Panattoni Warehousing: 25/00599/PA

Panattoni Proposals to build 12,350m² of B1/B2/B8 Warehousing, Heavy industry and Distribution on an area of hard standing previously owned by Marley Tiles, London Road, TN15 7RW

“Planning reference 25/00599: Full planning application for demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the Site to provide 2no. warehouse buildings (Units 1a – 1d for B8 Use and Units 2 and 3 for flexible B2 (general industrial) /B8 (storage and distribution) Use), with ancillary office space and associated access, servicing, parking and landscaping”

Current Situation, as of 17.05.25

As word spread about this huge local industrial development proposal then around 25 objections were lodged in the last two weeks, our thanks to everyone for taking the time to put pen to paper.

WPC has now submitted its substantial objections, as lodged by our professional advisors Highgate Planning and Lanpro Landscape Architects. In addition, WPC has been working closely with the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), of which we are a Member and the Kent Downs National Landscape Unit (KDNL).

All these organisations have brought different expertise to the table and as a result we have a collaborative effort that presents a very strong case as to why the Panattoni proposals for the Marley site are miss-conceived in this location. It involves significant tree clearance, will destroy local wildlife and has excessive lighting through the night.

There is nothing wrong with the Panattoni proposal per se, just the location. The scale, massing and height is inappropriate next to National Landscape areas, in the Green Belt, next to residential and community use facilities. Especially because it is advocating B2 heavy industrial uses, running 24 hours a day and seven days a week. Residents would not hear themselves think and without respite, day or night!

Please take the time to read the various expert objections at the end of this page.

————————————————————————————————–

 

 1.0 Over Development

1.1 The site is in the greenbelt and within the adjacent setting of National Landscape to the north and west. Panattoni plans indicate over 12,000m² of B1/B2 & B8 Warehousing and Distribution development up to 14m high. This quantum of warehousing makes significant landscape mitigation impossible as there simply is not the space. Many of the conclusions made on Landscape Visual Impacts rely on the existing tree coverage around the perimeter of the site, much of this lies outside of the application site and is therefore outside of the control of the applicant. Overall, the amount of landscape mitigation within the site, is wholly inadequate to effectively protect views from the National Landscape.

1.2 The size and massing of the buildings are huge, towering over and dwarfing the existing buildings in the Invicta Business Park. They would cause great harm to the openness of the Green Belt and therefore the proposal is inappropriate development in a planning context. There are alternative sites for high B1/B2 & B8 warehouses like Panattoni Aylesford which don’t have the planning constraints of this location.

2.0 24/7 Hours of Operation

2.1 Historically the site had unregulated hours of working, primarily because Marley did not operate out of hours. This proposal is completely different, multiple units, operating adjacent to residential development and 31m away from the grounds of a listed building with a successful hospitality business, that will have detrimental effects on the amenity value of the adjacent areas.

2.2 The over intensity of B1/B2 & B8 use operating 24/7 would have a devastating effect on ambient light and tranquillity on highly sensitive local receptors. It is therefore critical that normal operating hours are imposed on any intensification of use, over and above the use made during Marley Tiles occupation.

 3.0 Use Class B2 – General Industrial, in addition to B1/B8 in other units

3.1 Units 2 & 3 incorporate extensive open service yards and are additionally to have B2 Industrial uses, typically manufacturing in nature and includes any industrial processes that would benefit from continuous operation, 24/7 days a week. Such hours of working would encourage a more intensive manufacturing type industry requiring vehicle ingress and egress throughout the day and night.

3.2 These types of uses are incompatible with residential areas and a listed hotel, restaurant and wedding venue in close proximity. They are prone to be detrimental to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit. Refer to Figure 2 above.

4.0 Harm to the Setting of the Moat Restaurant and Hotel, a Grade II Listed Building

4.1 The Moat is a successful restaurant, hotel and wedding venue with its 16^th Century oak framed barn with hipped plain tiled roof and 17^th Century chimney stacks. The open Service Yard of Unit 2, a B1/B2 & B8 proposed building, is only 31m away from the grounds of the Listed Building. There is no intervening built development and precious little landscape mitigation between the two open Service Yards of Units 2 & 3 and the Listed Wedding Venue.

