LAND SOUTH OF A20/M20 LINK ROAD ROUNDABOUT (WATERSIDE PARK)

ASHFORD ROAD, HOLLINGBOURNE, KENT ME17 1PG

APPEAL REFS: APP/U2235/A/14/2224036 & U2235/A/14/2229271

CLOSING SUBMISSIONS

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

Introduction

1. This closing statement will be short. The main issues that we identified in our opening

statement, consistently with those identified by the Inspector, remain the same and have

provided a framework for this closing statement. These main issues, whilst they have been

much debated during the inquiry, are not such that require lengthy submissions; they involve

considered judgments, but there is no great complexity in them. We also note that the

evidence from all parties will be fresh in the mind, and for that reason it would be wrong to

trawl through in great detail matters on which the Inspector will have a good recollection as

well as a clear note.

2. These submissions are set out under the following headings:

a. Policy and approach;

b. Economic need and benefits;

c. Landscape and visual effects;

d. Heritage issues;

e. Other objections; and

f. Planning balance and conclusions.

3. Before turning to these matters we would like to make the following broad and largely

undisputed submissions:

a. Two important and locally valued businesses (Scarab and ADL) have for several

years been looking for a suitable site to which to relocate their businesses, but without

success. Between them they employ some 440 people. One of those businesses can

wait no longer. On 11 May 2015 ADL announced its intention to relocate its

distribution centre to the Midlands, with the loss of up to 100 local jobs. The

1

predicament faced by these two businesses is a reflection of an increasingly urgent

need for more and better quality employment land – of the right size and in the right

locations to retain growing businesses in and attract new businesses into Maidstone.

b. Maidstone Borough Council (the “LPA”) has an adopted local plan, the Maidstone

Borough Wide Local Plan 2000 (the “Local Plan 2000”), but that plan is woefully out

of date, having been adopted in 2000 and based on the development needs identified

in the late 1990s. Whilst some policies were saved in 2007, it provides no up to date

policy framework in which to assess business development proposals and its

employment land allocations are of no value now in meeting existing and future

economic needs from 2015.

c. In order to provide an up to date policy framework, the LPA has been working on the

production of a local plan to replace the Local Plan 2000, but this process has now

lasted for over ten years and there is even now a lack of clarity about its future

timescale. The draft replacement local plan has not yet been submitted for

examination and the absence of an up-to-date local plan has provided an unwelcome

policy lacuna in terms of the provision of sufficient and suitable employment land to

meet the borough’s needs.

d. Maidstone borough’s economy is underperforming, and without concerted action, it is

likely that it will continue to underperform. In order to achieve its ambitions for the

future, it is critical that Maidstone Borough Council supports its existing businesses

in growing and attracts new businesses to the area. That means that the LPA must

ensure a reliable pipeline of quality office, industrial and warehousing

accommodation in locations that are attractive to modern business.1 The LPA

recognises that there is a need for the allocation of significantly more employment

land, and over and above that which has been identified in the Regulation 18 version

of the emerging local plan. However, notwithstanding the responsibilities placed on it

by the NPPF, no suitable sites exist to meet the needs of existing, expanding

businesses and to attract inward investment.

e. Although there has been prevarication over the last few years, the evidence base for

the draft local plan has fairly consistently pointed to a clear need for additional land

to be brought forward within the motorway corridor and junction 8 has long been

identified as a strategic location for employment land. The latest indications from the

local authority suggest that it is likely to be allocated for employment in the next draft

of the local plan. Maidstone Borough Council’s independent consultants (“GVA”)

1 Paragraph 5.4 Draft Economic Development Strategy, CD38

2

have indicated the value that proximity to the M20 has for businesses; council

officers consider that junction 8 is the only suitable location to meet the needs

identified in GVA’s more recent study; the Planning and Economic Overview and

Scrutiny Committees have each resolved to support in principle the allocation for

employment land at junction 8 (subject to a suitable mitigation policy); and the

majority of Maidstone residents support the allocation of Junction 8 for employment2.

f. Waterside Park has obvious merits in relation to the provision of employment land to

meet identified needs in Maidstone borough. It is strategically very well located, with

excellent and near direct access to the M20. The site has the capacity to provide large

footprint buildings in a high quality and prestigious environment that will be

attractive to modern businesses. It is also close to a good pool of labour in the

Maidstone area, with its varied skill sets and a good age profile.

g. The appeal site is in the countryside but there is no prohibition against development

in countryside locations, and if development needs are to be met, as required by the

NPPF, some loss of greenfield land is inevitable.

Policy and approach

3. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications

for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the statutory development

plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As we noted in our opening statement,

that statutory approach is reflected in paragraph 11 of the NPPF. The starting point is

therefore the statutory development plan, although the weight to be attached to the statutory

development plan and other considerations is a matter of planning judgment in the light of the

circumstances in each case. The NPPF is clearly a very important consideration. 3 Of

particular importance is the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is now

enshrined in government policy and which must now be applied in assessing and determining

development proposals.4 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF defines what the presumption in favour of

sustainable development means. For decision-taking it means that where the development

plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission “unless 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”. It is the Appellant’s

case that this weighted balance should be applied in this case.

2 JB53 See paragraph 196 of the NPPF.4 See paragraph 197

3

4. It is common ground that the statutory development plan in this case comprises the saved

policies of the Local Plan 2000.5 Notwithstanding the age of this plan, there is no other

relevant statutory development plan document.

5. It is also common ground that the main body of the appeal site has no specific designation or

allocation in the Local Plan 2000 other than its designation by policy ENV28 as countryside

outside a defined settlement. It is not within the AONB for the purposes of policy ENV33,

and only the A20 roundabout and a small section of adjoining roadside verge is within the

North Downs Special Landscape Area for the purposes of policy ENV24. There are some

saved employment policies, but as explained by Mr Buckwell in his proof of evidence, none

of these apply to the appeal site or is directly relevant to issues that arise in this case.6

6. What is in dispute is the weight to be attached to the Local Plan 2000. We make the following

submissions in relation to this argument.

7. First, the Secretary of State’s Saving Direction in 2007 did not contemplate that the policies

that were to be saved would still be in place in 2015. The Saving Direction letter 7 stated as

follows:

“The exercise of extending saved policies is not an opportunity to delay DPD

preparation. LPAs should make good progress with local development frameworks

according to timetables in their local development schemes. Policies have been

extended in the expectation that they will be replaced promptly and be fewer policies

in DPDs...

...Where policies were adopted some time ago, it is likely that material

considerations, in particular the emergence of new national and regional policy, and

also new evidence, will be afforded considerable weight in decisions.”.

7. It is clear from the evidence that contrary to the Secretary of State’s advice when he decided

to save certain policies, DPD preparation has been delayed and the LPA has not made good

progress on the draft local plan. There was no “prompt” replacement of the saved policies; far

from it. Moreover, since 2007 policy has moved on, in particular at national level, and there is

now a new set of circumstances in terms of policy and economic needs. In this context it

should also be noted that the NPPF requires that plans “should be kept up-to-date”.8

8. Secondly, government policy has changed considerably since the adoption of the Local Plan,

and indeed since the Secretary of State’s 2007 Saving Direction. The NPPF introduced a

5 See section 5 of the Statement of Common Ground.6 See paragraphs 6.2.7 to 6.2.8 and 7.2.8. None of these are referred to in the LPA’s reason for refusal.7 Dated 24 September 20078 Paragraph 17, 1st bullet (see also paragraph 213)

4

number of step changes in government policy which are not reflected in the Local Plan 2000.

There are two which are of special importance in the context of this appeal.

9. The Government now places great emphasis on economic growth. In particular, it says that

“significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the

planning system” and that local planning authorities “should plan proactively to meet the

development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century”. It also

requires authorities to set out a clear economic vision and strategy “which positively and

proactively encourages sustainable economic growth”.9 The reference to supporting existing

business sectors, taking into account their expansion, and to rapid changes in economic

circumstances is particularly relevant in this case.

10. The other step change to which attention must be drawn is the presumption in favour of

sustainable development. This overarching policy is new and obviously important.

11. It is clear that the LPA considers that the Local Plan 2000 is not up to date in terms of these

two step changes in government policy. This was expressly accepted by Mr Goddard on

behalf of the LPA in cross-examination.

12. Thirdly, Policy ENV28 is clearly an out of date policy by reference to the NPPF and current

circumstances. The following submissions are made in this respect10:

a. The policy defines the countryside for the purpose of controlling development outside

of the “development boundaries” shown on the proposals map: “The countryside is

defined as all those parts of the Plan area that are not within the development

boundaries”.11 The policy directly relates to development provision and the policy

approach to be taken to development proposals; it places strict control against

development (with few exceptions), including housing and employment land.

b. The Local Plan 2000 was intended to cover the period up to 2006. The boundaries set

by Policy ENV28 were established having regard to economic needs identified long

ago, in respect of a period ending in 2006, and they were formulated in a very

different economic and government policy context to that which exists today. They

were based on evidence as to the predicted need for economic development and

employment land, as well as for housing land, for the period between 2000 and 2006.

In cross-examination Mr Goddard considered that the policy was probably based on

information gathered between the mid-1990s and 1998. Those boundaries self-

evidently have no relevance to current needs and more recent government policy. Mr

Goddard, in effect conceded this point in cross-examination. [CHW Added orally – 9 See paragraphs 18 to 21 of the NPPF.10 See Mr Buckwell’s proof of evidence in particular paragraph 6.2.6 et seq.11 See paragraph 3.87 of the supporting text to ENV28.

5

KCC/R6 Closing para 74 was a bad point (that need does not necessarily mean

ENV28 is out of date as provision could be made in the built up area) as it was clear

from whatever perspective taken that in order to meet the qual and quant need on any

basis, greenfield land is said to be needed. Note the Reg 18 dispersed strategy]

c. Not only is policy ENV28 out of date in relation to setting the boundaries for

development control, it is also out of date in relation to government policy in relation

to countryside. The supporting text to ENV28 makes clear that the rationale for the

policy does not accord with current national policy. Mr Goddard accepted in cross

examination that the supporting text was important in explaining the purpose and

rationale for the policy. Paragraph 3.89 refers to “the need to protect the countryside

for its own sake”, which was government policy under PPS7 (key principle (iv)), as

was the need to strictly control development in the countryside (paragraph 1 of

PPS7). Those policies were not included in the NPPF, which in paragraph 17 (5 th

bullet) refers to “recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside”

rather than protecting it for its own sake. The LPA did not in its written evidence rely

on the Lenham decision letter. It was right not to do so. The case was by written

representations, without the benefit of tested evidence at inquiry and oral argument,

and the arguments raised in this appeal were not considered in that appeal. Mr

Goddard, who gave evidence on behalf of the LPA, rightly did not rely on the

Lenham decision letter. Indeed, his evidence in cross-examination supported Mr

Buckwell’s argument that the policy is out of date. He expressly accepted that the

first part of the policy in ENV28 was a reflection of the supporting text in paragraph

3.89 which in turn referred to the now superseded test in PPS7. He expressly accepted

that policy ENV28 was not up to date in terms of setting development boundaries

because their rigid determination did not accord with the NPPF which adopted a more

flexible approach to the countryside. The Council has, in considering a number of

applications for housing development, reached the conclusion that policy ENV28 is

not to be treated as up-to-date. Mr Carpenter is not correct to say that a different

approach must be taken in respect of housing and employment cases because of the

operation of paragraph 49 of the NPPF. While paragraph 49 clarifies that policies for

the supply of housing should be treated as being out-of-date in certain specified

circumstances, that does not preclude other policies being out-of-date. Other policies

may be out-of-date for a number of reasons. They may have been overtaken by things

that have happened since they were adopted, either on the ground, because of some

change in national policy, or for some other reason. While Mr Goddard was not

aware of any decision in which the Council had treated policy ENV28 as out-of-date,

6

he accepted the principle that if the policy was out-of-date for the purposes of

housing land supply, then the development boundaries that it set were out of date. In

his words, “Policy is either up-to-date or out-of-date”12. In our submission, ENV28

is out of date.

13. Fourthly, as Mr Buckwell explains in his proof of evidence13, the saved employment policies

of the Local Plan 2000 are similarly out of date, being referable to the same local plan period

which expired over 8 years ago and formulated in a very different policy context. They are of

no assistance in determining this appeal. The Local Plan 2000 does not contain any policies

for the allocation of land to meet the current need for employment land and Mr Goddard

accepted in cross examination that there were no policies on employment land in the Local

Plan 2000 that were relevant to curent needs.

