Case Reference: 3271595

Appeal Decision
Hearing 28 September 2021
Site visit made on 6 July 2021 and 28 September 2021
by Rachael Pipkin BA (Hons) MPhil MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 2 November 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/G2245/W/21/3271595
Kent and Surrey Golf and Country Club, Crouch House Road, Edenbridge
TN8 5LQ
• 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 Sevenoaks District Council.
• The application Ref 19/02834/OUT, dated 20 September 2019, was refused by notice
dated 25 September 2020.
• The development proposed is replacement of existing golf clubhouse and hotel following
demolition of existing to create a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) for the
elderly alongside a new golf clubhouse with hotel accommodation containing shared
social, managerial and operational space to operate and service the continued golf
course use and the CCRC with all matters reserved except for access.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for
replacement of existing golf clubhouse and hotel following demolition of
existing to create a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) for the
elderly alongside a new golf clubhouse with hotel accommodation containing
shared social, managerial and operational space to operate and service the
continued golf course use and the CCRC with all matters reserved except for
access at Kent and Surrey Golf and Country Club, Crouch House Road,
Edenbridge TN8 5LQ in accordance with the terms of the application
Ref 19/02834/OUT, dated 20 September 2019 and subject to the conditions
set out in the attached schedule.
Application for Costs
2. An application for costs was made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Sevenoaks District Council.
This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Procedural Matters
3. The original application was made in outline with only access to be determined
at this stage. All other matters were reserved for future determination. I
have had regard to the existing and proposed site plans and the indicative
layout of the proposed development, but have regarded all elements of these
drawings as indicative apart from the details of the access.
4. The appellants have submitted a copy of a completed signed planning
obligation by way of a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) under Section 106 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) dated 22 June 2021. This
deals with control of the use of the development (occupation), highway
contributions and infrastructure including the provision of a controlled
pedestrian crossing and bus stop works, communal transport for residents and
staff, ecology and landscape management, public access to the golf course
and facilities, public open space and contributions to public rights of way
improvements. I will discuss this in more detail later in this decision.
5. During the course of the appeal, a revised National Planning Policy Framework
(the Framework) was published. The parties have had an opportunity to
comment on the implications of the revised Framework during the appeal
process. I have dealt with the appeal accordingly.
Background and Main Issues
6. The parties do not dispute that the proposal would be inappropriate
development in the Green Belt as defined in the Framework. The main issues
are therefore:
• the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and
• whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm,
would be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this
amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
Reasons
7. The appeal site lies on the western side of Crouch House Road. It comprises
the clubhouse building which includes hotel accommodation and a large area
of surface parking plus two of the golf course holes at the eastern end of the
golf course. The clubhouse is a reasonably large, one and a half storey, L-
shaped building. It lies a short distance back from Crouch House Road beyond
the car parking. Adjacent to the clubhouse there is a single-storey building
and a disused golf driving range which lies outside the appeal site.
8. The site is surrounded by open land, comprising the remainder of the golf
course and fields and the adjacent golf driving range, with housing
development on the opposite side of Crouch House Road. A railway line runs
along part of its north-eastern boundary. A public right of way (PROW)
crosses through the site. This limited development on the western side of the
road, gives the area an open and spacious character. Its eastern boundary is
adjacent to the urban confines of Edenbridge on the opposite side of Crouch
House Road. The site lies entirely within the Green Belt.
Openness of the Green Belt
9. Paragraph 137 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green
Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It
identifies openness as an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. There is
no definition of ‘openness’ in the Framework although it is commonly taken to
mean the absence of built or otherwise urbanising development. An
assessment of openness requires a consideration of the scale of the
development, its locational context and both its spatial and visual
implications.
10. The indicative drawings show substantial built development extending
westwards from Crouch House Road onto undeveloped land. The proposed
clubhouse, hotel and hub building would be two-storeys and the largest
building. It would be positioned at the far western end of the site on the edge
of the retained golf course. The residential units would be arranged as short
terraces and blocks of flats of between 1.5 and 3 storeys, extending in a
linear pattern along two internal access roads between the hub building and
Crouch House Road to the east.
11. The extension of the built form into open land would inevitably cause harm to
openness. The appellants consider that the harm to the openness is limited,
arguing that since the appeal proposal is for outline permission, matters
relating to the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development
are all reserved and could change through any reserved matters approval.
12. Whilst I acknowledge this point, the proposed replacement clubhouse building
would have to be significantly larger than the existing in order to
accommodate the range of activities proposed. It would also need to be closer
to the golf course and therefore positioned away from the built up area.
Moreover, a large number of residential buildings as well as access roads and
parking spaces would be built on land that is currently open. Consequently, I
find that the proposal would significantly reduce the spatial openness of the
area.
13. The appeal site is enclosed by boundary vegetation, hedgerows and trees. The
site is also bunded. These provide some limitations to views into the site.
However, in order to achieve a satisfactory relationship with the existing built
up area, it is inevitable that much of the proposed development would need to
be positioned towards the eastern side of the site, closer to Crouch House
Road from which there would be open views into the site. The presence of
internal roads and buildings would have a greater visual impact on the area
than the existing building on the site. This would not be sufficiently screened
by either the boundary vegetation or bunding within the site. It would also be
visible from the railway line and a public footpath. There would therefore be a
significant adverse effect on the visual openness of the site.
14. The Council’s Green Belt Assessment 2017 assessed the District’s Green Belt
against the five purposes of the Green Belt, as set out in the 2019
Framework. The appeal site lies within a parcel of Green Belt land of some
300 hectares. This parcel was assessed as being strongly performing Green
Belt due to its importance in preventing the outward sprawl of Edenbridge into
the surrounding open land and maintaining an essential gap between the built
up area and the villages beyond.
15. The appeal site is around 8 hectares and accounts for under 3 per cent of this
parcel of Green Belt. It is close to the built up area and some distance from
other settlements. Development of this relatively small area would not
significantly undermine its purpose in maintaining an essential gap, although
it would represent encroachment into the countryside with the subsequent
loss of openness.
16. Notwithstanding that the scheme would result in the loss of a relatively small
parcel of Green Belt, I conclude that the appeal proposal would result in a
significant loss of openness both visually and spatially thereby causing
significant harm to the Green Belt. Therefore, it would be contrary to the
objectives of the Framework.
Other considerations
17. The Framework sets out that identified harm to the Green Belt may be
weighed with any other material consideration in order to determine if there
are very special circumstance which may justify inappropriate development.
The appellants have referred to a number of matters, each of which I deal
with below.
Housing Supply
18. The Council acknowledges that it cannot demonstrate a five year supply of
deliverable housing sites and has confirmed that its housing policies are out of
date. The statement of common ground indicates that the shortfall in delivery
is ‘severe’. At the hearing, it was agreed that the Council had 2.6 years
supply. I certainly consider this to be a significant shortfall.
19. The Framework sets out at paragraph 11(d)(i) and Footnote 8 that where a
five year supply of housing land cannot be demonstrated or delivery of
housing has been substantially below the housing requirement over the
previous three years, then the most important policies for determining the
application should be considered out of date and planning permission should
be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect
areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing
the development proposed. Footnote 7 sets out that this includes land
designated as Green Belt.
