Dormice could get in the way of plans to build 15 homes on a village site.

An ecological survey of the plot to the west side of Maidstone Road in Matfield has revealed eight nests of the creatures which are a protected species in danger of extinction.

The study was carried out by an ecologist acting for the developer, Clarendon Homes, between July and September of last year, but the results have only just been published.

It is illegal to intentionally kill, injure or capture dormice; to deliberately disturb dormice, or to destroy dormouse breeding sites or resting places.

It is possible for developers to obtain a special licence from Natural England permitting them to disturb dormice, but there are three tests that must be met: that the activity to be licensed must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety; there must be no satisfactory alternative; and a favourable conservation status for the species must be maintained.

In this case, the planned development, while leaving some woodland on the site, would destroy about half the woodland occupied by the dormice.

The developer suggests it could compensate for that by planting one hectare of new woodland on a meadow site at Orchard House in Crittenden Road, Matfield. That site is 2km away. It is not clear how the dormice would know where to go.

However, before even applying for a licence, Clarendon Homes needs first to win planning permission for its proposal.

The application was submitted way back in March 2022, but has only just been validated – accepted to take the next step in the planning process – by Tunbridge Wells council, because essential details were missing.

Some residents have already responded to the application some months ago, but they are advised to check the council’s website again as new details have been submitted.

You can find it by searching for application number 22/00757.

The scheme would provide nine market homes; two with two bedrooms, three with three bedrooms and four with four bedrooms.

There would also be six affordable housing units, whose size has not been specified, but all would be two-storey properties. All would be supplied with EV charging points

The site wraps around Matfield Village Hall, and actually includes some land owned by the parish council, and some by the hall trustees.

The developer is offering to provide a play area behind the village hall that would cater for both the residents of the new homes and the wider village, and also to provide an extension to the hall’s car park with an additional 12 spaces.

A new access road would be provided onto Maidstone Road.

Because there are covenants on parts of the land, the new homes would be confined to the southwest corner, with a woodland buffer left around the village hall.

Brenchley and Matfield Parsh Council last responded to the application in December of last year, when it raised issues over a number of details of the plan as it was then proposed, without objecting overall. The hall trustees, responding in April of last year, did object.

There may additionally be other problems with the development, which would not necessarily be insurmountable.
Southern Water said it believed there may be a public sewer running across the land, while Ian McEwan, a neighbour at Court Farmhouse, said his electricity supply ran in an underground cable across the site and he was worried about his power being cut off

Kent Fire and Rescue Service also said that as planned, there was an insufficient turning head to enable a fire engine to reach plots 2 to 7 of the scheme.

The land is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is adjacent to the Matfield Conservation Area,

There is also a small population of slowworms on the land.

Should permission be granted, KCC is seeking a contribution from the developers of £68,000 towards the provision of extra secondary school education at Mascalls Academy, plus £6,500 towards library provision and £2,755 towards waste services.

A small number of residents’ objections have been received, including some who questioned whether there was any need for the play area or car park extension.