Planning Committee - Wednesday 22 March 2023, 6:30pm - Start video at 1:32:35 - Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Webcasting

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 22nd March 2023 at 6:30pm 









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

okay, good evening.
welcome to this meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday, 22 of March 2023
on Councillor Poyle Chair of this Committee.
before we get on to the agenda items, please give your full attention to the following announcements from our Clerk, Mrs. Moran.
thank you, Chair and good evening everybody.
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.
we will make our way to the fire assembly point, which is by the entrance to the Town Hall Yard, car park, on Munson, Way, and once outside a check will be made to ensure everyone has safely left and no one is to re-enter the building until advice that it is safe to do so.
this is a public meeting and proceedings are being webcast live online. A recording will also be available for play back on the council's website shortly afterwards.
Can I remind everyone to use the microphones when speaking the red light indicates the microphone is on the 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 is very important that the outcomes of the meeting are clear at the end of each substantive agenda item, a vote will be taken by a show of hands, Members should raise their hands to indicate their vote and keep their hands up until the count has been announced, Members requesting a recorded vote must do so before the vote is taken.
Thank you Chair.
thank you for the benefit of the recording we are now going to take a roll call.
thank you, Chair, expected members here this evening, Councillor Attwood.
Councillor Baillie,
Councillor Fitzsimons, present Councillor Johnson present Councillor Les Page. present Councillor Moon
Councillor Pope
present Councillor White's present councillor level, vice-chair present Councillor Poyle Chair present
and expected officers here this evening, Richard Hazel Grove.
present Peter Hockney,
present Smith
and we also have this evening for the benefit of the recording Councillor Pen Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning with a sibling and
Councillor Richard Alan is not present at the moment.
thank you,
I would like to remind everyone that this is a full meeting of the Planning Committee.
I have been advised that Councillor Rich Alan has given apologies for this evening's meeting,
OK, thank you, I would like to remind everyone, is a full meeting of the Planning Committee and there should be no disorderly conduct or misbehaviour, including capping or interruptions by members of the public at this evening's meeting.
if such conduct does occur all cool for it to cease.
should behaviour which I consider unacceptable, continue, I may well consider suspending meeting.
if the behaviour resumes when business Re commences those responsible, excluded and obsolete, the council chamber
members of the Committee should be familiar with the process, but for the benefit of any members of the public who may be watching, 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 agendas for over a week and have had the opportunity to study visas and to clarify any issues with planning officers,
so vote members of the public might wonder why some matters are not discussed in more detail at the meeting. it may well be, but Members have already asked these questions and obtained satisfactory answers.
when we come to the 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 into member discussion
at the end of the debate or try to summarise the Committee's view and member members should ensure that any proposals or actions are correctly captured before a vote is taken.

1 Chair's Introduction

2 Apologies

ITEM 2 apologies for absence, Mrs. Miranda, we have any apologies for absence.
yesterday we've had apologies from Councillors Bland Brych, Allen and Pattison this evening Chair,
thank you.
ITEM 3 declarations of interest members of the Committee should declare at this point if they have any declarations of pecuniary or significant other interest or if they have fettered their discretion and need to be drove in the meeting while a particular application is heard, does any member have a declaration to make?

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Johnson,
I'm a member of the Commons, Conservatives.
thank you, Councillor Johnson.
sorry, Chairman, can I just clarify that that's, in relation to which application
many apologies, the Sheffield's regeneration.
thank Councillor John and sorry, can you just confirm that you, you say you are a member of the Commons, Conservatives, but have you had any involvement in any meetings or
discussions about that application as a Commons conservator,
yes, no, I've had absolutely no meetings or discussions at all about the
the application, thank you Councillor.

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)

thank you. Are there any further declarations to be made at this point, I see no further declarations apart from Councillor Johnson's, so we now move on to
Item 4 declarations of lobbying. Members of the Committee should declare at this point if they have been lobbied on any of the application in today's agenda. The crocs could ask each member in turn please, state on which application you'd been lobbied if any, and whether it's by objectors, supporters or
Mrs. May
thank you, Chair, Councillor Attwood,
thank you are being lobbied for on application A.
Councillor Bailey,
I've also been lobbied in
favour of application 7, A
thank you, Councillor Fitzsimons.
too, have been lobbied
in favour of
the Shaw Fields application,
thank you, Councillor Johnson.
I haven't been.
thank you, Councillor Page.
I have been lobbied.
what town and country regarding the shift was application and have also been for one of also been lobbied against the
Ridgeway development, I haven't got the number in front of me, that's OK,
I have that thank you, Councillor Moon.
I've been lobbied for 7 8 show Fields Estate and
by e-mail and telephone,
thank you.
thank you, Councillor Pope,
I've also been lobbied on 7 8, the show feels 4
thank you, Councillor White,
I've been lobbied for an application 7, A
thank you cancer level
I have been lobbied for
proposal 7 A
thank you and Councillor Paul,
yes, are being lobbied by the applicant on application 7 8.
sharing can I just say I was lobbied for
yet on 7, thank you.
thanks to

5 Site Inspections

OK item 5, such inspections, members did not carry out any site visits,

6 To approve the minutes of the meeting dated Thursday 2 March 2023

then we move on to Item 6 to approve the minutes of the meeting dated for as the the 2nd of March 2023
members are asked to confirm that minutes AppRe.
members are asked to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting, a true record of the proceedings, please, may I remind members that the only matter for discussion is the accuracy do Members have any comments on the minutes of the last meeting?
I see no, hence, Raso Bowie, happy to approve these minutes, are we agreed?
those minutes on fearful approved.

7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)

ITEM 7 reports of the Head of Planning Services, these reports are those of Head of Planning Services, a presentation will be provided by the Case Officer for the applications, but for those members of the public listening, I would like to be clear that the considerations, conclusions and recommendations of the report are those of the Head of Planning Services not of individual case officers.
I would like to remind members of the public that we've had registered to speak, they should not use personal, disrespectful or offensive language in making their presentations.
the order of business this evening will be as set out in the agenda.

7 a) Application for Consideration - 22/01576/FULL Showfields Estate Showfields Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent.

