Planning Committee - Wednesday 14 January 2026, 6:30pm - Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Webcasting

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 14th January 2026 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Slide 1
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished
Slide selection

Good evening and welcome to this meeting of the planning committee on Wednesday the 14th
of January 2026. I am Councillor Paterson, chair of this committee. Before we get onto
the agenda items, please could you give your full attention to the following announcements
from our clerk Eleanor Hayes. Thank you chair good evening everyone. In the event
of the fire alarm ringing continuously you must immediately evacuate the
building at walking pace. Officers will escort you via the most direct available
route and no one is to use the lift. This is a public meeting and proceedings are
being webcast live online. A recording will also be available for playback on
the council's website shortly afterwards. Can I remind everyone to use the
microphones when speaking. The red light indicates that the microphone is on. Any
comments that are not recorded for the webcast will not be included in the
minutes of the meeting. You should all be aware that any third party is able to
record or film council meetings unless exempt or confidential information is
being considered. The council will not accept liability for any third party
recordings. It's very important that the outcomes of the meeting are clear. At the
end of each substantive agenda item the vote will be taken by a show of hands.
Members should raise their hand to indicate their vote and keep their hand raised until the count has been announced.
Members requesting a recorded vote must do so before the vote is taken.
Members of public who have registered to speak at the meeting will be asked to come to the microphone at the appropriate time.
They'll have three minutes to address the committee, after which they should return to their original seat. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. For the benefit of the recording, we're going to take a roll call.
Thank you chair.
Councillor Atwood.
Present.
Councillor Neville.
Present.
Councillor Johnson.
Present.
Councillor Kent.
Present.
Councillor LePage.
Present.
Councillor Osbourne.
Present.
Councillor Pitts.
Present.
Councillor Pound.
Present.
Councillor Paterson.
Present.
Thank you.
Expected officers this evening.
Carlos Hone.
Present.
Thomas Hone.
present. Jenny Beishman. Andrew McLaughlin -Lemons. Ethan Tang. Thank you. Thank you. I would
like to remind everyone here that this is a formal meeting of the Planning Committee
and you are kindly requested members of the public not to interrupt the speakers or the
debate by speaking, clapping or in any other way. I do not want to halt the meeting. I
But if bad behaviour happens, then I will have no hesitation in doing so.
I understand that members of the public are coming from various different applications
and I will pause the meeting after each application to allow people to leave should they wish to do so.
Members of the committee should be familiar with the process,
but for the benefit of any members of the public who are attending or listening,
I would like to explain a couple of things.
Committee members come from wards across the borough,
and although they may have local knowledge, when they make planning decisions, they must
consider each application in the context of the whole borough area.
Committee members have had their agenda for over a week and have had the opportunity to
study these and to clarify any issues with planning officers.
So although members of the public might wonder why some matters are not discussed in more
detail at the meeting, it may well be that members have already asked these questions
and obtained satisfactory answers.
When we come to substantive items on the agenda this evening, the officer will first set out their report.
I will then ask any speakers to address the committee before we then move on to member discussion.
At the end of the debate, I will try to summarise the committee's view and members should ensure that any proposals or actions are correctly captured before the vote is taken.

1 Chair's Introduction

2 Apologies

Item 2 is apologies for absence. Ms Hayes do we have any apologies for absence?
We do chair we have apologies from councillors Darragh and Richard Allen.

3 Declarations of Interest

Thank you. Members of the committee should declare at this point if they
have any declarations of pecuniary or significant other interest or if they
have feted their discretion and need to withdraw from the meeting while a
particular application is heard. Does any member have a declaration to make?

4 Declarations of Lobbying (in accordance with the Protocol for Members taking part in the Planning Process, Part 5, Section 5.11, Paragraph 6.6)

It seems not. Members of the committee should declare at this point if they have been lobbied
on any of the applications on today's agenda. The Clerk will ask each member in turn to
please state on which application you have been lobbied, if any, and whether it is by
objectors, supporters or both. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Atwood. Thank you. I've
lobbied in objection to item 8a. Thank you.
Councillor Johnston. I've been lobbied against 8a. Thank you.
Councillor Kent. No lobbying. Thank you. Councillor LePage. Against 8a. Thank you.
Councillor Osbourne. I've been lobbied against 8a. Thank you.
Councillor Pitts. I've been lobbied against 8A and 8B.
Thank you. Councillor Pound. Also lobbied against 8A and 8B.
Thank you. Councillor Paterson. I've been lobbied against 8A.
Thank you, Chair.

5 Notification of Persons Registered to Speak

Item 5 is notification of persons registered to speak.
So, do we have any speakers?
We do, Chair. We have one speaker for item 8A, three speakers for 8B, and one speaker for 8C.

6 Site Inspections

Thank you. Site inspections. There were no formal site inspections arranged in advance of this evening's meeting.

7 To approve the minutes of the meeting dated 3 December 2025

Item 7 is to approve the minutes of the meeting dated Wednesday 3rd December 2025.
So members are asked to confirm that the minutes of the previous meeting are a
true record of the proceedings and can I remind members that the only matter for
discussion is their accuracy. Do members have any comments? Thank you. There are no
comments. So the motion is to agree the minutes. Are we agreed? Thank you. That

8 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)

motion is carried. So we move on to item 8 which is the report of the head of
planning services.
These reports are those of the head of planning services.
A presentation will be provided by the case of the applications, but for those members
of the public listening, I would like to be clear that the considerations, conclusions

8 a) Application for Consideration - 25/02711/ADJ - Land At Tunbridge Wells Rugby Football Club, Frant Road; Land Off Bayham Road, Tunbridge Wells; Land At Chase Farm, Frant Road, Frant

