Letter of objection CPRE

We are CPRE Kent, the countryside charity. Formed in 1926, CPRE is a registered charity and one of the longest established and most respected environmental groups in England. CPRE Kent is the largest of the CPRE County branches with over 1,300 members, including over 160 parish councils, civic societies and other Kent organisations and companies. 

Our vision is of a beautiful and thriving countryside that enriches all our lives, and our mission is to promote, enhance and protect that countryside 

Having reviewed this application and object to the proposal on the following grounds: 

• Principle of development – not plan led. 

• Failure to provide Affordable Housing 

• Failure to demonstrate “Very Special Circumstances” for development within the Green Belt 

• Impact on Kent Downs National Landscape. 

• Ecological Impact. 

• Unsustainable location. 

• Light pollution. 

• Residential Amenity impact upon current and future residents. 

Our detailed comments are as follows: 

1) Principle of development. 

The site is not allocated for housing development. Paragraph 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that “the planning system should be genuinely plan-led,” yet this scheme has not emerged from Tonbridge and Malling’s adopted Local Plan (2007) or an appropriate site allocation exercise. Furthermore, the site lies predominantly within the Green Belt (Core Strategy Policy CP3) and the Kent Downs National Landscape, where development must be clearly justified by “very special circumstances” (NPPF paragraphs 137–151). 

Whilst we note the lack of housing supply within the borough, shortfalls in housing provision cannot alone outweigh the fundamental need for a genuinely plan-led approach, particularly in locations so heavily constrained by Metropolitan Green Belt (Core Strategy Policy CP3) and the Kent Downs National Landscape. 

Unmet housing need does not absolve a developer from demonstrating compliance with local and national policies intended to protect our countryside. 

In this instance, the proposal neither follows the existing plan hierarchy nor provides convincing evidence of compliance with Core Strategy Policy CP24’s requirement for a high-quality environment. We also do not consider the applicant has provided the necessary robust evidence of how they both align with the local authority’s development plan and conserve the countryside’s intrinsic value, as set out in Core Strategy Policy CP1, CP14 and CP7, as well as in the Tonbridge and Malling Managing Development and the Environment (MDE DPD) policies. 

2) Failure to provide Affordable Housing 

CPRE Kent strongly objects to this planning application on the basis that it entirely fails to provide any onsite affordable housing. The applicant’s attempt to justify the complete omission of affordable housing provision by linking this shortfall to an alternative scheme at Larkfield and New Hythe is flawed and so must be disregarded. There is no policy within the adopted Tonbridge and Malling Core Strategy (Policy CP17) or allowance within national planning guidance that permits affordable housing provision to be traded or offset between separate and unrelated applications. The absence of any defined linkage or legal certainty between these proposals further undermines this approach, and accordingly, the separate application cannot be treated as a material consideration when assessing the present scheme. 

Moreover, the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council’s own Housing Strategy and Enabling Manager has rightly objected to this application, highlighting its failure to comply with adopted policy CP17, which requires a 40% affordable housing provision for all rural sites of this scale. The applicant’s justification, articulated at paragraph 6.42 of their Planning Statement, that affordable housing is "not viable" and thus substituted by purported infrastructure improvements and enhanced green spaces, does not meet the requirements clearly set out in Paragraph 66 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2024), which explicitly expects major housing developments to deliver a suitable mix of affordable housing tenures to meet identified local needs. 

CPRE Kent specifically advocate strongly for onsite affordable housing as integral to sustainable, balanced communities and have consistently opposed speculative developments which fail to meet genuine local housing needs. The complete lack of affordable housing provision within this proposal represents a direct contradiction of both national policy objectives outlined in paragraph 66 of the NPPF and the clear local policy expectations of Core Strategy CP17 and CP19. On this clear policy failure alone CPRE Kent would suggest that this application should be refused. 