14. Acknowledging the need for up to date policies to meet economic and other needs, the LPA

has been seeking to produce a replacement plan. However, even after ten years the emerging

Local Plan is still at a very early stage and its future timetable is unclear. Both the Appellants

and, importantly, the LPA have asked you to place very little weight on the policies of the

emerging Local Plan. Notwithstanding the LPA’s position, Kent County Council, the AONB

Executive and Natural England disagree with the LPA as to the weight which should be

attributed to its own emerging policies. Mr Carpenter was alone among the four planning

witnesses in suggesting that ‘reasonable’ weight should be accorded to policy SP5 in the

emerging Local Plan. In our submission it would be wrong to accord anything more than very

little weight to the policies in the emerging Plan, applying the guidance in paragraph 216 of

the NPPF: the emerging plan is at a very early stage in the planning process; there are

unresolved objections to draft policy SP5; and the wording of the policy is not consistent with

the NPPF in an important respect, as Mr Buckwell explained.14

15. For the reasons set out above, the Local Plan 2000 is out of date and should carry very little

weight. Accordingly, the weighted balance in paragraph 14 of the NPPF should apply. This

means that the proposed development should be allowed unless its adverse impacts

significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits.

Economic need and benefits

12 Cross examination of Michael Goddard, 7th May 201513 Paragraphs 6.2.7 to 6.2.8 and 7.2.8.14 As he explained further in his oral examination, the settlement boundaries for the purposes of the policy and the word “rigorously” remain to be tested at examination.

7

16. There is a need for the Waterside Park development to come forward. That need is not

expressed as a single element but in three different ways. First, Scarab Sweepers is a

successful local business that needs this site in order to secure its long term future.15

Secondly, there is a general need for this development to come forward in terms of

employment land in Maidstone borough. Thirdly, there is a wider need for the proposed

development in the context of the Maidstone and wider economy.

17. Very considerable benefits will accrue to the local economy if this development is allowed.

National policy:

18. Paragraphs 18 to 21 of the NPPF, which make clear the Government’s commitment to

securing economic growth, are of particular relevance in this case. The Government’s policy

is that:

a. “…significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth

through the planning system”16;

b. “To help achieve economic growth, local planning authorities should plan proactively

to meet the development needs of business…”17;

c. “local planning authorities should:

set out a clear economic vision and strategy for their area which positively

and proactively encourages sustainable economic growth;

Set criteria, or identify strategic sites, for local and inward investment to

mateh the strategy and to meet anticipated needs over the plan period;

support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are

expanding or contracting…Policies should be flexible enough to

accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan and allow a rapid response to

changes in economic circumstances;…”

19. In terms of plan making, the NPPF requires that local planning authorities “should have a

clear understanding of business needs” and assess “the needs for land or floorspace for

economic development, including both the quantative and qualitative needs for all foreseeable

types of economic activity over the plan period” as well as “the existing and future supply of

land available for economic development and its sufficiency and suitability to meet

indentified needs”.18

15 Summary proof of Mr Cassingham, paragraph 1.516 Paragraph 1917 Paragraph 2018 Paragraphs 160 and 161

8

Local policy:

20. What of the Maidstone local plan? As we have already explained, the Local Plan 2000 is

woefully out of date and, as Mr Buckwell describes in his proof of evidence, the local plan

allocations are of no relevance to the B2/B8 uses proposed in these appeals.19 Contrary to the

Government’s policy, there is no policy framework that seeks to plan proactively to meet the

needs of business. There is no clear economic strategy, nor any strategic sites or policy

criteria for local and inward investment. Nor is there any policy that responds to business

needs, in particular to meet changing economic circumstances. There is, at the local level, a

policy vacuum that can only serve to discourage local businesses and inward investment – the

very antithesis of Government policy.

21. What has the LPA done about it? As Mr Buckwell explains in his proof of evidence20, the

emerging local plan is at a very early stage and its employment land policies carry very little

weight. Nothwithstanding the many years that have passed since 2000 or since the Saving

Direction in 2007, nothing has been achieved which can reasonably be said to serve a positive

purpose in terms of planning for economic needs in Maidstone.

22. The failure of the LPA to provide a policy framework for economic development over such a

long period is difficult to understand, and there is no satisfactory reason for it. We do not refer

in detail to the long history of employment land planning in Maidstone, which Mr Buckwell

describes in his proof of evidence21, although we do highlight the following points:

a. The 2008 Economic Development Study 2008 referred to the lack of quality sites

stifling inward investment and recognised the importance to the Maidstone economy

of strategic access to the M20.22

b. The GVA 2008 Employment Land Study identified the appeal site as a potential new

industrial site with good strategic road access.23

c. The GVA Employment Land Review 2011, which considered a plan period of 2006

to 2026, forecast that the warehousing and distribution sector would grow

significantly over the period, that the locational attributes of Maidstone would make it

an attractive location and that there would be a need to accommodate increased

warehouse/distribution activity. 24

19 Paragraphs 7.2.7 to 7.2.920 See in particular paragraphs 7.2.11 to 7.2.1421 Paragraphs 5.2.7 to 5.2.4322 Paragraph C4 and E4 of CD2323 See paragraph 5.2.14 of Mr Buckwell’s proof of evidence.24 Paragraphs 3.27 and 3.38 of CD6

9

d. The Regulation 25 draft Core Strategy 2011 (Regulation 25) stated that the principle

of development for certain types of industry and employment uses (manufacturing

and distribution) at or near to the borough’s motorway junctions had been established

and identified junction 8 as a strategic location for employment development.25

e. The 2012 draft Core Strategic Sites Allocation identified the J8 area as a broad

location for employment growth with the appeal site as an option for consultation.26

f. Following a further employment land review by GVA, the LPA Cabinet agreed in

2013 that land at junction 8 should be retained as a strategic development location.27

g. Following consultation on the 2014 Regulation 18 draft Local Plan, which proposed

dispersed and limited employment land allocations, and further work carried out by

GVA, the Planning Transport and Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee

and the Economic Development approved the principle of Junction 8 as a strategic

location for employment development.28

h. Consistent with that position, Mr Buckwell explained in his oral evidence that the

Cabinet approved the 2014 draft Economic Development Strategy for consultation,

this document endorsing the prioritisation of future land allocations along the M20

corridor.

23. This history shows that the Council’s evidence base has fairly consistently pointed to a clear

need for additional employment land to be brought forward within the motorway corridor and

at junction 8, the only exception being between March and October 2014 for the purposes of

consultation on the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan, which was based on GVA work that has

since been overtaken. It also shows that despite the repeated calls for potential sites over the

last 10 years, no site has come forward which would meet the needs of Scarab or ADL or

indeed the general need for large industrial or distribution premises.

ADL:

24. This is the general context for the applications. Mr Buckwell explains in his proof of

evidence29 how Gallaghers, a local developer, over a long period received regular interest

from agents and potential occupiers seeking industrial and logistics floorspace in Maidstone.

In early 2013, Gallaghers were approached by agents working on behalf of ADL and Scarab,

who had both shortlisted Waterside Park as meeting their requirements.

25 Paragraph 5.7, CS1 and the Key Diagram of CD2726 Section 5 of CD2827 See paragraph 5.2.27 of Mr Buckwell’s proof of evidence.28 Appendix 4 to Mr Buckwell’s evidence29 Section 6

10

25. The first planning application was made in September 2013 and promoted by both ADL and

Scarab. Following the refusal of that application in February 2014, both companies continued

to work with Gallaghers to see if the original scheme could be amended to overcome the

LPA’s concerns. The revised application was also supported by both ADL and Scarab.

However in March 2015, following the refusal of the second application in October 2014,

ADL confirmed that the Waterside Park development could not be delivered within their

required timescales.

26. We pause here to respond to the attempt made by Mr Cameron on behalf of the KCC/R6s to

undermine the element of the needs case represented by ADL. The Inspector will remember

that Mr Cameron suggested to Mr Alderton that ADL had only a mere preference for the

Waterside Park site and that the company was ready to fall back on the G Park site in

Sittingbourne. That suggestion is far from accurate or fair, as the evidence, properly

interpreted, shows. Leaving aside Mr Cameron’s overly forensic and incomplete focus on the

word “fall back” in the Alternative Sites Assessment and his blind eye to the complete phrase

“potential fall back option”30, Mr Cameron was wrong in a number of respects, as Mr

Alderton and Mr Buckwell made clear in their written and oral evidence. He was wrong to

treat the ADL report dated 201231 as more than an initial and broad exercise. This is made

clear by the ADL letter itself, written by Mr P Dodgson, Operations Director of ADL, to

which, tellingly, Mr Cameron made no reference. The letter expressly states that the report

contained no formal scoring system to rank the sites and explains the company’s approach

following that report. In particular it stressed the importance of staff retention; it is quite clear

from the staff consultation carried out that a very large majority of workers were reluctant to

relocate to Sittingbourne and it was this that in large part led to the company being committed

“passionately” to the Waterside Park scheme, viewing Waterside Park as the “priority” site, as

Mr Alderton and Mr Buckwell explained.32 The ADL letter, Mr Alderton’s and Mr

Buckwell’s evidence are entirely consistent in explaining ADL’s position in that respect. Mr

Cameron was also wrong to suggest that there should be some doubt about ADL’s position on

the basis that the company would have known some time ago that its timescales for relocation

referable to its lease end in 2017 could not be achieved. As explained by Mr Alderton and Mr

Buckwell, this suggestion ignores the fact that ADL and Gallaghers had agreed a detailed

programme (including phased and parallel works on site) which could be achieved so as to

enable occupation by that date. It was only after the refusal of the first application that ADL,

being so disappointed with the LPA’s response, became concerned about the question of

delivery and decided to explore more thoroughly potential relocation options outside the

30 Paragraph 2.5.6 of the Alternative Sites Assessment31 Appendix 10 of Mr Buckwell’s proof of evidence32 In their oral and written evidence

11

borough, including Sittingbourne, Ashford and the East Midlands; and it was only in April

this year that ADL were able to confirm to Mr Buckwell that the company could no longer

pursue Waterside Park. Mr Alderton and Mr Buckwell were in direct communications with

ADL and it was abundantly clear to them that ADL would not relocate to Sittingbourne, as

they both confirmed to the inquiry. There was plainly “no appetite” for that site, as Mr

Buckwell said. And as Mr Alderton noted, the company has proved that, by not relocating

there.

27. The decision by ADL not to pursue the Waterside Park site was not a reflection of any

perceived disadvantage of the appeal site, but simply because it became clear that the

uncertainties were such that relocation to the appeal site could not be achieved within the

company’s timescales. It was of course also a consequence of the failure of the LPA to ensure

the provision of sufficient suitable industrial sites to meet business needs. ADL’s decision to

leave the county altogether and instead pursue options in the Midlands provides irrefutable

evidence of the secondary quality of all of the sites which have been paraded at this inquiry as

supposed viable alternatives to Waterside park, since ADL was aware of, and had considered,

all of these but has decided that they are not adequate options to fulfil their needs. As we have

already said, ADL’s departure will mean the regrettable loss of up to 100 jobs.

Scarab’s need:

28. Mr Cassingham told the inquiry that Scarab manufactures a bespoke product in the market. It

currently exports approximately 70% of its machines, and has distribution channels in over 30

countries. Successful growth in sales means that it has outgrown its facilities at Marden and

needs to relocate.

29. While Scarab has seen considerable growth in recent years, in the last three years its growth

has plateaued because of the limitations of its existing facilities.

30. Currently Scarab occupies four industrial units and one portacabin office. The layout of the

Marden site means that products have to be transported between work centres and buildings

multiple times, which leads to considerable inefficiencies in the manufacturing process. The

facilities at Marden are far from prestigious (they even lack proper catering facilities) and do

not meet the standards that would be expected of a successful business of this type. The recent

site visit will have made good these points.

31. As Mr Cassingham explained to the inquiry, the sector in which Scarab operates requires it to

be in a position to react quickly to opportunities and to increase its output in short timescales,

but its production has reached its maximum capacity at the current premises. Indeed, in recent

times it has even had to turn away work because it did not have the capacity to take it on. At a

time when its competitors are becoming increasingly efficient, the facilities at Marden prevent

12

Scarab from becoming more efficient, and there is a real risk that it will begin to lose its

market share unless action is taken to secure suitable premises.

