Planning Committee

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 17th May 2023 at 6:30pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

In order to view this webcast, please do the following:

Download Flash Player.

You can download it free at
http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/ (opens in a new window)

Please note: you will probably need to restart your browser after the installation of the plugin is finished.

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

1 Chair's Introduction

Share this agenda point

1 Chairmans Introduction

2 Apologies

Share this agenda point

2 Apologies for Absence

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

3 Declarations of Interest

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)

Share this agenda point

4 Declarations of Lobbying

5 Site Inspections

Share this agenda point

6 Site Inspections

6 To approve the minutes of the meeting dated

Share this agenda point

Minutes , 12/04/2023 Planning Committee

7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)

Share this agenda point

8 Reports of Head of Planning Services

7 a) Application for Consideration - 22/01866/FULL St Marks Recreation Ground, Frant Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

Share this agenda point

Slide 2
Slide 3
Slide 4
Slide 5
Slide 6
Slide 7
Slide 8
Slide 9
Slide 10
Slide 11
Slide 12
Slide 13
Slide 14
Slide 15
Slide 16
Slide 17
Slide 18
Slide 19
Slide 20
Slide 21
Slide 22
Slide 23
Slide 24
Slide 25
Slide 26
Slide 27
Slide 28
Slide 29
Slide 30
Slide 31
Slide 32
Slide 33
Slide 34
Slide 35
Slide 36
Slide 37
Slide 38
Slide 39
Slide 40
Slide 41
Slide 42
Slide 43
Slide 44
Slide 45
Slide 46
Slide 47
Slide 48
Slide 49
Slide 50
Slide 51
Slide 52
Slide 53
Slide 54
Slide 55
Slide 56
Slide 57
Slide 58
Slide 59
Slide 60
Slide 61
Slide 62
Slide 63
Slide 64
Slide 65
Slide 66
Slide 67
Slide 68
Slide 69
Slide 70
Slide 71
Slide 72
Slide 73
Slide 74
Slide 75
Slide 76
Slide 77
Slide 78
Slide 79
Slide 80
Slide 81
Slide 82
Slide 83
Slide 84
Slide 85
Slide 86
Slide 87
Slide 88
Slide 89
Slide 90
Slide 91
Slide 92
Slide 93
Slide 94
Slide 95
Slide 96
Slide 97
Slide 98
Slide 99
Slide 100
Slide 101
Slide 102
Slide 103
Slide 104
Slide 105
Slide 106
Slide 107
Slide 108
Slide 109
Slide 110
Slide 111
Slide 112
Slide 113
Slide 114
Slide 115
Slide 116
Slide 117
Slide 118
Slide 119
Slide 120
Slide 121
Slide 122
Slide 123
Slide 124
Slide 125
Slide 126
Slide 127
Slide 128
Slide 129
Slide 130
Slide 131
Slide 132
Slide 133
Slide 134
Slide 135
Slide 136
Slide 137
Slide 138
Slide 139
Slide 140
Slide 141
Slide 142
Slide 143
Slide 144
Slide 145
Slide 146
Slide 147
Slide 148
Slide 149
Slide 150
Slide 151
Slide 152
Slide 153
Slide 154
Slide 155
Slide 156
Slide 157
Slide 158
Slide 159
Slide 160
Slide 161
Slide 162

7 b) Application for Consideration - 22/03406/FULL Grosvenor Garage, 123 - 125 St James Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

Share this agenda point

Slide 163
Slide 164
Slide 165
Slide 166
Slide 167
Slide 168
Slide 169
Slide 170
Slide 171
Slide 172
Slide 173
Slide 174
Slide 175
Slide 176
Slide 177
Slide 178
Slide 179
Slide 180
Slide 181
Slide 182
Slide 183
Slide 184
Slide 185
Slide 186
Slide 187
Slide 188
Slide 189
Slide 190
Slide 191
Slide 192
Slide 193
Slide 194
Slide 195
Slide 196
Slide 197
Slide 198
Slide 199
Slide 200
Slide 201
Slide 202
Slide 203
Slide 204
Slide 205
Slide 206
Slide 207
Slide 208
Slide 209
Slide 210
Slide 211
Slide 212
Slide 213
Slide 214
Slide 215
Slide 216
Slide 217
Slide 218
Slide 219
Slide 220
Slide 221
Slide 222
Slide 223
Slide 224
Slide 225
Slide 226
Slide 227
Slide 228
Slide 229
Slide 230
Slide 231
Slide 232
Slide 233
Slide 234
Slide 235
Slide 236
Slide 237
Slide 238
Slide 239
Slide 240
Slide 241
Slide 242
Slide 243
Slide 244
Slide 245
Slide 246
Slide 247
Slide 248
Slide 249
Slide 250
Slide 251
Slide 252
Slide 253
Slide 254
Slide 255
Slide 256
Slide 257
Slide 258
Slide 259
Slide 260
Slide 261
Slide 262
Slide 263
Slide 264
Slide 265
Slide 266
Slide 267
Slide 268
Slide 269
Slide 270