3) Failure to demonstrate “Very Special Circumstances” for development within the Green Belt 

The applicant has not demonstrated the “very special circumstances” required to justify major development in the Metropolitan Green Belt. Whilst the applicant’s planning statement attempts to rely on a deficit in the borough’s five-year housing land supply, alongside alleged infrastructure and public benefits, these considerations simply do not amount to the clear, overriding justification required by paragraphs 137–151 of the NPPF. Crucially, the scheme also fails to meet the “golden rules” of Green Belt policy by neglecting any affordable housing provision, undermining the claimed public benefits and compounding the harm to Green Belt openness. 

It is CPRE Kents view that Green Belts act as a crucial planning tool to control urban sprawl and preserve a sense of openness, nature, and local distinctiveness. Only the most compelling, genuinely site-specific circumstances can outweigh harm to these designated landscapes. Here, however, the applicant’s arguments remain unconvincing. Suggesting that a lack of five-year housing supply alone constitutes a “very special circumstance” is insufficient. Where, as in this case, the scheme simultaneously disregards local affordable housing requirements, any notion that it provides enough public benefit to override Green Belt protections is clearly flawed. 

This position is in direct contradiction to Core Strategy Policy CP3 and does not align with national or local policy objectives, which direct that only where “very special circumstances” demonstrably outweigh all other harm may permission be granted. CPRE Kent trusts that substantial weight will be attributed to these policy conflicts in any subsequent determination of the scheme. 

4) Impact on Kent Downs National Landscape. 

The site is located within the Kent Downs National Landscape, a designation that confers the highest level of protection upon our precious countryside. Protected landscapes are finite and vitally important to both current and future generations, and any proposal within these areas should be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. In this instance, the applicant’s submission fails to demonstrate how the scheme would conserve, let alone enhance, the exceptional natural beauty of the site; nor does it show how it would further the statutory purposes of the designated landscape in line with Government guidance for relevant authorities on seeking to further the purposes of protected landscapes. This is plainly contrary to national policy and CP7 of the Tonbridge and Malling Core Strategy. 

Moreover, the Planning Statement itself offers insufficient justification for overriding the established safeguards that shield nationally important landscapes from harm. The NPPF makes it clear that great weight must be given to conserving and enhancing scenic beauty in designated areas, a requirement also reflected in the local plan policies aiming to preserve the unique qualities of the Kent Downs. 

Specifically, Paragraph 189 of the NPPF states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and National Landscapes. NPPF paragraph 190 sets out that permission should be refused for major development in these designated areas other than in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Here, any claim to such exceptional circumstances is clearly undermined by the proposal’s omission of any affordable housing. The absence of this essential public benefit fatally weakens the applicant’s contention that the development is in the wider public interest as is urgently needed as a response to the housing crisis. Exceptional circumstances for the purposes of NPPF paragraph 190 have clearly not been demonstrated. 

More significantly, the proposed development manifestly fails to meet the Protected Landscapes duty under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000, as updated by Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This statutory duty requires relevant authorities to “seek to further” (rather than merely “have regard to”) the conservation and enhancement of designated National Landscapes such as the Kent Downs. However, the large-scale housing and associated infrastructure set out in this proposal, without even minimal on-site affordable housing, cannot credibly be said to further the purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty and special qualities of the National Landscape. Nor does it align with the relevant Defra guidance or the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) regarding how authorities should apply the duty in practice. Instead, the scheme stands in direct conflict with the very purpose of the Kent Downs’ designation, undermining rather than protecting the unique scenic, ecological, and cultural values that the National Landscape was established to safeguard. The enhanced duty is completely ignored with the applicants planning statement. 

5) Ecological Impact 

We have enclosed the comments of CPRE Kent’s Ecologist, Vicky Ellis BSc (Hons) MRes MRSB, who raises significant concerns with regard to the approach having been undertaken with respect to protected species and biodiversity, including biodiversity net gain. These comments should be referred to in full. 