and recommendations of the report are those of the head of planning services and not of
individual case officers.
I would like to remind members of the public to register to speak, they should not use
personal disrespectful or offensive language when making their presentations.
The order of business this evening will be as per the agenda with members to
note that item HD has been deferred.
So we move on to item 8A. Just making sure the screen is working.
It's loading.
Okay, I'll proceed and hope this screen comes on.
So item HA is 25 stroke 0 2 7 double 1 ADJ,
which is land at Tunbridge Wells Rugby Football Club,
Frant Road and land off Bayam Road, Tumbridge Wells and land at Chase Farm, Frant Road,
Frant.
Could I remind members of the committee and also members of the public present that for
this application, Tumbridge Wells Borough Council are not the decision maker.
We are consultation of views will be sent to Wealden District Council who will make
The decision on this application, but we are consultees only
Mr. Vince
Thank you chair
So firstly just regarding an update on this item which relates to an adjoining authority consultation from Wilden District Council
Through discussions with buildings district council and the applicant it's agreed that the proposal requires
identical applications submitted to both the Tombridge -Walesborough Council and
Wilden District Council as a cross -boundary application and as such
the applicant intends to submit an identical application to the Tombridge -
Walesborough Council in the near future but until then our position is proposed
to remain as per the draught concentration response to Wilden District Council and
as summarised in this presentation. So this adjoining authority consultation
issued by Wilden District Council relates to the four major applications
that's submitted separately to Wilden and therefore the committee report is the
proposed consultation response from the Tumage Wellsborough Council. As Wilden
District Council are the decision maker, Tumage Wellsborough Council can only raise
an objection or no objection regarding matters affecting Tumage Wells rather
than provide comments on certain principal matters nor on specific matters
such as design and landscape impact which would be Wilden District Council's
consideration. The sites to which the Wilden application relates are St Mark's
Recreation Ground accessed off Front Road and Land Off Bayam Road which immediately
adjoins the Tomich Wales Borough boundary to the south of Royal Tomich Wales at a separate
site at Chase Farm off Bunny Lane 840 metres south.
This slide shows the application site boundary in red at St Marks for Land Off Bayam Road
and the Tomich Wales Borough and Wildon District boundary in blue which runs loosely along
the site's northern boundary.
On this particular site, the Wildland application seeks permission for 184 dwellings with the relocation of existing sports facilities at St Marks to Chase Farm.
The St Marks site is currently in sports use by the Tomich Wales Rugby Football Club, whereas the area off Bayam Road and also Chase Farm are currently in aquaculture use.
The application also relies on a biodiversity enhancement area and lands for amenity use located within the Tomich Wales borough,
located within the centre of this plan, which is currently under consideration by the Council under a separate application, although the applications are closely interlinked.
And also just to note that this consultation response has been called into planning committee by the Head of Planning due to the nature scale and cross boundary implications of the proposal.
So this slide shows the proposed plan at St Marks and at Land Off Bairam Road where the 184 dwellings are proposed.
The application submitted to the Tumwich -Walesborough Council
for the Biodiversity and Immunity Area is the central northern
roughly square -shaped area and the part
of St. Mark's Recreation Ground that falls
within the Tumwich -Walesborough boundary and which is owned
by Tumwich -Walesborough Council but which falls outside
of the Red Line boundary would remain undeveloped.
So this slide shows the proposed plan at Chase Farm
which is wholly within Wilden, to include the re -provided sports facilities that would be lost at St Marks.
In terms of main site constraints, both sites are within the Highwall National Landscape,
partly within aquifer protection zones and within the Ashdale Forest 10km zone of influence.
St Marks is also in close proximity to the Royal Tomoduwels Conservation Area,
a greatly listed building, a scheduled ancient monument,
and the area of St Marks within the Tomichales Borough Boundary is protected as an area of open space, sports and recreation.
So this slide shows a photo of St Marks from the northern part within the Tomichales Borough Boundary,
with a residential application in Wilton located in front, sloping south to the far tree line.
This photo shows the proposed vehicular access located off Bayan Road within the site's
north -eastern corner.
This access partly crosses both local authority boundaries, which is the point that I'll
come back to shortly.
This photo shows the approximate location of a proposed pedestrian access onto Front
Road to the west, which would run adjacent to the existing
fence and gates, as shown in the centre of the photo.
And this would also partly be within Tomerjwales borough.
This slide shows the approximate location
of the proposed vehicular access onto Front Road,
which is wholly within the Wilden District.
So the proposed Thomas Wellsborough Council response to short is an objection and the
reasoning is set out in detail within the committee report, although the following slides
will cover the main points.
So firstly as shown in these two plans with the red line is the application site boundary
and the blue line is the Thomas Wellsborough and Wildon district boundaries.
the vehicular access off Bairam Road and the pedestrian access off Front Road are
partly within the Tomridge -Walesborough boundary and therefore cannot lawfully
be permitted by the Woodland District Council and can only be permitted by
Tomridge -Walesborough Council. The B &G and Amenity land area within
Tomridge -Walesborough are submitted separately to Tomridge -Walesborough
Council. It's also clearly linked to the wider cross boundary development
proposals and as such in accordance with the planning practise guidance, identical
applications must be submitted to both local planning authorities and therefore
As the Tomodge -Wellsborough Council considered the Wilding application to currently be invalid.
And as I updated at the start, both the Wilding District Council and the applicant agree with this position,
and so we expect an identical cross -boundary application to be submitted in the near future.
There's also a discrepancy on the submitted illustrated master plan,
where the red line boundary excludes the proposed access of Bairam Roads,
and so this is also requested to be clarified.
An objection in principle is also currently proposed to the net loss of sports facilities
within the Tomich -Wales borough at the land subject to the application submitted to the
Tomich -Wales borough council with the current view that the proposed development at Chase
Farm would not be a suitable location as per local plan policy due to placing unreasonable
burden on Tomich -Wales borough council to compensate for the loss of sports facilities
within Tomich -Wales borough as part of its plan making.
Although this element will of course be subject to further consideration if included within
in a forthcoming cross -boundary application.
There is also a strip of land between the B &G
and the community area and the Wilden application
that is not covered currently by either application
and so it's also requested that this is corrected
to ensure that both sites are connected.
And again, however, the current view is that
a cross -boundary application is required
which should be submitted soon.
In addition, one primary issue with the application
is that as the site is in Wilden, if approved,
Wildon would therefore receive contributions via SIL, although the proposal would predominantly
impact upon Tomich Wales Borough's infrastructure and services. There is therefore concern that
there would be limited mechanisms for Tomich Wales Borough Council and or KCC to secure
requested contributions and whether Wildon and or East Sussex County Council bids for infrastructure
would be prioritised over Tomich Wales Borough Council and or KCC bids. It's therefore requested
that Wildon District Council make it clear within the reports of the demonstrable impact on Tomich
Wellsborough and the need for potential measures to mitigate impacts in
Tunwich Wellsborough to support a seal bid from Tunwich
Wellsborough Council and all KCC. In any case, through consultation with Tunwich
Wellsborough Council and KCC departments, the contributions listed on this slide
currently requested to be secured by Wildon District Council, without which
Tunwich Wellsborough Council currently objects, subject to further discussion
and negotiation with Wildon District Council, as these are not yet agreed with
In accordance with the recommendation where it's proposed that delegated authority is given for the head of planning to continue these discussions with Wildon District Council on these matters.
Including ensuring that the contribution requests meet the relevant seal tests to ensure an agreement can be reached that would not result in an unacceptable burden on Tomich Wales and Kent infrastructure.
As shown, KCC highways are also yet to provide full comments
and have agreed an extension of time with Wildon District Council
until the end of January, and so Tom and Shale's Council would object
if any necessary contributions toward highway mitigation
and sustainable travel initiatives have not been secured.
Tom and Shale's Council would also object
if Wildon District Council approve the application
while disagreeing with the open space contribution requests,
in which case, Tom and Shale's Council would request
discussion of what the amended contributions should be.
It's also worth noting that the immunity space,
immunity green space contribution on the list
and in the recommendation appears to be missing
from the first page summary of the draught report.
And so this is suggested to be corrected
before issue to Wildon District Council.
As set out in the report,
the Wildon District Council recommends approval.
It's also requested that conditions be applied
requiring details of the onsite play space,
boundary treatments and landscaping
along the Tambridge -Walesborough boundary.
Conditions as progressed by the Council's Environmental Protection Department
are considered that a community use agreement is secured for Chase Farm.
It's also noted that the proposed loss of head dry along Bayam Road
requires a European protected species licence
due to the confirmed presence of dormice,
which should not be granted
unless there is an approved application for the access,
which again requires cross -boundary application.
There's also a discrepancy between the B &G reports
for the two applications relating to the number of units the Tomich -Walesborough land is expected
to deliver and so Woodland District Council is requested to review this. While also ultimately
a matter for Woodland District Council to consider, Tomich -Walesborough Council is also
of the view that the development likely constitutes major development in the High -world National
Landscape and it's not readily apparent whether the applicant has sought to comply with the
So the recommendation is therefore to raise objection to the application submitted to
the Wildon District Council and delegated authority sought from the Tom and Shale
Wellsborough Council's planning committee for the head of planning to liaise with Wildon
District Council as necessary on the matters raised, including in particular on infrastructure
requirements and in response to the submission of further quantitative responses to the
Tom and Shale Wellsborough Council and to amend the draught response to show the requested
a meanie see space contribution on the summary page for clarification before issue to Woodland
District Council. Thank you. Thank you Mr Vint. We have one speaker on this item. This speaker is
Daniel Jezinkowski who's here if you'd like to come up to the table.
Okay, Mr. Zienkowski, you have three minutes.
Thank you to the chair and the committee for the opportunity to speak today.
I'm speaking on behalf of the Green Weald Alliance.
4 ,300 people have signed our petition against this proposal.
Hundreds of local community members have submitted objections on the Tunbridge Wells Borough
Council portal as well as the Wheeldon Council portal for the different
applications that have been described earlier. This shows the strength of
community sentiment that is against this proposal and I'm here today to endorse
the Planning Committee report and the objection that has just been
described. I invite all of you to imagine for a moment if you turn on your tap
every two or three days you might get water for a couple of hours. There might
not be enough pressure where the water reaches the top floors of your house or
a building. When you turn it on and you actually get water that it's brown in
colour. And then also imagine that there are lines of people waiting for water to