32. Scarab has been looking for alternative sites since 2011. It instructed local chartered

surveyors, Stephens Maguire to undertake a general survey of potential locations for a new

headquarters and factory site. It did not restrict its search to sites within Maidstone’s

administrative boundary. Scarab had and still has a number of requirements – a single site

location for the factory and offices, a prestigious location, easy access to the M20 motorway,

a site which can accommodate future business growth and, very importantly, a location which

is appropriate for staff retention. Scarab instructed Stephens Maguire that staff retention was

vital.33 Scarab’s staff are very important to the business. Over 90% of its staff are trained –

that is, they come to the job with training for example in hydraulics, pneumatics and

electronics but still require further training once they start at Scarab, in the production of its

bespoke products. Scarab’s staff turnover is very low, and many of Scarab’s staff have been

within the company for over 10 years. Indeed in his evidence in chief, Mr Cassingham

himself explained that he is only the third managing director of the company since it started

over 35 years ago, having worked his way up over the past 23 years with the company, where

he started as an apprentice and trained directly under the business’s founder, himself an

entrepreneurial resident of Maidstone.

33. Stephens Maguire produced a report34 in December 2011 identifying a number of potential

sites. That report also referred to a number of sites outside its area of search, but recognising

the importance to Scarab of staff retention it expressly acknowledged that these would be

unlikely to be of interest.35 These sites included G.Park, Kingsnorth and Neats Court.36 Mr

Cassingham confirmed in his oral evidence that he rejected all of those sites at the time as

being unsuitable to meet his businesses’ needs, and that his view has remained the same since.

34. Stephens Maguire were asked to consider three sites in further detail – the Waterside Park

site, Aylesford Commercial Park and a site in Staplehurst, and they produced a second report

in January 201237. All of the potential sites identified by Stephens Maguire were rejected as

unsuitable by Scarab, with the exception of Waterside Park.

35. Other than Waterside Park, there are no suitable, available sites to which Scarab can relocate,

either within or outwith Maidstone’s administrative boundaries.

33 JB11-1834 JB1135 JB11-1336 JB11-2 and JB11-637 JB11-16

13

36. The LPA accepts that there are no suitable alternative locations to which Scarab can relocate

within the borough38 and did not seek to suggest that there were any suitable alternative

locations outside of Maidstone borough.

37. KCC accepts that there are no alternative sites within Maidstone’s administrative area.

However, it argues that there are a number of alternative sites that meet Scarab’s

requirements, albeit outside of the borough. Mr Sinclair, on behalf of CPRE, belatedly

suggested that there was a suitable alternative site at Hermitage Lane, and that the Aylesford

Newsprint site may become available at some point in the future, although there was no

mention of these sites in his written statement to the inquiry, or in the R6 party’s Statement of

Case. We turn first to examine KCC/R6’s contentions.

38. Mr Cottage, for KCC, put forward a number of alternative sites which would meet Scarab’s

needs. However, Mr Cottage is not at all well placed to speak to this matter for two reasons.

First, no-one before this inquiry knows the Scarab business better than its Managing Director,

Mr Cassingham. No one is in a better position to know what his business’ needs are than him.

In cross-examination Mr Cottage confirmed (notwithstanding some of the language used in

his proof of evidence) that he did not dispute any of the factual evidence that Mr Cassingham

has given to the inquiry. He also accepted that he was in no position to question the necessity

or desirability of relocating his business. We submit that in the light of these concessions, Mr

Cottage is in no position to contend that Scarab should, or would be likely to, relocate to the

“alternative” sites which he put forward. Mr Cassingham is best placed, better placed, if not

the only person placed, to make the judgment that none of the so-called alternative sites

would meet his company’s needs. And he has given unequivocal evidence to this inquiry that

he will not relocate his business to any of those sites.

39. Secondly, Mr Cottage is not a commercial agent and does not claim specialism in commercial

markets. He has never let or sold any industrial property in the Kent area. His only

involvement with commercial relocations has been in the context of compulsory purchase.

His expertise is limited to the context of compulsory purchase, which is very different. His

lack of experience in the commercial market outside the context of compulsory purchase was

particularly evident in his consideration of the alternative sites he suggested. Mr Cottage

suggested that staff retention would be a ‘manageable’ issue at a number of alternative sites

which he considered to be suitable for Scarab’s needs. In oral evidence in chief, he revealed

that by this he meant that “permanent, irreparable harm and irreversible loss” would not be

caused to the business as a result of staff losses if the businesses relocated. In other words, his

evidence was that Scarab should be content to move to one of the sites he identified provided

that the move would not cause them permanent, irreparable harm and irreversible loss. That

38 Proof of Mr Goddard, paragraph 6.11

14

may be the approach adopted for a business that is subject to compulsory purchase

proceedings, in that it will have no choice but to move and will be compensated for any losses

it suffers as a result of the move, but it is not realistic or reasonable to expect a company to

accept such losses when the very purpose of the relocation is to grow and to improve and

strengthen its business. [CHW added orally “This was in effect also the approach of the Joint

Parishes as set out and revealed in RK-J’s closing statement”]

40. As Mr Cassingham has explained, the suggested alternative sites put forward by Mr Cottage

are non-starters. We make the following brief comments about each of them. [CHW added

orally in reference to KCC/R6 Closing para 61 (Scarab only willing to move to the ‘perfect’

location) that it was unfair to seize on one word used by DC in XX and does not fairly reflect

his evidence or the position of Scarab. It is true to say that WP is the perfect site but that is

not the same as saying DC would only be prepared to go to a perfect site. It is clear from

DC’s evidence that he carefully considered all other sites on their merits and concluded none

were suitable – i.e. the compromises necessary were too serious and high amongst the

disadvantages are staff retention and access to the M20.]

41. There are three buildings at the Invicta Riverside site, designed for three separate occupiers.

Scarab needs a single building in order to achieve efficiency benefits. Mr Cottage accepted

that this site would not satisfy Scarab’s requirements in terms of efficiency and said in cross

examination that he “totally understood that Scarab would say that Invicta does not tick the

box for efficiency, so it doesn’t work”. Furthermore, the immediate environment and adjacent

uses (including a sewage works) do not provide the prestigious environment for a company

headquarters that Scarab seeks.

42. G Park is at least 11 miles away from the M20. Mr Cottage accepted in cross-examination

that access to the M2 is not as beneficial as access to the M20. It is the M20 that Mr

Cassingham wants to be near, not the M2. According to Mr Cottage the uncongested journey

time from Maidstone town centre to G Park is 22 minutes. In peak journey times this journey

could take considerably longer. There is often significant congestion at junction 5, and there

can be long queues along the A429. Detling Hill can be difficult to negotiate during the

winter. All of these factors are relevant in considering whether staff would be prepared to

make the journey on a daily basis – reliability is an important factor for staff when they are

considering their journeys to work, as confirmed in the evidence of Mr Lewis who provided

the inquiry with more realistic journey time estimates and also his professional views about

travel decisions. Mr Cassingham knows his staff (he referred to interviews with each member

of staff, in which there was evident concern raised about the relocation and its implications

for commuting) and says that many of them would not be willing to commute to G Park. G

Park has been on the market for around 10 years, and other than Morrisons, it has not

15

attracted a single occupier in that time. Clearly it does not meet the requirements of the

market, as explained by Mr Alderton. Mr Cassingham is clear that it does not meet the needs

of his company. He rejected it in 2011/2012 and he rejects it now.

43. Neats Court is on the Isle of Sheppey. It is in a remote location which is not suitable for

Scarab’s needs. It is further still from Maidstone, and from the M20, than G Park and

relocating there would result in even greater staff retention difficulties than G Park. This site

too was not considered by Scarab in its original search in 2011/2012 because of its remote

and isolated location. Neats Court is surrounded by open fields and marshland and it is not

remotely suitable as a location for Scarab’s headquarters. Mr Cassingham’s evidence could

not be clearer – he will not locate his business on the Isle of Sheppey. His judgment is

supported by the expert market evidence of Mr Alderton.

44. Kingsnorth Commercial Park is located on the Isle of Grain. It has been on the market for

over ten years and has not attracted a single occupier during that time. Even since the

infrastructure was installed in 2009, it has not attracted any occupiers. This is a clear

reflection of its remote and unsuitable location. It simply does not meet the needs of the

market, as Mr Alderton has said, and nor does it meet Scarab’s needs. [CHW added orally 1)

Hermitage Lane – MA said site plainly not big enough, an irregular shape and put forward for

resi development. 2) Aylesford Newsprint – MA/JB both confirmed it is not available and

what we know reveals that we now know nothing else about it. It cannot be said to be any

likely prospect of availability if and when, for any particular use. Options are plenty and

include sale of business or redevelopment (for what uses is not clear).]

45. If Waterside Park does not come forward, Scarab will be forced to stay at its Marden site.

While in that circumstance Mr Cassingham would do everything he could to ensure the

continued success of the business, he is realistic in recognising the challenges that he would

face. Simply put, with the limited floorspace and inefficient arrangements at Marden, the

company would not be able to increase its manufacturing capacity any further than its current

level. Faced with increasingly efficient competitors, Mr Cassingham foresees that Scarab’s

share of the market would be likely to decline, and that the company’s ambitions for growth

would be unlikely to materialise. These difficulties would not be overcome by acquiring the

building which ADL will vacate when it moves its operations out of Kent, as suggested by Mr

Cottage. Scarab is beset by inefficiencies at Marden because it is forced to carry out its

manufacturing processes across four separate buildings. It wishes to obtain a freehold

property at a prestigious location befitting of a successful business. Acquiring the leasehold of

yet another building at the same unsuitable location is not the answer to its problems and Mr

Cassingham has ruled out the acquisition of the ADL building, were it to become available. In

cross-examination Mr Cottage accepted that acquiring the ADL building at Marden would not

16

solve Scarab’s difficulties, but said that if they did so, they would not be in any worse a

position than at present. While Mr Cameron, on behalf of KCC/R6 expressly disavowed any

challenge to Mr Cassingham’s ambitions for Scarab, in effect the KCC/R6s’ case was just that

- in effect saying that Scarab should be willing to remain at its Marden site, and make do. Mr

Cottage’s suggested that Scarab would be able to maintain viability. 39 However, this is to

ignore the fact that Scarab’s growth has reached a plateau because of the problems with its

current facilities. If it is to grow and increase efficiencies and continue to compete in the

international market, it needs to solve its current problems rather than simply prolong them.

Again, Mr Cottage’s own experience has led him to consider Scarab’s position from the

wrong perspective. Whilst Mr Cottage said in cross-examination that he does not take issue

with Mr Cassingham’s evidence as to the company’s needs, his written evidence pays no

regard to or any real appreciation of those needs and is consistent with Mr Cameron’s

approach - in ignoring the requirements of the company to grow and preferring to argue that

the company should simply make do. This approach is inconsistent with the NPPF (as

referred to earlier in these submissions) and displays, at best, a dangerously complacent view

as to the needs of local businesses and of the Maidstone economy.

46. Scarab is committed to Waterside Park. For almost three years it has worked with Gallagher

to secure planning permission for the appeal site. These two local companies have a

relationship of trust and have worked consistently together to secure their common aim in

respect of Waterside Park. Its Managing Director, Operations Manager and HR Manager have

given up considerable time to prepare for and attend this inquiry. The reason for that is

because they know that Waterside Park presents the only opportunity for their business to

achieve its ambitions for growth and to secure its long term future. In these circumstances

there can be no doubt about Scarab’s commitment to the Waterside Park site. The comment

that there is “no legally binding agreement” simply ignores not only the evidence of the

company’s significant commitment already made, but also the (fairly obvious) difficulties

presented in terms of binding the parties at this stage when there are so many variables in

terms of costs and timing. As Mr Alderton said, such a contract would be extremely difficult

and amount to no more than an option. Mr Cassingham’s evidence is clear enough – there can

be no doubting the commitment of Scarab to the Waterside Park scheme. [CHW added

orally – KCC & MBC’s suggestion of relucatance on behalf of the appellant to offer a 1 st

occupier clause was simply not so (ref to JB evidence). The appellants are content to offer it

– the only concern was whether it was necessary having regard to Regulation 122.]

General Need:

39Proof of Mr Cottage, paragraph 6.8

17

47. The benefits of the case have been focused around the needs of ADL and Scarab, since that

was why the scheme came to fruition in the way that it did, but there is also significant

evidence of a general need for employment land. The problems faced by ADL and Scarab

reflect the general needs case advanced by the Appellants.

48. It is the Appellants’ case that there is a significant quantitative and qualitative need for

additional employment space including large industrial and distribution buildings as

proposed.

49. The GVA Qualitative Employment Site Assessment of September 201440 was published after

Maidstone’s Regulation 18 draft Local Plan was published for consultation. The draft policies

in the Local Plan clearly did not have regard to the findings of the qualitative assessment. The

September 2014 assessment identified a shortfall of supply to meet future needs which was

likely to necessitate the allocation of new land through the Local Plan.41 The report concluded

that there were not enough good quality sites of the right size and in the right locations to

accommodate future economic growth, that new land allocated should aim to accommodate

the likely requirements of future growth sectors – of which manufacturing is one, and that

“future allocations should prioritise space along the motorway corridor to support growth of

businesses that largely serve national and regional markets”. It is unsurprising, therefore that

no party has disputed the qualitative need for the proposed development at Waterside Park to

come forward.