As set out by our ecologist, the site has naturally regenerated into a highly biodiverse and ecologically significant environment, enriched by its proximity to Leybourne Lakes Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and its position within the National Landscape. In line with Paragraph 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2024), and Policies NE1, NE2, NE3, and NE4 of the Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan, development proposals must adequately address ecological protection, enhancement, and connectivity. However, the current ecological assessments submitted by the applicant remain incomplete, lacking critical surveys such as bat roosting, bat activity, breeding and wintering birds including UK Red-listed species and a Priority Species such as Skylarks, Nightingales and Turtle Doves, and invertebrates, which are essential for ensuring informed and compliant decision-making. Furthermore, proposed mitigation strategies, such as distributing leaflets to advise residents on managing cat predation, are insufficient and unenforceable. 

Additionally, she raises significant concern regarding the ecological sensitivity of the area and the impacts on protected and priority species, including dormice, bats, great crested newts, reptiles, birds, water voles, otters, and invertebrates. Notable gaps and inaccuracies in survey methodologies and reporting compromise the robustness of ecological data and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation and compensation measures, which is contrary to the objectives set out in Policy CP24 of the Tonbridge and Malling Core Strategy, and CPRE Kent’s clear position that developments must minimise direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity and safeguard the beauty and tranquillity of the countryside. Additionally, the proposed installation of 3G artificial pitches presents further environmental concerns given their significant environmental impact, high disposal costs, negative effects on local ecosystems, and potential public health risks linked to rubber crumb surfaces. 

Critically, the biodiversity net gain assessment accompanying the proposed development demonstrates a severe net loss of approximately 59.79% in habitat units. This substantial deficit falls markedly short of the statutory minimum 10% net gain mandated by the Environment Act 2021 and significantly contravenes the biodiversity enhancement and compensation requirements detailed in Policies NE2 and NE3 of the Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan. 

6) Unsustainable location. 

Local Policy CP2 of the Core Strategy states that new development must minimise travel need, provide or make use of a true choice of travel modes, and ensure good access to service centres. Similarly, national policy requirements to promote sustainable transport are set out within NPPF paragraphs 108, 109 and 114-116. These set out 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. 

The proposed development site lacks sufficient nearby amenities within walking distance. The applicants Travel Plan document confirms long walking distances to local amenities: 1.4 km to the nearest supermarket, 1.5 km to the nearest medical practice and more than 2 km to the nearest railway stations at New Hythe and Snodland. These distances, combined with unlit footways and limited public transport connectivity, are not conducive to the “well-located” development local policy CP2 demands for proposals generating significant trip volumes. Instead, the likely outcome is a pattern of private car dependency, in direct conflict with local and national aims to reduce vehicular travel. 

It is CPRE Kents view that sustainable development means being genuinely accessible by a range of transport modes, minimising the need for extensive commuting or multiple car ownership. This means new residential or mixed-use schemes must align with policies that prioritise walkability, meaningful cycling routes, and reliable, nearby public transport. Whilst the applicants planning statement notes nearby bus routes, but the actual services, frequencies, and walking times set out in the Travel Plan suggest limited practical utility for everyday journeys—especially for those with reduced mobility or carrying shopping and children. 

With the primary access point still reliant on the heavily trafficked A228 and many essential facilities well over a kilometre away, CPRE Kent disagree that this can be sustainable location under local or national policy and that this should be weighed against the proposal within the wider planning balance. 

7) Light pollution. 

CPRE’s Dark Skies mapping confirms that, while this location is neither in the darkest nor the brightest category of England’s night sky, the introduction of large-scale housing, sports facilities and associated lighting will inevitably exacerbate skyglow both within and beyond the application site. In so doing, it will impinge upon the amenity of existing neighbours, harm wildlife that relies upon natural darkness, and further undermine opportunities to experience any semblance of a truly star-filled night. 