7 d) Application for consideration - 23/00562/FULL Ashdown House, 11 Hungershall Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

Share this agenda point

Slide 271
Slide 272
Slide 273
Slide 274
Slide 275
Slide 276
Slide 277
Slide 278
Slide 279
Slide 280
Slide 281
Slide 282
Slide 283
Slide 284
Slide 285
Slide 286
Slide 287
Slide 288
Slide 289
Slide 290
Slide 291
Slide 292
Slide 293
Slide 294
Slide 295
Slide 296
Slide 297
Slide 298
Slide 299
Slide 300
Slide 301
Slide 302
Slide 303
Slide 304
Slide 305
Slide 306
Slide 307
Slide 308
Slide 309
Slide 310
Slide 311
Slide 312
Slide 313
Slide 314
Slide 315
Slide 316
Slide 317
Slide 318
Slide 319
Slide 320
Slide 321
Slide 322
Slide 323
Slide 324
Slide 325
Slide 326
Slide 327
Slide 328
Slide 329
Slide 330
Slide 331
Slide 332
Slide 333
Slide 334
Slide 335
Slide 336
Slide 337
Slide 338
Slide 339
Slide 340
Slide 341
Slide 342
Slide 343
Slide 344
Slide 345
Slide 346
Slide 347
Slide 348
Slide 349
Slide 350
Slide 351
Slide 352
Slide 353
Slide 354
Slide 355
Slide 356
Slide 357

7 c) Application for Consideration - 23/00368/FULL 38 All Saints Road, Hawkhurst, Cranbrook, Kent.

Share this agenda point

8 Appeal Decisions for Noting 1 April 2023 to 9 May 2023

Share this agenda point

Appeal decisions for noting 1 April to 9 May 2023

Slide 373

9 Urgent Business

Share this agenda point

10 Urgent Business

10 Date of Next Meeting

Share this agenda point

11 Date of the Next Meeting

Slide 374
Slide 375
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

right okay, Good evening, everybody and welcome to this evening's Planning Committee in the absence of a chair this evening before we can begin the meeting,

as per the constitution, it's necessary to appoint a chair for the committee,

do we have a proposal for Chair this evening?

as such, Alan

I'd like to propose Councillor Godfrey planned, thank you,

thank you, do we have a seconder for that?

Councillor Neville,

I'd like to second that.

thank you, thank you if Members are happy to take a vote on that, and can we have a show of hands.

so that's unanimous so Councillor Bland we'd like to take your seat as Chair.

will try to protect a bit more, but yet the the mikes such are picking up everything, but we're trying to speak louder this evening.

if everyone, if all Members and officers can just make sure their microphones are in front of you, not behind any devices, so

good.

good evening.

welcome to this meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday, 17 May 2023.

1 Chair's Introduction

2 Apologies

I am Councillor Bland,

1 Chair's Introduction

Chairman of this committee.

before we get onto the agenda items. please give your full attention to the following announcements from a clock Michele Moran,

thank you, Chair, and good evening again 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 advised 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 playback on the council's website shortly afterwards,

can I remind everyone to use their microphones when speaking the red light indicates that 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 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.

members of the public who have registered to speak at the meeting will be asked to come to the microphone in the centre of the room. they will have three minutes to address the committee after which they may return to their original seat

members of the public who have registered to speak but are unable to join the meeting this evening will have their statement read out, thank you Chair.

for the benefit of the reporting, we are going to take a roll call

muscle bomb.

thank you, Chair, expected members here this evening, Councillor Bland.

Councillor Birch Allen present. councillor Fitzsimons prevalent.

Councillor Page

Britain,

Councillor Moon,

President.

Councillor Pattison

present Councillor Pope.

britain's Councillor White present Councillor Neville present

and expected officers here this evening, Peter Hockney,

President Carlos home prison,

Andrew McLoughlin nuance present James Moyesey present

Charlotte open present Abbey, shillingford presence, Tracy, Wagstaffe

present, and we have Councillor Pen Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning here this evening as well,

thank you Chair.

thank you.

I would like to remind everybody that this is a formal meeting of the Planning Committee

and there should be no disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour,

and that includes clapping or interruptions

by members of the public at this evening's meeting.

if such conduct does occur, I will call for it to cease

should behaviour which I consider unacceptable, continue.

