National Planning Policy 

The application site lies within the Kent Downs National Landscape. The application therefore  needs to be tested against the purpose of the designation, namely to conserve and enhance  natural beauty, and the way that this purpose is represented in national and local policy. Section  85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, as amended by the Levelling Up and  Regeneration Act 2023, requires that local authorities ‘must seek to further the purpose of  conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ in making  decisions that affect the designated area.  

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 189 requires great weight to be given  to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, which have the  highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of  wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas. The scale and extent  of development within these designated areas should be limited.  

NPPF paragraph 11 explains the presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision making this means that proposals in accordance with the development plan should be approved.  Part d says that where there are no relevant development plan policies or the relevant ones are  out of date then permission should be granted unless: 

“i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of strong importance7  provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or 

ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,  when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to  key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land,  securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination”. 

National Landscapes are listed in footnote 7 and the most relevant policies in the NPPF are  paragraphs 189 and 190. A court of appeal case1confirms that, if a proposal causes harm to a  National Landscape sufficient to refuse planning permission if there were no other considerations,  then the presumption in favour (or ‘tilted balance’ expressed in ii) above) should be disengaged.  The decision-maker should therefore conduct a normal planning balancing exercise, applying  appropriate weight to each consideration, to come to a decision. This will of course include giving  great weight to the National Landscape as required by NPPF paragraph 189.  

The national PPG revised in 2019 provides additional guidance on new development in National  Parks and National Landscapes (Paragraph: 041 Reference ID: 8-041-20190721). This specifies that  ‘all development within nationally protected landscapes needs to be located and designed in a  way that reflects their status as landscapes of the highest quality’. 

Major Development  

In the event that the decision-maker concludes that development is ‘major’ in terms of its impact  on the National Landscape, paragraph 190 of the NPPF states that “Planning permission should be  refused for major development67 other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be  demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Consideration of such applications  should include an assessment of: 

a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the  impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; 

b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for  it in some other way; and 

c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities,  and the extent to which that could be moderated. 

Footnote 67 states: “For the purposes of paragraphs 189 and 190, whether a proposal is ‘major  development’ is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its nature, scale and setting,  and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has  been designated or defined”. 

Local Planning Policy 

Adopted local plan policy relating to National Landscapes is provided in Tonbridge and Malling’s  Core Strategy Policy CP7. This policy specifies that development will not be permitted that is  detrimental to the natural beauty of the AONB, other than major development that is  demonstrably in the national interest and any other development that is essential to meet local  social or economic needs. The policy also requires development to have regard to local  distinctiveness and landscape character and to use sympathetic materials and appropriate design. 

A National Landscape policy was also proposed in the Council’s draft Regulation 19 Local Plan,  although that Plan was subsequently withdrawn. The policy (LB12) specified that development  

1 Monkhill Limited vs Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Waverley Borough  Council Case No: C1/2019/1955/QBACF within the AONB would be permitted where its location, form, scale, materials and design would  conserve or enhance the character of the landscape, the development would conserve or enhance  the special qualities, distinctive character and tranquility of the AONB and the development has  regard to the relevant AONB Management Plan.  

Kent Downs AONB Management Plan 

Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, local authorities are required to prepare an AONB  Management Plan which must “formulate the policies for the management of the AONB and for  carrying out their functions in relation to it”. The Kent Downs National Landscape team produces  a Management Plan on behalf of the local authorities within the National Landscape. The Kent  Downs AONB Management Plan, Third Revision 2021 to 2026 has been adopted by all the local  authorities in the Kent Downs, including Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council. The  Management Plan sets out the policy for the conservation, enhancement and management of the  National Landscape in a series of aims, actions and Principles. 

National Planning Policy Guidance, 2019, confirms that Management Plans can be a material  consideration when assessing planning applications (Paragraph: 040 Reference ID: 8-040- 20190721) and this view is confirmed in previous appeal decisions, including  APP/U2235/W/19/3232201, Cossington Fields Farm North, Bell Lane, Boxley, Maidstone where at  paragraph 5 of the Inspectorate’s decision letter it is stated that “I am mindful of the policies contained within the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan (2014-2019) requiring development to  conserve and enhance natural beauty of AONB to which I attach substantial weight.” The decision  can be downloaded at: 

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3232201 

The following principles from the Management Plan are considered to be of particular relevance  to this application:  

MMP2 The Kent Downs AONB is a material consideration in plan making and decision taking, and  so local authorities will give a high priority to the AONB Management Plan vision, aims, principles  and actions in Local Plans, development management decisions, planning enforcement cases and  in taking forward their other relevant functions. 