20. The proposed development is seeking the provision of 100 units of extra care
housing. Both parties agree that this type of accommodation would fall within
Class C2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (UCO).
21. The PPG1 advises that housing provided for older people, including residential
institutions in Class C2, should be counted towards housing land supply. It
goes on to explain at paragraph 16a2 that housing provided for older people
should be counted against their housing requirement. For residential
institutions, to establish the amount of accommodation released in the
housing market, authorities should base calculations on the average number
of adults living in households.
22. The Council in its Housing Land Supply update3 (HLS report) sets out that C2
units are expressed in terms of bedspaces. It utilises a methodology for
calculating the equivalent number of C3 housing units from C2 units based on
an average household occupancy of 1.87 adults.
23. Whilst this approach is noted, I find that the nature of the proposed units
would be more akin to a small dwelling with a separate kitchen and living area
and mostly two bedrooms. Notwithstanding that the proposal would fall within
Class C2, given that each unit would be capable of accommodating a small
household rather than just a single occupant occupying a room within a more
traditional residential care home setting, I consider that it would be
1 Paragraph: 035 Reference ID: 68-035-20190722
2 Paragraph: 016a Reference ID: 63-016a-20190626
3 Sevenoaks District Council, Housing Land Supply Update, 27th September 2019 (Update to take account of C2
supply)
reasonable to count this as a dwelling rather than on the basis of bedspaces.
For this reason, it seems to me that the proposed development would
contribute 100 residential units, albeit of a specialist nature, to the Council’s
housing land supply.
24. Even if I am wrong and the contribution to housing should be adjusted to be
counted as bedspaces, the scheme would contribute an equivalent of at least
53 housing units based on the provision of 100 bedspaces. However, it seems
to me that since the majority of units provide two bedrooms, in reality this
figure could be higher and its overall contribution to housing supply greater.
25. Data within the SHMA shows that nearly 73 per cent of older person
households within the District are relatively likely to live in outright owned
accommodation. These people will often have significant equity in their homes
which may mean that market solutions will also be required to meet their
needs. Amongst these households, there is a high proportion of under-
occupancy with nearly 59 per cent of such households having at least 2 spare
bedrooms.
26. The emerging Local Plan, whilst carrying very limited weight, recognises that
encouraging older people to downsize can play an important role in releasing
larger homes for growing families. Whilst not all older person households
would either need to or wish to move into a retirement village such as
proposed here, there is evidence that such accommodation does meet a need
for some. The provision of specialist housing more suited to the needs of this
part of the population is likely to encourage them to move, freeing up housing
stock and would make a valuable contribution to overall housing supply.
27. The Council acknowledges its shortage of housing land. However, it considers
that the provision of housing would not outweigh the overriding need to
protect the Green Belt from harmful development in accordance with
paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework. Whilst I accept that on its own, the
provision of general housing would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm to
the Green Belt. I do nevertheless find that the contribution to housing supply
including the freeing up of housing stock, are factors that together carry
substantial weight in the balance.
Housing Needs of Older People
28. The Framework sets out at paragraph 61 that local planning authorities should
undertake a local housing needs assessment, conducted using the standard
method in national planning guidance. Paragraph 62 goes on to require that it
assess the housing needs of different groups including for older people.
29. The Planning Practice Guidance4 (PPG) sets out that the need to provide
housing for older people is critical in view of the rising numbers in the overall
population. Furthermore, it considers that older people should be offered a
better choice of accommodation to suit their changing needs in order that
they can live independently for longer and feel connected to their
communities. Extra care housing is once form of housing for older people
which is recognised by the Government as providing such benefits.
30. The Council produced a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) in 2015
which formed part of its evidence base for the Council’s emerging Local Plan.
4 Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 63-001-20190626
The SHMA predicts an increase in those aged over 65 within the District by 48
per cent from 2013 to 2033, with particularly strong growth expected in those
aged over 75, driven by improving life expectancy. With an aging population,
the Council accepts that there is a need for the type of housing proposed.
However, it disputes that the scale and location of the proposed development
are able to meet the need appropriately.
31. The SHMA makes an assessment of overall housing need, including the need
for different types of home, particularly for a growing older population. As
part of its assessment, the SHMA sets out the need for specialist housing and
accommodation for older persons. It places specialist housing including
sheltered and extra care housing for older persons into Class C3 of the UCO.
It makes a separate assessment of the need for care home bedspaces,
considered to fall within Class C2.
32. The SHMA estimated a requirement for an additional 1,319 specialist housing
units in the District between 2013 and 2033. This equates to an annual need
of 66 dwellings. This is based on existing provision of 102 affordable extra
care units and 1,490 sheltered housing units, both market and affordable.
33. Notwithstanding the inconsistency between the use classes applied to this
type of housing, as extra care housing, I consider the scheme would
contribute to the need for 1,319 specialist housing units as set out in the
SHMA, rather than making a contribution to the need for C2 units, which is
based on bedspaces. In providing 100 extra care units it would make a
sizeable contribution to the overall need set out within the SHMA.
34. Although the SHMA treats extra care housing as Class C3, from the evidence
submitted, the Council has calculated the delivery of extra care housing as
falling within Class C2. The Council undertook a review of schemes delivering
C2 accommodation as set out within its HLS report. This provided details of
schemes with planning permission falling within Class C2. A number of these
were providing traditional care homes but there is evidence that several were
providing extra care accommodation.
35. Based on analysis of these approved schemes and the figures and evidence
put forward by the appellants, there appears to have been provision of around
189 extra care unit completions between 2015 and 2019 and a further 67
extra care units with planning permission. These figures have not been
disputed.
36. No evidence has been put to me to demonstrate that there have been any
further schemes permitted within the District since 2019. On this basis, and
using the requirement set out in the SHMA, around 256 units of extra care
accommodation have or will be provided. Part of this provision included a
scheme at White Oak Court, Sycamore Drive5 was completed for a change of
use of 51 units from sheltered housing to extra care. These 51 units existed
prior to the SHMA have been undertaken and would have counted against the
existing supply. Therefore, whilst they count towards the supply of extra care
units they would not have contributed to a net gain in the overall number of
specialist housing within Sevenoaks.
5 Council Ref: SE/18/00568/FUL
37. By my calculation, the overall contribution to the 1,319 figure provided by
extra care housing would amount to just over 200 units. This equates to
around 15 per cent of the overall SHMA requirement for specialist housing to
2033. With the addition of a further 100 units, this would bring the figure to
around 23 per cent at around halfway into the SHMA period.
38. Since I have not been provided with any details of how many Class C3
sheltered housing units have been provided, it is not possible to reach a firm
conclusion as to what the overall level of delivery has been against the annual
need identified within the SHMA and the extent of any shortfall or oversupply.
Even in the absence of confirmed numbers of sheltered accommodation
delivery, the delivery of less than a quarter of the overall need for specialist
housing as extra care housing (including the appeal scheme), does not
suggest there has been or would be an oversupply of such housing.