I would consider suspending the meeting.

if the behaviour current resumes when business recommences, those responsible will be excluded and asked to leave 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 or attending here,

I would like to explain a couple of things.

first, 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.

second, council members have had the agendas but ever a week

and have had the opportunity to study these and to clarify any issues with planning officers.

we're having a bit of trouble with the speaker in the overflow room, so I just gonna have to pose the meeting for a moment,

a meeting is not a board.

1 Chair's Introduction

unfamiliar to some of you good evening,

welcome to this meeting of the planning committee on Wednesday, the 17th of May 2023. I am Councillor Bland, Chairman of this committee

before we go on to the agenda item, but everyone, but this is a formal meeting of Planning Committee.

it should be no disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour,

and that includes clapping or interruptions

by members of the public at this evening's meeting.

if such conduct does occur, I will call for it to cease.

should behaviour which I consider unacceptable to continue,

I will consider suspending the meeting

if the behaviour resumes when business recommences,

those responsible will be excluded

and asked to leave 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.

first 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

second.

committee members have had their agendas for over a week and have had the opportunity to study these and to clarify any issues with the 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 the substantive items on the agenda.

the officer will first set out his or her report.

I will then ask any speakers to address the Committee. before we then move into member discussion.

at the end of the debate, I will try and summarise the Committee's views.

and members should ensure that any proposals or actions it correctly captured before the vote is taken.

first, Mrs. Moran, do we have any apologies for absence?

we've had apologies from Councillor Johnson this evening, Chair.

thank you.

declarations of interest.

members of the committee should declare at this point if they have any declarations of pecuniary or significant ABA interest or if they have fettered their discretion and need to withdraw from the meeting when a particular application is heard,

does any member have a declaration to make?

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 clerk will ask each member in turn.

and ask them to state on which application they have been lobbied if any, and whether it is by objectors by supporters or both

Mrs. Marian.

thank you, Chair, Councillor Bland.

I have been lobbied on the

playing field application.

both for and against

thank you, Councillor Buchanan,

yes, I've been lobbied for and against on agenda item 7, A and against an agenda item 70.

7 B

data.

thank you, Councillor Fitzsimmons.

I've been lobbied

for and against on the St Marks

site and

against I don't know what what number it's going to be the

Commercial Park, 1

D 70

thank you, Councillor Les Page.

reckless side.

I have been lobbied for and against item 7 8 Smotrich.

thank you, Councillor Moon.

some marks recreation ground, I've been lobbied for and against

thank you, Councillor Patterson, we

are 7 0 4 again.

Councillor Pope.

yes, 7 am marks, I've been lobbied for, and against I've also received an e-mail on Hungershall Park, which was, I guess, loving me for four,

thank you, Councillor White,

for and against on 7 A and same and e-mail for on Hungershall Park.

2 Apologies

thank you and Councillor Neville,

I have been lobbied on Item 7 8 for and against, and I have also been lobbied on Item 7 D for and against.

thank you thanks to.

3 Declarations of Interest

thank you.

site inspections, members did not carry out any site village

character Chair Councillor patrons this week.

Councillor Beck

visited the Smock

recreation ground and the Grosvenor garage site, those two applications.

thank you.

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)

item number 6 to approve the minutes of the meeting dated Wednesday, the 12th of April 2023

Members are asked to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting of true record of proceedings.

alike, must I remind you that the only matter for discussion is their accuracy, do Members have any other comments?

the motion is to agree the minutes are we agreed? Green agreed.

thank you.

reports of the Head of Planning Services.

the reports which follow

are those of the heads Head of Planning Services,

a presentation will be provided by the Case Officer, the applications

but provides members of the public listening,

I would like to be clear as to 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 are registered to speak,

that it would be unwise to use personal, disrespectful or offensive language when making their presentation.

the order of business this evening will be one item 7, a St Mark's recreation ground.

second 7 B Grosvenor garage St James's Road Royal Tunbridge Wells.

70 Ashdown, Hearts Royal Tunbridge Wells and, fourth,

All Saints Road forecast.

item 7, A

22 slash 0 1 8 double 6 Paul

St Mark's recreation ground Frank Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent.

that on page 17 of the main agenda, page 3 of the supplementary back

Mr. Morsi,

your presentation, please,

5 Site Inspections

thank you Chair this application relates to St Mark's recreation ground and seeks permission for the construction of an all-weather 3G pitch with associated floodlighting the erection of a storage building, the provision of 76 additional car parking spaces at the site. the erection of a cricket pavilion, the change of use of agricultural land and creation of a cricket pitch, and outfield and retrospective permission for the erection of a decking area and pergola around the existing clubhouse at the site.

