Additional ”grey belt” sites will likely need to be found in a rural part of Kent to meet revised government housing targets - but it could save a golf course from the diggers.

Sevenoaks District Council had been half-way through preparing a new Local Plan that would have directed development in the area until 2040, when Labour won the general election.

Since then, the new minister for housing, Angela Rayner, has issued proposed revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - the overarching document to which all local authorities must comply - that proposes new housing targets for all local authorities.

While a few districts such as Ashford and Dartford saw their targets fall, Sevenoaks was assigned one of the biggest increases - a whopping 58% rise from 704 to 1,113 new homes per year.

Sevenoaks has “paused” its plan process while it responds to the government’s planning consultation, challenging the new figures.

It said: “The method for calculating the new increased housing target is flawed. The calculation is based on the affordability of homes and average local incomes.

“It does not consider that many of our residents work in London where wages are higher.

“Also, the use of existing housing stock as the basis for the calculation, rather than household projections as currently used, means the targets do not take account of future trends.”

Sevenoaks is now awaiting the final version of the NPPF, expected in the New Year, before setting a revised timetable for its Local Plan.

It expects the delay will push back the submission of its Local Plan by a year, to 2026, and the council warned that: “In light of the draft NPPF, and the revised housing target, there is likely to be an additional, limited call for sites focussed on Grey Belt sites, and an additional round of consultation.”

The government has previously described the grey belt as “poor quality and ugly areas” on parts of protected land, called the green belt.

This includes land on the edge of existing settlements or roads, as well as old petrol stations and car parks.

There had already been considerable opposition to some of the housing allocations in the district’s emerging Local Plan, particularly to a proposal for a 2,500-home garden village at Pedham Place Golf Club, near Swanley.

Three parish councils - Farningham, Eynsford and Crockenhill - have recently combined to engage planning consultants to fight the allocation and there have been protest walks by villages.

However, unexpectedly, the new government policy has offered a glimmer of hope to opponents.

The revised NPPF will allow building on newly defined grey belt land - land within the Green Belt, but of low landscape quality. However, it does not count within that definition, land designated as National Landscape - which Pedham Place is.

The council said: ”Pedham Place was included as a ‘broad location for growth’ in the previous draft Local Plan, which was agreed by full council and then subject to examination in 2019.

“In the recent Regulation 18 consultation, it was included as one of the growth options, as it was considered a large enough site to be a standalone settlement, providing its own education and employment opportunities and would bring the benefit of it being able to secure co-ordinated infrastructure investment, on the edge of the district’s second town and at the junction of the M25/M20.

“However, the government’s recent consultation on planning policy reforms excludes AONB land - newly named National Landscape - from its definition of grey belt land.

“We will be undertaking further evidence-based work to ensure that our new Local Plan reflects national policy, once the outcome of the current government consultation is known.”

The council added: “As Pedham is within the green belt and the National Landscape (former AONB), it is likely there may be other sites that fall within the grey belt definition, which will need to be considered before there is further analysis of the Pedham proposals.

“To clarify, this does not rule Pedham Place in or out of the Local Plan, rather there are likely to be other sites which need to be considered first.”

Su Hewitt, of the Protect Our Green Belt Campaign, which has been lobbying against the Pedham Place proposals, said: “This is really good news.

“We’re so pleased the new NPPF may have an effect in this way.”

The question objectors are wondering is - will there be sufficient grey belt sites to meet the new enlarged housing targets, or will Pedham Place still be needed anyway?

Mrs Hewitt said: “We agree with the district council that the government has got their calculations wrong, by not taking into account the London wages of many residents. We have responded to the NPPF consultation ourselves to that effect.”

“We’ll have to wait and see.”

“It’s not that we don’t want Sevenoaks to adopt a Local Plan - we are as keen to see it get over the line as anyone.

“It’s just that we don’t believe Pedham Place to be right for development for all manner of reasons.”

A spokesperson for Sevenoaks council said: “Interim work will start to take place to identify potential new areas which could contribute towards our housing supply.

“Once the revised NPPF is confirmed, this will be followed by targeted consultation with relevant landowners.”