be distributed from trucks around this place. And you might be forgiven for
thinking that I'm talking about Tumbridge Wells. I'm actually talking
about donuts in the eastern region of Ukraine that's been subject to a
significant war, almost as long as World War II, I think a little bit longer.
There are certain parallels here though.
What we have is repeated outages.
We have collapsing water pressure.
We have boil water notices.
We have new excuses almost every single day, including just about an hour ago.
This should be unthinkable.
In 2022, I thought it was unthinkable, but it happens again.
and it will happen again, and it will happen again,
and again, and again, until the infrastructure changes.
And so this is why we endorse the committee report
to object to this proposal, because we think
it's unconscionable and it's immoral.
Our details have been submitted on the Wielden District Council
portal.
I've shared them with many of the members here tonight.
We have listed out our detailed planning policy objections,
as well as the objections from our planning consultant.
I'd like to make three points tonight. The first of which, this is the national landscape in the
Wheeleton District Council proposal and you cannot develop there unless there are exceptional
circumstances. Those have not been demonstrated. The inability of the Tumbridge Wells Rugby Football
Club to finance improvements is not exceptional circumstances. It doesn't meet the test. This is
not for developer convenience. We've described the reports that have been submitted alongside
the planning application. They're deficient in a number of ways. We detail all that in our report.
Second point, transport and infrastructure. If you look at the local roads around the area
where the development is proposed, Byam Road, Forest Road, Frant Road, all the other
interconnected roads, they're at capacity. And you only have to look at the water distribution centre
over the last couple of days, which was based at the Rugby Club.
Jankowski you've had your three minutes I'm afraid say again you've had your three minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you
Officers do you wish to make any points of clarification or correction from the statement made by the speaker?
Seems not okay committee members committees members questions for the officers council pound. Oh
My apologies, I don't have a question. I have a statement. We'll come to that later
We have a question
I would like to ask Councillor Pincke, I think you were first.
I wanted to ask how we kind of got to this situation,
because it seems to me that without it being a cross boundary application,
it would have been objected to by us.
So in spite of all the other work you've done, is that fair to say
that if, as it's not a cross -boundary application,
we're likely to object if it had been
a cross -boundary application,
it could be a whole different outcome.
So through the examination of the submission
by the case officer, Mr. Vint,
it's been established that some of the land
that's required to deliver the scheme,
the development, sits within the borough.
That's why the officer recommendation is what it is,
that we feel that a cross -boundary submission
should be made.
It's only at the point where we examine the plans
that we establish the case.
As Mr Fintz set out, the officer position is as per the report.
We've not received a cross -boundary application yet,
so until we do, the position will be to object to the scheme
on the grounds set out for members.
If an application, cross boundaries application is submitted,
we'll be able to determine the application,
be able to bring it into committee and determine the application.
However, the policies of the local plan only cover the development
that is within the borough.
So we'll be looking at those elements.
So just can I ask a follow up quickly?
The follow up is, why didn't much earlier in the planning process,
with the Wilden Council or the developers of Project Huntbridge Wells
about having a joint application or a cross -boundary application
rather than getting it to the stage that it is already,
and the amount of work we've done, or you've done.
Well, there has been ongoing discussions between ourselves
and officers at Wilden District Council about the proposals.
They've been submitted as part of the Wilden,
some of the land has been submitted as part of the Wealden
District Council local plan
Regulation 18 position and we've been having duty to cooperate meetings since we've been aware of that councils
responded to their early regulation 18 consultation and that's
been publicised online so it's down to the applicant to make those decisions as to what's within their red line and
And they've done that and it's with Wealden and through our examination of the plans we've established that we think it's cross -boundary.
So that's what I can say on that.
Councillor Osborne.
Thank you, Chair.
As we've been told, this is really sort of exclusively a Wealden decision ultimately and we have unfortunately very little control.
You touched upon in the report the situation regarding the sill and the fact that we've
made a request to Wealden District Council for some fairly substantial amounts, I think
nearly half a million or about half a million for parks and recreation, 70 ,000 for the media.
Is it my understanding that if Wealden, it was within the power of Wealden to say, no,
we don't agree with those SIL payments
and still proceed with the development.
They could make the decision to proceed with the development,
and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
received no SIL payments.
And they also have county council payments as well,
which of course, again, is outside East Sussex.
So I suppose my question is, to what extent
can we all make a decision which ignores
the SIL requests of the Kent County Council
and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council.
And I'll say our request that we've made is,
well in excess of half a million pounds.
Thank you.
I think this is the critical matter
from the planning department,
Tom Dwell's perspective,
is the cross boundary implications on infrastructure.
So we've consulted as part of our consideration
with those various parties.
And Kent County Council have provided their information,
set out why they think there is a need for contributions,
as have some of the internal departments of the council,
and that's what we put forward.
So those are based on our own considerations,
our own policies.
Obviously, Wildon will make a decision
on their own planning position,
so their own policies and national guidance.
But you're right, they will make a decision
based on their position, we have put forward our argument.
We will continue to do that.
If members approve the recommendation,
there is delegated powers for head of service
to continue that ongoing discussions.
And obviously, we will robustly put forward that position.
We feel there will be cross -boundary infrastructure
implications.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
It seems not.
Councillor Pounds, you had a statement I think.
Is there anybody to lead us off on that?
It wasn't, sorry, the wrong word, not a statement.
I just want to make a comment about this application.
And it was rightly framed by the officer that we should only be looking at those matters
which have likely to impact upon Tom Ridgewell's Borough Council.
We aren't here to pick through all of the content of the application which goes further
south.
So that's what I've tried to focus upon.
I just wanted to say, you know, I think for most of us as residents in
Tunbridge Wells, we know exactly what's going to happen if this went ahead, is
that every car and every pedestrian who leaves that site coming out onto
Frant Road or Bairam Road will be turning right into Tunbridge Wells. No one's
going to go left. Everyone's going to go right. Essentially it's our
development. What we're all going to be doing is they're massing all of their housing
right on the boundary and assuming that we will somehow be able to absorb all of
that cost. So I've gone through that there's not yet been a proper traffic
assessment so we don't have a real sense of how much traffic will be coming both
in the immediate vicinity but also because Kent County Council quite
extraordinarily is saying that we have enough primary school places already in
the borough or certainly in Tunbridge Wells. We already have parents who are
driving from Knightswood to St. Peters, we have families in Hawkenbury who are
driving to Penbrie, we have families who are driving from broad water up to Bishopsdown.
In my view it is a nonsense to say that we have enough primary school places and this
will only compound the problem because everybody will be turning right and everybody will be
in a car because you can't walk to any primary school from this location. So I have a problem
for us as Tom Bridgewell's residents about that. The allocation of social housing resides
only with Wealden as I understand it.
We don't have any allocation rights at all,
and yet all of the site is right on our boundary.
We need more affordable housing, we need more social housing,
and yet there is absolutely no opportunity for us
to be able to say there are local families
who ought to be on that site.
And that to me is an absolute nonsense,
and I don't know whether we can do anything to negotiate that
other than by saying to Wealden,
perhaps you want to redraw your boundary line
and put it in Tunbridge Wells and then we'll have it at ours.
But I somehow doubt that would happen.
There's a lack of adequate safe play space.
When you look at the plan of the development as is proposed
at the moment, there is no genuinely available
public play space.
And I think that that is a requirement that we need
to ensure is there.
And it is inadequate at the moment.
And again, where are those kids gonna go essentially?
There's private land to the south.
There's sports fields to the north,
which won't allow dog walking or anything else on them,
I presume.
and therefore there's an inadequacy in that regard even within the development as is proposed.
South East Water have not yet been properly consulted as has been confirmed in the application.
KCC Highways have not yet been properly consulted.
There's no comment about displays that might come out onto the road which clearly would need to be done.
As we now understand it's a shared boundary with Wealden.
What else have I got here? I think that's about it.
And the section 106 monies which Councillor Osborne has been commenting upon,
the reality is if we are absorbing all of the development infrastructure that will take place with this development,
the monies that have been proposed already, which are only being proposed to Wealden and they have discretion about whether they accept them or not,
aren't enough.
You know, we're going to have to provide primary school places.
We're going to have to provide, you know, other leisure and
other activities for people.
And everybody, in simple terms, everyone's going to drive out
and turn right.
And on that basis, I would like to very firmly propose that we
accept the Office of Recommendation and that we oppose
this application as it currently stands.
You may think differently when it comes back as a shared
application if they take on board some of the comments that
we make but currently I believe that we should oppose it. Thanks.
So that's a proposal to refuse in line with the officer's recommendation.
To accept the officer's recommendation.
Sorry, I beg your pardon. Object in line with the officer's recommendation.
Councillor Kent were you going to second that?
Yes sir, I just wish to second what Councillor Pound has said all the way through.
Did you want to speak?
No, I couldn't.
I was just going to do the same second and totally agree with Councillor Pound's everything
he's just said. Thank you.
I would just add that if you look at the map in front of us, it is actually an extension
of Tambridge Wells. It might be in Wielder District Council, but it's joined under Tambridge
Wells. And I'm not sure actually, but is that a indicative map of the housing or is it a
it's it's a full application so right so exactly what what they want is really
it's difficult to see any other way apart from a part of Thomas Wells anyway
sorry council pits Thank You chair I just wanted to reiterate our support for
what council pounds said and to reiterate the support that we should
to support the officers to object,
but I was just gonna make a couple of points.
The major development in the national landscape is clear
and we should take that on board.
Can we answer, was the applicant,
did they fulfil their legal responsibilities
regarding the protected landscapes?
It's not clear at the moment.
And concern, very big concern from the separation
from existing built areas and the possibility
for encroachment means I'm happy to support
the officer's recommendations objected at this time.
Council Pitz, does anybody else want to speak?
It seems not, so we have a proposal to refuse
in line with the officer's rec, sorry, to object in line,
in the, come out automatically, to object in line
with the officer's recommendation proposed
by Councillor Pound and seconded by Councillor Kent.
All those in favour, please show.
That is unanimous.
The objection has been upheld by the committee.