Notably, the applicant’s own Lighting Strategy repeatedly refers to “the lowest possible lighting levels,” yet specifically adopts high-intensity luminaires of up to 183,330 lumens for the football pitches, at a colour temperature of 5,000 Kelvin – a notably cool and intense white light that is seldom compatible with minimising skyglow or disturbance to nocturnal wildlife. Though the Strategy claims a nominal 0% upward light output ratio (ULOR), the sheer volume of lumens and the elevated 15-metre mounting columns undermine any assurance that off-site or upward spill will be inconsequential, especially at later evening hours. Furthermore, while the Strategy references British Standards and sports-body guidance, it does not conclusively demonstrate how these extensive lighting requirements would be reconciled with claims of “sensitive” and “minimal” illumination. Instead, the proposed scheme involves a broad swathe of amenity lighting across multiple sporting facilities and large-scale residential streets, indicating that the actual impact of floodlighting and street-level illumination could be significantly greater than the Strategy appears to suggest, thereby casting doubt over the applicant’s position that light pollution would be effectively mitigated.Additionally, our ecologist has raised significant concerns regarding the proposed floodlights, noting that they are proposed to be placed within the proximity to a hedgerow known to support dormice. 

At a national level, CPRE advocates strongly for the preservation of dark skies as a critical resource for human health, wildlife, and the intrinsic character of our countryside, and CPRE Kent echoes this stance by campaigning to minimise and manage light pollution locally. The proposal evidently clashes with both the broader aims of CPRE’s Dark Skies initiative and the relevant local and national policies emphasising the need to protect rural tranquillity and ecological integrity. As set out in the applicant’s own planning statement, minimising light pollution is a stated priority, yet the scale of development, coupled with extensive floodlighting and street-level illumination, runs contrary to the spirit of these policy commitment. 

8) Residential Amenity impact upon current and future residents. 

CPRE Kent shares local residents’ concerns, as summarised by Birling Parish Council, about potential impact upon residential amenity arising from the proposed football pitches and other sports facilities. It is feared that late-night matches or training sessions, sometimes extending until 10 PM, would bring sustained noise and floodlighting impacts to those living nearby, intensifying light pollution and diminishing local wildlife habitats. Furthermore, there are apprehensions that the facilities might cater principally to higher-level league football, limiting genuine community access. The inclusion of padel tennis courts, known for generating significant noise levels, likewise raises questions about how future occupants of the proposed housing would be affected by ongoing disturbance. 

We also note a number of local residents have raised traffic and parking concerns, especially given the current plan’s provision of a single access point off the already busy A228. In particular, we note the concerns raised that the addition of traffic lights to accommodate match-day influxes risks creating gridlock, thereby compounding local congestion. With a 250-seat stand and seemingly inadequate parking, fears persist that vehicles will overspill onto surrounding roads, further eroding the peaceful and safe character of the area. CPRE Kent therefore considers that these residential amenity and transportation concerns should be weighed against the proposal within the wider planning balance. 

Overall Conclusion 

As set out above, the conflicts with local and national planning policies are substantial, numerous and clearly demonstrate the unsuitability of this site for the proposed development. These conflicts include the fundamental lack of compliance with the adopted development plan, particularly regarding the principle of plan-led development and inappropriate development within the Metropolitan Green Belt, as mandated by Core Strategy Policy CP3 and NPPF paragraphs 137–151. Most significantly, the proposal fails to provide any on-site affordable housing, contrary to Core Strategy Policy CP17 and NPPF paragraph 66, exacerbating social imbalances rather than addressing genuine local housing needs. 

Ecological concerns are particularly acute, given the severe loss in biodiversity, insufficient habitat assessments, and the inadequate provision of mitigation measures required under the Environment Act 2021, as highlighted by Kent Wildlife Trust. Additionally, the adverse impacts on landscape character, tranquillity, light pollution, and residential amenity further compound the proposal's conflicts with Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP7, CP14, CP24, and Policies NE1–NE4 of the Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan. 

It is therefore CPRE Kents view that the adverse impacts of the proposed development outweigh any purported benefits arising from the scheme. We therefore fully support the Council should they rightly refuse this application. 

Enc: Comments from CPRE Kent’s Ecologist Vicky Ellis BSc (Hons) MRes MRSB 

Comments from CPRE Kent’s Ecologist Vicky Ellis BSc (Hons) MRes MRSB 

Biodiversity 

The former Oast Park Golf Course has been allowed to rewild with minimal intervention and has now become incredibly biodiverse and ecologically rich. The Site sits opposite a much-loved and used Local Wildlife Site (LWS), Leybourne Lakes, and is outside the curtilage of Snodland and within the National Landscape (formerly AONB). There is no lighting along this stretch of the A228 past the golf course and Leybourne Lakes, making it a dark and tranquil area despite being adjacent to a very busy carriageway. 