50. In the report to the meeting of the Planning, Transport and Development Overview and

Scrutiny Committee on 21 October 2014, MBC explained that the Regulation 18 draft Local

Plan would not meet the identified qualitative needs identified in the GVA September 2014

report, and that based on the outcomes of the Strategic Economic Development Land

Availability Assessment (SEDLAA), the only additional available land at a motorway

junction was at Junction 8.42 It said that the combined findings of the evidential documents on

employment needs pointed towards identifying land in the location of J8 in the Local Plan for

a mix of offices, industrial and warehousing uses, and that with the NPPF direction to meet

the needs of the economy in full, MBC’s officers considered that the balance of planning and

economic development considerations weighed in favour of identifying land at J8 for

employment in the emerging Local Plan.

51. At the joint meeting of the Planning, Transport and Development Overview and Scrutiny

Committee and the Economic and Commercial Development Overview and Scrutiny

Committee on 21 October 2014, MBC’s principal planning officer explained that the list of

40 CD4041 CD40, paragraph 8.7, page 8042 CD39, paragraph 1.3.27

18

employment sites in the consultation version of the Local Plan did not meet the quantitative or

qualitative needs for employment land in the borough43, and that the evidence suggested that

demand would be best met by a single, large allocation of land close to the highway network.

She explained that “Junction 8 of the M20 motorway was considered, by officers, to be the

only suitable location to meet the need”44. Both Committees resolved to support the principle

of development at Junction 8, provided an appropriate mitigation policy was developed. 45

While the ultimate decision to allocate Junction 8 for employment land will be for MBC’s

Cabinet, it is inconceivable that it will fail to have regard to the body of evidence and the

important resolutions of the Planning and Economic Development Overview and Scrutiny

Committees which weigh heavily in favour of allocating Junction 8 for employment.

52. A consultation on Maidstone’s Draft Economic Development Strategy 2014 – 2031 (the

“Economic Strategy”) specifically sought the views of residents on the allocation of Junction

8 for employment land, explaining, incidentally that the development would be a business

park of about 20 hectares, and that would be “considerably smaller than the KIG development

previously proposed”46and 51% of those responding to the consultation supported the

allocation of J8 for employment land.47

53. The Committee report on Appeal B48 expressed full support for the proposal and explained

that Junction 8 would not only meet the needs of Scarab but also provide a significant boost

for the borough as a business location. The officer’s report recognised Junction 8 as a

prestigious site in a location attractive to business in the motorway corridor. Even if it was not

occupied by Scarab, the officers’ report accepts that the development could provide

significant employment and associated benefits to the borough.49

54. There is important common ground here – the GVA study, the committee reports which

considered them, the Economic Strategy and the committee report on the Appeal B planning

application all acknowledge a need. However, there is more to the common ground even than

this.

55. It can be seen from the Statement of Common Ground that the LPA expressly accepts that

there is a need in respect of Scarab’s (and ADL’s) requirements and a general qualitative

employment need to support the proposals.50 In Mr Goddard’s evidence, on behalf of the

LPA, there is nothing to detract from this, nor is there any argument to the effect that there is

43 JB4-344 JB4-345 JB4-7 and JB4-14.46 Appendix JB5-247 Appendix JB5-348 CD5149 CD51, paragraphs 8.124 – 8.12650 Section 7

19

a lack of a quantitative need which in some way detracts from the economic needs and

benefits case advanced by the Appellants.51 Moreover, the Statement of Common Ground52

and Mr Goddard confirm that the LPA has not been able to identify any available site that

could meet the stated needs of ADL or Scarab. Even more importantly than that, he expressly

accepted that he did not dispute the evidence presented by Mrs Evans. There was of course no

cross-examination of Mrs Evans either.

56. The KCC/R6s do not provide any quantitative or qualitative needs evidence. Mr Carpenter

refers in his proof of evidence to the LPA reports to Cabinet and Committee in October 2014

and decisions approving the drafting of a policy for consultation in support of employment

provision at Junction 8. He does so without questioning their content or that of the GVA

reports. The KCC/R6s’ case is not to challenge those decisions or to dispute the findings in

the GVA reports. There was of course no cross-examination of Mrs Evans either. Her

evidence was not challenged by the KCC/R6s. [CHW added orally with ref to KCC/R6

Closing para 67 (conclusions on needs and benefits) that it was important to note that there

was no challenge to EE’s evidence. Whilst NC can properly say there are 2 views, that would

indicate no view – it is not appropriate to submit that there is uncertainty since that throws

doubt on evidence before you and in particular EE’s evidence. If there was any doubt, that

could and should have been challenged but wasn’t.]

57. The CPRE Kent R6s do not provide any qualititiave needs evidence either. Whilst Cllr

Harwood, for CPRE Kent sought en passant to suggest that there was no quantitative need for

this development, he was isolated in this respect even from his own group’s case. There was

of course no cross-examination of Mrs Evans either.

58. We turn now to the evidence of Mrs Evans. That evidence is very important. As we have

emphasised, it was not disputed by any party to the inquiry.

59. In very broad terms Mrs Evans agrees with the GVA conclusion that there is a quantative and

qualitative need for more employment land in Maidstone borough. However, as Mrs Evans

explains in her proof of evidence, the issues go much further than this. GVA has significantly

underestimated the need for more employment land and not fully appreciated the significance

of the shortfall in the context of Maidstone’s economy.

60. Following a careful review of the GVA work, and applying the guidance on employment land

reviews53, she concludes that the GVA Economic Sensitivity Testing and Employment Land

Forecast of February 201454 (the “GVA Economic Sensitivity Report”) significantly 51 It should be recalled that both reasons for refusal included the asserted lack of a quantitative need as a reason against the proposal. 52 Paragraphs 6.13 to 6.1753 ODPM Employment Land Reviews: Guidance note (ELRGN) 200454 CD30

20

understates the demand for employment space, in particular relating to industrial floorspace,

and overstates the supply of land. There is, she says, a dearth of suitable land or space for

large businesses looking to relocate in Maidstone.

61. It will be remembered55 that, focusing on industrial land, she considered the GVA work

against the guidance in the OCPM Employment Land Revies: Guidance Note (ELRGN) 2004

and in relation to the three “essential steps” in assessing demand for future land: employment

growth in industrial sectors, density of occupation of industrial floorspace and the level of

frictional vacancy that is required for a market to function.

62. In respect of employment growth in the industrial and manufacturing sectors, she points out

that economic forecasting models, such as that used by GVA, perform badly in the context of

changing trends, and do not reflect the slowing trend of decline in the manufacturing sector

and the fact that the wide category of ‘manufacturing’ conceals a complex mix of sub-sectors,

some of which are growing strongly.56 The February 2014 GVA study did not appropriately

take into account the finding of the Employment Land Review (CD24) that trends were

changing within industrial use classes and did not include a scenario considering the impact

on land use if manufacturing trends were not as pessimistic as set out.57 She explains that

while the GVA model estimates a growth in industrial employment of just 226 jobs between

2011 and 2031, in fact 150 jobs were created in the manufacturing sector in the two years

from 2011 to 2013 alone – 66% of the total manufacturing jobs predicted to be created over a

twenty year period, in just two years.58 If that increase reflects a pick-up in trends in the

manufacturing sector, then even at just half the rate seen in the past two years, that would

suggest that some 745 jobs could be created in that sector over the next twenty years, which

would increase the land requirement from 5.1ha to 9.8ha.59

63. With respect to the density of occupation of industrial floorspace, Mrs Evans explained that

industrial space in Maidstone is occupied at the lower end of the HCA Employment Densities

Guide, yet GVA did not carry out any checks of the current densitites of occupation in the

appropriate sectors and locations to ascertain typical densitities in Maidstone. Nor did they

apply sensitivities to their scenario to assess the impact that different densities of occupation

would have on future employment land requirements.60 If 55 sqm per employee were allowed

to reflect Maidstone’s typical lower densities (rather than just taking the average of 36 sqm

per employee), then the land requirement would increase from 5.1ha to 6.1ha.

55 Proof of Ms Evans, paragraph 5.2156 Proof of Ms Evans, paragraph 5.2857 Proof of Ms Evans, paragraph 5.3158 Proof of Ms Evans, paragraph 5.3059 Proof of Ms Evans, paragraphs 5.35 – 5.3660 Proof of Ms Evans, paragraphs 5.41 – 5.44

21

64. Mrs Evans does not consider that GVA has made enough allowance for frictional vacancy (or

‘churn’). In its 2011 ELR report, GVA adopted an approach based on historic trends in actual

vacancies in the market, suggesting vacancy rates of around 7%. While those vacancy rates

have not changed, in its February 2014 report, GVA, with no explanation or justification for

their reasoning, adopted a different approach which made less allowance for frictional

vacancy. Had they continued to base their assessment on actual vacancy rates, the industrial

land requirement would increase from 5.1 to 7.0ha.

65. The effect of these three factors, or rather of the corrections that ought to be made, is to

increase significantly the land requirement for industrial uses. The GVA Employment Land

Forecast calculated a land requirement of 5.1 hectares. For the reasons that she gives, Mrs

Evans concludes that 15.2 hectares is a more realistic land requirement figure. This would

result in a net industrial land shortage of 6.2 hectares, even assuming that the GVA work on

the supply side is correct (which it is not). As Ms Evans clarified in her oral evidence in chief,

she also considers that GVA’s requirement forecast for office and warehousing land is also

significantly understated, by about 2.2 hectares, which would result in an overall net

employment land shortage of 11.3 hectares, again even assuming that the GVA work on the

supply side is correct (which it is not).

66. These conclusions are of course of great importance. Any underestimate of land requirements

will act as a constraint to future economic growth and thereby undermine Maidstone’s ability

to achieve its economic growth, as Mrs Evans emphasised.61

67. In terms of employment land supply it is Mrs Evans’ view that the GVA study is wrong in

assuming that all identified land is able to accommodate the forecast need, and that this is

especially relevant in the context of industrial land supply. She concludes62, that the supply of

land has been overstated. There are a number of reasons for this but in essence they are

twofold: because whilst the potential for on-site expansion can accommodate some growth it

does not allow for the location of firms requiring units with a significant amount of floor

space; and secondly, because so-called ‘vacant land’ simply does not meet the requirements

of many businesses, least of all those firms that require good transport accessibility. It is of

particular note that she identifies a shortage of employment land supply in the M20 corridor,

and a shortage of larger units to accommodate bigger firms.63 In short the land identified in

the GVA’s assessment of current supply is in the wrong place and not large enough.

68. This is not an exercise of academic interest. As Mrs Evans explains in her proof of evidence,

and her professional opinion has not be questioned by any party to the inquiry, the

61 Paragraphs 5.21 and 5.67 of her evidence62 Proof of Ms Evans, paragraph 5.8463 Proof of Ms Evans, paragraph 5.85

22

consequences for the Maidstone economy are serious. Clearly, there is a very worrying

general shortage of employment land across the business sectors and an extremely small

supply of large scale stock to meet growth of local companies or attract inward investment.

Given the poorly located employment land and the extremely limited supply of large scale

stock, demand for larger units that does exist will not have any option but to leave Maidstone

and demand that would otherwise be met in Maidstone will be lost, to the serious detriment of

its economy. As Mrs Evans explains, if Maidstone is to achieve its economic goals as set out

in the Economic Development Strategy, these issues must be addressed. For that reason she

concludes that it is important to bring forward the appeal proposals now in order to enhance

Maidstone’s under performing economy.64

69. Mrs Evans’ evidence is supported by Mr Alderton’s evidence of the market. He verified that

her evidence is consistent with his experience in the industrial and distribution market.

Indeed, it was his view that the Waterside Park scheme would quickly become established as

a prime site in the market and that it would be a unique opportunity to meet the significant

current and future needs and demands for industrial and distribution space in Kent.

70. There was no other expert evidence to dispute that of Mr Alderton. Whilst Mr Cottage made

some very limited comments about the matter, he did not claim any specialism in the

commercial market, his experience being limited to the CPO world. He agreed in cross-

examination that it was fair to say that he is not an expert in agency matters. Mr Alderton on

the other hand is very much an expert in the field – with over 35 years in the commercial

property market and undisputed expertise and experience, especially in Kent.