and the first planning application this evening is item 7, A 22. Stoke 01 5 7 6 Schofield's Estate, Schofield's Road Tunbridge Wells,
Mr. Hayes would grow your presentation, please,
thank you Chair
this application is for the the regeneration. part of the Schofield's estate, which is in the southern side of Tommy jewels,
so Members will see on the first slide
that this is the application site,
it doesn't cover the whole estate, it's covers the areas that are specifically outlined in red
and then includes, an area of land adjacent to the northern boundary for
and indeed the western boundary for enhance footpaths and from the pulse footpaths and cycling route.
so this is the site location plan overlaid on aerial photograph and the application relates to
you'll see a bit later on a combination of blocks of flats and
and houses as well as well as a number of redundant garage blocks.
so this is the this is the estate.
sort of broken down into areas, if you like, so you have the main Schofield's Road spine road that runs through here and which carries a bus route,
and Hunters Way is one of the coldest acts as a series of cul-de-sacs that come off the spine roads of this is Hunter's Way
and then,
gives me there is.
Willow Tree Road Rowntree Road,
they got that right and then you've got another cul-de-sac the comes off here. and the estate is laid out
a series of what's called in accordance with the Redburn principles, so there are a number of houses, etc that back onto the road
and parking areas where you have houses that back onto to both sides of the parking area.
so, in terms of the buildings, the existing buildings that are proposed to be demolished.
so you'll see from their building numbers, 1 to 6
and numbers 2 4 5 and 6 or residential buildings,
number 5 comprises three dwelling houses, and the rest are blocks of flats and in the numbers 1 3 arson.
some garage blocks.
again, number 7 9 and 12 are all
blocks of flats
or maisonettes.
and again, there are further.
garage blocks prefab garage blocks which are proposed to be demolished.
and then the big block of flats that sits in the centre of the estate and number 36 to 90 is proposed to be demolished, and, along with
together block of flats at the top here and his buildings in Hunter's Way, and again along with some some other prefabricated garage structures.
so just some photographs of the estate, this is the entrance of porcelain
under the hat one of the blocks of flats to be demolished is here on the right-hand side,
this is another of a large block, this is the the largest current block, the one that sits alongside Sheffield Road.
this is a view looking south down, Shaw Fields, Road.
a few looking
into from the outside of the estate, ind from Aage Road
and the estate bounded by the 26, which forms a long gear.
not the view of one of the blocks of flats and the
garage blocks, where the garage blocks.
within the centre of the estate, but outside this planning, application boundary are the other community buildings, so you've got the
is a small preschool and some other community buildings in the centre and with flats above them,
and you've got the library which is a building on the right and the community centre on the left.
and within the application site there's an open green space as well, that's bounded by houses and and improvements that are proposed as part of the application.
and this is the the cul-de-sac to the very bottom of the
of the estate and Willow Tree Road.
so one of the issues that we've raised in the in the report and that's highlighted are issues with the estate, as is laid out at the moment, it's very much of its time, it was committed in the late sixties built in the 70 s
it was built in accordance with a principle called the Bradburn layout where
which unfortunately resulted in communal areas not being particularly well overlooked.
rear gardens and garages facing on to roads, so you know poor quality streetscene and also create areas that are subject to anti-social behaviour and crime
yeah and obviously the lack of active street frontage, and that that is detailed more in the in the report and this this is one of the issues at the regeneration scheme, seeks to try and essentially fix within the
the estate or partly fixed in any event,
this is the site levels, so four levels rise.
from south to north.
in terms of vehicle movement and how?
that works within the estate, you've got, obviously the very busy 8 26, which is shown by the red arrow, and then you've got the
the spine road through the centre, which is the main access road to the estate. which also carries a bus route.
there are also
pedestrian some pedestrian routes that run across the estate you'll see to the south and bare. and is also a pedestrian crossing across Eridge Road,
which which leads to an existing pathway along here,
but which is quite narrow in places.
and again in terms of pedestrian and cycle movements, so essentially there are no, there's the railway, the heritage railway, which runs along the north boundary of the estate.
you have and say the main road here,
and primary pedestrian routes and secondary pedestrian routes.
and to the community centre that sits in the middle.
and in terms of the sort of key constraints, one of the constraints say one or the one of the issues that has shaped this proposal is the
it is did the applicants ownership, so you'll see the the properties that are marked him.
Red are those that are within the control of the applicant or in the ownership of the applicant, those in yellow.
outside those.
those are not in red are in private ownership, and you also have again the issue with houses backing onto the road, and she's shown.
shown along here, and particularly in this section here.
so the proposal
tease me is,
in essence is to regenerate the estate is to demolish 110
three of which are houses in the rest of flats or maisonettes, and to construct 146 in their place,
so the development is focused.
and when he is focused on new,
large new blocks of flats, here here
here here and here
and then residential housing development here and here.
this plan better shows the the highlight early areas that are subject to the application.
so the large the large block of flats that would be here, that's currently had to be demolished in favour of housing and dwelling houses,
and there'll be a similar development here.
one in three dwelling houses here. and dwellinghouses here too, and the rest would be blocks of flats.
or apartments, and in that shows the development with, if you like, with the landscaping and the green infrastructure surrounding it so.
the idea would be to undertake tree planting along the roadside here and here,
to make a more or better use and a more inviting space within this existing green area here,
and also create a children's early children's play area there and there to widen this pathway, so it's more inviting. a less intimidating for, for people to use and to also make it a shared pedestrian and cycle route.
and to have green areas here as well, along with a safeguarded area for a potential future cycle Exe way extension.
along here
so, in terms of what's being proposed as a, as I pointed out earlier.
houses are
proposed in the areas that are highlighted yellow in the green areas and new blocks of flats.
in terms of stories
and overall building heights, the biggest building would be this block of apartments here, which is 5 storeys.
the three other big ones here that are four storeys each.
and in the rest of the estate is essentially dwelling house scale and so two storey buildings and essentially two-storey dwelling houses.
this dire this plan shows how.
in terms of frontages, so again that's a recurring theme of active frontages and and sort of, and date, street scenes, where you have backs of houses backing on to the road,
the idea is that
a new active
frontages would be introduced along here along facing Sheffield Road because the houses would front towards the road. as these would hear, and these would also face towards Hunters Way here.
and similarly.
this would be a pedestrian route through, and so there would be again active frontage here,
so again it's creating a bit more overlooking
of public open areas like the Village Green and the area in the middle here, as well as the play area in the footpaths along the top.
in terms of planting.
there is quite a detailed planting strategy that's been submitted with the application,
but there'll be a combination of wildflower planting.
particularly on the edge of the village green, the native wildflower bowls.
and existing hedgerows here, that would be enhanced.
and also planting to mark the boundaries of certain areas, for example, like the the open space and play area here.
and again. it's a comprehensive scheme of tree planting as well
in similar
and similar areas.
the applications process is proposed to be phase in its delivery,
so essentially everything apart from the pin carrier, is to be delivered as Phase 1.
and then, just in terms of the the new buildings that are being proposed, this is block a one so full storey block of flats, Hunters Way.
blockade to a dwelling houses in Hunter's Way.
block B, which is dwelling houses.
facing out, alongside Sheffield Road
block seat, four storey block of flats.
it to act as a kind of a landmark building type, five storey block of flats, to act as a sort of landmark building at the entrance to the estate.
again, dwelling houses in block D.
an anime blockade is well nice with overlook green.