39. The Council submitted a Market Position Statement 2021-266 (MPS) for
accommodation with care and support. This set out the requirement for extra
care housing specifically for older persons, referred to as Housing with Care,
for all local authorities covered by Kent County Council. The Council confirmed
that the MPS was based on 2017 population forecasts and used a model
endorsed by the Housing Learning and Information Network (Housing LIN). It
also covered both market and affordable requirements although it did not split
the need into these types.
40. The MPS sets out that within Sevenoaks there is a shortfall of 93 extra care
units to 2026 and on the basis that this demand would be met, a further
39 extra care units would be required between 2026 and 2031. A total of 132
additional units would be needed. Essentially, by the end of 2031, it suggests
that Sevenoaks would require a total of 253 extra care units. Based on the
MPS, the appeal scheme would meet the entire need for the District to 2026
in a single location.
41. However, I find it hard to reconcile the MPS figure with the evidence put
forward within the SHMA and the HLS report in relation to both demand and
supply. By my calculation, the MPS indicates that as of March 2021,
Sevenoaks was assessed to have 121 units either currently available or in the
‘pipeline’. However, the SHMA in 2015 identified that there were 102 existing
extra care units and the HLS report, indicates that some 256 units have either
been implemented or have permission. This would bring combined existing
and pipeline supply to around 360 units and significantly higher than the 121
identified in the MPS.
42. A need of some 66 units per year as indicated in the SHMA would equate to
660 units over an equivalent ten year period. This would be significantly more
than the 132 units predicted to be needed during the MPS ten year period of
2021-2031. Even taking account that some of the 660 units needed would be
traditional sheltered accommodation, I nevertheless find that the disparity
between these assessments of need would be significant.
43. I recognise that the MPS is a more up-to-date document. However, I have no
information as to how the figures have been calculated to inform both the
existing and pipeline supply position within the MPS. It is also not clear what
6 Kent County Council, Accommodation with Care & Support Adult Social Care Commissioning Market Position
Statement 2021-26 (Last updated 04/2021)
the methodology has been to determine future demand and the extent to
which this has been informed by local assumptions for Sevenoaks District. I
have no evidence of the extent to which this has been subject to scrutiny. For
these reasons, I can only give this limited weight.
44. The SHMA figures were based on data and a toolkit from the Housing LIN. It
used the 2012-based sub-national population projections. The appellants have
indicated that this would have been the SHOP@ tool (Strategic Housing for
Older People Analysis Tool). This is a tool for forecasting the housing and care
needs of older people. The Housing LIN toolkit indicated that there should be
around 170 units of specialised accommodation (other than registered care
home places) per thousand people aged over 75 years.
45. The appellants have asserted that the figure of 170 specialist housing units
per 1,000 of the population is split into 12.5 per cent sheltered housing, 2.5
per cent enhanced sheltered and 2 per cent extra care accommodation.
Enhanced sheltered and extra care accommodation are similar and it was
accepted by the Council that it would be reasonable to count these together.
In combination, it was agreed that the need for this type of accommodation
would represent 4.5 per cent of the population aged over 75 years.
46. Using this toolkit, the appellants have made an alternative assessment of
demand for extra care housing. This is based on the mid-2019 population
projections7, taking a percentage of the population of over 75s. This gives an
existing need of 555 units of extra care and enhanced sheltered housing
increasing to 841 units by 2033. The current supply, both existing and in the
pipeline, of around 360 units of this type falls significantly short of the 555
units needed.
47. The appellants have argued that this figure should be adjusted to 8 per cent,
thereby taking into account those aged between 65 and 74 years as well as
aspirations and social policy. I look at each of these in turn.
48. Whilst the accommodation would be available to anyone over the age of 55
who meets the eligibility criteria which includes amongst other things a need
for care, physical frailty and social isolation, based on evidence from research
and surveys of other care homes, the need is expected to be from those in
their late 70s and 80s, with the average age of residents around 82 years.
Therefore, whilst I accept that there will be people from within the lower age
bracket who will both qualify for and choose this housing option, I have no
figure to quantify this. I nevertheless agree that the figure of need would be
higher to take into account this age group.
49. In terms of social policy and aspirations, it seems to me that with increased
provision of extra care housing there could be an uplift in demand due to a
shift from more traditional care home accommodation. This is borne out in the
MPS, the SHMA and the Council’s 2017 Local Housing Needs Study. On this
basis, I agree that the appellants’ figures based on 4.5 per cent may be
conservative but I am unable to reach any firm conclusions on this.
50. Due to differences in methodologies and assumptions and recognising that the
SHMA is now some years old, it is not possible to reach a definitive position on
overall need. The Council advised at the Hearing that is has commissioned
7 ONS Mid-2019: April 2020 local authority district codes – Estimates of the population for the UK, England and
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
work to look at older person’s housing needs within the District. However, this
is not yet available. Nevertheless, I find that, on balance, based on existing
supply including that in the pipeline, the population and its projected increase
within older year groups, there is currently an existing and significant shortfall
and a growing need for this type of housing. The proposed development
would make a significant contribution towards meeting this requirement.
51. The Council’s draft Local Plan8, following an unsuccessful Judicial Review of
the Inspector’s conclusions that the plan should not be adopted, holds no
weight in decision making. However, it recognises that a high proportion of
the District’s housing requirement will be for specialist accommodation for
older people, quoting the housing need figures from the SHMA. Whilst the
Council’s intentions for planning for older persons housing as set out within
the draft Local Plan are noted, there are currently no policies in place that
would specifically secure this type of housing.
52. With an aging population within the District and based on the evidence of
need, I have no reason to dispute that the proposal would meet the housing
needs of older people. However, I turn now to consider whether this
accommodation is being provided in the right place.
53. The draft Local Plan proposed that older person housing is concentrated in the
three main strategic settlements in Sevenoaks, Edenbridge and Swanley. This
is to ensure that older persons’ housing is distributed spatially and sustainably
so that not only can it meet the need identified, but also be located where
older persons can remain close to their existing connections, family and
community. Whilst not adopted policy, this approach to my mind, seems
reasonable.
54. None of the submitted evidence provides any analysis of need below District
level. However, as one of the larger settlements within the District, it would
be reasonable to expect that a proportion of the overall need would arise
within Edenbridge.
55. The Council has referred to a number of elderly care accommodation
developments within the urban confines of Edenbridge quoting figures in the
region of 240 units. However, no extra care housing has been provided within
Edenbridge and its parish. Furthermore, with the exception of Edenbridge
Manor Care Home, which is a traditional care home providing 85 units, the
other developments date back to 2012 or earlier. They therefore pre-date the
SHMA assessment and the need set out therein is evidently on top of this
existing provision.
56. There is no evidence to suggest that there is any extra care housing serving
Edenbridge. The schemes for this type of housing to which I have been
referred are for developments in other settlements, including Sevenoaks and
Swanley. The proposed development would make a contribution to different
types of specialist housing designed to meet the diverse needs of older people
serving Edenbridge. Whilst it would be a sizeable development, in serving the
third largest settlement within the District it would meet a local need.