71. Mr Alderton’s opinion that the Waterside Park site would be a prime site for the market was

informed not only by his considerable experience but by a number of considerations to which

his proof of evidence refers and to which he spoke in evidence; which we summarise below:

a. The most likely demand will come from major and other retailers/supermarkets, 3

PLs for distribution hubs and manufacturers.

b. There is a general trend in the distribution market for larger units of 200,000 sq ft in

strategic locations.

c. Manufacturers of all sorts can seek large units of 150,000 sq ft (like Scarab)

d. Even though the predominant demand in Kent is for smaller buildings, experience

shows that there is a very strong underlying demand for space in the mid-box (50,000

– 100,000sq ft) and big box (100,000sq ft+), reflecting Kent’s importance in the

regional and sub-regional market.

64 Paragraph 5.104 of her proof of evidence

23

e. The Locate in Kent data 2014 shows clear demand for large units with enquiries for

buildings of over 100,000 sq ft, although this is an underestimate (and Mr Alderton

explained why at any one time he would only expect a handful of larger requirements

(over 100,000sq ft) in the market).

f. There is already a significant number of large 200,000 sq ft buildings in the Kent area

proving historic demand for large distribution buildings.

g. The market favours the “central Kent” area (a sub-area of mid-Kent)

h. Maidstone is the focus of virtually all mid-Kent enquiries, due to its location.

Maidstone is the preferred location for the market. Other locations, such as

Sittingbourne and Kingsnorth, are but poor and distant (or remote) relations.

i. There are currently no suitable sites or buildings available in Maidstone to meet the

need for those larger units. The total lack of supply hides demand (since prospective

large unit occupiers know about lack of supply). In particular, there is a paucity of

large, good quality and well-located industrial sites in Maidstone.

j. The increase in speculative schemes in the Maidstone area reflects the market interest

in the area.

k. ADL and Scarab are two examples of Maidstone businesses in the current market for

buildings exceeding 100,000sq ft. That fact itself is a clear demonstration of demand.

l. The applicaton at Woodcut Farm is a further clear demonstration of confidence in the

market for large buildings of the type proposed (by Roxhill Developments Ltd).

m. The provision of the site will itself generate further demand given the site’s

favourable location in mid-Kent. The excellent location of the Waterside Park

effectively next to the M20 as well as the prospect of a high quality environment will

be highly attractive to large unit occupiers looking for space.

72. The evidence is there is a need and demand for a large employment site close to the highway

network in Maidstone.

73. Waterside Park is the only appropriate location within the borough at which that need can be

met.

Maidstone needs and benefits:

74. Maidstone Borough Council’s Economic Development team supported both applications, and

in respect of Appeal B, the Economic Development Manager recognised that Scarab provided

significant local employment and supported the national government agenda to help rebalance

24

the economy through exporting. Furthermore, he said that in the context of falling numbers in

private sector jobs in the borough, and threats to public sector jobs, the expansion of Scarab

was important to the wellbeing of the economy. Waterside Park was said to represent a £50m

investment in the local economy which would raise the profile of Maidstone as a business

location.65

75. The officer’s report in respect of Appeal B recognised that even if Waterside Park was not

taken up by ADL or Scarab, a number of benefits would accrue as a result of the general

employment provision at Junction 8. It would create a site that would be attractive to inward

investment and create a significant marketing opportunity to promote the borough as a new

business location66 and fill a gap in the qualitative business offer for Maidstone by providing

employment uses at a motorway corridor location that was attractive to the market.67 The

officers concluded that the proposed development would provide strong economic benefits

which would sufficiently outweigh the level of harm identified.68 There is no suggestion that

those benefits were not accepted by the Members, even though on balance they took a

different view as to whether planning permission should be granted in the light of their

judgment on the landscape and heritage harm that they said would be caused.

76. Mrs Evans evidence in relation to the economic benefits of the development proposals was

not disputed. As she explained, the proposals would give rise to very significant economic

benefits which would help enhance the underperforming local economy in Maidstone.

77. Mrs Evans refers to the draft Economic Development Strategy, noting its ominous opening

text: “Maidstone is at a cross-roads…without concerted action by the Council and its partners,

there is a risk that Maidstone’s economy will continue to underperform.”.69 To that end, the

draft Economic Strategy sets, as its primary aim, the retention of existing businesses in, and

the attraction of new employers to, the borough. It recognises that to support existing

businesses to develop and grow, and to attract new employers it will have to ensure that a

pipeline of quality office, industrial and warehousing accommodation comes forward in

locations that are attractive to modern business, including sites adjacent to the motorway 70.

Supporting existing local businesses to develop and grow is critical for the delivery of the job

growth Maidstone wants for the future. Specifically, it says that it will be important to nurture

the growing manufacturing companies in order to capitalise on the opportunities for economic

growth that they bring.71

65 CD51, paragraph 8.8066 CD51, paragraph 8.12667 CD51, paragraph 8.12668 CD51, paragraph 8.129 69 Page 3 CD3870 Page 24 CD3871 Page 21 CD38

25

78. Mrs Evans agrees with all this. She says that Maidstone’s economy has struggled and that it is

necessary to build upon its strengths and take advantage of opportunities for growth. She

notes that the Maidstone economy has become reliant on out-commuting and that

employment creation has been stagnant, having been overly reliant on the public sector -

growing private sector employment needs to be a priority. Mrs Evans also confirms her

agreement with the draft Economic Development Strategy’s acknowledgement of the growing

importance of the manufacturing sector and the need to nurture existing companies and

enabling them to grow. Moreover, Maidstone is struggling to create and support jobs even for

its existing residents, which should be an increasing concern with the prospect of significant

residential growth in the area.

79. In this context the proposed development would be beneficial to the economy in a number of

important ways.

80. First, it would contribute to Maidstone’s key priority by allowing an existing business in the

important manufacturing industry to expand, employing more people, innovating, becoming

more efficient and remaining globally competitive.

81. Secondly, it would also serve to attract new business to Maidstone. The ADL building would

meet the needs of a large occupier – either a local business wishing to expand or from an

incoming business. A significant quantitative and qualitative need for employment land exists

in Maidstone and without allocating a strategic site such as this one, the borough will fail to

attract investment and growth and continue to fall behind.72

82. Thirdly, the appeal proposals would give rise to a significant number of new jobs in

Maidstone and beyond. The construction period alone would provide between 36 to 37 direct

FTE jobs with further indirect jobs as well.73 The completed development directly

accommodate 1090 or 840 jobs for Appeal A and Appeal B respectively..74 Taking into

account Scarab’s relocation, re-occupation of the Scarab premises in Marden and a new

business occupying the ADL building, the net job provision in Maidstone would be as much

as 675 or 520 jobs (increasing for Kent to 710 or 545 jobs).75

83. Fourthly, the appeal proposals would allow Scarab to expand and grow whilst remaining in

Maidstone. Scarab currently employs 220 people and contributes over £1,000,000 to the

immediate Maidstone area76. Its turnover in 2012 was £27m77. It is a major contributor to the

72 Penultimate bullet point under paragraph 6.1 of Mrs Evans’ proof of evidence73 See paragraphs 4.2-4.7 of Mrs Evans’s proof of evidence.74 For the Appeal A and Appeal B schemes – see paragraph 4.15 of Mrs Evans’ proof of evidence75 Paragraph 4.27 of Mrs Evans’ proof of evidence76 Paragraph 2.1.10 of Mr Cassingham’s proof of evidence77 Paragraph 4.27 of Mrs Evans’ proof of evidence

26

Maidstone economy and its growth at Waterside Park would enable further and increased

financial benefits to accrue to the local economy.78

84. Fifthly, the proposals would contribute to wider UK economic benefits. As Mrs Evans points

out, there is now an acknowledgment that boosting exports is crucial in the national economic

growth strategy and linked to this is the desire to support in particular small and medium

sized export orientated manufacturing companies.79 Scarab is well placed to increase its

export business – if it can re-locate and improve efficiencies to increase orders abroad, as Mr

Cassingham told the inquiry.

85. Sixthly, the proposals will contribute towards satisfying demand for strategically well-

connected sites in the distribution sector.80 As Mr Alderton’s explained, the Waterside Park

development will appeal directly to distribution companies like ADL. As Mrs Evans

concluded, having regard to the trends in this sector, the demand for such space and for

strategic sites will increase.81

86. For all these reasons the economic benefits that accompany the appeal proposals are very

significant indeed, not just for local companies and inward investment but for the future

resilience of the Maidstone economy.

Landscape and visual impact

87. As we noted in our opening statement, the appeal site is in the countryside, and some in-

principle adverse effects arising from its development for employment uses involving large

scale buildings are inevitable. However, the site is not covered by any statutory or local

designation82 and contains no special landscape features of value, although it has considerable

vegetation at its boundaries. Whilst the site is in agricultural use with pleasant landscape to

the south, it is adjacent to the A20 dual carriageway and other road infrastructure to the north,

a waste transport depot to the north west and a hotel to the east. The site is also well screened

by mature vegetation along much of its northern, western and southern boundaries and all of

its eastern boundary.

88. The proposal is to reduce ground levels on the appeal site, by a maximum of 14m at the

western (higher) part of the site, and create two development platforms. Levels along the

western and northern ends of the site will be maintained with appropriate buffer distances

within the site before re-grading so that all of the site boundary vegetation will be retained.

78 Bullet point 3 of paragraph 6.1 of Mrs Evans’ proof of evidence79 Paragraphs 4.47 to 4.56 of her proof of evidence80 Paragraph 4.62 of Mrs Evans’s proof of evidence81 Paragraph 4.57 to 4.6282 Except for a small part of the A20 verge within the designated Special Landscape Area

27

The buildings will not exceed 69mAOD83 and will be sited within a generous landscape

setting with broad areas of structural planting. The overall objective of both schemes is to

provide a high quality landscape setting for the new buildings, to achieve a high standard of

mitigation and to secure the effectiveness of that mitigation through high quality planting

specification and future management.84

89. Mr Etchells has carried out an assessment of the landscape and visual impacts. His assessment

is detailed and reliable. In short, he concludes that whilst the site itself will undergo

significant landscape change, the overall development will have a limited landscape and

visual impact on the surrounding area.

90. We recognise that the Inspector has heard considerable evidence on matters of landscape and

visual impact, and has also had the benefit of an extensive site view. With that in mind, we

limit ourselves to the following submissions.

Landscape:

91. In assessing the effects of the proposed development on landscape, Mr Etchells considered

the quality of the landscape and its value and sensitivity85, the degree of change which will

result from the proposed development86 and the effects of the development on the landscape87.

There was no criticism of his general approach. Indeed, broadly speaking, this was the

approach of all three landscape witnesses.

92. In relation to landscape value, there was considerable discussion about the value and contents

of the landscape character assessments. We make the following short submissions on these

studies. They are useful in themselves (in assessing landscape character) but they are also

useful in illustrating the limitations in the assessments of Mr Green and Mr Russell-Vick.

93. First, the landscape character assessments support Mr Etchells’ view that the appeal site’s

context is of low to medium landscape quality.

94. Secondly, the landscape character assessments undermine Mr Green’s view that the landscape

is of high quality and also indicate that Mr Russell-Vick’s assessment is not complete.

83 This is a maximum height as per the development parameters plans. The Appeal B proposal is for a building height of 67mAOD84 The main differences between the appeal schemes are described in paragraph 5.3.7 of Mr Etchells’ proof of evidence. 85 Proof of Mr Etchells, paragraphs 3.2.27 – 3.2.2986 Paragraphs 6.2.1 – 6.2.387 Proof of Mr Etchells, paragraphs 6.3.1 – 6.4.4

28

95. Thirdly, while the 2004 landscape assessment was criticised by Mr Green and Mr Russell-

Vick as being out of date, that criticism cannot be levelled at the 2012 Maidstone Landscape

Character Assessment.

96. Fourthly, it is of some significance that the 2012 study considered the area around the appeal

site as a sub-area separate from that of Leeds Castle to the east. That reflects a difference in

terms of character between the appeal site and Leeds Castle and it gardens. It also consistent

with the delineation of the boundary of the Special Landscape Area, which excludes the

appeal site. Mr Green accepted that the decision to exclude the appeal site from the SLA was

likely to have been taken on the basis that it was not of sufficient landscape quality to be

included and that nothing had changed to warrant its inclusion in the SLA.

97. Fifthly, the 2012 study notes the effect of the major transport corridor of the M20, the CTRL

and the A20 on the character of the area. Indeed, the assessment describes this character area,

including the appeal site, as being ‘dominated’ by the transport corridor.88 Mr Etchells agrees.

In his view the appeal site lies within that transport corridor. Mr Green and Mr Russell-Vick

sought to play down the influence of the transport corridor on the landscape character of the

area, Mr Russell-Vick even contending that the appeal site is not in the transport corridor (but

adjoins it).