and then the two large and four storey blocks of flats blocks F
and block G 1 alongside Sheffield Road and airy trade.
Brennan finally blocked two to three dwelling houses in the bottom corner.
in terms of materials, this is indicative
materials diagram, so some combination of bricks facing brickwork and roof tiles
aluminium window frames and
metalwork that would be painted black,
as well as planting
and beyond the in the garden areas and defensible spaces and planting.
it sounds as if blocks of flats.
they would be a sagging red roof, tiles, Use of breaks and also light brown textured bricks.
and aluminium window frames and metal balustrades to the balconies.
so in terms of
this indicative, before and after photos, this is the view looking
north along Schofield's Road and towards the flats on Hunter's Way.
this is the proposed
proposed block of flats
in its place.
given this looks no further along Schofield's road, so that's number 36 to 90 Schofield's Road.
and afterwards it's proposed that these would be the dwelling houses with block C the 5 storey block in the background.
this is the
the village, the the green, the view across the village green before and after with the two larger 4 storey blocks of flats and adjacent airy tray.
and in this is the existing view, from the back of the maisonette block on Raven Tree Road and so looking towards the north.
say at least all indicative.
visionary, if you like, pictures.
I intend to bat dates as one error on para 3.0 in the table of figures.
he says.
there will be 32 extra car parking spaces, it should read 132.
in terms of the conclusion, the proposal would remove a series of 1970 s social housing apartment blocks which at the end of their useful life and can't be satisfactorily modernised.
and which are part of a flawed estate layout, which causes issues with parking anti-social behaviour.
It deliver 101 new affordable housing units, which includes 60 new socially rented units. The scheme note provides no net loss of affordable housing in line with emerging local plan policy for estate regeneration.
There would be a wouldn't be significant ecological impact and a series of enhancements can be secured
and KCC Highways after
a great deal of sort of going back and forth with
between themselves and the applicant and the council are now satisfied that traffic movements and parking can be safely accommodated, without detriment to safety on the public highway,
the scheme includes the creation of a new cycle route which would link the east or west sides of the estate and safeguarded area of land for potential future extension of the cycle route and towards the 26
scheme includes the provision of two play areas and enhanced open space within the estate.
and it wouldn't be significantly harmful to the residential amenities of nearby neighbouring dwellings. it can be accommodated
largely around existing trees, although there would be some tree loss.
the number of residential units and the mix of sizes, but considered to be appropriate, there would be a betterment in surface water runoff rates through a new SUDS scheme,
there would be financial contributions and towards various borough council KCC and NHS projects.
it's within the LBD at Tunbridge Wells and is a sustainable location close to various services, schools and amenities and shops.
and the design of the scheme is considered acceptable
and other matters can be controlled by condition satisfactorily.
the recommendation is that permission be granted subject to a Section 1 6 agreement
and an ancillary memorandum if required in respect of land owned by the Borough Council and also subject to conditions thank you.
thank you, Mr. Speaker.
we have one
speaker on his item
and I call
your name, please come to the microphone and ensure it is activated when you speak, you have free minutes to make your statement.
our speaker this evening is bought p p from Town and Country Housing, Mr. Happy.
thank you Chair good evening members, and thank you for the opportunity to speak in favour of the Schofield's application. My name is Bobby P, I'm chief executive of Town and Country Housing,
just a bit of context. Tunbridge Wells Borough Council is a key partner for Town and Country Housing and has been for the 30 years since the inception of our business. We only manage around 5,000 homes within the authority and we are currently active actively developing some more new homes.
We remain committed to the borough and, as a housing association, committed to providing good quality homes for those that can't access the market, we are experienced in estate regeneration, working closely with other agencies and especially the communities we serve, and this can be evidenced by the successful completion of the regeneration scheme in Tunbridge Wells Sherwood, some four years ago,
in terms of schofield's to the estate was built in the 1970 s, but today many of the homes are no longer fit for purpose, they do not meet modern standards for building regulations, fire safety and energy efficiency, and the estate layout creates frontages that accommodates anti-social behaviour. Many of the garage blocks are barely used and the green spaces let planting and have low ecological value. Notwithstanding the shortfalls, we highly value the estate and the community we serve there, it's a highly sustainable location, has good provision of open space and benefits from good local services, transport links and community facilities. We're committed to improving the living conditions on the estate and have listened and responded to feedback from residents and council officers alike.
the proposal seeks to deliver new high quality mixed tenure homes with significant public realm and landscaping improvements and increased natural surveillance. The new homes will contribute to the council's housing supply and significantly improve the overall appearance of the estate. All new homes will have private external space, secure cycle parking and energy efficient air source, air source heat pumps, and we intend to build five wheelchair accessible units. Parking across the estate will be increased significantly to ensure sure both existing and the new homes have an appropriate level of parking. The scheme will also include electric charging points and funding for two car club spaces. Highway works will also improve road safety removal opportunities for illegal parking and ensure safe access for pedestrians and cyclists. The landscaping will include tree planting new play equipment and picnic benches, with enhanced planting to the edge of the village green. A new pedestrian cycle path will improve connectivity and we have safeguarded an area of land that is to be extended in future across the 26 our proposals will not affect the ongoing operation of the Library number 1, Community Trust, or the community cafe. We recognise completely that these are important resources for residents, nor will the scheme preclude any future redevelopment of these facilities. The scheme complies with the relevant planning policies in the emerging Local Plan and we have agreed to make a section 1 0 6 payment and ensure no net loss of affordable housing. Keeping
your free minutes is come, we
sorry so you
just quickly
wind up. We believe the application represents a sustainable and high quality development which Tunbridge Wells can be proud of. Thank you, Chair, thank you mistake
officers do wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from the statements made by speakers. okay, committee, members, any questions of the officers,
Councillor Noon,
thank you Chair,
I have five questions and apologies to members.
that it might be too lengthy and await respond directly, may be free first, and the answer to question 1, the price, the proposed development
on Blocks C, OK, get
Councillor Noon just before you continue, Mr. Heap, you can return to your seat now if you wish,
sorry for Councillor Moore, OK.
yet question 1
in the proposed redevelopment proposals block C and D this is a report from the Southern Water report lie over the existing foul and surface water sewers.
which may be accepted is not acceptable to them,
so I'm really asking what mitigation has been put in place, I a condition regarding this commitment
comment from Southern Water. the actually requested that there would be a provision for those services under block C and D.
question 2 to 2.2 and 5
sorry, I forgot to have so many questions if it were just take one at a time
on it, so thank you, Mr.
Hazelgrove, you'd like to deal with that question first,
thank you Chair. The matter of the sewers is essentially for the applicant to all the owners to come to an agreement with Southern Water separately which sits outside the planning process so they're required if a sewer is to be diverted, then that's something which the
the landowner, nice to come to a separate agreement with with Southern Water.
thank you, is that been progressing,
because I, as a consultee, I make a clear point
that is quite a serious service underneath the proposed block to one day, so there has to be detailed mitigation, eye protection or diversion of those services to complete
a block C and D,
and that's what we're looking at tonight,
all I'm asking is, is,
is there a condition to ensure
that that is enforced?
before the development takes place, Mr. Hoffman.
thank you Chair. yes, as Mr. Isaac Grove explained it, it's it's outside of the planning process
that that that discussion between the applicant
and and the
the Southern Water or any other sewage provider, so it's