8 b) Application for Consideration - 25/02701/FULL - St Georges Hall, 2 St Georges Meadow, Sissinghurst, Cranbrook, Kent

We will move on.
I will move on to item 8B, which is 25027014, St. George's Hall to St. George's Meadow,
Cissinghurst, Cranbrook, Kent, and you can find this on page 47 of the main agenda
and page 6 of the supplementary pack. And Mr. Tang is going to do the presentation.
Thank you, Chair. This application is for the retrospective installation of a
Here's some site context of the proposal.
It's just outside the centre of Sissinghurst
and located outside the limits to build development
and also within 70 metres of the Highwall National Landscape.
This application was called in by Councillor Summers
due to concern of location, impact on visual amenity,
and highway safety.
So in terms of concern of location,
as is located within the residential development,
so although within the private residential development,
its closest centre of the sitting house,
and as a community facility,
it's next to a community hall is acceptable
and also highly sustainable as well,
therefore the location is considered appropriate.
In terms of visual amenities,
so here's approach plans and elevations
of the locker itself.
So it's not considered overly significant
in relation to the village hall
and also doesn't excessively project
from the side of the building.
And also the materials are also considered appropriate.
So in terms of visibility, is it acceptable?
There was concern over parking issues.
So here's some photos of the locker during the day.
So there are double yellow lines
from the entrance of the development
all the way towards the village hall.
The road layout within the development
is not under the KCC's ownership
and is the under -donorship and management of the private residential development.
So issues of illegal parking on the WLO line should be for them to enforce against.
To the rear of the village hall, there are 17 car parking spots.
So there are adequate legal parking provisions to allow for customers to use the locker without illegal parking.
KCC has also raised no objections as there's no impact on the local adopted road network.
So in terms of road safety there is no concern.
In terms of residential amenity, although the locker will provide or invite frequent use and
trips from people outside the development, people will be only there for limited time.
And also although the locker is operational outside of social hours, so after five o 'clock
For example, the activity during these hours and the associated harm is not considered significant on residential amenity.
It's confirmed by the village hall that they have voluntarily restricted the use of the locker outside the hours of 11pm and 7am.
But the operational light that is used and that is built in the locker is on all nights, so 24 -7.
but as it is downward facing it's not considered to be significantly harmful
to residential amenity especially to the adjacent property which I believe is
number four St. George's Meadow. And then there's some photos of the locker at
nighttime. So there is concerns in terms of landscaping and impact on dark skies
As I said before, the location is quite rural,
it's outside the limits to the development,
and also on the edge of a rural village,
and also in close proximity to the high wall
national landscape to the south,
and there are also a large number of trees
to the south of the site as well.
The light is required for safety of users
during the nights and outside of daytime.
However, the destruction of artificial lighting
throughout the whole night would result
in harmful levels of light pollution and spillage
towards the rural landscape and the dark skies environment.
And as there are a large number of trees to the rear,
it's likely the presence of bats is strong as well.
And 24 hour lighting during the night
would adversely impact them in terms of commuting
and also hunting.
No alternative scheme of lighting was provided
to mitigate the harm towards the landscaping and wildlife.
For example, the use of motion sensor lighting was denied by the applicant.
Therefore, the proposal would conflict with local policies in terms of harm to real landscape,
dark skies environment and the local wildlife.
And therefore, the recommendation is to refuse the plan application.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Tain.
We have three speakers on this item.
Our first speaker is Martin King, who is a local resident.
Mr. King, if you'd like to come to the desk.
So, Mr. King, so when you're ready, you have three minutes.
Good evening.
I'm a resident of St. George's Meadow and I'm speaking on behalf of myself and fellow
residents of the same street to express our objections to this proposal.
I'm a retired member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and I've 40 years' experience planning
in Kent.
This locker appeared overnight without any prior consultation, notification or application.
It is my contention that the development is inconsistent with the approved planning framework for the area.
on five grounds.
Firstly, location.
The locker comes within the storage
and distribution use class.
And planning policy states that such uses are best cited
in industrial or commercial areas.
Its use is not related to the village hall,
nor to the adjoining recreation ground, which there are local policies to strongly restrict development here.
It's out of place on the edge of a village residential area.
In post sites, placement principles say that they consider both the users and the surrounding community.
Their own principles clearly haven't been adhered to here.
There are more appropriate locations within the area,
but there's no evidence being presented to show that any consideration has been given to any alternative location.
Secondly, the visual impact.
The new village hall is sensitively designed and an attractive feature.
This development is really out of context visually with that.
I'm also slightly worried by in -post statement that their parcel lockers can be extended to
the available space premises.
So if permission were to be granted,
it could create a precedent that there could be future expansion of the locker.
Thirdly, social and environmental impact,
amenity, privacy and safety are all compromised by the presence of the locker.
It has an overbearing impact on its immediate environment,
particularly when it's operating at night time,
although a restriction was put on the hours,
there's no evidence that that's being achieved.
Mr. King, you've had your three minutes, I'm afraid.
Okay, if I may just say.
I'm sorry, you've had your three minutes.
Okay. Same preferably.
Thank you.
Our second speaker tonight is Eric Barkas, who is also a local resident.
So Mr Barkas, you've got three minutes.
Right, my name is Eric Barkas.
I live in St George's Meadows, I seen Hearst.
I'm a retired financial journalist.
I note that neither Inpost nor City of Hosea Village Hall
Committee are here today.
They have no one to speak on their behalf.
Tells me two things.
One, they're so confident they're
going to succeed in this, they don't need to turn up.
Two, they're so confident they're going to fail,
they don't need to turn up.
Doesn't take much of a guess to work out which side I'm on.
This is the wrong installation in the wrong place.
Mention has been made of the visual impact
on a small rural area.
Mention has been made of the increase in traffic volumes
added to the increase in volumes
already caused by the village hall.
And then there are the parking issues
which are very, very serious.
in this area.
The Parish Council of Cranbrook and Sissenhurst
are minded to give conditional approval to this installation.
I have it from a member of the Parish Council
who is also a member of the Village Hall Committee,
but none of the conditions that they asked in post to implement
can be fulfilled and so if this matter was to go any further,
the parish council would be withdrawing
its conditional approval.
What should be considered here is the impact
on traffic volumes in parking, the impact of local amenity.
I can speak to the issue of amenity
because I live 11 paces from the installation.
I'm grateful that every single member of the community in St. George's Meadow
supports me and opposes the installation. When I moved into this house, in a quiet
village, there were two noises I could hear if I was sitting reading in the
sitting room or in the garden. One was children playing on the playing fields,
The other was the smack of a tennis racket on a ball at the nearby tennis club.
Now I've got another noise to take into account.
The slamming shut of in -post lockers.
I've been woken up at 4am and 5am by this.
You know when you wake up in the morning, you cheque your clock.
When people start moving about during the day, 7 to 9,
it's pretty constant slumming of the lockers. So if that is a loss of
immediately I don't know what is. I would hope this can be...
Oh sorry, you've had your three minutes. Thank you very much.
Our third speaker is a Councillor David Summers.
I am going to be succinct.
It's a retrospective planning application.
St George's Meadow is 19 very nice houses that are very new.
In fact, the people who live there have only been there
literally weeks and months.
I know that Martin's been there less than a year.
And this thing here suddenly appeared
without planning permission.
And all creates the enforcement people
because I think everybody in St. George's Medio contacted me
and I contacted the enforcement and they got in touch
and made them apply for this planning permission.
But I'd like to emphasise probably the key things for me.
I'm going to be succinct.
Sorry, when I called back in end of November,
it wasn't clear which way Ethan was thinking.
it is visually very unattractive and it's not in keeping with the houses.
Secondly, it's been placed just in the narrowest part where you're going into the main car park of the village hall.
Thirdly, what isn't clear on here is the parking space adjacent to this facility is a disabled car parking space.
So, what actually happens is everybody uses it because we're all at heart lazy.
They park in the disabled car parking space in front of this facility.
As Eric says, he's actually only 11 paces away from it.
The last thing I would say, probably the key thing to me is, Cranbrook Sissinghurst and
Fritenden, it's not a very big place.
In fact, I've brought most of the residents with me tonight,
but we already have two of these facilities.
This is mentioned in your report,
but we've got two of these already.
We've got one around the corner about ...
In fact, I passed it today.
It's two minutes drive.
It's about 500 yards away at the leisure centre,
and that has a huge free car park,
and the other one is five minutes drive away
in Cranbrook at the co -op,
which also has a huge free car park.
So to be honest, I don't think we need this, and if we did need it, there are two petrol
stations I'm sure would love to have it, and there are some garden centres.
There are other places if you really wanted it, and the truth is I don't think we need
it.
So I think I'll stop there and say that I fully support the recommendation, and I hope
that you will that the planning people are making that this be refused.
Thank you, thank you, Councillor.
Thank you, Councillor Thomas. Thank you.
Officers, do you wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from the speakers?
Just a couple.
So just in terms of the nature of the use, storage and distribution,
These are quite common things that we've seen about towns nowadays,
so I don't think it sets a wider precedent for other types of similar uses.
In terms of its scale, it's not particularly big, I would say,
and the officer's report is not objecting on the grounds of its visual amenity.
It's white in colour, which is fairly sympathetic to the surrounding area
are the points that I wanted to make.
In terms of highways matters, we've consulted with Kent County Council Highways, they've raised no objection.
And likewise, the internal consultation with Environmental Health with regards to noise, the only objection they're raising is with regard to lighting.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Committee members, any questions for the officers on this one?
It seems no questions. So can we move into discussion?
Would anybody like to lead us off in the discussion?
Councillor Page. Thank you.
It seems to me that, firstly, the Planning Department in its usual thorough way has gone
through every single detail of the issue. And I definitely want to support their proposal,
that it's, the planning commission has refused.
But I wanted to just say that of all of the things that have been,
that are in the report, either knocked down or acceptable,
the summary of recommendations is just on the light
and the lighting effect on the wildlife and the whole,
all of the three things are to do with the light.
So my first question is, or my first point is,
Is that sufficient to ensure that the company won't try
to appeal or won't win an appeal?
Because it seems to be quite plain
that the company is quite prepared to run roughshod
over the local community.
And it refused to consider changing the lighting system.
So it seemed to me that they are going to try and appeal
or push it through in some way.
So that's the only statement I wanted to mark.
And I'd like to propose
that we accept the office's recommendation.
Councillor Page, Councillor Pound,
I think you were Marjorie first.
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to make a few comments
upon the speaker's comments,
looking at the photographs here
and having read all of the papers.
Interestingly, whether it's needed or not
is not a planning consideration, in my view.
That's a commercial consideration by in -post,
and we're not here to make a judgement about whether someone thinks that it's needed or not.
