Local Plan Regulation 19 Submission
Borough Green Gardens – Policy BG1 of the TMBC Local Plan
Image gallery
Nepicar Sandpit October 2026
TMBC LOCAL PLAN
Policy BG1 is the Council’s single largest allocation, providing for 2,000 houses and up to 33,200 sqm of employment floorspace. It covers land across all of north Borough Green and Platt, extending west into Ightham Parish and north into Wrotham Parish. It constitutes a major urban extension within the Green Belt of West Kent and impacts the Kent Downs National Landscape.
Where we currently have separate villages with church spires and a village centre, they will be replaced by an urban extension of London, akin to Tonbridge or Maidstone. The sheer scale of this proposal, its impact on the Kent Downs National Landscape setting, and the increased traffic on the local primary road network are immense and unacceptable.
The Parish Alliance comprises multiple Parish Councils, always including Stansted, Borough Green, Ightham, Platt, and Wrotham. We have jointly lodged a common objection to Policy BG1. The Regulation 19 objections are downloadable at the end of this page. They can be summarised briefly as follows.
1. Significant problems with the feasibility of developing a site comprised of no fewer than 10 different quarrying operations, including two with serious proven contamination, as well as other ecological sensitivities.
2. Failure to consider cumulative traffic impacts from committed developments in the area. Most significantly, the Moto 200 HGV Truckstop with hotel, restaurant, and fuel station, adjacent to the Borough Green Gardens policy proposal.
3. Generally, the lack of infrastructure consideration, particularly the lack of sewage capacity in the Borough Green sewage infrastructure, and difficulties in delivering a new network to bypass these problems and take waste directly to Ham Hill Treatment Plant.
WPC, on behalf of the Parish Alliance, has lodged an objection to Policy BG1 on the grounds summarised above. It comprises two documents as follows.
1. Objection 1 – Highgate Planning’s assessment of the BG1 Policy, based on the three detailed appendices that resulted from a collaboration between Mike Taylor and Pete Gillin.
2. Objection 2 – A comprehensive evidence base of the contamination evidence and ecology findings in Ightham Sandpit that resulted from a previous Planning Inquiry. It also contains evidence of asbestos contamination in the Nepicar Quarry Western Extension and the remediation strategy.
In conclusion, we all believe that TMBC Strategic Planners, who are responsible for this policy, don’t understand the complexities of mineral mining, the multiple stages involved, land contamination, or the challenges of relocating protected species such as Great Crested Newts.
This is a winnable battle, and we should all persevere to prevent the urbanisation of our unique villages.