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 

The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) has acknowledged that a bat roosting survey, bat activity survey and breeding bird surveys all need to be completed; these need to be completed prior to determination so an informed decision can be made. In addition to the aforementioned, there should also be a winter bird survey (especially as the site lies within the impact zone for Burham Marshes SSSI and Thames Estuary), survey and invertebrate survey completed. 

On Page 11, mitigation in the form of leaflets for homeowners, especially cat-owners, about the presence of dormice and suggesting cats should be brought in at night is not meaningful mitigation. It places the emphasis on the homeowner to ‘do the right thing’ and is impossible to enforce. Furthermore, the fact that cat-owning households are mentioned in the PEA demonstrates that cat ownership in this sensitive area is a known and very real issue but not the only issue. It is estimated that free-ranging cats in the UK kill 55 million birds a year and 250,000 bats a year 1, plus other mammals and reptiles. It is estimated that out of 986 free-ranging cats studied, 70 different variations of species were killed; 14,380 prey animals, with 69% of those comprising mammals. 2 

Suggesting that leafleting householders about dormice in the vicinity as mitigation is stretching the meaning and purpose of mitigation too far, along with the total lack of consideration for negative effect on any other prey species. 

Bats 

We disagree with the PEA that ‘further assessment with respect to trees and roosting bats is likely not required’ due to the retainment of the trees in question, namely T1 and those forming lines of trees. The light pollution, noise and cat predation should be sufficient threats to bat species to warrant comprehensive roost inspection and any subsequent suitable mitigation for this declining species, which should then be shown on the Illustrative Master Plan. 

The PEA clearly states the importance of the Site for bat foraging and its connectivity to the surrounding ‘high quality’ habitats including ancient woodland with a ‘complex network of waterbodies’ nearby offering suitable commuting and foraging opportunities. 

Hazel dormice 

Page 6. Table 2. Seems to be the summary of reptile survey visits and not dormice visits. This needs correcting. 

Dormice have been recorded as not only present but also breeding and widespread across the Site and likely utilising all suitable habitat. It is intended that 1.62ha occupied habitat and 0.02km of tree lines are likely to be lost. Therefore, mitigation will be required to compensate for loss of habitat. An offsite receptor area has been identified. A baseline survey should be conducted to determine which species are currently there and the suitability of the site to receive dormice. Any receptor site should be protected in perpetuity. All too often receptor sites are under threat from further development into the future. 

Great crested newt 

Waterbody W1 is a large pond connected to a dry ditch. If the pond is not dry, then it is likely spring fed via an aquifer. This needs to be established. The pond was assessed as suitable to support a great crested newt (GCN) population. An eDNA survey was conducted and found to be negative for presence of GCN. However, eDNA on its own cannot be relied upon in isolation due to false negatives and human error when collecting the data.3 Therefore, further surveys such as a torch and egg search should also be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist at the optimal time of year for surveying, this being March to June. 

Apart from GCN, there does not appear to be any consideration given to other amphibians. 

Reptiles 

The reptile report states that seven visits were completed, yet only three visits are listed in the report, those being 15thAugust 24, 20th August 24 and 25th September 24, then under results 6th August 24 and 18th September 24 are listed. All visits should be detailed within the report regardless of number of reptiles found. Then also under results Table 4. Reptile population assessment scores, nothing is listed at all, these errors need addressing. 

The report concludes that the Site supports a ‘good’ population of slow worms and common lizards and that they are widespread across the Site and therefore it qualifies as a Key Reptile Site according to Froglife advice sheet 9.4 

At 4.1.7 the report states that a reptile presence/likely absence survey may need to be carried out to determine the size of existing reptile populations. This is extremely hard to ascertain with a basic presence and absence survey and would require a more detailed survey. For presence and absence surveys generally 7 visits would suffice, whereas for population estimates 20 or more visits should be completed. 