is for them to come to that agreement, it will depend
most of the time on the cost, the death.
possibility of diversion possibility of protection, so there are waste on our members like to have all the all the answers to everything, unfortunately we can only deal with the matters within the planning remit.
there's condition 23 to essentially what when the
when the matter has been resolved between the two parties that those
those aspects are are submitted to us, essentially for our discharge.
Councillor Moon, your next question,
yeah, thank you for that, my only concern is not break the documents, and that was staring out at me question to 2.2 5 energy saving measures I noted that
solar panels were not included in the housing provision in the
the blocks.
I would have thought that that would been a clear
looking at the size of the buildings, to provide solar panels.
Mr. Hazzard.
thank you, Chair, and condition again that those are matters that can be secured by condition condition 12 seeks details of sustainability measures.
and if the buildings are
appropriate for
solar panels to be fitted to then, that's something that we would seek it at that stage, it obviously depends
on their their orientation and the
ability of them to be integrated into the design, thank you.
thank you, Councillor, it's really
next question,
unless you free, this is preparing a 7.2 7 Ken Highways
KCC, Highways have raised concerns.
that, even with the proposed parking ratios, the parking pressures will remain high in certain pockets of the estate, and that's clear today. as adequate parking being provided with the redevelopment, considering the prison issues with parking on the estate.
days ago, yeah sorry.
thank you, Chair KCC Highways have been involved extensively with this scheme for the last two three years.
and one of the main points of
discussion has
been parking and its provision and the manner in which is provided.
in terms of
its it's.
numbers and distribution of parking
KCC, are satisfied with the
Highways, are satisfied with
the the the parking provision
in terms of its numbers and in terms of the the way in which it's is distributed across the estate,
so so yes, in essence we are satisfied that there is sufficient parking, thank you.
Councillor Mick, question 4 6.0 4
this mentions the statement of community support and community involvement.
it mentions resources will be provided to support the residents that may be required to move home as part of the redevelopment and, hopefully possibly return
I have concerns on this because, looking back in the Sherwood estate and a social housing redevelopment there, there are major issues with residents moving and making.
space or accommodation for the redevelopment and have to vacate their properties, I just want assurance and that that is being provided for those residents,
Mr. Hazel Grove.
thank you Chair, unfortunately, that's a matter that sits outside
the planning process,
it's something that is.
a matter between 10 Country Housing Group and its tenants,
and also our own housing advice team or a Housing Services team in terms of.
tents that are decanted out of the buildings and then subsequently given alternative accommodation,
it's not a matter that that we have any control over or that we can become involved in as the local planning authority, thank you.
the only regional ratio, because the comments made by
town and Country to know it refers that we're in a partnership with the Barrow, it was previous
social housing council, housing, and by the borough, and we should be
concerned about residents there, Ivo Andhra town and country we should still be concerned
their wellbeing and their re
re accommodation coming back.
again, that's a matter that is dealt with by the Borough Council, but
by other departments and other areas largely in housing advice in conjunction with TCAS G,
and your final question can
yeah, thank you, Members, you can see I've come through this point playfully,
7.7 to 10, which was Borough Council Parking Services.
that states that the promotion of extensive on-street parking is not compatible with effective parking management or good planning practice.
it is the planning application of off street parking
are enough for the redevelopment, and it leans heavily on the premise of off-street parking
also notes that some point 7 to 7.7 4 7.7 7 7.7 8 and 7.8 out of attached officers notes which relate to a possible
disagreement or view, with Tunbridge Wells towards Borough Council Parking Services.
is it normal for that those notes including and applications, even it isn't a disagreement?
we've come salty by officers notes.
thank you,
Mr. Hazzard,
thank you Chair, and that is that is something that I have done before in on occasions, where there have been matters raised by consultees which
which we think needs to be clarified by officers
quite clearly those notes that we've added are our own notes there identified as such
and also the matter of comments from parking surfaces. are addressed in para 10.1 1 8, of the report.
which states that the comments of parking services are noted, however, their remit, as acknowledged in their comments, is the management of on-street parking. and not ensuring highway safety, which is the remit of pacy Highways.
and Parking Services states that, in essence, the crux of parking services assessment is whether there is the potential for displacement onto the highway,
but that displacement in itself isn't grounds to refuse a planning application, rather, the issue is whether the proposal clearly amounts to over development at the expense of Austria parking or whether on-street parking causes a danger to highway safety.
KC Highways don't consider that the letter
is occurred, I don't consider that there is a danger to highway safety from on-street parking, and it's not considered that there has been
a sacrifices it if you for want of a better phrase of off-street parking in favour of the quantum of development, thank you.
charges had come back on that occasion, she did have concerns about off street parking and but not or not to outweigh
to acceptance of the whole scheme,
and I accept that I read that
I'm just concerned that that was from that consultee was Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Parking Services and they had concerns about the parking issue.
which should be considered by all members.
and I don't come here thinking straight away, I'm gonna refuse it and read the documents and there is a conflict there which surprised me, and that's all I was asking, thank you.
if the officers had no further comment to make on that point,
does any other Member have a question Councillor Johnson?
hopefully I I didn't me say, but Schofield's Road,
I I believe there was going to be put in bumps, yes to say slow down the
traffic, but I couldn't see anything like that
in all the things, but it's possible that I've actually missed that.
Hazel Grove, thank you Chair.
I'd have to look back at the plans to see if traffic calming forms part of the the the scheme and I think they're all areas of of traffic calming, ultimately that has to be agreed with Kent County Council as the owner of the of the road essentially and there what's called a section 2 7 8 agreement
but I believe here there is provision for for traffic calming measures, not just be bombs but also there's curbed buildouts and and that kind of thing so yeah, in short, there is there are measures proposed to slow vehicles down that spine road.
thank you very much.
are there any further questions?
Councillor Bailey, sorry.
thanks for
festival, I think this is quite an easy one, but
Mr. Hazel Grove in his presentation, said that there would be a loss of trees.
the impression I got from reading through the paperwork was the bill, there'll be quite a substantial increase in the number of trees in the development I don't know if that can just be clarified quickly donated.
thank you Chair yet, and so the proposal ultimately resulting in a loss of trees from within the estate, but when we say trees, that's everything, you know that's everything says small, poor-quality, small, poor quality trees to, I think, is a Christmas tree outside one of the block of flats.
so it's
what there will be a loss of trees, their generally low quality ones, and, as I showed in the presentation, there's a substantial
re tree
tree replanting scheme that's proposed in outline form there.
did I say that was at a net increase of 130 or trees? that figure, I remember correctly,
Mr. Hayes.
thank you Chair, yes, at 10.00.4 9 the submitted planting strategy indicates 130 replacement trees of varying mature size.
OK, Councillor babies are satisfied with the answer, any good and any other questions
yes, please yet.
also, I notice that, obviously, the section 1 0 6 payments have been scaled back from the requests from the various partners.
I must confess, I've never come across that before and an application, so I just wanted to find out
how how that works really,
and it does seem that.
health services, for example, of vast for all the NHS, as, as us ask for certain contributions which which we were basically deciding on, gonna be met, they're going to be scaled back by roughly 60%, I just wanted to find out more details about that.
Mr. Hague,
thank you, Chair, and as we've detailed in the report between 10 74.
moving on 10 90 s to 94.
this isn't
like a standard developer led
housing scheme, it's a submission for it's or a housing association essentially seeking to replace.