Presumably the company feel it is needed or will be used, otherwise they wouldn't have put it there in the first place.
So I think we just have to discount that as a planning consideration.
And I'd rather like one of the officers has just said, I don't think that this is out of context,
nor do I think it's inappropriate.
The fact that somebody, one of the residents said that it's busy and that there's shutters,
that lockers slamming through the night, which I have sympathy for and we might talk about
that in a minute, suggests that it is a valuable community resource and people are using it.
It may not be using it at the best times of day, but the reality is that it's obviously
being utilised in some way.
And future expansion, again, would be a commercial decision and if it was held that it warranted
then that would have to, I don't know whether it has to come back here, but it would be a commercial decision.
And that would be for in -post to determine.
The fact that there are two other sites up and down the road suggests that they obviously feel that in this rural community that there is value in providing it.
The issue that I have, or the problem I have, one is that in -post, if they ever come back, or if they acquiesce to the point at 9 .10, which we'll come to in a minute,
If they could only put some sort of muffling on their lockers, which is perfectly possible to do,
because they're metal doors, then that would undeniably reflect something of the issue that
is currently being raised, which is about noise at night particularly. That is not insurmountable
and they really ought to just be addressing it, I would have thought as a standard, but that again
isn't part of what we can do this evening perhaps. But at 9 .10 it talks about sensor lighting and
And when I read the report last week,
I was thinking, a light going on and off,
what is the problem with that?
And how big would it be if it was on all the time?
Well, now that I've seen those photographs,
that is an intrusion, in my view.
And I think it's wholly inappropriate.
It can't be on all the time.
It's absolutely ridiculous to have it on.
And they're saying it's for health and safety reasons
or safety reasons.
But if you're driving up at night or when it's dark,
you're going to have lights on on your car or your bicycle
or hopefully your torch if you're walking.
It doesn't need to be on all the time and sadly if only for that reason I concur with cancer the page
I think we have to say no
But I think there needs to be dialogue with in post about the lighting and the muffling of the noise and on that basis
I would support the proposal that we reject the application. Thank you has been your second
Yeah, thank you
Castle of Kent
Thank You chair. Yes, just going back on the reason said
I think it was Martin King who's got 40 years experience in planning.
That unit should be on an industrial base or railway,
but not on a housing residential area.
It's totally irresponsible to have it placed right next to or opposite a house.
For the inconsideration of people going to and from,
It can be open 24 hours.
Would you like to live there having people visit with cars?
Mainly, I would say cars.
Because if anyone on that little estate had parcels delivered there,
they'd say, well, you haven't delivered in our house.
So everyone's going to be driving to that place
to get their whatever parcels from.
I find it totally inappropriate and it should be on the industrial unit.
I do support the officer.
Thank you.
Councillor Johnson.
Yes, again, just to say it's absolutely awful.
It looks like a spaceship has just landed in the middle of the ground.
You know, I can't understand why they even thought of putting it in that place.
Of course, as Councillor Summers said about the garages, as everybody's saying about the industrial estates,
it's a small thing and they're very very useful but why on earth did they put it there?
I just have absolutely no idea because it's got to go.
So I fully support the officer's recommendation.
Thank you chair. I mean I agree with what other councillors have said but I think really
picking up on the point that's made by Councillor Page, the officer's recommendation to turn
down is based really exclusively on lighting.
It seemed to me, therefore, it wouldn't be beyond the wit of
man or in post, whoever they are, to come along with some
revised proposal regarding the lighting, in which case,
essentially, the offices are saying that this proposal would
be granted.
Now, it seems to me, in hearing the views of the residents, that
I would like to extend the recommendation and reasons
for turning the proposal down to include the N1,
which is on Para 9 .2.
Policy N1 states the proposals should retain
and enhance buildings that contribute positively
to locality and the street scene.
Now what I've heard from everybody is,
I would tend to concur to this view,
that looking at development,
it doesn't meet the hurdle of the N1,
and therefore my view is that we should extend
the officer's recommendation to also refuse permission
on the basis of E -N1, which will then probably prevent
a revised proposal coming back on the basis
of an altered lighting scheme.
Thank you.
Could I, perhaps the officer's one comment on that,
is that possible?
That's up to members to determine whether or not
them. However, having given it due to consideration, officers feel that the
only objectionable element of the scheme is the lighting and you can see from the
images on the screen how prominent it is within the night sky as a result of that
lighting. However, I would say, you know, during the day the size of it, it's, yes,
it's bigger than a notice board, for example, on a community centre, but not
much more obtusive than a coloured car that you might find parked at somebody's house.
It's not particularly obtrusive in my opinion. So I think that the officer recommendation to
refuse it on lighting grounds is the most appropriate reason. I'm not sure that we would get
support, particularly given the colour is fairly benign and appeal on any other grounds.
Can I just say one thing? On the basis of the light and the proximity of the house opposite,
is there not some argument to incorporate the loss of residential immunity because of
the light as well? Because essentially, I don't know how far that house is away, but
it doesn't seem to be very far.
So I think it's about like Mr. Barker said, it's about 11 paces around 11 metres away
from the nearest residential property.
From the application for the development, this property, those windows facing the locker
is a suite bathroom and a living room.
So while the en suite is not a primary living space,
so the lighting is considered to be harmful to that space,
downstairs is a living room.
It's considered that it won't be used at nighttime.
So the impact of the lights on the amenity
isn't significant enough to warrant refusal
under policy in one.
And also the downward nature of the lighting.
So it's, as you see in the photo,
So it's mainly directed towards the street floor.
And you can't really see too well.
But with the bottom left photo, it's
not directly facing or flashing towards those windows that
are further back of the property.
So I would say the reason to refuse it
on residential amenity wouldn't be significant enough.
And the reason to refuse it covers dark skies, isn't it?
and essentially that's a neighbourhood plan policy anyway.
Yep, it's a local plan, neighbourhood plan and part of the NPPF as well.
Councillor Osborne, did you want to propose an amendment or...?
I was just going to ask the opposite question.
Because as stated here in Power 9 .2, it says Policy N1 states the proposal should retain,
as we've seen, the village hall has just been built,
so it's a change to retaining,
and enhance buildings that contribute positively
to the locality and the street scene.
Now this is the village hall.
I can't believe that if that had been the original proposal
for the village hall, that stuck on the outside,
people would have approved it.
And I find it very difficult to believe
that it enhances that building and contributes positively
to the local and street scene.
I mean, I would, with those pictures, personally,
and obviously I accept the officers have much greater
experience, but I would be surprised if an inspector didn't
come to the same conclusion that that wasn't something that
haunts the local street scene.
Because to me, it might be painted white,
but I don't think that's a contributor to enhancing the whole view.
I mean that village hall is just a car bunker,
referring to the sort of thing that our king would say,
added onto the side of the village hall.
So I suppose what I'm saying is,
can we add yen one to the recommendation as a reason for refusal,
or are we being told we can't do that, or we shouldn't do that because it went to an
inspector, the inspector would overturn it on the basis that EN1 wasn't appropriate.
But it seems to me EN1 is incredibly subjective, and I would have thought most people looking
at that street scene would say EN1 applies.
I think in answer to your question is if you want to move it as an amendment, Councillor
Osborne, and somebody seconds it and they have a vote on it, then we can put it forward.
but we've heard the opposite advice on that
a big part of cancer pitch yeah I'm prepared to second council Osborne's
motion I would like to so my proposal would be that we accept the officers
recommendation but with the addition that we refuse permission on the basis
also of the n1 in addition to the reasons at nine point ten and Councillor
Pitts you want to second that yes thank you amendment say so if I might the
report is very clear in that we do not feel that the policy tests have met to
refuse it on those grounds.
The report 9 .13 sets out that it needs
to be significantly harmful.
Mr. Tang has already kind of explained
that there's an oblique angle
from where the closest residential property is.
In our opinion, the most obtrusive element
of that scheme is due to the lighting.
It's so obvious during the nighttime.
And that is why we strongly recommend
it should only be refused on those grounds.
So with that in mind, shall we vote on Councillor Osborne's addition to the proposal, I think?
Councillor Kent.
Sorry, Chair.
Just to come back then, so you're saying a commercial unit could be placed anywhere within
a housing estate and that would be acceptable?
on any housing estate that would be accepted and would not be deemed to be
a commercial unit that should be placed within an industrial unit rather than on
a housing estate. I'm just trying to make sure we can clarify.
Chair, through you, we have to determine the application that is in front of us. We're not
dealing with any hypothetical considerations as part of this agenda
That's a pound.
Thank you.
I just want to get some clarity.
At 9 .13, which Mr. Hone has just alluded to, it says whilst there is clearly a change in
the level of activity and noise associated with the locker, such impacts are not considered
to cause a significantly harmful impact upon residential amenity, which is the test within
policy E1.
But that is an element, as I understand it.
I haven't got E1 in front of me, EN1.
Maybe you have.
I was referring to the way EN1 is described in Para 9 .2.
Because the focus is not about significant harm upon
residential amenity, which may not stand up to a test,
which I understand.
But the other element of EN1 is that it,
whatever the wording was, essentially detracts from the
a building which provides a good look to the neighbourhood, whatever the wording might be, and I can find it if we need to.
But if I'm wrong in that understanding that that is another element of the N1 which should be tested, then I think it is reasonable to consider the amendment.
You look very worried, Mr. Holm, but you can advise us.
I've provided my advice as clearly as I can, so I think it's up to members.
If we have no more comments, we will have a vote on the amendment proposed by Councillor Osborne and seconded by Councillor Pitts.
That is the amendment to add to the reasons for refusal. Will those in favour please show.
That is 6 -4, Chair.
And those against?
2 again, 3 again sorry.
There's nobody else, is it? 6 -3.
So yes, the amendment was passed 6 -3.
So we have now a substantive reason for refusal which includes the amendment proposed by Councillor Osborne.
So, Councillor Pound, this is your original amendment which is being revised so we can vote on the refusal.
I accept the amendment.
You accept the amendment. Okay.
Can I just clarify that the motion that members have just voted on is to include in reference to Policy EN1 the harmful impact on visual amenity.
Am I understanding that correctly?
No, I think the wording is at 9 .20 where it says policy EN1 states that proposals should
retain and enhance buildings that contribute positively to the locality and the street
scene.
That's the bit in EN1 that we wished to include.
So, as I said, in regard to the harmful impact on visual amenity, in regards to policy A
and B. Literally, the opening sentence in Para 9 .2.
Councillor Page.
I just wanted to remind the committee that my original proposal, I think, was just to
accept the Office of Recommendation as it stands.
Is that correct?
I made the proposal, didn't I?
Sorry, I had forgotten that.
I thought it was Councillor Pound.
I was getting so used to Councillor Pound's proposal.
So I think we have a, we've accepted the amendment, so we have a vote on the substantive reason
for refusal as amended, which was proposed by Councillor Page, seconded by Councillor
Pound.
So all those in favour of that, please show.
That's unanimous.
That's unanimous, too.
So that's unanimous.
So the proposal has been refused in line with the Office of Recommendation as then amended
by the Councillor Osborne and Councillor Pitts.
Thank you.