98. Sixthly, the study notes that the character area contains many visual detractors. Both the

assessment and Mr Etchells identify a notable amount of commercial development along the

A20, including the large hotel, caravan park, garden centre and car cleaning facilities. Mr

Green and Mr Russell-Vick appear to play down the influence that these features have on the

landscape. Mr Etchells has taken into account the Biffa site adjacent to the appeal site.

Although in cross examination Mr Russell-Vick accepted that the Biffa site was a relevant

matter to take into account in assessing the landscape character of the area, he had failed to

consider or even mention it in his proof of evidence.

99. Seventhly, the study notes the influence of audibility of the transport infrastructure on

landscape character, reducing as it does the sense of remoteness. While Mr Russell Vick

accepted in cross-examination that noise is a relevant consideration in assessing landscape

character, he left this relevant factor out of account in his written evidence to the inquiry. Mr

Etchells explained that the site’s landscape character is strongly affected by traffic noise, and

this will have been appreciated on the site visit.

100. Eighthly, it is unsurprising that none of the landscape character assessments promote

the construction of buildings or development generally. Mr Whale tried to make something of

this point, but clearly documents assessing and describing the character of the landscape

88 Paragraph 49.28

29

would hardly be expected to promote built development. Where there is a reference to

avoiding development, it specifically refers to the area north of the M20. 89 Of course, the

appeal site lies to the south of the M20.

101. Ninthly, Mr Whale criticised Mr Etchells for relying on parts of the study but not

others. This is an unjustified criticism. Mr Etchells does in general agree with the study’s

findings, but there is no obligation that if he agrees some parts he has to agree every word.

Attention was drawn to the study’s reference to the sub-area being “within part of the

foreground of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Beauty”.90 That phrase is used as a

generalised description of the sub-area’s “Location”; it is not part of the “Landscape

Description”. In any event, as he said, Mr Etchells disagrees with it for the reasons that he

gave in his evidence91. Nor is it accurate, in Mr Etchell’s view, to describe the appeal site or

its immediate suroundings as being ‘at the foot of the Downs’ as Mr Green sought to do. In

fact the appeal site is some 2.2km from the Pilgrim’s Way which is at the foot of the North

Downs scarp.

102. The appeal site itself has no particular special qualities and thereis nothing distinctive

about the landform of the appeal site. In Mr Etchells’ opinion, contrary to that of Mr Green,

the appeal site is not particularly large in the context of the surrounding expansive landscape,

a hill top, or convex. This is relevant because Mr Green made a series of judgements about

how the proposed development would ‘destroy the intrinsic hill top character of the site’92; an

emotive comment which Mr Etchells considers to be in no way unjustified.

103. In longer distance views from the AONB, the only way the appeal site can be picked

out is by reference to the presence of the brightly coloured containers on the adjacent Biffa

site, rather than by reference to any distinctive feature of the appeal site itself. In views from

the appeal site, Mr Etchells explained that from its highest point, moving traffic on the M20 is

visible, as is the CTRL, the line of the A20 and traffic along it, the hotel and the Biffa waste

containers. Further away, the Leeds sewage treatment works is visible to the south. Mr

Etchells explained that in his opinion, one particularly striking feature of the appeal site was

the traffic noise from the A20 and, to a lesser extent, the M20, though this can vary with the

wind direction. There are views of the North Downs from the higher part of the appeal site,

but it was Mr Etchells’ view that landscape quality cannot be judged on the basis of one view

only. While the site itself is pleasant and contains few detracting features, it has no

89 CD25, page 41090 Paragraph 49.2791 Cross examination of Mr Etchells by Mr Whale, 14.5.1592 Proof of Mr Green, section 4.30

30

distinctive or special qualities and is affected by the transport infrastructure and adjacent

waste transfer site.93

104. Given the above, Mr Etchells’ assessment of low to medium landscape quality is

sound.

105. Mr Etchells considers the landscape value to be low to medium94 and the sensitivity

of the landscape as medium95 for the reasons he sets out in paragraphs 3.2.28 and 3.2.29. In

cross examination Mr Russell-Vick said that his opinion differed only slightly from that of Mr

Etchells with respect to the sensitivity of the landscape and visual receptors, and that the

principal divergence between them arose in their assessments of the quality of the existing

landscape, and the impact of the proposed development.

106. Turning to the impact of the proposed development, the levels on the appeal site will

be reduced by up to 14m and the effect of this reduction will be to set the new buildings down

into the landscape. The proposals allow for the retention and reinforcement of the existing

boundary vegetation, much of which is mature, and at least 15m high. The vegetation

currently screens much of the appeal site’s northern, western and southern boundaries and all

of its eastern boundary and a screening effect will be retained. While the appeal site itself

would undergo a significant change as a result of the development, this would have a limited

impact on the area around the appeal site.96 Mr Etchells has assessed the degree of change to

the landscape of and around the site as low to medium.97

107. Taking into account the medium sensitivity of the landscape and the low to medium

degree of change brought about by the proposed development, the overall landscape effects

have been assessed by Mr Etchells to be moderate adverse at worst, declining to minor

adverse over time.98

108. The Inspector has had the benefit of an extensive site visit and now has considerable

information on these matters, including photomontages and numerous other photographs to be

used as aide memoires, in order to form a judgment as to both the landscape and visual

impacts. There are differences between the professional witnesses on judgments and these

were explored in oral evidence to the extent it was thought helpful. It was Mr Etchells’ view

that Mr Green has misjudged the existing landform of the site, and therefore the effects which

would arise from the proposed re-grading and has wrongly judged the landscape of and

around the site to be of high quality. It appears also that Mr Green may have been misled by

93 Proof of Mr Etchells, paragraph 3.2.2794 Proof of Mr Etchells, paragraph 3.2.2895 Proof of Mr Etchells, paragraph 3.2.2996 Proof of Mr Etchells, paragraph 6.2.297 Proof of Mr Etchells, paragraph 6.2.298 Proof of Mr Etchells, paragraph 6.4.1 – 6.4.4

31

his inaccurate ZTV. Both Mr Green and Mr Russell Vick have exaggerated the proximity of

the site to the North Downs, and have underestimated the effects of existing discordant and

detracting features, in conflict with published landscape character assessments, and have

overstated the harmful effects of the proposed development. It is Mr Etchells’ view that both

Mr Russell-Vick and Mr Green have both significantly overstated the adverse landscape

effects of the development.

109. In terms of approach, there is broad agreement. Mr Green’s conclusions are clear,

although Mr Etchells does not share his opinions. Mr Russell-Vick’s assessment deserves a

little more comment. Whilst compliant with the GLVIA/3, he reached conclusions that were

limited to whether or not an impact was “significant” – in his words, whether or not it was

“relevant” to the decision maker. He made no judgment as to the scale of significance. When

he was taken in cross-examination to paragraph 5.56 of the GLVIA/399 Mr Russell-Vick

acknowledged that his conclusions were not that the effects of the proposed development fell

within the category of ‘greatest significance’, which would include ‘major loss or irreversible

negative effects…’, or indeed into any other specific level of significance. His conclusions

fell into the category denoted by the third bullet, where no assessment at all is made as to the

level of significance. [CHW added orally with reference to KCC/R6 Closing para 14 (LVIA

Methodology) – The opposite is true bearing in mind PRV gives no view as to the measure of

significance.

110. Mr Green made no criticism of Mr Etchells’ methodology. Nor did Mr Russell-Vick.

Indeed, Mr Russell-Vick said in cross-examination that Mr Etchells’ methodology was

“perfectly compliant” with the GVLIA/3. It was therefore seemed extremely curious that his

advocate suggested that Mr Etchells had fallen into some trap by reference to the guidelines.

It appears that Mr Cameron was roaming somewhat away from his own witnesses evidence.

Nothing could be further from the truth – no trap has been fallen into, and there is no lack of

transparency involved in Mr Etchells’ approach. Notwithstanding Mr Cameron’s overly

forensic examination of Mr Etchells’ methodology, it must be remembered that neither Mr

Green nor Mr Russell Vick criticised Mr Etchells’ methodology, far from it. Nor was there

any suggestion that the judgments Mr Etchells reached were unreasonable or not credible. Mr

Green adopted Mr Etchells methodology without criticism, and the following exchange with

Mr Russell Vick during cross examination makes his position clear:

“CHW: There is no criticism of Mr Etchells’ methodology in your proof?

PRV: No

99 Appendix H to Mr Russell Vick’s proof, pages 92 - 93

32

CHW: You have had the environmental statement and the methodology is the same there,

isn’t it?

PRV: Yes, but methodologies can change.

CHW: But you didn’t raise it in your rebuttal. Why are you criticising it now?

PRV: I haven’t criticised his methodology. Mr Etchells’ approach is within the boundaries

of GLIVIA/3

CHW: So any criticisms I thought you might have made were not criticisms?

PRV: There is a difference of approach regarding the identification of significance.

CHW: Can I make a clear note that you are not criticising his approach?

PRV: I am not criticising him.

CHW: You are not saying that one approach is better than the other?

PRV: No, I am not saying that. It complies with GLIVIA/3.”

[CHW added orally with ref to KCC/R6 Closing para 36a (JE’s approach being ‘inconsistent’) – JE

referred to a number of factors, not just distance (look to the very paragraph NC refers to)

Visual impacts:

111. The visual impact of the proposed development is considered from paragraphs 6.4.5 –

6.4.7 of Mr Etchells’ proof. The parties to this appeal have raised particular concern about the

visual impacts on receptors at Brogden, Leeds Castle and the North Downs Way. The

Appellants acknowledge that there will be some adverse visual impacts from those locations,

but in Mr Etchells’ judgment, they will be limited in their degree and extent.

112. From Brogden, the lighting columns around the A20 roundabout and the Biffa waste

containers are currently visible, as are the HGVs passing along the A20. The roofs and upper

parts of the new buildings will be visible from Brogden, but will be a relatively small element

within a wide, expansive view. For these reasons, Mr Etchells concludes that the visual

effects will be no more that minor to moderate.100 The roof colour and design will mean that

there will be no disturbing reflection from the sun. The concern about reflectivity of solar

panels on the roofs of the buildings is misplaced, given that solar panels with matt finishes

can be used to prevent any reflection of the sun and would be used on the small roof areas of

the office component of the buildings only.

113. From Leeds Castle, visitors exiting the site will have a fleeting view of the

development as they come round the corner to exit the car park, but this will disappear from

100 Proof of Mr Etchells, paragraph 6.4.5, third bullet point

33

view as soon as they turn left or right out onto the lane. The effect has been assessed by Mr

Etchells to be minor to moderate adverse. He has also acknowledged a minor adverse effect

from the car park itself. There will be a moderate adverse effect on the view from the 5 th tee

of the golf course, but only a short distance away the view is lost. Even Mr Green describes

views of the appeal site from the car park and golf course as ‘glimpses’ and assesses the

impact on receptors at Leeds Castle to be minor/moderate adverse by year 1.101 Despite Mr

Lash’s evidence to the contrary, it is clear (and undoubtedly sensible) that members of the

public are discouraged from wandering onto the golf course. Mr Etchells produced a

photograph of a sign at the castle prohibiting pedestrian access to the golf course and Mr

Green acknowledges in his proof that the golf course is not normally accessible to general

visitors.102 Twilight golf takes place on the golf course in the evenings, which means that

members of the public would not be likely to wander around the golf course during daylight

hours. The public footpath in the castle grounds lies considerably lower than the 5 th tee, and it

is accepted by all parties that there would be no views of the proposed buildings from that

footpath. While Mr Lash suggested that there was an additional viewpoint which should have

been considered, Mr Etchells explained that he had considered the viewpoint from the public

footpath to the north east of the cricket field, but did not believe there would be any effect on

it as a result of the proposed development. He had agreed with Mr Russell-Vick that this

viewpoint should not be included as part of the visual impact assessment. None of the

professional landscape witnesses to this inquiry have suggested that the viewpoint should

have been included.

114. It is not in dispute that the new buildings would be present in views from parts of the

North Downs Way as it passes between Thurnham Castle and Hollingbourne. There is,

however, a dispute between the parties as to the extent of the views between Broad Street and

Hollingbourne. Mr Russell-Vick contends that there are open expansive views for 2.5km of

that stretch of footpath, whereas Mr Etchells says that the proposed development would only

be visible in some 1.6km of that stretch of footpath. Mr Etchells’ evidence is that while the

new buildings would be discernible in those views at least 2.5km away, they would represent

a small component of wide, expansive views, including of Maidstone, which already contain

a number of discordant elements, including the motorway, two railway lines and large

expanses of polytunnels. They would not represent a ‘wide arc’ in views from the North

Downs, as suggested by Mr Green. Mr Etchells explained that by using a protractor to

measure the site on an Ordnance Survey map, it occupied a view of only 8 degrees out of

total of 360 degrees. Overall, the visual impact on users of the North Downs Way would be

101 Proof of Mr Green, paragraph 7.24 and table on page 63102 Proof of Mr Green, paragraph 7.24

34

insignificant. While the new buildings would be discernible, they would not significantly

change the view.