SD1 Ensure that policies, plans, projects and net gain investments affecting the Kent Downs  AONB take a landscape led approach are long term, framed by the Sustainable Development Goals  appropriate to the Kent Downs, cross cutting and recurrent themes, the vision, aims and principles  of the AONB Management Plan.  

SD2 The local character, qualities, distinctiveness and natural resources of the Kent Downs  AONB will be conserved and enhanced in the design, scale, siting, landscaping and materials of  new development, redevelopment and infrastructure and will be pursued through the application  of appropriate design guidance and position statements. 

SD3 Ensure that development and changes to land use and land management cumulatively  conserve and enhance the character and qualities of the Kent Downs AONB rather than detracting  from it. 

SD7 New projects, proposals and programmes shall conserve and enhance tranquillity and where  possible dark night skies.  

SD8 Ensure proposals, projects and programmes do not negatively impact on the distinctive  landform, landscape character, special characteristics and qualities, the setting and views to and  from the Kent Downs AONB. 

LLC1 The protection, conservation and enhancement of special characteristics and qualities,  natural beauty and landscape character of the Kent Downs AONB will be supported and pursued. 

Landscape Character 

The site lies within the Medway Valley Landscape Character Area (LCA), one of the 13 character areas identified in the Landscape Character Assessment of the Kent Downs (2020). Alongside the Darent and the Stour, the Medway is one of the three defining rivers of the Kent Downs National  Landscape. As is the case with the valleys of the Darent and the Stour, the valley of the Medway  provides a significant artery of open countryside and an intimate, peaceful and accessible  landscape for residents of nearby towns; in this instance the built-up areas of Maidstone and the  Medway Towns. Summary characteristics of this LCA are identified as including: 

• symmetrical and dramatic landform of valley sides, becoming steeper towards the tops • large arable fields on lower slopes, with lost or denuded hedgerows 

• smaller more irregular fields above lower slopes bounded by woodland • shaws or thicker hedgerows, marshes and ditches adjacent to the River Medway • outstanding views across the valley in both directions and to the south; and • settlement limited to rural villages and farms. 

This LCA is divided into two Local Character Areas which lie on either side of the defining valley of  the river Medway. The application site is located in the Western Scarp Local Character Area, key  characteristics of which include the western chalk ridge that encloses the valley, with steep, treed  scarp slopes rising up a cultivated belt of arable land along the scarp foot. Many of the apparently  modern, large ploughed fields along this belt have, in reality, scarcely changed in appearance for  over a century (although there may have been older field boundaries which were lost prior to the  1880s). Nevertheless, there is a sense of ‘prairie farming’ here, which is increasingly accentuated  by the gradual loss or decay of hedges, especially around Birling, and along the roadsides. To the  south, around Birling, the landscape has a gentler, agricultural feel with some estate and parkland  influences. There are long views looking east across the Medway Valley, which include the  industry and settlements on the valley floor, and also south towards Maidstone and the  Greensand Ridge.  

The open views and dominant landform of the Medway Landscape Character Area make it a highly  sensitive landscape. Such sensitivity is increased by its role in the setting of the Medway Valley, its  function as a gap between large settlements, the inherent value of its cultural and biodiversity  sites, and its remarkable survival as a peaceful, rural landscape despite its proximity to large  settlements, industry and transport infrastructure. 

Landscape Management Recommendations within the Landscape Assessment for the Medway  LCA area include: 

• Strengthen landscape structure, replacing lost hedgerows and trees outside woods.  • Curb urbanisation and maintain the rural character to ensure the area functions as a  strategic gap between urban areas.

• Integrate new and existing development into the surrounding landscape with woodland,  hedgerow or shaw planting. 

• Ensure new development is of high-quality design and appropriate to its rural setting,  respecting local building styles and materials 

• Consider and reduce the visual impacts of new developments when viewed from above  (i.e. from the top of the scarps) as well as when viewed from within the valley. 

The application site and its immediate environs are considered to be largely reflective of these  identified characteristics and to make a positive contribution to the landscape and scenic beauty  of the Kent Downs National Landscape. 