8 c) Application for Consideration - 25/02658/MOD106 - Land at Triggs Farm Cranbrook Road Goudhurst Cranbrook Kent

Okay, we'll just wait a few seconds to allow the people interested in the previous applications
to leave and we will move on to item 8C which is 2502658 mod 106 which is land
trigs farm Cranbrook Road Goudhurst Cranbrook Kent and can be played found
on page 55 of the main agenda and page 14 of the supplementary pack. Miss
Baysman your presentation please.
Thank you very much.
This is an application at Triggs Farm.
It's for a variation of the affordable housing tenure.
So it has planning permission for 12 houses.
It has outline permission and it has reserve matters permission.
This is a slide showing Gouthurst.
It's on the western edge of Gouthurst within the development boundary in the local plan.
It's an allocated site for housing and that shows where the site is.
It's just almost opposite the Galt House Inn.
This slide shows the site in relation to housing.
This is the housing allocation and the local plan.
The development area already has permission.
And this is the most important slide because it shows the housing mix which has already
been approved.
So this application has approval for 12 houses, of which four are to be affordable housing.
When it was approved in 2019, the policy was for 33 % to be affordable housing,
of which 50 % social rent and 50 % intermediate housing.
So two social and two intermediate.
You can see the location of where those houses are.
Two right on the road frontage here, which are semis,
and then another two here, which are detached dwellings.
By way of an update, the parish council, you'll see in the report they hadn't responded by
the time the agenda was published.
They recommend refusal for reasons that the applicant should take off as they have been
given for the two houses and share why they are not market value.
I assume they're talking about the two social houses because there's four houses.
By way of background to this application, this follows on from a refusal, which you'll
see at the front page of the report, which was to remove all of the affordable housing.
And that was refused.
And the reason for refusal is set out in the report at paragraph 9 .03.
and the reason was financial viability considerations were not on this occasion considered to outweigh
in the decision making process the need to provide an appropriate provision of affordable
housing or an alternative proposal to address affordable housing needs as set out in Policy
the core strategy, which we don't have any more, and H3 and AL G02 of the local plan.
And policies P1 and H1 in the Gourdhurst neighbourhood plan and the national planning policy framework.
So the issue here is purely the tenure of the affordable housing.
It plots 1 and 2 and 11 and 12, which requires in the section 106 that they be too social
rent and too intermediate.
What's proposed is DMS housing and if you have a look in the report at paragraph 9 .08
to 9 .12, it states that DMS housing is fully recognised form of affordable housing, sold
a discount of at least 20 % below local market value.
It's delivered by the developer.
It doesn't rely on registered providers
as the homes are sold on the open market by the developer
with that 20 % discount.
The purchaser eligibility is determined with regard to income
and local house prices
and subject to the purchaser living, working
or having a close family member,
living within a five mile radius of the development or if they are a key worker.
If no eligible buyers can be found, this area may be widened to include the borough
and the adjoining boroughs before expanding to Kent.
And to qualify for DMS housing, the purchaser's gross annual household income
must not exceed 80 ,000. They must be unable to afford to buy a suitable home on the open market.
They must not own another property at the time of the purchase and must be able to secure a mortgage and have sufficient funds for the deposit and associated costs.
And lastly, should the properties be sold, they must be sold at 80 % of its current market value.
The reason why this application has come forward is because the applicant, via the agent, has
found national difficulties in the affordable housing market with being able to secure a
registered provider.
And this is particularly difficult on this site because there's only four houses to be
affordable.
It's considered that this application addresses
the reasons for refusal because it's still
providing for affordable houses, albeit
with a different affordable housing tenure.
There will still be a local connexion cascade
for the people of Galthurst, as discount market sales still
enables this.
and importantly the definition of affordable housing in the MPPF
discount market sales is mentioned there.
There's A, B, C and D.
Social rent, A is social rent, B other affordable housing for rent
and C, discount market sales, housing that's sold at a discount
of at least 20 % below local market value.
Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes
and local house prices.
Provisions should be made, should be in place
to ensure housing remains at a discount
for future eligible households.
And D, other affordable routes to home ownership.
And the policy position is set out at paragraphs 9 .12 to 9 .30
in the report.
And the local clan policy, H3, affordable housing,
It doesn't specifically mention DMS housing and the policy itself, but in the preamble to it, if you have a look at that, the intermediate housing,
it states that the, paragraph 6 .340, it states that the council recognises that intermediate housing may include starter homes, discount market sale,
and would also include the emerging first home scheme.
However, given the affordability pressures that the borough faces,
the two types of immediate housing defined below are currently considered the most appropriate
and that's intermediate and shared ownership.
So the applicant maintains that they've gone through their viability.
We're not going to go through that again because that was already considered in the refused application.
but they've contacted all of the registered providers that they did for the refused application,
which were 38, and to cheque again for interest, to see whether anyone was interested.
And three providers made an offer, Town and Country Housing, they said yes, if all social housing only,
but the schemes not large enough for all rented.
English Rural, they were interested in plots 11 and 12
to be affordable rent and plots 1 and 2 shared ownership.
Land Speed, yes, if the 10 -year variation for all four
is shared equity and shared ownership.
The four declined the opportunity
and 31 registered providers didn't respond.
So all in all the applicant maintains that in the context of the office received a
miskeying would be unviable and that was demonstrated in the financial viability
assessment. So taking all points into account the recommendation is to approve
this modification to the section 106 because it still will be for affordable
housing. That's the end of my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. We have one speaker on this item
and that is Mr David Bedford who's speaking on behalf of the applicant.
Okay, Mr. Bedford, you have three minutes.
Thank you.
Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak.
You have had a detailed presentation and a detailed report, so I won't use the full three
minutes.
I only wish to make a couple of key points.
Firstly, coming from a local authority background,
I understand the frustrations when planning permission is granted
and then you quickly have somebody come back to argue viability.
This isn't the case here.
This scheme was planned a decade ago.
The world was a very different place when this planning application was approved.
The four affordable units were offered in very good faith by a local person
at a time where registered providers would take the units on.
As explained, that's no longer the case.
The providers don't want small amounts of units in the form
that's been approved.
And nobody could have foreseen the economic circumstances with
Brexit, the global pandemic, and the impact that this would have
on viability as a whole.
I would just like to add as well, just to be very clear,
that the viability work that is referred to was submitted to the
Council and independently tested by the Council's own viability
consultants and they fully endorsed and agreed that it was an unviable scheme.
So it's not just an assertion from the applicant that has been tested and that will be verified
by the council's officers.
So put simply there is a need to amend the tenure of the affordable housing for factors
that are completely outside of the applicant's control.
The other point I wanted to make is how good the discounted market sales housing scheme
is.
Now, I don't know how familiar or how much you've come across this today,
but effectively it is a superb form that attracts pretty much the same demographic
and qualifying candidates as social rented, but it provides these people the opportunity to own
their own home at a discounted rate that simply doesn't otherwise apply.
And if these purchases aren't available within the immediate surroundings, there is the cascade
mechanism to ensure that it philtres down to neighbouring parishes and then a borough wide
level before that. So to sum up, planning permission has been granted, it's been started
and the site is proposed for allocation or is included in the local plan. Now is the
time to deliver this scheme on the ground and this proposal fully accords with the new
and updated affordable housing policy. Thank you.
Thank you very much Mr Bedford. Officers do you wish to make any points of clarification
or corrections?
No.
I just wanted to really bring to members attention the reason we brought this scheme to you.
It's due to an ongoing negotiation, so to speak, about the affordable housing at this
scheme and how important we felt that it was to still deliver some form of affordable housing
rather than as per the previous decision where we refused zero affordable housing on the
scheme, we entered discussions with the applicant to try and resolve any issues. The applicant
has not appealed that decision and I bring to members' attention, I think it's item
10 on the agenda of appeal decisions, particularly uphill, where the planning inspector was very
clear about the strength that should be given to viability assessments. Under the previous
scheme, the applicant put forward a viability argument.
We had that independently checked,
and it was agreed that it was an unviable scheme.
However, officers refused the scheme
on the basis of some of the reasons that
had been given by this committee in previous meetings.
So that's the reason that was refused.
However, now we have in front, or you have in front of you,
a scheme that will still deliver for affordable units
as set out in the MPPF, it is considered to be an affordable form of housing,
and hopefully you can support the officer's recommendation.
Thank you.
Committee members, any questions?
Councillor Atwood.
Thank you.
In 9 .11, the statement, should the properties be sold,