a social housing or no debt loss basis and, as a result, that comes at a high price, and it's avoid, in terms of viability in the traditional sense that the application scheme is enviable.
it would result in a significant loss, essentially for four TCAs G is developer, and that's explained in the report.
officers have given a the application has been made on the basis that there is no net loss of affordable housing and that's been given significant weight.
and the applicant. essentially offered
a lower payment or section 1 0 6 monies.
as a result of that that lack of inner that lack of viability and the fact that the scheme is due to make a loss,
so as we sit in the report, sort of the fairest and the most equitable way rather than
rather than saying OK
so there's 100,000 pounds on the table will only give that to one.
to will only give that to Kent County Council, for example, and everybody else gets nothing,
it was all scaled down by a percentage to reflect the 100,000 pounds offer in a
fair and equitable way.
instead they.
thank you for that.
I do notice that the contribution to the Car Club is being maintained at 30,000 pounds, basically I mean I, I don't want to sound negative about the club and it's something I use, but.
we've got a situation where the car club
contribution is being maintained, while the contributions to the NHS and to Kent County Council for education are being scaled back very significantly.
so you said that you felt that was the most equitable outcome.
is there any reason why the car club contribution wasn't included in the in the, in the other calculations, basically?
yeah largely because the car club contribution is intended to partly offset the new merit, there is there's a a slight numerical shortfall in parking spaces, whether it's measured against certain standards, so the idea, and also there is you know, the scheme uses on-street parking to deal with park to meet parking demand.
and so in order to mitigate any concerns about parking and to provide an alternative mode of transport, if you like, for local residents,
the Car Club contribution because of the
because that carries weight in terms of highways, arguments as well, that's why that was essentially kept at 30,000, thank you.
anything further Councillor Bain,
I would just want clarification of this, OK,
did I see in the in the report that the contribution for the car club is is, is it going or not to fund it for two years, but I see that was a certain amount of time.
there he J Sassi intention yes
over any further questions.
I don't see any hands raised, so we now move into the debate any Member like to comment on this application.
Councillor Bailey,
with your permission Chair,
I just wanted to ask one further question, doesn't write OK.
I, I did notice that a lot of the new buildings are gonna be off the gas grid.
is that something that's common, I've always thought of that as being something that may happen in rural locations, but not necessarily town centre locations,
Mr. Hazel Grove or
Mr. Hockney?
I'm aware of a
a couple of estates recently that have been off the grid, and I think Councillor Bains, you say that the typically rural areas
it it's
suicide, it's not, it's not wholly unusual, but it's usually where it's it's it's or not possible for connections.
but in terms of a sort of planning
consideration, as the local planning authority
it is is not one that we we should really delve into in too much detail, to be honest, I think it's more that it is more, I think is is you've raised it as a as a sort of point of interest more than anything else thank you.
very late Councillor Fitzsimmons when I mentioned a discussion you raise your head, are you willing to start us off once discussion on the application
I thank you Chair, I am
I dislike,
to congratulate the
developer for actually having the foresight, probably forced upon him by.
the plan is for the ground source at the air source heat pumps,
I think that's
very, very good innovation and I'm very very much in favour of the
car club.
I think it's something that we should be rolling out across the borough and taking on, and it will encourage
active travel.
it's unjust used for
I don't know big trips, a supermarket or whatever, so I would.
I would thank them very much for those
those carbon reducing.
Thank you
anybody else night to make a contribution to the debate,
Councillor May.
thank you Chair.
I refer really to
offering a
bit of confusion.
the talk of net loss on affordable housing.
there is an actual.
net loss of 35 social housing rented units
and 6 affordable houses. within those totals,
there are 45 new market sales within the development.
so it's not a like-for-like development
within the existing social housing
now, when you read some of the documentation.
and the presentation that's not openly stated, and I think it should be
in relation to members making decisions
now it is clear to me.
other parts of the documentation.
the report on 10.8 I'm not going to read this because it it does get it in context, all this all fits in with the aim p p p f.
because it doesn't necessarily fit in
because of stated policies,
it's not a direct new development. it's a like for, like 10.80, this application falls outside the traditional model of a landowner and or a developer seeking to promote a scheme including standard LP, a required affordable housing levels and developed name, with a view to making a profit.
instead, this scheme is driven by a need to replace 1 0 1 defective and outdated affordable dwellings, and I don't dispute that I agree with that are dated and they need redeveloping, with no net loss of affordable housing with the 45 market dwellings subsidising the development,
and I think that complicates that whole application from
from 10 to 8 9
10.9 0
where it refers to financial aspects of it
in relation to our own policy.
in fact, 10.9 1 therefore, on the information provided, there is considered to be sufficient justification to depart from Core Policy 6 regards to the revision of the full set upon angel obligations.
issues issue would therefore not form a recommended reason for refusal, now again I accept that that point, but it is a matter of opinion, more so than previous applications I've been looking at over the last 12 months. there is an issue here where
it is a matter of opinion, it's not concrete, then the lot of applications we have in relation to the
national Policy P so.
I have reservations on it overall, I would would have liked to have saying.
dwelling we what we have there already,
with a new application dialogue where they do develop atomic country, say well, yes, we recognise that there is far more need for social housing in Tunbridge Wells, even weave around policy on the barrel than affordable housing.
affordable housing is not affordable, not necessarily in Tunbridge Wells.
I have reservations.
on the application, thank you.
well, as a
consequence of what Councillor Luna's as as as as said,
if there were to be more a question of the officers, if there were to be more socially rented.
sir yeah, accommodation within the as proportion of the the affordable housing given the scheme would that affect the viability and the validity, as its stages are already quite difficult, so help how would that affect the viability of the scheme without
doubt it would have a net negative impact on the viability of that.
I mean just just for Members' information, I think, top of page 21 of the agenda. power to point 0 7.
sets out clearly
dwelling types and tenure times, which I'm sure Members all saw in the
thank you.
do we have any do we have any further comments and in discussion
do I see it, Councillor Fitzsimons divisive proposal from you know, no, I was just going to just
just one more comment.
I can't help thinking that 5 storey block at the beginning at the the entrance to stay is is rather lodging just down the road, we've got that dander a building, that is
and I cannot help thinking with its overwhelms that a little,
but that's just a matter of opinion,
Councillor Baillie, I fall so in order.
thank you Chair, I was just going to say that you know that I think there are some.
some parts of this application, where
you know there's obviously a bit of difficulty
you know trying to put in.
no fairly large number of units into a finite space and one that is causing parking issues,
it does seem to me that the developer and and the various consultees do seem to have just about hammered lt.
a compromise that people are happy with.
so you know, overall, it seems to me to be a good development that will improve what's there already, so that that that's my view, thank you.
are you willing to propose the applicant, we accept the application, Councillor Bailey,
you're higher out of the proposed that we accept the officer's recommendation?
thank you, Councillor Baillie and Councillor Khan Councillor Fitzsimmons, thank you, Mr. Seconder, so it's been if
further contributions to debate.
Councillor Pengelly has moved and Councillor Fitzsimmons has seconded that we accept the officer's recommendation to approve this application in line with the conditions set out in the agenda, so met no mood to vote or vote in favour, please show.
it's 9 4 Chair
vows against.
one against
no abstentions, OK, thank
you, and I'll be recorded as against you certainly yes, he can be. that application is therefore approved. Thank you
members will now have a five minute break before we get on to the next application.
OK, so we're just going to oppose the reporting, it's now, 1934, we will back at 19.39

