Back to list

Date submitted

3 Sep 2025

Submitted by

Interested Party

The Border Facility lies within the setting of the KDNL. The NPPG on natural environment specifically recognises that ‘Land within the setting of these areas often makes an important contribution to maintaining their natural beauty, and where poorly located or designed development can do significant harm. This is especially the case where long views from or to the designated landscape are identified as important, or where the landscape character of land within and adjoining the designated area is complementary’ (my emphasis), as is the case in the Kent Downs, where views from the escarpment were a fundamental reason behind the designation of the landscape as an AONB and where such views are still recognised today as one of the Kent Downs special qualities. The Border Facility is visible from an extensive tract of the North Downs escarpment, within Kent Downs National Landscape, where it appears as an incongruous and industrial intrusion into the landscape, and has resulted in a deterioration of the views, from one of the most visited parts of the KDNL, where there are several promoted viewpoints and including for users of the North Downs Way National Trail, acknowledged to be highly sensitive receptors, given that their attention is focused on views out from the escarpment. The Facility also results in night time impacts to the KDNL from the extensive lighting scheme associated, that extends across a significant area and is highly visible from the KDNL. These impacts are exacerbated by the lighting remaining switched on through the night, but also impact on duller day time views and at dawn and dusk when the lighting is also visible and extends lighting associated with other urban development at Ashford also visible from the KDNL further to the east and closer to the KDNL boundary. The NPPF (paragraph 189) requires proposals within the setting of Protected Landscapes to be “sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas”. We do not consider the proposal has been sensitively located or designed to comply with this requirement. The siting of the main buildings, so they are located face-on or on a horizontal alignment to the main views from the KDNL exacerbates impacts. Furthermore, the pale grey colour of the buildings is particularly harmful and significantly exacerbates the impacts; the pale grey colour contrasts strongly with the mainly darker hues of the surrounding natural vegetation and draws the eye to the development, making it much more prominent than if a darker cladding and roofing material had been used. The assessment of the LVIA, as set out at Table 41 that “Due to the distance of this viewpoint to the Development and the dense tree and hedge coverage within the wider landscape the recreational users of North Downs Way will experience no views of the Development” is factually incorrect and therefore the assessed Magnitude of Change and Likely Significance of Effect for Viewpoint 12 is also strongly contested by the KDNL team. Other errors in the LVIA such as the incorrect grid reference for the Viewpoint and the Assessment incorrectly identifying the application site on the submitted photographs, also draw into question the reliability of this Assessment. As such, it is our contention that the findings of the Assessment in respect of impacts to the KDNL should either be disregarded or the LVIA corrected, including with the substitution of photographs that should be taken in conditions of clear visibility. Given the impacts to the KDNL identified above, it is our conclusion that the proposal neither conserves nor enhances the natural beauty of the Kent Downs National Landscape, and is in conflict with paragraph 189 of the NPPF. It is also our assessment that the proposal fails to comply with Policies ENV3b of Ashford’s Local Plan. ENV3b requires proposal’s location, form, scale, materials and design to conserve and where appropriate enhance or restore the character of the landscape, for development to enhance the special qualities, distinctive character and tranquillity of the AONB and to have regard to the relevant management plan and any associated guidance; the proposal fails to meets these requirements. The proposal is also in conflict with the aims and objectives of the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan and in particular principles SD3, SD7, SD8, SD10, SD11 and SD12. It also fails to take account of the guidance provided in the KDNL Position Statement on Setting. Should the principle of the development be found to be acceptable, in order to address the above identified harm to the KDNL, and to comply with the requirements of local and national policy, it is recommended that appropriate mitigation is incorporated into the development. In addition, all measures to reduce the impacts of the lighting scheme should be implemented. Additional planting is unlikely to be effective in assisting in ameliorating impacts in views from the KDNL, as the buildings would remain visible above any planting along the north boundary of the site, due to the higher topography of the views from the KDNL. It is therefore recommended that the existing roofing materials and external cladding to the north face of the buildings is changed to a much darker tone, which should be informed by reference to the Kent Downs Guidance on the Selection and use of colour in development. This would result in a significant reduction in the impact of the built facility in views from the KDNL. Such a requirement would also help demonstrate compliance, for both the Applicant and Planning Inspectorate, with the new Protected Landscapes Duty. Defra Guidance published on the duty confirms that it is applicable to proposals impacting on the setting of a protected landscape and advises that aspects such as dark skies or “long views from and into the Protected Landscape may draw upon the landscape character and quality of the setting. The Guidance also sets out 3 Kent Downs AONB Guidance on the selection and use of colour in development that “development management decisions affecting a Protected Landscape, a relevant authority should seek to further the purposes of the Protected Landscape - in so doing, the relevant authority should consider whether such measures can be embedded in the design of plans and proposals, where reasonably practical and operationally feasible”. We would welcome the opportunity to supplement these comments with an additional, fully referenced response and provide visual material to illustrate the points we make. We would also wish to speak at any hearing.

Attachment(s)

• (PDF, 771 KB) (opens in new window)