57. The appeal site was submitted under the call for sites in 2017 for housing
development. It was assessed as being unsuitable due to the loss of an
8 Sevenoaks District Local Plan, Proposed Submission Version Regulation 19 Consultation December 2018
outdoor sports facility and for the majority of the site being isolated from the
main town. In particular that the site was not in walking distance of public
transport and existing services and facilities, thereby trips to these facilities
would be reliant on the car.
58. The Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan 2015 (ADMP)
identified two possible sites for mixed use development including housing for
older people and a further six housing sites identified as suitable for housing
specifically designed for older people. These were considered too small by the
appellants for what they were proposing. From the evidence submitted, of
those developed none have delivered any such housing and a number remain
undeveloped.
59. The Council has not specifically stated the proposed development should be
delivered on one of the allocated sites although it considers sites within urban
confines should be considered. It also maintains the position set out within
the ADMP that it can meet its housing targets without the need to release land
in the Green Belt and by focusing development within the existing urban and
village locations of the District. However, at the Hearing I was told that less
than 1,000 houses would be delivered on allocated sites within existing urban
areas on non-Green Belt land which suggests that land within the Green Belt
would need to be considered.
60. In such circumstances, the appellants have argued that they are unable to
compete with general housing developers for suitable larger sites as required
for their proposal. No viability assessment has been put to me to substantiate
that claim. Nevertheless, I accept that there is a minimum number of units
and site area that would be likely to be required to support the retirement
village concept and the viable provision of shared on-site facilities for
residents. I also acknowledge that the availability of sites is considerably
constrained by both the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
designations that cover 93 per cent and 60 per cent respectively of the
District.
61. I note that an Inspector in allowing an appeal9 for a development of 79 extra
care unit at Land to the rear of 237-259 London Road, West Malling within
neighbouring Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council where Green Belt
designations likewise limited the choice of sites, reached a very similar
conclusion.
62. The SHMA suggests that the provision of specialist housing is split roughly
60:40 between market and affordable tenures. The appeal scheme would
deliver market housing and the Council has confirmed that it would not be
liable for affordable housing contributions.
63. Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would make a
significant contribution to meeting the overall need for specialist housing
within the District for which the current development plan does not make
adequate provision for and for which the emerging local plan, whilst
supportive, would be unlikely to deliver for some time yet.
9 APP/H2265/W/18/3202040
Locational factors
64. The SHMA recommends that the Council identifies sites in accessible locations
for specialist housing. The proposed extra care accommodation would be on
the edge of the urban area, some 1.2 kilometres from the town centre. For
less mobile residents, it would not be within easy reach of services and
facilities which would be around a 15 to 20 minute walk from the site. Given
the age of anticipated future occupants, this would be neither convenient nor
provide a realistic option for many of them. Whilst there is a bus stop opposite
the site, the service is not considered to be sufficiently frequent to provide a
satisfactory means of access to the town centre.
65. In view of the anticipated age of the future occupants, the appellants have
explained that the operational model is based upon bringing services and
facilities to the residents. This would be supplemented by a communal
transport service for residents to enable them to access local services and
facilities off-site with a buggy transport system operating within the site
between the residential units and the hub building. Details and the provision
of this would be confirmed through a Communal Transport Plan which would
be secured through the submitted UU.
66. Whilst there is nothing to prevent future residents from owning and using a
car, in view of their advanced age and the arrangements for access to
services and facilities, it seems to me that future residents would not be
overly reliant on the use of the private car, usage of which is likely to be
modest.
67. There is an existing golf course and hotel on the site, which when operational,
would be accessed by staff, club members and hotel guests. The appeal
scheme would increase the number of staff and the hotel capacity on site with
subsequent increases in trips to and from the site. In terms of staff coming to
work at the site, the appellants argue this is no different to people working at
industrial premises on the edge of town. Furthermore, whilst the walking
distance may not be suitable for future residents, this does not mean that
younger or more mobile people working or visiting the site would not be able
to walk or cycle to it. The site is, after all, on the edge of the settlement,
linked to it by footpaths and not entirely disconnected from it.
68. Overall, I conclude that the appeal site is not in a highly sustainable location
and there would inevitably be some increase in traffic to and from the site,
including trips by private cars. However, with alternative transport means for
future residents as well as taking into account the existing use of the site, this
only carries limited weight against the proposal. In coming to this view, I am
also mindful that locational factors were not identified by the Council as a
reason for refusal.
Health and Well-Being Benefits
69. There is a body of evidence to support the provision of housing for older
people, such as extra care housing, which allows for and enables social
contact and interaction, helping to address issues of loneliness and isolation
that can occur. To be successful in this, such developments need to be
situated in the community, close to local amenities and facilities, to ensure
that people within the scheme can stay independent and involved members of
that community for as long as possible.
70. The entire site would include a mix of uses with associated comings and
goings and activities. Future occupants would have the benefit of living as a
community with associated opportunities for social interaction with each other
and others attending at the hub building. This would help tackle issues of
isolation. Whilst some concerns about opportunities for social interactions
have been raised in respect of the layout, this could be addressed through the
reserved matters.
71. The appellants have provided evidence of the beneficial impact on public
health budgets as future residents would have on-site care and support
services. Moreover, with future occupants being able to retain their
independence with the care they need, the scheme would promote improved
well-being.
72. I find I have no reasons to disagree with this position and I agree that there
are likely to be overall benefits to health and well-being from this proposal.
However, because the scheme is a distance from off-site local services and
facilities which may limit opportunities for interactions beyond the immediate
community, I reduce the weight accorded to this and therefore give it
moderate weight.
73. The Council has raised a concern about the impact of this scale of facility on
existing local infrastructure, such as health care provision. Whilst this is
noted, the intention is to draw people mainly from the local area who would
already be registered for such services. Furthermore, with improved well-
being and the provision of on-site consulting rooms for visiting health care
practitioners to administer treatments, it is not expected to give rise to
significant additional pressure on existing services.
Safeguarding the Long Term Future of the Existing Golf Course and Use
74. The existing golf course on the site is currently closed. It is located within an
area where there are a significant number of golf courses. Some of these have
closed down which the appellants attribute to an issue of oversupply as well
as reduced demand for such facilities from the population. In these
circumstances, the appellants have indicated that the golf club will not reopen
at the end of the current pandemic.
75. The loss of an outdoor sports facility was one of the reasons for not including
the site within the site allocations for the local plan. The appellants have
argued that the proposal would enable the retention of the golf course, for
which there is local support, and there would be no loss of an outdoor sports
facility.
76. The appellants contend that the appeal golf course is well located to the
settlement, providing an opportunity for combined trips and access to
employees. The care community would allow for the diversification of the
hotel / golf course use with shared facilities and services. This would ensure
the ongoing viability and commerciality of the golf course, would enable the
maintenance of the land and provide a leisure facility within an accessible
location.