AONB:

115. The proposed development will be visible from parts of the AONB and can therefore

be said to fall within the setting of the AONB following the decision of the High Court in

Stroud v SSCLG.

116. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF provides that great weight should be given to conserving

landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs and Mr Buckwell accepted that the scenic beauty of

AONBs could be affected by development outside of the AONB boundary, such that

paragraph 115 would apply.

117. In the overall planning balance therefore great weight must be given to the

conservation of the landscape and scenic beauty of the North Downs AONB, as Mr Buckwell

has done.103 The Inspector must also have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing

the natural beauty of the AONB, in accordance with s.85 of the Countryside and Rights of

Way Act 2000. Regard must also be had to the AONB Management Plan as a material

consideration. However, when the Inspector comes to balance the harm against the benefits of

the proposed development, we invite her to to accept Mr Etchells’ judgment that any harm to

the AONB is insignificant.

118. The insignificant harm to the AONB, even when it is accorded great weight, does not

outweigh, let alone significantly and demonstrably outweigh, the benefits of this scheme.

Valued Landscapes:

119. The AONB and the Registered Park and Garden at Leeds Castle are both valued

landscapes, to which paragraph 109 of the NPPF applies. That paragraph provides that the

planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by,

among other things, protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.

120. Given that Mr Etchells has identified harm in the context of the valued AONB and

RPG, there is some conflict with paragraph 109, but the harm to the former is negligible or

insignificant in views from the AONB and there is only a slightly greater degree of harm in

one view from the RPG. Moreover, as Mr Buckwell observed, it cannot have been the

government’s intention that paragraph 109 should be used to prevent all development which

can be seen from valued landscapes such as AONBs – which in this case would cover an area 103 As confirmed in his cross examination by Mr Cameron, and his rebuttal proof at paragraph 1.3.17

35

of some 20 miles - where the harm that would be caused to those valued landscapes is

negligible.

Heritage assets

121. Mr Handcock has carried out a careful assessment of the impact of the proposed

development on the significance of heritage assets. He is the only heritage expert to have

given evidence at this inquiry and, in our submission, considerable weight should be accorded

to his professional judgments. Mr Green has attempted to address the Council’s heritage case

on Old Mill Farm, but he is a landscape expert with no particular qualifications or expertise in

heritage assessments, and this was apparent from his proof, which focused on the visual

impacts of the development rather than properly assessing effects on significance.104

122. The concerns raised by the LPA and CPRE Kent are limited to three particular

heritage assets – Old Mill Farm, Leeds Castle and the Brogden group of buildings.

123. Old Mill Farm105 is a non-designated heritage asset. It sits within the deep valley of

the River Len and is well screened generally, albeit visible in views from the south, and as a

result of its tight setting, it derives little significance from its wider setting. The contribution

of the appeal site to the setting of this asset is relatively limited in that it is not possible to

experience the interrelationship between the Old Mill Farm and the site from the immediate

vicinity of the asset because of the steep change in levels between them, and the heavily

planted nature of the appeal site’s southern boundary.106 From the asset group itself, there will

only be very limited intervisibility with the proposed buildings by virtue of the existing

landform and the significant intervening planting, both existing and proposed and the effect

on the tight, isolated feel of Old Mill Farm’s immediate setting will be extremely slight.107 In

views from Brogden, the appeal site can be seen as the backdrop to Old Mill Farm, and to this

extent Mr Handcock recognises that the appeal site does make something of a contribution to

the asset.108 However, the proposed development will appear as a discrete feature in these

views - a thin sliver of development within a wider landscape view – although Mr Handcock

acknowledges that in focused views, the appeal buildings would provide a more modernised

backdrop to Old Mill Farm and that this would result in some, limited harm to the non-

designated heritage assets.109 104 See paragraphs 8.13 – 8.15 of Mr Green’s proof, where he assesses the impact of the proposed development, referring to his ‘visual impact assessment’, the development being ‘visually dominating’ and having ‘an impact on views’ and an ‘adverse effect on views’105 And the millpond and site of the former mill106 Proof of Mr Handcock, paragraph 5.35107 Proof of Mr Handcock, paragraph 5.55108 Proof of Mr Handcock, paragraph 5.36109 Proof of Mr Handcock, paragraph 5.56

36

124. In respect of Leeds Castle and its Registered Park and Garden, it is Mr Handcock’s

view that these assets have a predominantly inward-looking character, containing a series of

substantial bowls, particularly around the Castle itself. Mr Russell-Vick, in his landscape

assessment, appears to agree, describing Leeds Castle as ‘set within a bowl-like landform and

further contained by woodland to all sides except the south’110. Mr Handcock explained in his

written and oral evidence that the primary setting of Leeds Castle is its Registered Park and

Garden and that although the appeal site lies within the wider setting of the Castle and RPG it

does not make any contribution to the significance of those assets and the proposed

development would not harm their significance. While the new buildings would be visible

from the fifth tee of the golf course, they would be unobtrusive aspects, discernible some

1.5km away but largely screened by the existing mature vegetation and seen in the context of

other modern features such as Woodcut Farm and the M20. The nature of the view, and the

experience of the divide between the well-defined RPG and its more heavily modernised

surroundings, will remain unaltered.

125. Mr Handcock considered the approach to Leeds Castle to be urbanised, and on this he

amplified in cross-examination by Mr Knox-Johnston. The introduction of the proposed

development would be a change, but it would not affect the character of the area, which

currently provides a markedly different, and more modern context to that within the Castle’s

grounds. The new buildings would be apparent to visitors leaving Leeds Castle, but any views

of them would be experienced in conjunction with views of the Mercure Great Danes hotel

and would be shortlived. The manner in which the view would be experienced is relevant and

as Mr Handcock pointed out, the view from the Castle entrance would be viewed as a glimpse

as people left the Castle, almost always from a car or coach. It would not effect the character

of the Castle’s setting.

126. In Mr Handcock’s professional judgment, the proposed development will not harm

Leeds Castle or its Registered Park and Garden.

127. From the listed buildings at Brogden there would be some views of the proposed

development at a distance of around 1km. The wider setting of the Brogden buildings is

largely rural, and views from the north do make something of a contribution towards

understanding of this group of assets. However, urban features are discernible in views from

Brogden at all times of the year, including the road signage along the A20 and M20 and the

street lighting along the A20 and the noise from those busy roads111. As part of a wide set of

views – Mr Handcock describes the views from Brogden as almost panoramic112 - that include

110 Proof of Mr Russell Vick, paragraph 4.20111 Proof of Mr Handcock, paragraph 5.29 – 5.30112 Proof of Mr Handcock, paragra[h 5.32

37

some modern influences, the appeal site makes only a limited contribution to the significance

of the Brogden assets113. As a result of the design approach, including the regrading of the

site, the colouring and curved form of the roof, the proposed development will sit comfortably

into the existing view and will not alter the character of the view from Brogden or represent a

harmful introduction into the landscape.114 Mr Handcock does not consider that the

introduction of the proposed development would harm the significance of the Brogden assets.

128. We invite you to accept Mr Handcock’s professional and well-considered judgment

that the appeal proposals will not harm the listed Leeds Castle and RPG or the listed Brogden

buildings. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

provides that ‘In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which

affects a listed building or its setting, the […] Secretary of State shall have special regard to

the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special

architectural or historic interest which it possesses’. If a proposed development ‘affects’ a

listed building or its setting, then section 66 will be engaged, and the effect of s.66 is that if a

proposed development will cause harm to a listed building or its setting, then that harm must

be accorded considerable importance and weight. In the present case, however, there will be

no harm to the setting or significance of any listed building. The only harm identified by Mr

Handock is to the limited harm to the non-designated Old Mill Farm. With reference to

paragraph 135 of the NPPF, the effect of the proposed development on Old Mill Farm must

be taken into account in determining this appeal, but the harm to this non-designated heritage

asset is limited and clearly less than substantial. [CHW added orally with ref to RK-J closing

re: Old England Cottage – 1) Not part of CPRE case and 2) in any event addressed by LH IN

HIS ASSESSMENT/Proof.]

Other objections

KIG:

129. It was apparent during the inquiry the campaign of local opposition to the scheme had

drawn on fears that this scheme amounted to a return of the Kent International Gateway

(KIG) development, refused permission by the Secretary of State in 2010. As Mr Buckwell

explained in his evidence in chief, comparison to the KIG development is not appropriate and

it unlikely to be helpful to the Inspector, given the significant differences in both the

development proposed and the policy context. Even a brief consideration of the KIG

development reveals that it bears no comparison to the development proposed in this appeal.

113 Proof of Mr Handcock, paragraph 5.31114 Proof of Mr Handcock, paragraph 5.50

38

130. First, the KIG proposal was for a very substantial Strategic Rail Freight Interchange

rather than for B1, B2 and B8 development. The KIG appeal site was some seven times larger

that the appeal site. It was 2.5km wide and stretched all the way from Junction 8 to the

borders of Bearstead.

131. Secondly, the impacts of the scheme were entirely different, the KIG scheme being

wholly different in nature and scale. As the Inspector in that case explained, people travelling

along the M20 would lose all sense of being in the countryside if the KIG development took

place.115 Similarly, the effect on the views from the AONB was obviously different. Also, the

use of the KIG site was to be far more intrusive in its surroundings. In addition to the

movement of trains in and out of the site, the proposal was for a number of large buildings

and permanent cranes on the site, loading and unloading goods from trains, as well as the

noise associated with shunting trains.

132. Thirdly, the policy context has changed significantly since the KIG decision, not least

because of the introduction of the NPPF, with its presumption in favour of sustainable

development and greater focus on securing economic growth through the planning system.

133. In response to Mr Knox Johnston’s question in his opening statement about what had

changed since KIG, the answer is very clearly that many things have changed. One thing

which has not changed is the existence and importance of the AONB, but this is not a matter

which the Appellants have never sought to dispute.

Prematurity:

134. This is not a matter raised by the LPA in its reason for refusal, and nor has it sought

to pursue any such argument as part of this appeal. That is of significance, since prematurity

is an issue that pre-eminently affects the LPA in its role in progressing the draft local plan.

135. Mr Carpenter raised the matter in his proof of evidence. This was some surprise since

there is no reference to the issues in the KCC/R6s’ Statement of Case. When criticised for

raising an issue that was not part of his client’s case, the inquiry was referred by Mr Cameron

to a some reference to prematurity in an AONB Unit’s representation on the planning

applications, but not to any such representation by KCC or Natural England. The fact that

prematurity was not an issue raised by KCC or NE in their earlier representations and the fact

that the issue, having been raised by the AONB Unit in its earlier representations but then

omitted from the Statement of Case, clearly implies that when the KCC/R6 parties came to

formulate their case for the purposes of the appeal, they recognised the weakness of the point

and decided not to pursue it. Notwithstanding this, Mr Carpenter, apparently with a roaming

115 CD34, paragraph 18.33

39

brief, sought to raise the argument in his proof of evidence. Mr Lloyd (for CPRE Kent) also

raised a prematurity argument.

136. The contention that the appeal scheme applications are premature is misconceived.

137. The NPPG makes it clear that “in the context of the Framework and in particular the

presumption in favour of sustainable development – arguments that an application is

premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear

that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh the benefits”116. It goes on to explain that such circumstances are likely, albeit not

exclusively, to be limited to situations where (a) the development proposed is so substantial,

or its cumulative effect so significant, that to grant planning permission would undermine the

plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new

development “and” (b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage. Although neither Mr

Carpenter or Mr Lloyd had properly considered the second element of the NPPG (indeed, Mr

Lloyd’s proof of evidence did not even refer to the NPPG in this context) both the KCC/R6s

and CPRE Kent accept that the emerging plan is not at an advanced stage117; Mr Carpenter

and Mr Lloyd should have acknowledged that on this basis the guidance does not support

their arguments. Their refuge in cross-examination was to seize upon the words “not

exclusively” and say that the NPPG allows for exceptions to the general rule that both criteria

must be satisfied in order to justify a refusal on prematurity ground. However, there was

absolutely no explanation from either of them as to why this should be regarded as an

exceptional case. Mr Lloyd’s approach appeared to be that the scale of the proposal is

“strategic”. Mr Cameron sought to develop the argument in cross-examination of Mr

Buckwell by referring to the “substantial” nature of the proposals and employment provison

in the plan period, but that is clearly not enough to justify an exception; that is merely say that

criterion (a) is satisfied. Having regard to the Government’s policy edict of keeping plans up

to date, the appallingly slow progress of the emerging plan and the significant economic

needs that are not being met in Maidstone there can be no exceptional case here for refusal on

grounds of prematurity.