6 To approve the minutes of the meeting dated

7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)

the site is approximately 10.3 hectares in size and formed of playing fields comprising a clubhouse sports pitches, parking areas and storage structures and an agricultural parcel of land located to the south of the playing fields the recreation ground is home to Tommy Jewels' rugby club and Tunbridge Wells Borders, Cricket Club and the site is situated to the south of Tunbridge Wells where the bulk of Borough boundary as shown by the lighter red line on the on the plan you can see. it runs across the site which runs across the site. The more northern parts of the application site fall within the Borough of Tunbridge Wells, whilst the remaining and more southern parts of the application site fall within the Wealden District, and application is therefore also been submitted to Wealden District Carrick District Council for their consideration. The site is located outside of the limits to built development, where the LBD boundary runs along the north boundary of the site. The site is situated adjacent to the Tunbridge Wells conservation area located to the north-west and the parts of the site that lie within the Wealden District, so anything to the south of the red line running across the site and are designated as being within the High Weald Area of outstanding natural beauty. However, the parts of the site which fall within the Tunbridge Wells Borough I anything to the north of that red line running across the application site are not designated as being within the A and B

and you can see an aerial image of the site again showing the borough boundary running across across it. So the site comprising a recreation, ground and parcel of agricultural land, is predominantly grass service surfaced other than the areas of hardstanding, forming the parking areas and immediate areas around the clubhouse which are located in the north-west of the grounds, the land level slopes notably downwards towards the south. However, the site is effectively based over two levels, where there is a notable drop between the land level of the northern section of the playing fields which hosts one of the cricket pitches and the main adult rugby pitch or first-team pitch, and the south of the site which hosts one additional cricket pitch and additional rugby pitches, and that line is just use just around here is where the level was dropped, notably so you have the northern section and a high level and southern section on a lower level.

7 a) Application for Consideration - 22/01866/FULL St Marks Recreation Ground, Frant Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

at the boundaries of the site and predominantly marked by established trees hedging and planting the site is considered to be within a semi-rural setting, it is surrounded and abutted by built form in the form of housing to the north where Forest Road lies to the north-west where front road line and the north-east where Copperfield Dukes Drive are located to the immediate south east or west of the site borrowing a small number of residential properties and commercial units lies predominantly undeveloped agricultural land. A transmission area which falls outside of the application site is also located to the immediate south of the existing parking area adjacent to Frank Road,

and and you could just see that

area just in the back of that photo there, so the site has two vehicular access points from front roads and on-screen now is the main entrance to the site, which is located towards the north-west corner of the grounds and both of the existing vehicular access points into the site or situated along the 30 mile an hour stretch of front road

and he can see the secondary vehicle access point to the site again from front road but located further to the south of the site.

both access points lead to the existing parking area areas where there are presently 55 parking spaces at the site.

and he can see on screen now a hard service or a tarmac parking area located adjacent to the clubhouse, and this is looking from the the more northern, the main entrance to the to the grounds,

and he can see a gravel surface parking area located again adjacent to the site's western boundary and both of the two parking areas are connected and can be accessed from either of the existing access points from front road.

and he can see the main clubhouse located in the north-west of the grounds and to the front of the clubhouse you can just see the raised decking area and pergola, which are one of the elements being considered as part of this applications.

yes, you can just see here, is the pergola and then the decking stretches more or less the width of the clubhouse.

and he can see the grounds looking from the north-west of the sites and across in a general south-east direction, the rugby pitches used pyramid primarily by the rugby club during the rugby season, which generally spans the autumn and winter months and the cricket pitches and outfield use by Tom Jones Borders Cricket Club during the summer during the cricket season over the spring and summer months

and he can see the existing grass surface training pitch which is located in the northern section of the site and this is served by four. the floodlights you could just see to one there

and those are approximately nine to 10 metres in height those existing floodlights.

and he can see additional rugby pitches or pitch located in the north-east of the grounds and in the background you can just about make out the houses within Duke's Drive just there.

and he can see this is a specific photo looking back at the northern boundaries of the boundary that separates separates the application site and Forest Road

and the rear gardens of the properties within Forest Road, and you can see that the boundaries largely marked by well established trees and planting other than a small section which is presently marked by timber fencing only.

he can see some existing storage containers located adjacent to the site's eastbound eastern boundary, and these containers are proposed to be removed as part of the development, and this is within Wealden's within the Wealden District.