4.2 If consented, there would be great harm to the setting of the Listed Building for the following reasons: –

1. Introduction of an incongruous modern factory and warehouse development so close by.
2. The unsightly backdrop of the towering and over bearing warehouse and factory.
3. Loss of light and outlook to the venue from the sheer scale of the new buildings.
4. Noise, activity and light pollution affecting guests and residents through the day and throughout the night from the factories and from the open Service Yards.
5. Loss of revenue to a valued community facility as a result of all of the above. This will adversely impact the public interest in the venue as a wedding and general hospitality business with overnight accommodation for wedding guests.
6. This in turn could harm its long-term viability and could result in closure. There are very few alternative uses for such a building in this location and closure would be seriously harmful to the long-term prospects of the Listed building.

5.0 Harm to Views from Local and National Footpaths

5.1 The height of the proposal and lack of landscape mitigation will have devastating impacts on views from local PROWS MR242, MR245 and MR247. In addition, the Golden Nob Viewing Point, owned by the National Trust, is immediately to the north near the top of the chalk scarp with a wonderful panoramic view of the Holmesdale Valley with the ‘Panattoni Wrotham’ site, centre stage. Refer to Figure 3 above.

6.0 Local and National Policy

6.1 National policy is relevant to development in the immediate setting of NL as follows: –

“The scale and extent of development within all these designated areas should be limited, while development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas.” Paragraph 189 NPPF₂₄

The height, extreme overall massing and sheer scale of the built development proposal within a constrained site area is contrary to the objective of sensitivity and minimising adverse impacts.

6.2 The inclusion of B2 industrial development with large open Service Yards operating 24/7 close to residential development and directly impacting the setting of a Listed Building is contrary to the objective of sensitivity and minimising adverse impacts.

6.3 National Policy, as set out in Paragraph 155, also requires the applicant to demonstrate the need for the development; the sustainability of the location; and that the proposal does not fundamentally undermine green belt purposes (taken together), across the plan. The proposal is contrary to this policy for the following reasons: –

1. Panattoni Aylesford have demonstrated that it is possible to fulfil need in more appropriate and less constrained sites within the borough.
2. The Oakdene Business Park B1/B8 site down the road has at least one unit unlet after 4 years of active marketing, post completion.
3. The applicant has not put forward a compelling alternative site investigation.
4. There is no public transport to the site for employees or customers.
5. The huge scale and massing of the proposal, next to sensitive receptors, operating 24/7 hours with B1/B2 & B8 use and in the close setting of the NL, fundamentally undermines green belt purposes in this location and across the plan area.

6.4 Paragraph 214 of the NPPF₂₄ advises that where development will lead to substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, like The Moat for example, then the LPA should refuse consent.

6.5 Policy CP26 of the TMBC core strategy sets out that “Proposals for development that would result in the loss in whole or part of sites and premises currently or last used for the provision of community services or recreation, leisure or cultural facilities will only be proposed in the LDF or otherwise permitted if a significant enhancement to the nature and quality of an existing facility will result from the development of part of that facility”. Currently the proposal will cause great harm to the setting of the Listed Asset and endanger the long term viability of this valued community facility.

 6.6 The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act (2023) amended section 85 of the CRoW Act, to create a new duty on relevant authorities to ‘seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area’ when discharging their functions in National Landscapes and their immediate setting.

“The setting of Protected Landscapes

The duty also applies to functions undertaken outside of the designation boundary which affects land within the Protected Landscape.

Natural beauty, special qualities, and key characteristics can be highly dependent on the contribution provided by the setting of a Protected Landscape. Aspects such as tranquillity, dark skies, a sense of remoteness, wildness, cultural heritage or long views from and into the Protected Landscape may draw upon the landscape character and quality of the setting.” Reference: DEFRA Advice 16 December 2024

6.7 It is noted that the National Landscape Unit have been consulted and replied with a comprehensive objection to the proposal that has been attached to this page.