138. The Local Plan has been in preparation for over ten years. The Regulation 18

consultation draft published in February 2014 did not allocate Junction 8 for employment, but

more recent evidence has led MBC’s officers to conclude that the balance is now in favour of

allocating Junction 8 and the Planning Scrutiny and Overview Committee has resolved in

principle to support such an allocation. In cross-examination Mr Lloyd recognised that this

may mean that the draft Local Plan has to be revised. In any event, timescales even for the

116 NPPG, paragraph 014117 This was made clear in cross-examination.

40

next stage in the preparation process (let alone the adoption of the Plan) are wholly uncertain.

In those circumstances, prematurity is not a tenable argument.

Precedent:

139. On behalf of CPRE Kent it is argued that allowing the appeals would create a

precedent that would result in further development at Junction 8. It is by no means inevitable

that any other proposals for development at Junction 8 will warrant a grant of planning

permission just because the balance falls in favour of allowing these appeals. In our

submission, these appeals must be determined on their own merits, weighing their particular

benefits against any harm, as accepted by Mr Lloyd in his proof of evidence.118

Traffic matters:

140. In relation to traffic matters, DHA Transport has carried out a comprehensive and

robust assessment which was not subject to any criticism. The scope of the assessment was

agreed with the Highways Agency and KCC Highways in advance. The Transport

Assessment included detailed trip forecasts and traffic modelling which show that the

development will not result in significant traffic increases on local roads or the wider

Maidstone area.

141. Concerns raised by CPRE Kent that material could not be removed from the site

within the timescales or vehicle movements assessed in the environmental statement are

unfounded. Concerns that the HGVs would travel through Leeds Village were similarly

misplaced. HGVs will travel via the M20. The 20t tippers which will be used to transport the

material have a total laden weight of 32t, and cannot use the B2163 through Leeds Village

because of the 17t weight restriction, which applies to the total laden weight of the vehicle.

142. In answer to criticisms about the traffic surveys, Mr Lewis (for the Appellants)

explained that it was not good practice to carry out traffic surveys during school holidays.

Department for Transport data indicates that there is a reduction in the number of vehicles on

the road of 20% during school holidays, and this accords with Mr Lewis’ professional

judgment. It was for this reason that surveys were not taken during July or August, and both

KCC Highways and the HA agreed to the date of the surveys. While the number of visitors to

Leeds Castle may increase during July and August, the overall traffic would be lower.

143. CPRE Kent also expressed a concern about the level of parking on site. This concern

too is not justified. The Transport Assessment clearly shows that sufficient car parking has

been provided.

118 Proof of Mr Lloyd, paragraph 2.9

41

144. It is not in dispute that Leeds Castle is required to put in place a traffic management

plan when it hosts major events, but the plan submitted by Mr Lash indicates that at the peak

period, 3,500 vehicles exit the Castle in a half hour period, far in excess of the peak traffic

from the proposed development. The major events at Leeds Castle are few and far between

and generally take place at weekends. The proposed development will not materially affect

traffic conditions during those events, and of course neither KCC Highways not Highways

England has expressed any concern in this regard.

145. With respect to Operation Stack, this is an exceptional and infrequent occurrence,

over which the Appellant have no control. While it is certainly inconvenient when it is put in

place, the proposed development will not exacerbate the inconvenience. [CHW added orally

ref RK-J Closing (KCC letter 20/1/2015) – JB given no opportunity to see or respond to letter

and in any event not relevant as in the context of the Local Plan and advising on the

deliberation of housing sites.]

Tourism:

146. In relation to tourism, there is simply no evidence that the proposed development will

have any impact on tourism. The ES submitted with the application concludes that the

proposed development will not adversely affect visitor numbers nor tourism related

businesses.

147. Mr Lash sought to persuade you that tourists would be put off visiting Leeds Castle in

their droves because they would have to drive past Waterside Park. With respect to him, it is

not credible to suggest that visitors will be put off visiting the Castle because of the existence

of the Waterside Park development. There is similarly no credible case that the proposed

developments will have a detrimental effect on the wider tourist trade.

PROW:

148. It is accepted that public footpath KH181 will need to be diverted and its context

changed. However, the footpath is not well used at present. The diverted route would run

within a green corridor around the western perimeter of the site, with a hedge proposed to

screen views into the site from the footpath. At present, the only way to access the northern

part of the footpath is by walking along the busy A20 dual carriageway. The principal

concern raised by Mr Smith was that pedestrians would have to cross the access road into the

site in order to reach the footpath. However, the proposed access arrangements to the site,

which include a pedestrian island in the centre of the access road, do not provide any safety

risk to pedestrians. This was not a matter which caused any concern to KCC’s public rights of

way team (or the highways authority), who did not object to the Appeal A application, and

said in respect of the Appeal B application that it considered the diversion to be entirely

42

appropriate and would fully support it.119 The LPA’s planning officer considered that the new

route would only extend the length of the route marginally, and would not be unsafe.

Agricultural land:

149. It is acknowledged that there will be some, but very limited, loss of best and most

versatile agricultural land. However, as Mr Buckwell explained, much of the undeveloped

land around Maidstone is BMV and it is almost inevitable that some good quality agricultural

land will be lost if Maidstone’s employment and housing needs are to be met. It is of note that

the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land did not form part of the LPA’s reasons for

refusing permission for either application.

Air quality:

150. An assessment of the potential air quality impacts of the proposed development has

been undertaken in accordance with the EPUK guidance and the findings are set out in

Chapter 12 of the ES. The assessment found that the increases in nitrogen dioxide and

particulate matter (PM10) were, at worst, 0.2 micrograms per cubic metre of air and 0.02

micrograms per cubic metre respectively. The EPUK Guidance ‘Planning for Air Quality’

(2010) indicates that increases in nitrogen oxide and PM10 of less than 0.4micrograms should

be treated as imperceptible. The impact of the development will be less than that level and

imperceptible.

Water quality:

151. The impact of the proposed development on water quality in the local water courses

and water features will be negligible. The ES concludes that there will be no net change to the

existing hydrological regime as a result of the proposed development, and neither Kent

Wildlife Trust, the Environment Agency or Natural England object to the development on the

basis of water quality or ecological grounds. Contrary to Cllr Harwood’s assertion, this is not

because they know nothing of the local conditions, but rather because they are satisfied that

no harm will be caused by the development. Good site practice and the installation of

protection measures will prevent any discharge from the site to the adjacent watercourses and

Kent Wildlife Trust is satisfied that ground conditions mitigate the risk of harmful water level

fluctuations in the River Len.

152. Mr Warren (on behalf of CPRE) correctly records the fact that the EA opposes any

development which constitutes a threat to high value aquifers. In this case, mitigation has

been proposed to prevent contamination of the aquifer, and the EA has not objected to the

proposed development. Conditions were discussed at the inquiry and CPRE Kent made no

119 Officer’s report, CD51

43

comments on the proposed conditions. There is no evidence or reason to doubt the efficacy of

those conditions and control mechanisms.

Foul sewage:

153. The disposal of foul drainage is considered in the Flood Risk Assessment submitted

with the applications, which states that a connection could be made to a foul sewer, or a

sewage treatment plant could be constructed on site. The details of the foul drainage system

would be controlled by condition requiring the submission to and approval by the local

planning authority of a detailed scheme for the disposal of foul water, before any

development can commence on site, in order to protect groundwater and the River Len.

Planning balance and conclusion

154. In order to benefit from the presumption in paragraph 14 of the NPPF the proposed

development must be sustainable. That is common ground. Whether or not it is sustainable

development is determined by reference to the three dimensions of sustainable development

set out in paragraph 7 of the NPPF and the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.120

155. Mr Buckwell confirmed that having had regard to the NPPF policies as a whole, he

had reached the conclusion that the proposed development is sustainable.121 We invite you to

accept that conclusion and his assessment of the relative harms and benefits of the scheme in

determining this appeal. Not only was his evidence a fair and reliable assessment of all

material considerations, but his judgments were properly arrived at.

156. We cannot do justice to Mr Buckwell’s comprehensive evidence on this matter within

the confines of this closing statement but we say as follows. There is no serious dispute

between the parties as to the significant economic benefits to the local economy that will

accrue if either of the appeals is allowed. That is why Maidstone BC’s Economic

Development Committee, the Kent Invicta Chamber of Commerce and the UK Trade and

Investment Department all support the applications. As a result of delays in securing a

suitable local site, Maidstone has lost a significant element of one of its valued businesses, but

there remains a qualitative and quantitative need for employment buildings to meet market

demand. Waterside Park would serve that need. It would also support a strong and vibrant

community through the retention of an important local company which provides a significant

number of much needed local jobs. Strong communities clearly rely on employment

opportunities. So do local economies, and the Maidstone economy is in need of significant

strengthening. Relevant to the social aspect of sustainability, the proposed development

120 NPPF paragraph 6121 See his proof of evidence and in particular section 11

44

includes the provision of a significant number of jobs and the on site companies themselves

will support local communities as well as providing the more site specific social facilities

such as the minibus services and canteen and crèche facilities for the benefit of its staff. In

terms of environmental matters, whilst there are some limited negative impacts, which the

Appellants have acknowledged, the proposals have been designed to high BREAM rating

levels and include various environmental improvement aspects such as SUDS, landscape (eg

extensive new planting) and biodiversity enhancement provision. The officer’s report

recognises that there is also an environmental benefit in locating this development close to the

motorway junction, thereby reducing the movement of HGVs along unsuitable local roads

and through Maidstone town centre.122 [CHW added orally ref KCC/R6 Closing para 77

(sustainable development) – consistent with witnesses’ evidence in that it ignores economic

dimension. Conclusion that it cannot be considered sust. reached without looking at one

dimension completely and not taking policies as a whole. Ref MBC Closing paras 38-40

(Sustainable development) – ref to Wenman case and ‘sensible view’ relates to a particular

case (see Wenman para 77-78) – ref to Dartford case and sust. Requiring a balance to be

made. SW seizes on negatives and asserts it cannot be considered sust. Wrong in law, wrong

in logic and wrong in merits. Bloor Homes case – particular facts appear to be Green Wedge

with no other forces weighing in determination.

157. It has been said that the appeal site would be inaccessible except by private car and

that this renders it unsustainable. This is not true. There is a bus stop within 400m of the site’s

entrance which provides an hourly bus service to Maidstone and Ashford between 7am and

7pm and Bearstead is within walking distance of the site.123 The Appellants are committed to

the provision of a shuttle bus for its staff, which will be used by a local charity outside of

peak hours. Of course some people will choose to drive to the site, but this is inevitable given

that the industrial use proposed would not be appropriate within or immediately adjacent to

residential areas. The NPPF recognises that different policies and measures will be required

and that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban

and rural areas124 and says that decisions should consider whether opportunities for

sustainable transport modes have been taken up, depending on the nature and location of the

site125. It also provides that developments should be located and designed to accommodate the

efficient delivery of good and supplies126, which is an important feature of the proposed

development. Looking at the policies in the NPPF as a whole, including its policies on

122 CD51, paragraph 8.125123 In compliance with polich T21 of the Local Plan 2000, which as Mr Buckwell said is in any event out of date with the NPPF124 NPPF paragraph 29125 NPPF paragraph 32126 NPPF paragraph 35

45

sustainable transport, this development cannot said to be unsustainable by virtue of its

location.

158. It is acknowledged that there will be some harm to the landscape and to non-

designated heritage assets as a result of the development. Mr Buckwell has carried out a

balancing exercise, fairly weighing the harm against the benefits of the scheme in section 11

of his proof of evidence and has concluded that the adverse impacts do not significantly and

demonstrably outweigh the benefits, and that the appeal should be allowed. In his evidence in

chief he also confirmed that even if policy ENV28 was not out of date and the weighted

presumption in paragraph 14 of the NPPF did not apply, the very significant benefits of

allowing this scheme would outweigh any conflict with the development plan and the adverse

impacts such that permission should be granted.

159. We invite you to find that policy ENV28 is out of date, that the proposed

development is sustainable and that paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies. In our submission the

limited harm caused by the development does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh

the benefits of the development; rather the opposite is true – the benefits of allowing the

appeals significantly outweigh the harm. As such, we invite you to allow the appeals.

Craig Howell Williams QC

Isabella Tafur

FTB Chambers

21st May 2015

46