77. It has been suggested that the existing golf course is not financially viable.
However, I have been provided with no evidence of income and expenditure
or falling membership numbers to demonstrate that there is no longer a need
or viable operating model for the golf course to continue. Whilst I accept that
the existing facilities are in need of modernisation and that works to them
would improve the appearance of the area along Crouch House Road, it has
also not been demonstrated that refurbishment of the existing facilities would
be prohibitive. In the absence of this and whilst I understand the appellants’
desire to improve the golf course facilities, I can only give this very limited
weight.
78. The appellants have also highlighted that with the existing golf course closed,
there are problems with unauthorised access to the land with people using
motorised vehicles and causing damage to the grounds. In bringing the site
back into active use with associated maintenance and supervision, this type of
anti-social behaviour could be more effectively addressed. Whilst security and
fencing could help solve the problem, with public footpaths crossing the site,
this would be a difficult and expensive solution.
79. I appreciate that it would be easier to tackle such issues were the golf course
to be operational. However, as it has not been demonstrated that the golf
course could not reopen without the proposed development, I attribute very
limited weight to this matter.
Economic Benefits
80. At the time of the planning application some 14 full-time equivalent staff were
employed at the site. The appellants consider the combined use would result
in more than 100 individual positions extending to between 130 to 150 people
employed with part time working and seasonal working. This would be
equivalent to 110 full time staff. In addition, associated economic benefits
with serving the residential and leisure use is estimated to be some 30 to 40
jobs through suppliers and delivery of services.
81. Whilst these figures may vary a little, it seems inevitable that the proposed
use which includes an expanded operation and new uses would generate a
considerable amount of additional employment over and above the existing
with a knock-on effect locally. During the construction period, the
development would create employment on site as well as those working on
the site contributing to the local economy.
82. The existing hotel accommodation provided within the golf clubhouse is not of
a high standard, with poor disabled access. There is no evidence of any
deliberate neglect of the hotel. The scheme would provide an enlarged hotel
with better facilities which may give rise to some additional tourism and
associated economic benefits over the existing hotel. However, it seems to me
that a new hotel could be provided in place of the existing. As such I find it
would essentially be replacing an existing hotel, albeit with a larger one, this
carries limited weight in terms of justifying the proposal.
83. When taken together, the scheme would provide additional employment and a
number of associated economic benefits. Overall, these are positive benefits
of the scheme to which, in combination, I give moderate weight.
Open Space
84. As part of the proposal new publicly accessible open space of 0.5 hectares
would be created and secured through the UU. Whilst this would contribute to
health, well-being and provide space for the community, it would also be on
an area of existing open land that was part of the golf course. Furthermore, it
seems to me that this new area of open space would largely meet the needs
of the proposed development and its future occupants, employees and
visitors. Consequently, I find this delivers very modest public benefits and
therefore carries very limited weight.
Public Footpath
85. The scheme includes upgrades to the PROW both within the appeal site and
wider site. This would make it more accessible by all, with improved surface
material to enable wheelchair users to use it. However, this upgrade to the
surface of the PROW is largely to accommodate the increased use of the
footpath arising from the proposal. As such, whilst there would be some
benefit from this, I only give this very limited weight.
New pedestrian crossing
86. The scheme includes the provision of a controlled pedestrian crossing, traffic
calming measures and improvements to the nearby bus stops on Crouch
House Road. The road is subject to a 30 mph speed limit, however, evidence
indicates that these are regularly and significantly exceeded. The local
highway authority has supported the highway improvements in terms of
traffic calming and the provision of a pedestrian crossing. The proposed
crossing would largely benefit future occupants and users of the proposed
development in providing safe pedestrian access to it. Nevertheless, in helping
to reduce speeds along this road there would be a wider benefit to the
community. I therefore give this moderate weight.
Facilities for wider community
87. The proposed facilities would be open to the wider community providing
bookable space for community meetings and weddings. From what I heard,
there are a number of existing community facilities within Edenbridge and
there is no identified need for additional community facilities. Whilst I do not
have full details of these and whether they would be directly comparable with
what the appeal scheme is offering, it nonetheless appears that Edenbridge is
already relatively well-served in this regard. It seems to me that the provision
of these facilities would largely provide a benefit to the owners of the
facilities. Nevertheless, a small public benefit would be derived from having
these facilities as an option to what is already available. I give this very
limited weight.
Planning Obligation
88. The signed Section 106 Agreement makes provision for appropriate control of
the use and its occupation as well as provision for communal transport,
landscape and ecology management, open space, highway and PROW
improvements. The full details of the highway improvements would be
secured by way of a Section 278 Agreement under the Highways Act 1980. I
am satisfied that each sought obligation meets the three tests set out in
paragraph 57 of the Framework for planning obligations. As a result, I have
taken the completed planning obligation into account.
Other Issues
89. A question has been raised about the cost of the accommodation and whether
it would be affordable. The scheme is not proposing the provision of
affordable units and would provide market extra care housing. The appellants
have indicated these would be priced according to local market conditions.
The sale price of these market units is not a matter before me.
90. Concerns have been raised about the effect of the proposal on the local area
both during and after its construction. There may be some disruption during
construction works, however, a condition requiring a construction traffic plan
to be agreed prior to works commencing would alleviate this. The highway
authority has assessed the trip generation from the proposed development as
submitted by the appellants. They have not disagreed with this nor indicated
that it would give rise to an unacceptable increase in traffic to the detriment
of highway safety.
91. Several interested parties have raised concerns about the capacity of the local
sewage network to accommodate the proposed increase in dwellings and
other uses on the site. The imposition of a condition requiring details to
ensure this is satisfactory and implemented accordingly would secure this.
92. The appellants submitted ecological appraisals and impact assessments10
which demonstrated that the footprint of the proposed development would be
unlikely to significantly impact protected or notable species. However, as the
proposal is in outline and the landscape and layout is indicative, further
consideration of these matters would be considered under any reserved
matters application.
93. The replacement fairways for those lost through the proposed development
would be likely to give rise to some harm due to vegetation clearance and the
protected and priority species known to be there through the appellants’
survey. The Council has confirmed that any vegetation clearance to change
the layout of the existing golf course would not require planning approval. If
the correct licences and appropriate mitigation were to be implemented, the
owners of the site could clear vegetation on site irrespective of this appeal
scheme.
94. The appellants, through the UU, would provide an Ecological and Landscape
Management Plan to detail the management of the property and its
operations. This would provide for the protection, mitigation and enhancement
of the biodiversity and ecology of the appeal site and its surrounds.
The Green Belt Balance
95. Paragraph 147 of the Framework makes it clear that inappropriate
development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt, and should not be
approved except in very special circumstances. I have concluded that the
proposal would be inappropriate development and would therefore, by
definition, be harmful to the Green Belt. I have also found that it would cause
significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt. These are matters to
which I give substantial weight as required by paragraph 148 of the
Framework.
10 The Ecology Go-op, Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, 4 March 2019 and The Ecology Co-Op, Ecological Impact
Assessment, 9 September 2019
96. The proposal would make a contribution to general housing supply within the
District of 100 units including through the release of family housing to the
market. In view of the Council’s significant shortfall in housing supply, I
accord substantial weight to this.