they must be resold 80 % of the current market value.
Is the new purchaser under the same constraints as the original purchaser,
i .e. is it going to still stay as a DMS housing or are those restrictions lifted?
It's in perpetuity.
Councillor Pound.
Thank you, Chair.
Can I just ask, I understand from what you said that three housing providers did put
in an offer which presumably was low and therefore not acceptable.
Have we had the same dialogue as we have had on other applications where we use our Section
106 pot to uplift affordable housing to social housing in perpetuity, whereby one of those
three certainly telling the country saying that they would take all four as social housing.
I just want to know if we've had that discussion and if we haven't, is that something that
we can still do?
We had that discussion with the refusal. We had that discussion with the refusal and the
Council were very proactive in trying to engage.
I haven't had that discussion with this
because it's still for affordable houses.
Sorry, it's a supplementary.
They're affordable but none of them is social.
No, it doesn't, but it still complies
with the definition in the NPPF.
I accept that.
Affordable housing.
It's just that none of them is social.
Councillor Kent.
Can the land not be set aside for future use of affordable or social housing?
The application in front of us is looking at this scheme and this proposal.
I'm not sure that the market conditions would change necessarily over the period of development of this scheme
in order that it would satisfy the requirements for registered providers
who are very adverse, I would say, at the moment,
given the current circumstances, to deliver such small schemes.
Referring back to that uphill appeal decision,
the Inspector was very clear about the strategic nature
of the housing numbers and its contribution to the housing land supply
of the Borough Council.
This scheme has consent from 2019 on appeal.
Reserve matters have been approved.
We understand it will be delivered fairly promptly
and it's within our housing trajectory
for the next five years.
And that is a very important part of
maintaining a robust five -year housing land supply
for the council and fend off speculative development.
Council Member.
Thank you, my question is really just to outline whether the DMS scheme is going to put more
of a burden on enforcement, if you like, the processes that ensure homes are allocated
to those with housing need, the perpetuity bits, the strict eligibility criteria, who
would be managing that going forward?
That would be carefully worded in the Section 106.
We haven't dealt with DMS housing before.
This is a first.
So we would be very careful with that.
I think, yeah, just to contribute to that, you know, the cascade mechanism is a usual
requirement of a Section 106 agreement.
It would be quite standard procedure.
We would work with our housing colleagues to ensure that's legally required
Any other questions
Sorry just
Just checking again
and either at the point of the last refusal which as you say is highlighted in the report or subsequently if
Has there been discussion about?
Allowing all of those properties to be at market rent a market price
and then the developer finding appropriate location elsewhere
for other social and affordable housing,
which we've also done before.
We've had pre -application discussions
outlining what the difficulties have been
that the applicant has come across.
So we've just considered what's in front of us,
the discount market sales?
I think just to reiterate the point that I tried to make is that
we have refused a scheme for zero affordable housing on this.
The viability has been agreed in terms of the position we refused it
on the grounds that members have used in the past,
but just in reflection of a very recent appeal decision
on very similar grounds.
We think this is the right approval to get the houses built
and for there to be some form of affordable housing.
Otherwise, we may well be in another appeal situation
where we get no affordable housing.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Councillor Osborne.
Do we know how much those houses would cost?
I .e., therefore, what 20 % discount
represents in monetary terms?
The Affordable Housing Officer has given an example of what would happen at 6 .2.
At 6 .4, yeah, so you can see that this means for a two bed home on a site valued in the
Under DNS, this could be discounted by 80 ,000, valuing the home at a new price of $320 ,000
to an eligible resident.
First time buyer or couple, both on the Kent average salary of $33 ,156, will be able to
borrow around $298 ,404 ,000 at a standard mortgage rate of 4 .5 times their combined wage.
They would most likely require a 10 % deposit and a further minimum of $4 ,000 in savings
for legal and conveyancing fees.
This means that the household would need around $36 ,000 in savings to purchase the home outright.
And for people that typically seek a shared ownership or equity affordable housing product,
they usually find that their housing needs are met by private sector housing.
As saving for the deposit for a private home is unrealistic or extremely difficult, therefore
the DMS housing product may appeal to the same market of local applicants seeking the
shared ownership product.
Did you want to come back, Councillor?
Sorry, did you want to come back?
No, I wanted to thank you for that.
Did you have the number?
The only thing I said, do you have the number for the three bedroom?
400 being the two bedrooms.
Sorry, no I don't.
Thank you. Any other questions?
Okay. Would anybody like to start the discussion on this?
Council pick...
Thank you.
Bear in mind this is the Council's first interaction with DMS.
There is a worry if this becomes the preferred method of delivering affordable housing.
because obviously there are resale restrictions within DMS thing,
which is obviously whoever purchases at the discount price
must also pass on that discount price when they sell them
to meet the eligibility criteria.
So they may be limitations that we perhaps need to look at,
which are not part of planning for today,
but just in general as the Council moves forward into those things,
the limited mortgage availability is also one of the restrictions of this type of property.
So I think the report is really clear and I think it's going to need, if we're going
forward with this as an alternative to affordable housing on viability, I'd rather have this
than nothing.
But there are some issues with DMS that we need to make sure that they're in parity with
affordable housing of other types.
Thank you.
Councillor Page.
I was interested in the DMS option.
And I think even though Councillor Pound mentioned
the fact that it's not actually social housing,
there is a group of people who really benefit
from this approach, people who want to buy houses.
And I don't want to ramble too much, it'll be too personal,
but the Batcha Baby group is here.
and I've got two sons with first class degrees and good jobs,
there's utterly no way they can get on the housing ladder the way I did.
Because when I bought a house, the house price to earnings ratio was two,
and it's now seven.
So house buying is out for them.
So I think that kind of person would really benefit from this.
So there is a group of people that are being left out,
and the DMS solves that problem.
And I also think that, and I looked some things up,
The eligibility criteria for DMS housing are very strict for things like you can't have a second home,
the gross income that you have, you cannot have an interest in another property or any other equity,
so there are all sorts of reasons to make sure that it's narrowed down to just those people who deserve it.
And the other thing about the local connexion criteria, I mean these things were mentioned by you,
but I'm saying my view in favour of the DMS as an option.
I take Councillor Pitts's view that there's a danger
it could all go that way.
That the idea of being allocated to local people
and then gradually going outwards until it's in the borough
also seems to be a great,
it's great to have local people being housed
where they might be working.
They have to have lived in the area for two years and that they could go by connexion
to a family member who is living there.
So I think it's actually got very good points in the DMA scheme.
So having made my speech, I'd like to propose that we accept the officer's recommendation.
Councillor Page.
Can we have a seconder or do we have a seconder?
Councillor Johnson.
Yes, I'd like to second.
Councillor Robyn.
All I wanted to say, I've been thinking of the words of dear old Councillor Scholes,
whom some of you will remember, who famously said over the cinema site, I'd like to find
a reason but I can't find one to refuse this application. And I am in the same position.
Councillor Osborne.
Thank you, Chair. First of all, I'd like to thank the officers for their work on this
because I think as the head of planning has said, this has been an issue that's been raised
on a number of sites, so thank you very much for the work that's been done. And I'm not
against the proposal that's before us.
The only thing I'm thinking is if you look at the amount
of discount, if we're saying that essentially it's
80 ,000 on the two bedroom, that's 160 ,000.
Let's say the three bedroom were 500 ,000, that's 100 ,000 each.
So that would be potentially a 360 ,000 contribution
on a 12 house development.
And that would be a huge sum compared
with other comparable developments.
So all I was wondering is whether, as a committee, we would prefer to have a 106 contribution
to affordable housing of 360 ,000 or a DMS scheme as proposed.
I don't know what members think, but I wanted to throw that out there.
I think Councillor Osborne, it's not actually in front of us, is it?
This is the...
Yeah, I mean, we can't...
You can tell me that I don't recommend something else.
But as a matter of debate, I was putting it out there.
Can anybody else like to speak on this?
Sorry, Chair. Just coming back on Councillor Osborne's statement of fact,
I think this Planning Committee, or a committee from the borough,
needs to look very seriously and hard at how we are managing our support for social housing
and affordable housing within the borough.
And I think at some stage we need to get round with officers and actually have a proper discussion about this
because it comes up with virtually every planning application now and this is unacceptable.
We do need to find a way forward. But anyway, thank you.
Thank you chair. I think yeah I take on board your point but larger schemes we don't seem
to have the problems that we do with these schemes and as it's been set out in the report
and the speaker and officers there are national issues with small schemes like this and yeah
I take on board the comment that you made there.
Any other contributions? So we have the motion to approve proposed by Councillor Page and
seconded by Councillor Johnson. All those in favour please share.
That's eight for chair. And those against. And those abstaining.
One abstention. So the motion has been carried in line with
office recommendation. Thank you.

