151. Paragraph 11 d)i. and Footnote 6 of the Framework disapply the tilted
balance under paragraph 11 in circumstances whereby AONB Framework
policies provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed.
152. Framework policies include in the first part of paragraph 172 that great
weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic
beauty in AONBs.89 The Framework further states that the scale and extent of
development within these designated areas should be limited.
153. The second part of the paragraph applies to major development and states
that planning permission should be refused other than in exceptional
circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in
the public interest. Footnote 55 then clarifies for these purposes that
interpretation of ‘major development’ is a matter for the decision maker, taking
into account a scheme’s nature, scale and setting, and whether it could have a
significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been
designated or defined.
154. Appendix 3 of the Council’s Distribution of Development Topic Paper for Draft
Local Plan - Regulation 18 Consultation September 2019 sets out an
assessment of the development potential of the Borough’s AONB Sites.90 The
appeal site falls within a broad classification of ‘Cranbrook and Sissinghurst’.
Two other sites with more than 27 dwellings have each been identified by the
Council as ‘Not Major’. These are site CRS 3 with a development of 30-35
dwellings and site CRS 5 proposed to accommodate 35-45 dwellings. Reference
has also been made by the appellants to AONB appeal decisions elsewhere
where similar conclusions have been reached.91
87 Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
88 Framework para 196
89 See Monkhill Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Waverley Borough
Council [2019] EWHC 1993 (Admin), 2019 WL 03322065, and R. (on the application of Monkhill Limited) and the
Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Waverley Borough Council, Neutral
Citation Number: [2021] EWCA Civ 74, Case No: C1/2019/1955/QBACF
90 CD 3.3
91 APP/X0415/W/18/3202026, APP/C1625/W/17/3175953 and APP/U1430/W/17/3184449
155. Despite the adverse impact the scheme would have on the purposes for
which the area has been designated and defined, basic considerations of
nature, scale (absolute numbers of dwellings) and of local consistency in
decision-making do not lead me on those terms to regard the appeal scheme
as major development.
156. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the countervailing benefits in favour of
the scheme as already identified, there would still be overriding harm arising
from the extent of development proposed in the particular circumstances of
this proposal. The scheme would therefore be contrary to the great weight
expected to be given to the conservation and enhancement of the landscape
and scenic beauty of the AONB, and to the accompanying duty under s85.
Whilst not major development, the proposal would thereby still conflict with the
protective policy set out in the first part of paragraph 172.
157. It further follows that, as the benefits and other factors are insufficient to
outweigh the far greater harm identified, there is a clear reason for refusing
the development proposed within the terms of paragraph 11d)i. The tilted
balance is therefore not engaged, and the application remains to be determined
in accordance with the statutory duty under section 38(6)92.
Final planning balance
158. Section 38(6) requires this appeal to be determined in accordance with the
development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
159. I find the scheme does not accord with the development plan as a whole,
and the conflicts and harm arising in those regards are not offset by the far
lesser weight of other material considerations. Accordingly, material
considerations in this instance do not lead me to a decision other than in
accordance with the development plan and planning permission should be
refused.
Conclusion
160. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Peter Rose
INSPECTOR
92 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
The following documents were submitted and accepted by the Inquiry:
On behalf of the local planning authority:
Opening submissions by Ms Lambert
David Scully Appendix 10 (but subsequently updated)
Site plans relating to appeal decision APP/M2270/W/18/3203543
for Land adjacent to Hartley Gate Farmhouse, Hartley Road, Cranbrook, Kent
dated 5 July 2019
Errata sheet accompanying proof of evidence of Richard Hazelgrove
Front page to CD 3.16
Closing submissions by Ms Lambert, including copy of Monkhill Limited v
Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Waverley
Borough Council [2019] EWHC 1993 (Admin), 2019 WL 03322065
On behalf of the appellant:
Opening submissions by Mr Westmoreland Smith
Undated note from Ms Davidson submitted as part of the round-table
discussion on 1 December and relating to heritage methodology
Appeal decision APP/M2270/W/20/3245562 relating to Springfield Nurseries,
Cranbrook Road, Hawkhurst, Cranbrook, TN18 5EE dated 30 November 2020
Closing submissions by Mr Westmoreland Smith
Jointly on behalf of the local planning authority and appellant:
Email from Mr Bedford dated 9 December 2020 confirming agreed
arrangements for unaccompanied site visit
Updates to possible conditions from Mr Hazelgrove and Mr Bedford
dated 9 December 2020
Agreed modifications to David Scully Appendix 10 Landscape effects Table V3
10 December 2020 and accompanying emails
Summary of s106 agreement dated 10 December 2020
Completed s106 agreement dated 17 December 2020
On behalf of local interested parties:
Undated note from Sally Marsh, Co-Director of High Weald AONB Partnership,
submitted on 1 December 2020
Emails from Mr Fleming, local resident, dated 2 December 2020, and
4 and 6 December 2020
APPEARANCES
For the local planning authority:
Emmaline Lambert of Counsel,
instructed by Head of Mid-Kent Legal Services
She called:
Debbie Salter - Conservation and Urban Design Officer,
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
David Scully - Landscape and Biodiversity Officer,
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
Margaret Parker - Senior Development Planner (Transport),
Kent County Council
Richard Hazelgrove - Principal Planning Officer,
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
For the appellant:
Mark Westmoreland Smith of Counsel,
instructed by David Bedford of DHA Chartered Town Planners and Development
Consultants
He called:
Sara Davidson - Director, Heritage Collective
Matthew Chard - Partner, Barton Willmore LLP
Paul Lulham - Director of Transport Planning, DHA Chartered Town Planners
and Development Consultants
David Bedford - Director of Planning, DHA Chartered Town Planners and
Development Consultants
Interested persons:
Sally Marsh - Co-Director, High Weald AONB Partnership
Philip Govan - local resident, and Chair of ‘Hartley: Save Our Fields’