7 b) Application for Consideration - 22/03018/FULL Brokeswood Lodge, The Ridgewaye, Southborough, Kent.

right we now move on to Item 7 B
22 stroke 0
3 0
1 8 broke with launch the rich way south for Kent,
Mr. Hazel Grove, your presentation, please,
thank you Chair, so this output, this application is for the demolition of a single dwelling and the construction of three dwellings on a site at Brookwood Lodge the Ridgeway in the south where,
so that's the
application site, it's.
unusual in that it's it's a single dwelling, with quite a large garden area, as opposed to the
more densely developed terms of a more regimented
housing layout, as in the north and the south.
that's an aerial photograph of the site so easy the houses in the centre, it's a one and a half storey chalet bungalow.
to the
to the north east you have Brokes Wood, which is within the A and B in the Green Belt, which is a local wildlife site and an area of ancient woodland, access to the site is of the junction, and you can see to the south or west of the red line
for Hillcrest and the Ridgeway.
so there's a number of constraints that potentially affect development here.
this one shows the boundary of the Area of outstanding natural beauty to the north to the north east.
when the Local Wildlife Site, which follows the same boundary,
there are also public rights of way
which run through the site.
and to the north and the south,
the WS 15 was diverted back in the 1980 s
unlawfully diverted.
but nevertheless at its monitoring, and that's been its want, read for many years the original route go through the site, as you can see, by the yellow line.
Brooks would also is within the Green Belt and its ancient woodland and with a TPO on it, the hatched area, if you like, is the limits to built developments, or the site is within the limits of built development.
as is obviously the the rest of the
locality around it, to the
to the eastern, to the south, sorry to the west and to the south.
so this is the access to the site
on the left-hand side you have the Ridgeway, which is a pro at this point, is a private road, carries a
a public right of way.
the access to the site itself is down this this driveway
this is the junction with Hillcrest, where the road changes colour.
then that's Hillcrest
away to the at the arrow is pointing in the wrong direction, but that's Hillcrest
away to the south east.
this is the access to the site that a private driveway that carries the public footpath to the footpath goes off, where those
barriers are there and in one direction, and then it goes his way yet side.
looking back up the driveway.
another view into the site.
since the existing house on the site is a site's one and a half storey chalet bungalow that was extended in the past,
there's also a very large area of hardstanding, you can see there.
the house again.
the garage block, as well as very small garage block.
and his photos, the back of the house, and, as you can see, it, sort of emphasises the level change
within the site, so there's overall a drop of 20 metres from this point here at the access to the top corner.
unless, as a few, into the rest of the garden and towards Brokes Wood.
this in terms of the appearance of the houses around the sites, this is something that the design of the scheme is is
advice to have been drawn from to the use of great breaking clay, tiles. and while common usage in the surrounding locality.
as he existing site layout, so you can see the excess which comes in their large area of hardstanding here, then you've got the house.
this is an existing section drawing, so you can see that this is the house and this site sits at a lower level than the buildings around it, so these are the houses on the Ridgeway and these are from Hillcrest.
again, I'm a more traditional cross section here, so again, because he, the ridge height of this.
of the existing house compared to those.
along the Ridgeway, there are also three houses that were
constructed to the the, those are the three houses. which were granted planning permission on appeal
some years ago.
so this is the proposed layout.
so access would remain through here, but. this area would be improved, so there will be a passing space.
the three houses would be in the centre of the site or to what I say.
towards the centre of the site, the existing houses around here.
these would be a access route parking and turning area on-plot parking,
and then.
two areas this area would be specifically for wildlife enhancement.
and this area would be as a sort of a private amenity space for the for the they have the use of the houses.
this area along here it this, is that the public right of way, which is proposed to be resurfaced.
but the original lawful route of the public right of way, because it has actually been formally diversity gear, would be preserved through this footpaths here. down the the main drive.
also relevant is that there's a a 3 metre buffer zone shown here, which has been agreed by the Council's landscape and biodiversity officer.
and that will be planted up with mixed native species, hedgerow and and actors are essentially as a buffer or a barrier to the ancient woodland beyond it.
and just in terms of the distance of the
the site from the nearby nearest houses,
some fairly substantial distances, and there between between the development and the surrounding neighbours.
this is a proposed section, so the three houses would sit within the centre of the site.
again, you can see their ridge height relative to to the houses around them,
this cross section shows the song, so you can see the outline the dotted outline of the existing house here and you've got the three houses set slightly further down the slope.
and again from the other direction.
house here and in the three houses in this blog here.
in terms of works to the access.
so the proposal is to.
instead, essentially, to make improvements to the access which previous refused applications on this site haven't done.
so the idea is to build the care about here.
allow for visibility, splays the applicant owns this corner here, so certainly to clear that
and provide a proper visibility splays.
and also to relay the the Roman road markings around the access to which have worn away over time and those works within the highway are subject to separate agreement from KCC Highways.
so in terms of the elevations of the buildings,
the buildings are
built into the slope
and they're designed in such a way as to, if you like, to sort of de-emphasise, ought to lay down the rear elevation because you have a large cat-slide roof here or catslide style roof which,
brings the eaves height down as you go down the slope
so that the building doesn't look any more than sort of two storey or one and a half storey, depending on which angle you look at it.
well from the back on the front, anyway.
minus Plot 2.
and in Plot 3, which is largely the same as what to.
and so again, this is a official impression of how the buildings would look,
so the impression the idea is that the parking
area would be dropped down below and the garage would be dropped down below this ground level, so that when one sort of stands here you'll see what appears to be a one and a half storey dwelling.
then again that's.
yet another view, another image from further up the driveway.
it sounds of updates,
so children's attention to condition 13.
it was included in error and is essentially repeats condition 18,
and also to essentially replace it with a condition that seeks details of a surface water drainage systems.
as part of the scheme,
also, the intention is to amend.
informative number 4 so that
conveys the advice of the
of the cases you public Rights, of Way Officer in terms of any works to the surface of the public, right of way again, those have to be separately agreed with Kent County Council.
so in conclusion, and the absence of a five-year supply housing, current housing policies are out of date,
the proposal would result in the delivery of sustainable development and, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the NPP F, permission should be granted in offices
recommendation subject to all other material considerations.
again, following extensive consultation with KCC, Highways drew
during the course of the application, officers are satisfied that the traffic movements generated by the development
to net extra houses can be accommodated without detriment, to safety on the highway or on the public right of way,
and the proposal would deliver surfacing improvements to the existing public right of way.
it wouldn't be significantly harmful to the residential amenities of neighbouring dwellings
and number of dwellings of number of units are considered appropriate to the site scale, massing and layout and design is considered acceptable,
there will be no loss of trees and it can be accommodated around existing trees,
biodiversity net gain can be delivered through the dedicated biodiversity enhancement area which I pointed out towards the south west corner of the site.
it would secure a buffer zone into the ancient woodland within Brokes, Wood where there's currently not in place at all,
and it would preserve the setting of the alien bay to the north-east,
it's within the LBD southborough,
which is a tier one settlement and is its high staple location, so is within walking, distance of a major bus route or shops,
nursery and pre-school, primary and secondary schools, and other facilities and amenities,
any other matters can be addressed by condition.
so the recommendation is that permission is granted subject to conditions, thank you.
thank you, Mr. Hayes regard,
we have one speaker on this item when I call your name, please come to the microphone and insurance is activated when you speak, you have three minutes to make your
statement, our Speaker this is this evening is agent for the applicant,
it's acerbic, Samuel Baumann managing director of bow architecture,
the bombing.
Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this scheme. Clearly, given the time I've got to talk, it's not possible to summarise all the planning, policy points and the justification for the design and the case officer. Donna are good and do very detailed job. In his report of outlining the compliance with your local and national planning policy and the design and access statement covers the G, the reasons for the design, two documents. I'm sure that you've read from cover to cover and have made for enjoyable bedtime reading. I just briefly want to cover two points that are all aspects of the scheme that were raised by online comments, the first being Highways as the case officer, sort of, as pointed out
we recognise the importance of providing a site a safe site access, and so we employed a transport consultant to come up with a proposal.
their job, unlocking architecture, which is sometimes speculative and is subject to sort of speculative scrutiny or highway consultant job is a lot more easier because they have sort of hard and fast guidelines to work to are transports.
a survey was carried out, the data collected and a design in response to that data was provided and to the satisfaction of KCC Highways, and also a road safety audit was carried out by an independent consultant who confirmed that there was no issues with this proposal we consider the access an acceptable in terms of on-site parking with providing parking on site for the residents in line with the KCC parking standards and also were providing on-site visitor parking spaces in excess of the requirements.
it's the second point, it was about density of the development, again I say it's a bit subjective, as an architect has to
developing a scheme that is appropriate for the site so that your policy E and 1 does set down criteria in terms of appropriate densities, it calls for development to respect the scale,
this sort of boundary wipes the plot sizes of the surrounding context to respect, not replicates, that so we feel that we've delivered a scheme that is
one that's helpful, hopefully means there, the specs to sort of plot, whips the spacing between houses and so on and so forth in line with your policy.
so in the summary, firstly, the site is in a highly sustainable location, it is in the development boundary of South, but where the first of your local housing policy
seeks just such evidence to happen and on tilted balance, there is that
planning weight in favour of the scheme and secondly, you know the scheme we believe is a well designed and in the thoughtful, respectful scheme the intention was never to replicate the housing around because you know it's a mixed match but we've drawn under the key architectural elements.
and amused that in the design and the fact that the scheme is it's not in is important to note it's not inside the A and B it's outside and is adjacent to the Bruce Wood Lodge but surely Brooks would, but that doesn't stop contemporary design and in fact the High Weald design guidance encourages contemporary design to,
no pick up on the key features, not just kind of replicated pastiche architectures around there, so on those two points alone we feel that there is that planning balance that will allow you to support the scheme this evening,
then your three minutes has now come to an end, I'm afraid
OK or stop there then thank you very much.
officers do wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from the statements made at Katyn,