8 d) Application for Consideration - 25/02890/FULL - 65-67 St Johns Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent

Okay so just to remind you that item 8d St. John's Road Royal Tambridge Wells

8 e) Application for Consideration - 25/02623/FULL - Eridge House, Coach And Horses Passage, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent

has been deferred. So we move on to item 8E, which is 25026234, which is Erich House Coaching
Horses' Passage, Royal Tumbridge, Wells, Kent. And you can find this on page 73 of the main agenda,
page 23 of the supplementary pack. Mr. Maclachlan -Newans is doing the presentation for this one.
Thank you, Chair. So yes, this application is in relation to a three -storey commercial
building which is situated down behind the Pantiles in Tunbridge Wells. The property
is currently in Class E use and just to give a bit of background to the application, the
The current tenants are in the process of vacating.
So it'll be going to market with the hope of trying
to find a new owner or new tenant, sorry.
As part of that, the property is currently in class E.
The use is looking to be expanded from a class E
to include educational uses as well.
So things like nurseries, language schools,
adult education, everything along those lines.
There were no external changes
or internal changes to the property.
It's merely just a three -storey commercial building
that is seeking an expansion to its change of use.
Just a few more photos.
If anyone's headed down this way,
you're probably quite familiar with the building.
On the elevations, it looks like this.
Once again, no internal or external changes sought.
And then the floor plan being in class C use currently
is relatively open across all three floors.
There's been very similar approvals in the local area,
and therefore it's recommended for approval
as it's in keeping with the use classes seen down there.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. There are no speakers on this item. Committee members
do any questions for the officers? This has come to committee because it's the
land is owned by the borough council, isn't it? Correct, yes. There are no questions.
Would anybody like to start the discussion on this item?
I would like to propose we accept the officer's recommendation.
Thank you.
And Councillor Neville.
I will second that, thank you.
Councillor Neville will second.
Would anybody else like to speak?
It seems not.
So those in favour of the officer's recommendation proposed by Councillor Osborne, seconded by
Councillor Neville, please show.
That's unanimous, Chair.
Thank you.
So that is carried in line with the officer's recommendation.

9 Planning Enforcement Activity for Period 1 July 2025 to 30 September 2025

And we move on, and I can find the page.
Thank you.
To ISOM 9, which is planning enforcement activity
for the period the 1st of July 2025 to the 30th of September,
which is set out on pages 78, 86 of the agenda,
and are for noting.
If any members have any questions
related to these enforcement decisions,
they should be raised with the planning officers

10 Appeal Decisions for Noting

outside the meeting. Item 10 is appeal decisions for noting. 21st of November
2025 to the 23rd of December 2025 are set out on pages 86 to 88 of the agenda. If any
members have any questions related to these appeal decisions they should also

11 Urgent Business

be raised for the planning officers outside the meeting. Item 11 is urgent

12 Date of Next Meeting

business and I can confirm there is no such business and item 12 is the date
the next meeting which is on Wednesday 11 February 2026. The meeting is now closed.
Thank you all for your attendance.