97. The scheme would provide 100 units of extra care housing for older people.
This would address an existing shortfall and contribute to meeting a critical
need. Due to its location on the edge of the settlement with limited direct
access to the existing services and facilities, I reduce the weight attributed to
this provision. I nevertheless consider this carries significant weight.
98. Notwithstanding the location of the development, I find future residents would
benefit from improved well-being and health. The proposed scheme would
also provide a number of economic benefits in terms of job creation and
support for local services. In addition, the highway improvements would
provide some wider benefits in terms of highway safety along Crouch House
Road. I accord each of these factors moderate weight.
99. Although of benefit to the appearance and security of the area, it has not
been satisfactorily demonstrated that the safeguarding and improvements to
the golf club and its facilities are reliant on the wider scheme. This therefore
carries very limited weight. The provision of facilities to the wider community
are also matters to which I accord very limited weight.
100. The provision of open space and improvements to the PROW would be largely
of benefit to the proposed development and its occupants and users. I
therefore accord these benefits very limited weight.
101. The proposal would not be in a highly sustainable location. However, I have
found that this carries limited weight against the scheme. Taking this into
account, I nevertheless find that the other considerations cumulatively clearly
outweigh the harm to the Green Belt I have identified. Consequently, the very
special circumstances necessary to justify the development exist.
102. The demonstration of very special circumstances accords with national policy.
Any conflict with Policies LO1 and LO8 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy 2011
(CS) which together seek to protect and maintain the extent of Green Belt
and other identified conflicts with the development plan are outweighed by
other material considerations.
Conditions
103. The Council has proposed a number of conditions should the appeal be
allowed. I have considered these and imposed them where they meet the
tests set out in Paragraph 56 of the Framework, amending where necessary
for the sake of simplicity, clarity and precision.
104. In addition to the standard conditions relating to the submission of reserved
matters it is necessary to identify the plans to which the decision relates, but
only insofar as they relate to reserved matters for consideration at this stage,
as this provides certainty. Conditions restricting the number of units, quantum
of floorspace and height of each element of the proposed development are
necessary to control the extent of the development. A condition requiring the
extra care units to be constructed to accessible and adaptable standards is
reasonable in view of the proposed future occupants of the development.
105. To protect trees on site, local amenity and highway safety, conditions securing
a tree protection scheme and construction traffic management plan are
necessary.
106. Conditions securing an Order for the realignment of the PROW and
certification for its provision and for its surface, are both necessary and
reasonable to ensure this work is carried out as approved and to an
appropriate standard. A condition preventing any planting within 1 metre of
its edge is necessary in the interests of public safety. I have however omitted
a condition preventing disturbance of the surface as the Council confirmed this
is covered by other legislation.
107. I have imposed conditions requiring the details and implementation of the
disposal of foul and surface water sewage and a sustainable surface water
drainage scheme and verification of this in the interests of the safe and
suitable operation of the site. Conditions requiring investigation of potential
contamination and its remediation are necessary to ensure the site is safe for
the use proposed.
108. In the interests of protecting ecology and enhancing biodiversity, conditions to
secure works to be carried out in accordance with the submitted ecology
assessments and to provide for biodiversity enhancements are necessary and
reasonable.
109. I have imposed conditions requiring details of the provision of electric vehicle
charging sockets, car parking for a car share/club and a travel plans in order
to deliver sustainable travel. A condition requiring details and implementation
in accordance with sustainable design, construction and energy efficiency
measures is reasonable in the interests of reducing the environmental impact
of the development and tackling climate change. However, I have amended
the targets to accord with the requirements of adopted Policy SP2 of the CS.
110. Conditions requiring details of materials, hard and soft landscaping, lighting
scheme and means of enclosure are necessary and reasonable in the interests
of the character and appearance of the development. Exceptionally, a
condition restricting permitted development for means of enclosure is
reasonable for the same reason.
111. I have not imposed a condition seeking archaeological investigation as the site
is not located within an area of archaeological potential.
Conclusion
112. I have concluded above that, for this appeal, very special circumstances exist
to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt. My findings on other
matters do not lead me to reach a different conclusion. Consequently, I
conclude overall that the proposal would comply with the relevant provisions
of the Framework and the development plan when considered as a whole. For
the reasons given above, and having considered all other matters raised, I
conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Rachael Pipkin
INSPECTOR
Schedule of Conditions
1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called
"the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority before any development takes place and the
development shall be carried out as approved.
2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local
Planning Authority not later than 3 years from the date of this permission.
The development hereby permitted shall take place no later than 2 years from
the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.
3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans (noting the indicative and illustrative nature of many
the plans, ahead of detailed design work and submission in reserved
matters):
• P01 Block Plan
• P02 Proposed Site Layout 1 of 2
• P03 Proposed Site Layout 2 of 2
• P04 Proposed Golf Course Layout
• P05 Proposed Site Section A A
• P06 Proposed Site Section B B
• P07 Proposed Site Section C C
• P08 Proposed Site Section D D
• P09 Proposed Site Sectional E to F
• P15 Location plan
• P20 to P45 and P60 - P45
• P50 Proposed Club and Care Hub 1 of 2
• P51 Proposed Club and Care Hub 2 of 2
• Existing impermeable areas 19033-D03A
• Proposed impermeable areas 19033-D04A
• 19033-GA-01-C Access & Traffic Calming
• 254KSGLM02 Landscape Masterplan
• 768 - P70 Indicative Building heights
• Drainage Strategy layout Sheet 1 of 2 19033-D01-G
• Drainage Strategy layout Sheet 2 of 2 19033-D02-F
4) No more than 100 individual accommodation/extra care units shall be built on
the site within the Continuing Care Retirement Community in the C2 Use Class
with a maximum internal floor area of 13,145 square metres and shall have a
maximum of two full storeys with some having accommodation in the roof
space areas.
5) The community hub and golf clubhouse, with hotel accommodation, will have
a maximum internal floor area of 3,470 square metres and shall have a
maximum of two storeys.
6) In terms of ancillary buildings – cycle storage, buggy store, refuse stores, golf
course serving buildings – there will be a maximum internal floor area of 480
square metres and no more than 55 square metres maximum internal floor
area in terms of small clubhouse/hub gathering and activity building for use
by the CCRC.
7) All of the extra care units will comply, as a minimum, with the technical
standard M4(2) for accessible and adaptable dwellings as set out in the
Building Regulations.
8) No site clearance works, or development shall take place until a tree
protection scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The site clearance works, and development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved tree protection scheme.
9) No development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved details.
10) No development shall take place over the alignment of Public Footpath SR600
until an Order for its permanent diversion has been made and confirmed, and
the diverted route has been fully provided and certified.
11) The public rights of way within the development site shall be surfaced by the
developer to a specification to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority prior to commencement. This shall be implemented
in accordance with the approved details before any of the proposed units are
occupied or the clubhouse/hotel/hub building is brought into use. It will
thereafter be maintained.
12) No hedging or shrubs should be planted within 1 metre of the edge of any
public rights of way on the site.
13) No development shall be commenced until information and details of the
phasing of the development ensuring it aligns with any required reinforcing of
the sewage network to ensure adequate waste capacity is available.
Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the
proposed means of foul sewage and surface water sewage disposal have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such
details once approved shall be fully implemented and not altered without the
prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.
14) Development shall not begin in any phase until a detailed sustainable surface
water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to (and approved in
writing by) the Local Planning Authority. The detailed drainage scheme will be
based upon the principles from Drainage Strategy Sheets (Sheet 1: 19033,
D01, G and Sheet 2: 19033, D02, F). The discharge rate from the site shall
not exceed the agreed discharge rate of 40.1 l/s (Qbar for all storm events)
and shall demonstrate that the surface water generated by this development
(for all rainfall durations and intensities up to and including the climate
change adjusted critical 100 year storm) can be accommodated and disposed
of without increase to flood risk on or off-site. The drainage scheme shall also
demonstrate (with reference to published guidance):
• that silt and pollutants resulting from the site use can be adequately
managed to ensure there is no pollution risk to receiving waters.
• appropriate operational, maintenance and access requirements for each
drainage feature or SuDS component are adequately considered, including
any proposed arrangements for future adoption by any public body or
statutory undertaker.
The drainage scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
details.
15) No building on any phase (or within an agreed implementation schedule) of
the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until a Verification
Report, pertaining to the surface water drainage system and prepared by a
suitably competent person, has been submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. The Report shall demonstrate the suitable modelled
operation of the drainage system where the system constructed is different to
that approved. The Report shall contain information and evidence (including
photographs) of details and locations of inlets, outlets and control structures;
landscape plans; full as built drawings; information pertinent to the
installation of those items identified on the critical drainage assets drawing;
and, the submission of an operation and maintenance manual for the
sustainable drainage scheme as constructed.
16) Before the development commences, an investigation and risk assessment of
land contamination shall be completed by competent persons and a report of
the findings submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. This shall include an appropriate survey of the nature and extent of
any contamination affecting the site, and an assessment of the potential risks
to human health, controlled waters, property and ecological systems. Where
unacceptable risks are identified, an appropriate scheme of remediation to
make the site suitable for the intended use must also be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
17) Where remediation is necessary in relation to condition 16, and unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, none of the
development shall be occupied until the approved scheme of remediation has
been completed, and a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of
the remediation carried out has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The verification report shall include a description
of the works undertaken and a photographic record where appropriate, the
results of any additional monitoring or sampling, evidence that any imported
soil is from a suitable source, and copies of relevant waste documentation for
any contaminated material removed from the site.
In the event that, contamination is found at any time when carrying out the
approved development, that was not previously identified, it must be reported
immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An appropriate investigation and
risk assessment must be undertaken, and where remediation is necessary, a
remediation scheme must be prepared by competent persons and submitted
to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Following completion of
measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report
that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
18) The development shall be implemented in accordance with the
recommendations, mitigations and enhancement features detailed in the
Ecological Impact Assessment dated 23 December 2019 and Preliminary
Ecological Appraisal dated 4 March 2019 by the Ecology Cooperation Ltd. Prior
to the commencement of development updated versions (including updated
appropriate surveys as required) will be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. Such amended versions will take into account
any layout and landscaping detailed design submitted as part of any reserved
matters application.
19) Prior to the commencement of development, details of measures and a
programme of works to enhance biodiversity shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the works shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details and the programme of
works. The required details shall include the following:
• Native tree and hedgerow planting,
• Wildflower meadow seeding,
• Bat and bird boxes, and
• Lighting scheme that avoids light spill onto the boundary features and
retained mature trees.
20) Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, a scheme to
provide electrical charging sockets, for the charging of electric vehicles shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
These details shall include number, type and location. The sockets shall be
provided and installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the
first occupation of any part of the development.
21) Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, details of car
parking facilities for car share/car club vehicles and a programme of works,
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The car parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved
details and the programme of works, shall be for the exclusive use of electric
vehicles, and shall be retained for such use, at all times.
22) Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, a travel plan
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The measures within the approved travel plan shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved details and programme. In addition to the
details set out in the Framework Travel Plan details within Transport
Assessment 19-TP0015 v1r1 by Neil Brant Consulting September 2019. The
plan shall contain the following information:
• Measures to promote sustainable travel, including sustainable transport
incentives to residents: and
• Travel plan implementation and monitoring schedule.
23) The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until details of the
implementation and design of the matters contained in the Sustainable Design
& Construction Statement & Renewable Energy Assessment P2082-B20-REP-
MEP-002 by Box Twenty dated September 2019 have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such measures shall
include:
• That the Club and Care Hub Building achieves BREEAM Excellent rating.
• At least a 10% reduction in total carbon emissions through on-site
installation and implementation of decentralised, renewable or low-
carbon energy sources
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
24) No development above ground floor slab level of any part of the development
hereby permitted shall take place until samples/details of the materials to be
used in the external surfaces of the development have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved materials.
25) No development above ground floor slab level of any part of the development
hereby permitted shall take place until details of the hard and soft
landscaping, finished levels or contours, car parking layouts, vehicle and
pedestrian access and circulation areas, hard surfacing materials and all
means of enclosure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development and
shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development.
26) Details of the landscaping planting plans and schedules of trees and plants,
including species, sizes and numbers, along with details of all new trees and
bushes, and trees that are to be retained, and a written specification of the
landscape works (including a programme for implementation, cultivation and
other operations associated with plan and grass establishment) shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscaping
planting plans and schedules prior to first occupation of the development.
Any tree or shrub which forms part of the approved landscaping which, within
a period of five years from planting, fails to become established, becomes
seriously damaged or diseased, dies or for any reason is removed, shall be
replaced in the next planting season by a tree or shrub of a similar species,
size and maturity.
27) Details of a lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved lighting scheme prior to first occupation of the
development and shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the
development.
28) No development shall take place before details of all walls (including retaining
walls), fences, gates or other means of enclosure to be erected in or around
the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the development. The
means of enclosure shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details and shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained.
29) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revising revoking and re-
enacting that Order with or without modification), no new fences, gates, walls
or other means of enclosure shall be erected without the prior written
approval of the Local Planning Authority.
End of schedule
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANTS:
John Sneddon Managing Director, Tetlow King
Planning
David Boden Pacalis Group Companies
Matthew Hunt BLCP Eden 1 Ltd and BLCP Eden 2 Ltd
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mark Mirams Principal Planning Officer
Emma Henshall Senior Planning Officer, Policy
Naiomi Sargant Planning Officer, Policy
Nicky Biddall Kent County Council Public Rights of
Way Officer
INTERESTED PARTIES:
James Corrish Local resident


Costs Decision
Hearing Held on 28 September 2021
Site visit made on 6 July 2021 and 28 September 2021
by Rachael Pipkin BA (Hons) MPhil MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 2 November 2021
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/G2245/W/21/3271595
Kent and Surrey Golf and Country Club, Crouch House Road, Edenbridge
TN8 5LQ
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Pacalis Group Companies, BLCP Eden 1 Ltd and BLCP Eden 2
Ltd for a full award of costs against Sevenoaks District Council.