no comments, committee, members over to you for questions, do you have any questions from Committee Councillor White?
thank you, and I just wanted to ask about the buffer zone, because it said this talk in the papers about the buffer zone should be about 15 metres, and then we seem to have landed on three metres as the what as the width of the buffer zone I just wondered whether
whether that is is normal in that that is right, whether that's a bit of a compromise compared to the recommendation of a bigger buffer zone
Mr. Rated good,
thank you Chair, so 15 metres is a kind of a standard that natural England recommend
and they would recommend that on say like a greenfield site where there's no development at all in place
and where you have ancient woodland next to it
it's not hard and fast and are a landscape by a we've explained this in the report and on landscape and biodiversity officers is also of the same view that where you have sites like this where you already have a garden
which is adjacent to the ancient woodland, there were.
so there's already an impact arising from that
that garden, if you like, which recently, though typically impacts are
you know, disturbance of soil, close to the ancient woodland and potential people dumping glass, grass clippings, or something like that over the boundary?
the idea is with this 3 metres is appropriate because the site is already developed as a garden.
this one is not any sort of justification for a 15 metre deep buffer zone, and so three metres is like a
say, it's a compromise, it's that it's it's appropriate to the the specific
characteristics of the site and the fact it's already in residential use.
councillor Depay,
thank you Chair.
in the very first sentence of the Sunday reasons for recommendation,
it refers to the supplant policies, including those relating to the limits of built development in quotes out of date,
and I just really wanted to know who it was quoting and how we know there are out of date.
days ago.
thank you Chair, so it's a phrase that plan is used where
where you so, the government in the National Planning Policy Framework requires local authority to be able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing where a local authority cannot do so.
there are certain elements of its local plan that are rendered essentially out of date.
for example,
settlement boundaries, for example, you can no longer say that we will refuse all applications for new housing outside the LBD because you don't have a five-year housing land supply so.
and there are.
and housing policies and policies that relate to the delivery of housing are essentially out of date, so those that's that refer to like the mix or say, where housing should and shouldn't go so that where we allow it in quotation marks he's not quoting anyone is particular, it's just a phrase that is these used in the in the planning system where say a council can demonstrate a five-year supply.
thank you another, very quick one, yeah.
in Europe, Britain station Postecoglou mentioned at this point is a private road, referring to the original is there, something that you know is going to happen to that because it might be germane to no OK, it was just just
just a phrase.
OK, are there any further questions, Councillor Bailey?
thanks to
first of all, can I ask about the
this the status of the Woodland Trust in terms of,
while their status as a consultee?
David, thank you Chair, they're not a statutory consultee, they're somebody who we consult
where development is.
close to the east or could potentially could have an impact on ancient woodland.
but their views are taken into account as a material consideration.
Councillor Burt.
that's great, thank you. I also notice that
this application was called in by Councillor Lewis.
but he's not actually here today. have we heard from him why why he's not here?
I got no, I, I mean, as herself from any stiff E, represents the other self for
I have absolutely no idea why he's not present you'd have to contact him closely to find out.
OK thanks, Chair, I do just as an observation, obviously calling applications in does create work for people.
and if you care enough to call an application and I'm a slightly surprised that you don't.
turn up to the meeting, but that's just an observation, thank you.
any further questions of officers,
if not we now move into bait into debate, does anybody want to kick off debate?
Councillor White and Councillor Murray,
I just had one sort of observation to make really that I can't help thinking that it would be better with just two dwellings on the site, do they do look quite squashed in appreciate it's because of the triangle shape, but I just I guess it's an observation that feels like two dwellings might make it a more pleasurable development for everybody.
on that point.
regarding I presume that we have to determine what's before us wrong,
is that correct?
as correct,
you make me feel
redundant by site, sign it for me.
a councillor moving.
thank you Chair.
I refer to some of the points within the proposal that report.
first, one is in relation to
national England's advice, natural England's advice may make it clear from 7.0 7 that you should not approve development proposals, including gardens within a buffer zone.
and the problem is with the development of, instead of just one garden,
you add three linked gardens cyber side which makes it extremely difficult to provide a buffer zone,
and the reason I provide the buffer zone is because it's ancient woodland
which needs to be protected
and that is mentioned in the national.
P P F quite clearly under the sustainability of a development.
so when you see it coming like that, I think we should take note of it in relation to protecting the woodland, the problem is people introduce non-native species today garden, one example is.
Spanish bluebells
which then migrate into the woodland and destroy that habitat. and that's why they have a buffer zone and they make it clear, and it's quite clear as well with the Woodland Trust
with their concerns of the development,
and I think if you look within the M P P P F.
I don't think with the
comments made that it's not actually sustainable within that framework.
it is over-intensive, you have one dwelling at the moment now.
proposing three.
you have
according access constraints
within to the property, this is not just one dwelling disease 3, and when you consider the traffic movements on those private roads, specifically at
school, visiting times with parents, etc it can be quite congested, and that was made clear in some of the comments by residents.
if you look at the public rights of way,
that is another issue in regards to the development of present, there is a
a legal diversion within sight
on one of the footpaths there, there is a condition that that should be resolved before the development takes place, Georgia, hope it is,
but should be allowed and the sustainability is there as well within the framework.
so when you look at it overall, within the framework,
is that it's ancient woodland and that's the sole concern, and that's why we consider
it is opinion when you look at the framework right the way through the whole document.
that it's not sustainable for that reason, in the other reasons I've mentioned,
thank you.
thank you, Councillor Booth.
any further comments on this application.
Councillor the pay.
but I've got a quick one and that is it's just a comment and it's not germane to planning
decisions, but it is referred to in the BBF, and that is about the architecture.
decisions that are made on, and I've just wanted to say that I think one has a choice between either replicating an old building exactly or making very good pastiche or building one building modern architecture, some not too upset already. so that fulfils this development fulfils the last one of those, it's
it's an unrelentingly modern, but it does not to the buildings that are there, thank you,
thank you, Councillor Pope.
this is increasing the density, but actually, if you look at the
our properties around Deighton, the Ridgeway, it's a similar density, today's site, I don't see a problem with particularly say a problem without, of course, some people will not be so happy that there are more houses,
unfortunately there is pressure to
build more houses, it and it in relation to it being next to the ancient woodland,
I think the three gardens
that have been mentioned are actually where one garden currently is so that buffer zone to some extent
has already been.
a domestic garden already and it's just being broken into three, so I don't see a major issue with that
and in terms of the architecture.
think it's.
it's modern and relatively attractive.
and that's really not good to say.
thank you, Councillor.
councillor, it would
not disagree with Councillor Pope, I think the
in the face of the opportunities modern,
not not to my liking, I have to admit then again I can't afford to live there.
in absence of anyone else, I'll propose it so that, in normally long way the officer's recommendation of his remit, including the amendments as mentioned in your presentation, thank you. So we have a proposal from Councillor at with to
accept this in line with the officers' recommendations Councillor pay,
I'm happy to second it OK,
so we've got a proposal if nobody matters to which nobody wants to comment further on his application, we have a proposal from Councillor Edwards seconded by Councillor Page to approve this ignoring the officer recommendation all those in favour, please show.
that's nine torture and those against
one against her.
that the application is therefore approved, thank you,
could you please record,
thank you, yes, I'll be noted, thank you.
we now move on to.
ITEM 7 See application 23 stroke double 0 4 2 0
I started getting item 7 C.
item 7 C. application 23, St stroke, double 0 4 2 0 Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Town Hall, Mount Pleasant Road.
Mr. Harris, regret for your presentation, please.
this application relates to the Town Hall.
as Members will have probably noticed,
and be aware of, there's a long-term plan to divide the Town Hall.
the majority of it off to let to a co-working company.
and the they'll have probably noticed already, you'll probably notice that officers are now concentrated in the to sort of far wings on the first floor of the Town Hall,
in what we call the greenhouse section and in the the old planning corridor
the rest of the building. as proposed in this application,
is to be essentially undergo a change of use material change of use to a co-working company, and essentially that would be a mixed use of the the ceremonial and civic functions that take place in the Town Hall as well as offices.
the proposal is that certain areas of the Town Hall would be let over to.
to the the co-working company, so you'll see those edged in blue.
the purple areas would remain as storage space for the Borough Council, and those areas outlined in red would remain as workspace for the borough council,
that's the that was the base when you just saw this is the ground floor, so the idea is that,
so when she moved the
so the idea is that the air is in blue again would be a co-working space, so be company, which essentially rents office space or rents desk to individuals, for argument's sake, a week, two weeks advance or days of the by that.
so the green area would be a cafe,
a small cafe, within the existing the reception area.
so we.
excuse me move to the first floor.
again of the same, you would have use of this area as for the co-working space.
this would remain.
again, this would also be used as a co-working space.
as a separate matter to this planning application,
there would be a lease agreed between the Borough Council and
and Town Square and company who are looking to occupy the building.
and this would that would affect the whole building such areas in red those still occupied by council staff
and the new gowns, the top grey top for roof office, which
gain would be given over to the co-working company.
to receive updates, there are non.
the proposal would allow the reuse of the building within the town centre for a flexible office purpose and be no impact on the conservation area, and the listed building wouldn't pose Holland to significant harm to residential amenity spaces nearby.
the be no impact on the character or the visual amenities of the street scenes, no external alterations proposed,
the be now home to highway safety and or any other matters can be addressed by condition.
the recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to conditions, thank you.
thank you, Mr. Harris, for we have no speakers on this item, so we go straight to questions from members of
the committee
if there are any.
I see none so Members discussion.
Councillor Moon, Mr. Gerard proposed, we accept the recommendation for the application,
do I see a second Councillor Fitzsimmons Finke,
so if there are no further comments on this
out, I'd like to comment yep
sure I'm just
really glad
that it's going to
enhance and bring some life
to the centre of the town.
and I also like the updated council offices.
very much,
bank accounts of Fitzsimons of any further comments.
if not, we had a proposal from Councillor Moon, seconded by Councillor Fitzsimons to approve his application, all those in favour, please show.
it's unanimous Chair, thank you.

