One can only guess from teh council website which simply mentions a site at Tidsbury Green. However looking at the inspectors report their is an obvious basis for challenge.
There is also serious concern about the proposed return to the Green Belt of some Safeguarded Land previously identified in the SUDP. However, when the SUDP was examined, it was made clear that the status of this land should be reviewed in the context of the approved and emerging WMRSS strategy of urban renaissance [OTH11]. SMBC undertook this review, and rejected the future development of sites at Tidbury Green because this settlement lacks the range of facilities necessary for further strategic housing growth; the scale of development envisaged would also be far too large to meet local housing needs and would threaten the coalescence with other settlements, including Grimes Hill. National policy enables reviews of the Green Belt to be undertaken (NPPF; ¶ 84), including considering the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, and it is clear from SMBC’s evidence that these sites would not meet this objective. These factors constitute legitimate reasons and represent the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify returning these sites to the Green Belt.
With the WMRSS revoked and the review never even getting to final consultation stage the inspector was foolish to mention it. The result is likely to be the same.