• The hearing was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission
for replacement of existing golf clubhouse and hotel following demolition of existing to
create a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) for the elderly alongside a new
golf clubhouse with hotel accommodation containing shared social, managerial and
operational space to operate and service the continued golf course use and the CCRC
with all matters reserved except for access.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
The submissions for Pacalis Group Companies, BLCP Eden 1 Ltd and BLCP
Eden 2 Ltd
2. The submissions were made verbally. In summary, the applicants are seeking
an award of costs on the grounds that the Council has behaved unreasonably
and that this has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted
expense in the appeal process. Specifically, in accordance with paragraph 49 of
the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)1, the Council has prevented or delayed
development which should clearly be permitted, having regard to its
accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other material
considerations.
3. The applicants disagreed on the amount of weight to be attributed to the very
special circumstances, in particular in relation to housing supply, housing needs
of older people, downsizing and economic benefits. The applicants consider the
Council’s behaviour in this regard to be unreasonable in view of the figures it
presented to support the scheme and the critical need to make provision for
housing for older people as set out in the PPG. They also refer to the Council’s
failure to take a positive approach to schemes that propose to address that
need in accordance with paragraph 162 of the PPG. Moreover, it did not take
into account the Framework’s objectives to significantly boost the supply of
housing and support economic growth, for which the Framework sets out
1 Paragraph: 049 Reference ID: 16-049-20140306
2 Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 63-016-20190626
should be accorded significant weight, taking into account both local business
needs and wider opportunities for development.
4. The Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) sets out
that there are just over 750 units within development boundaries which are
available for development. This is not enough to meet need, on that basis, they
consider it unreasonable of the Council to have refused planning permission
because the site is not within the development limit, particularly given the
critical need and the fact it is recognised in the emerging Local Plan as being a
good thing.
5. The Council did not engage and respond to figures put forward in 2020 on the
need and identifying the need. They relied on an emerging Local Plan which is
no longer progressing. The Council has relied on its position, set out in
paragraph 33 of its Statement of Case, that it can meet its housing targets
without the need to release land in the Green Belt and by focusing
development within the existing urban and village locations of the District, in
accordance with paragraph 3.9 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Management
Plan 2015. This is an incorrect statement and coloured how the applicants’
proposal has been dealt with.
6. Together this amounts to unreasonable behaviour. For this reason, a full award
of costs is being sought.
The response by Sevenoaks District Council
7. The Council responded verbally at the Hearing. In summary, the decision of the
Council was based on local and national policy at the time. This does not
amount to unreasonable behaviour. The Council stands by paragraph 33 of its
statement, as the release of Green Belt land is done through the local plan
process to ensure there is not a creation of urban sprawl and loss of Green
Belt, in accordance with the Framework.
8. As per paragraph 11 of the Framework, the Council felt the adverse impacts
would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits when assessed
against the Framework taken as a whole.
9. The Council has acknowledged its local plan is out of date. It has also agreed
on certain points. During the application process there were a number of
discussions on other issues that could have been reasons for refusal in
response to other consultee comments. The Council agreed an extension of
time with the applicants to agree these.
10. The applicants were made aware of the Council’s consideration of the
application and its position in relation to the local plan. The applicants were
made aware of the decision that was going to be taken. The decision was made
correctly in terms of the Framework.
Reasons
11. The PPG advises that the local planning authority is at risk of costs on
substantive grounds if it prevents or delays development which should clearly
be permitted, having regard to its accordance with the development plan,
national policy and any other material considerations.
12. The applicants disagreed with the weight the Council attached to the very
special circumstances put forward to justify their case for development within
the Green Belt. The weight to be attributed to material considerations are
matters of judgement for the decision maker. The Council was entitled to reach
a different conclusion on these matters but its reasons for this should be
justified.
13. The Council agreed that there is a need for the type of housing proposed but
disagreed as to what the extent of that need is and therefore whether the
location or the scale of the proposal would be appropriate.
14. The evidence of housing need for older people within the District is not clear
cut, with different assumptions and methodologies for assessing the
requirement. It will be seen from my decision that I was presented with
conflicting evidence on the need for the type of housing for older people as
being proposed, some of which suggested a much lower level of provision was
required. There was also incomplete and conflicting evidence of current levels
of provision. In such circumstances, the conclusions reached by the parties are
likely to diverge. This does not amount to unreasonable behaviour.
15. The Council primarily relied on the evidence set out within the Strategic
Housing Market Assessment 2015 (SHMA). As an evidenced-based document,
which had been subject to scrutiny, this was not unreasonable. In these
circumstances, whilst I have not ultimately agreed with the Council, it was not
unreasonable for the Council to reach a different conclusion about the weight to
be attributed to housing need.
16. The applicants put forward an alternative approach to calculating need. It is not
evident the extent to which the Council considered these alternative figures. In
view of the age of the SHMA, the status of the emerging local plan and the very
special circumstances being put forward by the applicants, it would have been
helpful if the Council had done so. Given these alternative figures were
presented, I find the Council has demonstrated some unreasonable behaviour
in not providing a response to them. Notwithstanding this, these figures were
subsequently discussed at the Hearing. However, the Council did not agree that
they provided justification for the location and scale of development. I do not
therefore find that the need for an appeal would have been avoided.
17. The Council acknowledged its local plan is out of date and there is evidence
that it is undertaking work to look at housing needs for older people, the
appeal scheme pre-dated the completion of this work. This does not suggest
that the Council has not recognised the critical need to provide for the type of
housing proposed.
18. At the Hearing the Council confirmed that less than 1,000 units could be
delivered on allocated sites. It has however maintained its position that it can
meet its housing targets without the need to release land from the Green Belt.
These respective positions do appear to conflict with each other. However, this
does not alter the fact that the release of Green Belt land should be done
through the local plan process. The release of such land should be assessed
against national and local policy, which the Council did. However, it found that
the very special circumstances to justify the proposal did not exist.
19. From what I have read and heard, there is nothing to suggest the Council has
not taken a positive approach nor that it did not take into account the National
Planning Policy Framework’s objectives for boosting the supply of housing and
supporting economic growth. It provided clear reasons as to why it did not
consider the proposal to be acceptable based on its location within the Green
Belt and outside the settlement boundary. The Council took the view that there
was insufficient evidence to justify the scheme.
20. Drawing together my overall findings on this matter, the appeal proposal was
finely balanced between Green Belt harm and housing supply, in particular for
older people. The evidence provided a range of conclusions on what the
housing need for this group was. Whilst I find the Council could have engaged
more directly with the applicant on their alternative figures, in view of the
evidence submitted, I do not find that this would have changed the Council’s
view that material considerations did not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.
21. I therefore find that the Council, in reaching a different conclusion on these
matters, has not behaved unreasonably but has indicated a difference of
opinion as to the likely effects and acceptability of the proposed scheme. For
this reason, I do not find that it has prevented or delayed development which
should clearly be permitted, having regard to its accordance with the
development plan, national policy and any other material considerations.
Conclusion
22. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or
wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated. An
award of costs is therefore not justified.
Rachael Pipkin
INSPECTOR