Impacts on the Kent Downs National Landscape 

The application site, a former golf course which closed in 2017, is located in the Medway Valley  Landscape Character Area, to the south-west of the settlement of Snodland. Extensive areas of  mature vegetation and distinctive long belts of poplar trees can be found across this greenfield  site which makes an important contribution to the largely open landscape at the foot of scarp  

here. The site, which is not allocated for development in the Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan, falls in its entirety within the National Landscape.  

The Medway Valley is an important and sensitive area of attractive countryside lying between the  large settlements of Maidstone, the county town, and the Medway Towns conurbation of  Rochester, Chatham and Gillingham. Despite pockets of an industrial legacy based around paper  making and gravel, sand and lime extraction, the Medway Valley here has survived as a peaceful, largely pastoral landscape with a high sensitivity to change. The application site itself forms part of  the expansive open landscape at the foot of the distinctive scarp slope. The largely undeveloped  character of the scarp floor is integral to the landscape character and appearance of the iconic  escarpment itself. A network of public footpaths cross the scarp floor here leading to the North  Downs Way National Trail and the Pilgrims Way, which run in part along the scarp edge affording  long-reaching views south, including over the application site. The special qualities and  characteristics for which the Kent Downs National Landscape was designated include both pastoral  scenery and views from the escarpment. The application site and its immediate environs are  therefore considered to be largely reflective of these identified characteristics and to make a  positive contribution to the landscape and scenic beauty of the Kent Downs National Landscape. 

The proposed development comprises a full application for two 3G flood-lit football pitches, a  two-storey club house incorporating spectator stands, and a new signal-controlled access junction  from the A228, and an outline application for 150 market housing dwellings, a Sports Hub building  comprising a restaurant, bar, shop and a two storey, flood-lit golf driving range, padel tennis  courts, along with associated parking and landscaping, with all matters reserved except for access.  

Taking into account the nature, scale and setting of the development proposed, each of which  have the potential to result in significant and harmful impacts on the landscape and scenic beauty  of this protected landscape, it is considered that the proposed development would constitute  major development for the purposes of assessment under Paragraph 190 of the NPPF. As such, the  application needs to be assessed against both paragraphs 189 and 190 of the NPPF. We note that  the Planning Statement (paragraph 6.54) submitted as part of the application accepts that the  proposal constitutes major development. 

Paragraph 189 of the NPPF requires that the scale and extent of development within National  Landscapes should be limited. Paragraph 190 of the NPPF is clear that planning permission should  be refused for major development in National Landscapes other than in exceptional  circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.  Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: 

a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the  impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; 

b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for  it in some other way; and 

c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities,  and the extent to which that could be moderated. 

These tests clearly set a very high bar for development proposals in nationally protected  landscapes. Local Plan Policy CP7 also restricts major development in the AONB (now the National  Landscape) to exceptional circumstances where development is demonstrably in the national  interest and where there are no alternative sites available, or the need cannot be met in any other  way and where it is essential to meet local social or economic needs. 

The only exceptional circumstance referenced in the planning application is ‘acute housing need’. Tonbridge and Malling Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, a  situation that is not uncommon amongst local planning authorities given repeated changes to the  planning context at national level in recent months. However, while such a situation reduces the  weight that should be given to development plan policies it does not negate them altogether or  mean that all applications for housing should be permitted. The Council is in the process of  drafting a new Local Plan with a Regulation 18 second stage Local Plan consultation programmed  for October 2025 and submission due in Q3 2026. Housing site allocations to meet the housing  needs of the borough will therefore be available for public consultation in a few months’ time.  While the applicant argues that this site is a ‘better location than other large housing sites  previously suggested or promoted for development as part of the previous emerging Local Plan’  this is not a factor for the determination of this application rather a matter for the ongoing Local  Plan process and does not, in any event, equate to the exceptional circumstances required to  meet the NPPF test.  

As a result, even if it could be demonstrated that there is an ‘exceptional’ need for housing in the  borough, and this application does not do so, this does not necessarily mean that the proposed  development, which is in any event a mixed- use one, meets this test. It is our view that the  requirement for exceptional circumstances to be demonstrated in the first instance has therefore  not been met and that the application, which is premature in advance of the emerging Local Plan,  should be refused on this basis.  

Turning to the matter of public interest, National Landscapes are outstanding landscapes whose  distinctive character and natural beauty are so precious that they are safeguarded in national interest. Therefore, for this development to be considered to be in the public interest, the  potential public benefits must outweigh the national significance of conserving and enhancing the  natural beauty of the National Landscape for present and future generations. No such analysis has,  in our view, been undertaken.  