Birds 

The Site provides excellent foraging, nesting and roosting opportunities for birds. The desktop study flagged up 46 records of either Species of Principal Importance (SPIs) and/or Schedule 1 species. 

Skylarks are a UK Red-listed species. Skylarks were found to present on site; however, how many territories they have has not been established. This needs to be established through a breeding bird survey. 

We also understand that nightingales are present on site. Nightingales are a UK Red-listed species. Their numbers have dwindled by 42% since 1995 through to 2022 and this declining trajectory continues. Oast Park Golf Course offers excellent foraging and nesting opportunities for nightingales in the form of dense vegetation, scrub and nearby wooded areas. 

Turtle Dove, also a UK Red-listed species and a Priority Species under the UK Post 2010 Biodiversity Framework, was flagged by the desktop survey. The habitat across the Site is suitable for turtle doves, with open areas, scrub and nearby trees offering nesting, foraging and roosting opportunities. 

Therefore, a breeding bird survey along with a winter bird survey due to the Site’s proximity to a SSSI, LWS and Thames Estuary should be completed prior to determination. 

Water voles 

One of the most reliable ways to establish presence and absence of water voles is by their latrines. To clearly see their latrines a raft can be used, yet this was not one of the survey methods used for either surveys. We understand that water voles are present on Laybourn Lakes, being transient in nature we recommend further surveys. 

Water voles can and sometimes do use terrestrial areas to burrow into. Therefore, this should be a consideration within any water vole survey report. 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

Otter 

While the waterbodies on site are of limiting nature to sustain otters, otters are transient in nature and are now widespread across Kent. Therefore, it is worth noting that their status on site may alter at any time. 

Invertebrates 

The PEA deemed invertebrate surveys unnecessary due to the recent use of the Site as a golf course and citing the habitats within as being common and widespread. This is surprising as there is a good population of reptiles, namely slow worm and common lizard; being insectivores, this would correlate with their prey species being abundantly available. Likewise for the nightingales on site. 

Below we include a comment sent to us from Buglife about the potential importance of invertebrates on this site. 

‘The site has regenerated into a mosaic of scrub and grassland with the potenfial to support a diverse assemblage of invertebrates, including Secfion 41 Priority Species and Red Listed species of conservafion concern. The ‘rewilding’ of the golf course has likely created parficularly important opportunifies for invertebrates that benefit from an absence of management, such as those which overwinter in standing vegetafion and stems and aren’t tolerant of cutting or grazing regimes. The site is also part of a network of sites supporfing local invertebrate populafions, including nearby Local Wildlife Sites, SSSIs and parts of the Thames Estuary South Important Invertebrate Area, which supports a nafionally important network of invertebrates and their habitats. An invertebrate survey is essenfial to assess the value of the current habitat mosaic and understand the impacts of the proposed developments. 

Therefore, in light of the evidence we disagree with the PEA’s findings and recommend that an invertebrate survey is completed before any determination. 

3G pitches 

Artificial 3G pitches, rubber-crumbed in particular, are extremely damaging to the environment, expensive to dispose of and replace, end up in landfill as they cannot be recycled, are a health hazard as there are causal links to childhood lymphomas, and can heat the ground in hot weather to more than 35 degrees killing the soil beneath them. 

The rubber crumb has been scientifically linked to cancers in young people 6 and their use has been called into question by a number of organisations. Furthermore, artificial pitches can be up to 90% hotter than ambient temperatures, putting young people at risk of heat stress.

Real grass on the other hand benefits the environment by absorbing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen; it has a cooling effect during summer, can support wildlife and does not have a limited lifespan. 

The application proposes that two 3G pitches are to be built, yet the Biodiversity Feasibility Assessment mentions two 5G pitches. This needs clarification. 

Light pollution 

Artificial light at night (ALAN) is a known serious biological disruptor. Both flora and fauna rely on the natural cycle of day and night to regulate behaviours such as hunting, reproduction, rest and predator protection. 