8 Appeal Decisions for Noting 31 January 2023 to 13 March 2023

the application is therefore approved, we now move on to item 8 appeal decisions for noting. 31st of January to 14th of March 2023.
These are set out on page 124 of the agenda. If any Members have any questions relating to these appeal decisions, they should be raised with the planning officers outside the meeting item 9 urgent business I can confirm there is no such business at
Councillor Page has asked to speak at this time. all as other business is urgent
business, Councillor Page.
it is no any, if I say, urgent business, yes, it is some sort of any other business, urgent business.
I asked her permission to say something at this point, but if it's not to enjoy it
yeah, I
say this is he normally for of so
is this a sort of SSRB been helpful if you'd spoken to me before the meeting,
if he did check with me and I said it was OK to speak all right,
OK but far away, and we see our duties,
it seems, after 10 months, I still haven't learned the protocol at these meetings. from the first thing I want to say is that I may not be on this Planning Committee again and may not attain the next meeting, so this would be potentially my last meeting I wanted to say thank you to the officers of the band B statement
for the larger applications, especially who have given us brilliant applications that will improve the townscape, improve the quality of life for residents and have squeezed every last cent out of the developers
before it becomes unviable,
and the last thing which produce to to propose a vote of thanks to a chair,
who has been brilliant throughout, and that's what I wanted to say, thank you,
frankly, that young got rid of a year, I could never return to get over it, thankfully.
but I say to prove that thank you very much anyway, but I do not quite sure how urgent that was but yeah, thank you.
thank you.
ITEM 10 Date of Next Meeting the next meeting is on Wednesday, the 12th of April 2023,

9 Urgent Business

10 Date of Next Meeting

the meeting is now closed, thank you all for your attendance, thank you.
thank you Chair.