The full application part of this hybrid application centres on the provision of new facilities for the  Larkfield and New Hythe Football Club. No analysis of alternative sites outside the National Landscape for this development has been provided, as required by NPPF 190 (b). The existing Club  facilities lie outside the National Landscape and therefore, in the absence of any evidence to the  contrary, a suitable site for the football club outside the National Landscape clearly already exists.  While it can be argued that there is a public interest in upgrading sports facilities, this is not in our  view sufficient to outweigh the harm that will be caused to the National Landscape by this  development. Furthermore, the existing use of the site is a golf club and no evidence is provided  to justify why the site cannot return to its previous use. The inclusion of a golf driving range and  Sports Hub in the application suggests that there is indeed a continuing demand for such a use.  We therefore do not consider that the requirements of NPPF 190 a) and b) have been met and  therefore strongly object to this application.  

Turning to the effect on the environment (NPPF 190 c) ), the proposed development is extensive in  scale and nature and would permanently alter the character of the Medway Valley. The loss of this open green field site will have an adverse effect on the open character of the scarp floor here, a  character which is particularly vulnerable to incursion and erosion, particularly along the  boundaries with A228, given the potential for access that this route provides. This harm will be  exacerbated by the significant levels of lighting and elevated floodlighting proposed to serve both  the football pitches and associated spectator stands, and the driving range and Sports Hub  building which will exacerbate the visibility of the development, including from elevated land  across the western scarp slope of the North Downs.  

While the proposed sedum/wildflower roofs on both the football club clubhouse and sports hub  driving range buildings, and proposed new planting across the site are welcomed they will not alone, as the planning statement claims, moderate this extensive development. We note the  conflicting descriptions of proposed mitigation which refer to enhancing existing hedgerows,  green corridors, semi-natural and amenity open space, an orchard and LEAPs, but at the same  time states that some of such landscape mitigation measures are only potential proposals which  will be subject to further tests. This in addition to the fact that landscaping proposals for the bulk  of the site are reserved matters, means that in our view, little weight can be given to such  potential mitigation proposals when assessing the scheme against NPPF 190 c). 

Finally, we do not agree that this site forms a ‘logical extension on from Snodland’. Snodland, a  settlement that grew up around the paper making industry, lies outside the National Landscape  and aside from one PROW there are no visible or physical links between it and the site, and the  

proposals do not include any. Instead, the application site forms an important component of the  open scarp floor pastoral landscape here, and plays a vital role in the open landscape character of  the southern end of the Medway Valley.  

LVIA 

Given that the site is not supported by a Local Plan allocation and is in conflict with national and  local planning policy relating to National Landscapes, we have not provided a detailed response to  the LVIA and it is presumed that the Council will be seeking its own independent review of the  submitted assessment. If helpful, we would be happy to supplement the comments we do make  below with a more detailed response in due course.  

No visualisations of the proposal such as photomontages or wireframes have been provided within  the LVA. Whilst we recognise that the application is made in outline form with matters of detailed  layout and landscaping reserved, indicative photomontages or wireframes which would aid in the assessment of the potential impacts of the scheme from viewpoints rather than just relying on  panorama photographs which only show the baseline conditions would be helpful. 

Given the scale of the site and in view of its location within the KDNL, it is also considered  that viewpoints from within the site should have been included. As a minimum, it would be helpful  to include an additional VP from MR77 as it crosses through the site. It is suggested that this  should be provided as it passes between the proposed driving range and paddle tennis courts.  

In respect of the conclusions of the Assessment, it is our view that the LVIA generally  underestimates potential impacts to the Kent Downs National Landscape. It also seeks to diminish  potential effects on the Kent Downs National Landscape for example at paragraph 10.33 where it  is stated that ‘…the Application Site represents less than 0.05% of the geographic area of the  National Landscape’. While we acknowledge that the Landscape Institute’s ‘Guidelines for  Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ allow for the geographical extent of potential landscape  effects to be considered in the context of the scale of the relevant landscape type (or character  area) or on a larger scale, it is worth noting that these guidelines relate to the geographical extent  of the effects of a proposed development, not to the more limited extent of the development  itself. The Guidelines also clarify that not all of these scales may be relevant on every  occasion. The scale of the Kent Downs - and of the associated Landscape Character Areas – is such  that it would not be appropriate to compare the scale of a proposed development, or the  geographical extent of the development’s effects, with the scale of the AONB, or its component  LCAs, as a whole; the Kent Downs is the eighth largest National Landscape in England and Wales,  covering over 878sq.km and cutting across 12 local authority areas.  