Species such as bats are nocturnal; they rely on the darkness to hunt effectively. Myotis species in particular, are negatively affected by light and so their ability to hunt across the Site will be severely hampered. 

Amphibians can have their reproductive success severely affected, along with foraging and resting, 8 whereas invertebrates are drawn to light, making them extremely vulnerable to predation. The two 3G pitches would encroach into the riparian zone and therefore light pollution within this environment is highly likely to have a negative effect. 

Oast Park Golf Course is currently unlit, as is the stretch of the road alongside the golf course. Any light spill from the development would negatively impact the LWS opposite, namely Leybourne Lakes, and detract from the tranquillity of the area. 

The light pollution will be compounded by the use of floodlights for the various proposed sports pitches. Both hedgehogs and dormice actively avoid ALAN. The floodlights are proposed to be placed within the proximity to a hedgerow known to support dormice. 

BNG and Biodiversity 

We acknowledge that Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council have adopted the KCC produced interim guidance on strategic significance. This confirms that the site should currently be regarded as 'medium significance' for the purposes of BNG calculations. It is however notable that the golf course features as a habitat parcel in the draft Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) as a potential area for measures to help deliver the priorities of the LNRS. Upon publication of the LNRS such areas will become the focus areas for nature recovery, guiding where effort should be concentrated for habitat restoration and biodiversity enhancement. We further note that the LNRS is expected to be published in May 2025. Accordingly, it could be argued that that the Site is likely to be of high strategic significance within the multiplier for the statutory metric once the LNRS is published in May. If so, this is likely to create an even larger BNG deficit. 

Ahead of this and as it currently stands, the submitted BNG assessment reveals a significant biodiversity loss, specifically a deficit of -59.79% in habitat units, equating to a net loss of 132.73 statutory units. This figure falls markedly short of the mandatory requirement under the Environment Act 2021 for a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain. 

Whilst it is understood that the applicant intends to rely upon off-site biodiversity credits to meet the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements, we consider this approach premature at this stage. According to the BNG Metric's Trading Rules, specifically Trading Rule 1, the applicant must first robustly demonstrate that compensation for habitat loss cannot be adequately provided on-site, on a  like-for-like or like-for-better basis. We do not consider this has been satisfactorily demonstrated nor t that sufficient consideration has been given to maximising habitat retention and enhancement within the site. Specifically, the applicant needs to clearly evidence that all viable on-site mitigation and enhancement opportunities have been fully explored and exhausted prior to resorting to off-site biodiversity offsetting solution. 

Additionally, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2024), Section 15, paragraphs 187-201 emphasise the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, placing a clear obligation on developers to demonstrate that biodiversity net gain will be achieved and maintained over the long term. This policy is further reinforced by Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan policies NE2 (Enhancing biodiversity and ecological connectivity) and NE3 (Preventing ecological degradation through mitigation and compensation measures). 

In view of the above, it is our view that the current proposals fail to adequately mitigate for the habitat losses identified, contradicting both national and local policy requirements. 

Summing up 

Protected species surveys are either incomplete, are yet to be completed or submitted and have errors. Missing surveys should be submitted prior to any determination so an informed decision can be made and submitted surveys corrected. 

The current proposals also fail to adequately mitigate for the habitat losses identified It would be regrettable to lose any biodiversity from this area due to the excellent connectivity of the site and its proximity to the LWS, ancient woodland and SSSIs. 

The light pollution from the dwellings and especially from the 3G pitches would have a negative effect on the flora and fauna, including protected species such as bats, dormice, invertebrates and amphibians, and there is a high probability of light spill into the surrounding countryside and the LWS. 

This development proposal is contrary to the emerging LNRS. 

DL. 01233 714540 E. planning@cprekent.org.uk W. www.cprekent.org.uk Donate to CPRE Kent The Kent Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England is a registered charity (number 1092012), and is also a company limited by guarantee, registered in England (number 4335730). Registered address: Queens Head House, Ashford Road, Charing, Ashford, Kent TN27 0A