Furthermore, rather than providing a clear understanding and separate consideration of landscape  and visual effects, the LVIA muddles the two. Whilst separate headings for each are provided, the  judgements made confuse visual impact and landscape impact. For example, under Year one  Operational impacts it is advised ‘The Application Site would be perceived as an extension to  Snodland’ and at Year 15, that ‘the establishment of the proposed planting across the Application  Site would reduce the perception of the residential land uses from lower lying land across LCA 4B  and the Western Scarp’. It is not, in our view, appropriate to suggest that visual screening by  newly planted trees reduces the impact on landscape character. 

Overall, we strongly disagree with the conclusion that the proposal would have a minor adverse  effect at Year 1 and negligible effect on the Kent Downs Medway Valley Character Area and the  Western Scarp sub area at Year 15. The finding that a development of this scale, comprising 150  

dwellings, two 3G floodlit sports pitches, spectator stands, golf driving range, padel tennis courts  etc. would have a negligible magnitude of effect on the landscape character area, in our view  significantly downplays the impact the proposal would have on this valley landscape which has a  high sensitivity to change and where development is currently absent. 

We welcome the inclusion of an assessment of the proposal on night skies. At paragraph 10.134 it  is stated that “The lighting (residential, highways, driving range and Football Club) would result in  a high degree of change at the Application Site level and a major adverse (significant) effect in  terms of the change from being an unlit area of land, to one of high levels of lighting.” and we  agree with this assessment. 

Reference is included to CPRE dark skies mapping, and it is advised at paragraph 10.135 that the  Application Site is within an area of brighter night skies. We consider it inappropriate to rely on the CPRE mapping which is too broad brush, nor do we consider it appropriate to classify the site  as an E2/E3: Suburban environmental lighting zone given that it is currently unlit and lies within  the Kent Downs National Landscape. We do agree however that there would be a significant  adverse effect resulting from the proposal on night skies, impacting on one of the special qualities  of the Kent Downs National Landscape.  

As a final point, we would comment that notwithstanding our comments above that some of the  effects are underassessed in the LVIA, it is important to note that adverse effects on a National  Landscape do not have to be classed as ‘significant’ in order for the great weight to their  conservation and enhancement set out in paragraph 189 of the NPPF to apply. One of the  challenges of reviewing an EIA-led approach to impacts is that the ES can become quite a  formulaic process, with judgements of character, sensitivity and impact set into ‘boxes’ with  hierarchical judgements as to the degree or scale of sensitivity, change and impact. Regulation 26  of the EIA regulations is clear that in addition to taking account of the ES the Local Planning  Authority may undertake their own supplementary examination. Ultimately, it is for the decision maker to make their own rational assessment of potential impacts.  

Conclusion 

This application comprises major development on a site within the Kent Downs National  Landscape. Both national and local planning policy are clear that major development should not  be permitted within National Landscapes except in exceptional circumstances and where public  interest can be demonstrated. It is the view of the Kent Downs National Landscape that these  stringent requirements have not been met. The proposed development is of a scale and nature  that would clearly have significant and adverse impacts on the natural beauty of the Kent Downs  National Landscape, and a significant and harmful impact on the purposes for which the area has  been designated. 

The development does not in our view represent exceptional circumstances, nor would it be in the  public interest, given the harm that would arise to a nationally protected landscape. It will fail to  conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Kent Downs National Landscape. The application  fails to demonstrate a need for the development, including in terms of national considerations,  and the impact of refusing it on the local economy or that the development could not be provided outside of the National Landscape. While the application proposes additional planting to that  which already exists on this greenfield site, this in our opinion is insufficient to prevent significant  and harmful landscape and visual impacts from the proposed development, the impacts of which  are not capable of being moderated or mitigated to a meaningful degree, and which we consider  have been underassessed in the LVIA.  

It is therefore our view that application does not comply with the NPPF, including paragraphs 189  and 190, Policy CP7 of the Tonbridge and Malling Core Strategy and principles SD1, SD2, SD3, SD7,  SD8 and LLC1 of the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan. The Kent Downs National Landscape therefore strongly objects to the application.  

I hope this is of assistance to you. 

Yours sincerely 

Catherine Hughes 

Planning and Place Manager, Kent Downs National Landscape team