and he can see the southern section of the grounds looking towards the south-west corner of the site

and this part of the ground sits on a lower land level to that of the northern section and hosts, in addition, additional rugby pitches and a cricket pitch and outfield and this is again within Wealden so where are where this photos taken his family from from the sort of higher ground? in related also around where the cursor goes its slopes, notably to effectively have a lower section, and then this is taken from the upper section on the edge of the northern half of the site.

and he can see the existing field gate entrance from the recreational grounds to the agricultural parcel of land located to the south of the site, which forms part of this application site,

and he can see looking across the agricultural land

again located to the south of the wreck of the existing recreation ground.

and he can see looking back towards the northey recreation ground.

as he can see, an informal track which runs along the immediate section, the site's western boundary from the gravel parking area, and it's understood during the cricket season that, when a match is held on the pitch within the south of the site, that players and spectators spectators were more often than not drive down the west boundary of the site and park on the grass address adjacent to that pitch.

and they could just see the the access from that gravel parking area, again located adjacent to the west, at the site's western boundary, and front road.

and he could see the northern section of site looking in eastern direction across across the the site, and this is the effectively the main adult pitch here.

Kerry and he can see an existing Site Plan of the sites and just for clarity of annotated.

both this and the proposed site plan just to outline the existing pitches etc to to make it a little bit clear if the benefits of this presentation, so the red outline is the application site, as you can see, this purple line marked the borough boundary so anything to the north, all of this forms within tomorrow's borough anything in this southern section is within Wealden District

the blue markings which you could just make out all the larger markings or the rugby pitches so you to one day and then this is the training pitch located here just to the south of the of the properties within Forest Road and just within the

tomorrow's borough the site, and this has four floodlights in the corners.

and then there's two green squares which all the cricket pitches at the site and the cricket squares and then the outfield. form effectively weather where the rugby pitches are in the immediate surroundings.

so just for clarity, the parts of the site which fall within the to merge roles Borough are the clubhouse which is located here in the north-west of the site, the existing parking areas which are one here and one here in the again, so wrapping around the north-west corner,

the north eastern rugby pitches or pitch depending on the layout is which is here the existing training pitch which is adjacent to it.

one of the cricket square

smoke cursor this cricket square, but not all of the outfield

and part, the northern part of the first team rugby, all the principal rugby pitch at the site and the remainder of the grounds built at the site to the south of the purple on for within Wealden.

as you can see, the proposed site plan, so the application seeks permission for the construction of a 3G artificial grass pitch with associated floodlighting. the erection of a storage building so that we just run through each element, so the 3G pitches proposed here outline in a sort of orangey, yellow

the erection of a storage building which is located just to the north of that.

the provision of 76 additional car parking spaces which are proposed to run along here continue on from effectively where the gravel parking area was an informal track down all along the western boundary, so that 76 additional car parking spaces, the construction of a cricket pavilion which is located just here in the in the south west corner of the grounds, the change of use of the agricultural lands and creation of a cricket pitch to offset the loss of a cricket pitch, which would be a result of the addition of a 3G pitch to the ground, so there's the same sort of level of cricket pitches are retained at the site

and retrospective permission for the decking and pergola

located adjacent to the main clubhouse.

so the proposed all-weather pitch would be used for rugby matches for all age groups and training during the season, particularly during adverse and wet weather conditions for pre-season training during the summer months for cricket training and by other sports slash community groups including primary and secondary schools who will have the opportunity to use the facility during the week throughout the year

it's understood that one of the desires to have a 3G pitch at the grounds that due to the ground being sited on a clay base the pitches don't require a great deal of rain to become waterlogged and become unusable unplayable and therefore over the course of the rugby season is not uncommon for training sessions and matches to have to be cancelled.

the proposed storage building is proposed to be a single flat, roofed building and is to include a viewing seating area on on the roof of that which is accessible by via an external staircase and, as mentioned as the storage building proposed to replace two existing storage containers located along the eastern boundary of the site. upon the poorest resin gravel, system or areas proposed to infill the space to the front of the existing clubhouse and to the north of the first first 15 pitch, and the proposed storage building with an informal tractor ambulance routes running across the front of the storage building and towards the north-west or north-east pitches that are to be retained here

and 24 cycle parking spaces are proposed in the very north-west corner of the plot. is very just here adjacent to the existing parking areas.

and the proposal is to provide 76 dditional car parking spaces.

which includes a vehicle turning point in heads at the end,

she's just down here, and those are proposed to be surfaced with the poorest sort of grass-green type system.

and the proposal does not seek to alter the existing access arranged arrangements to the site,

and the cricket pavilion down are supposed to be a single storey timber structure.

I think as well in that.

OK so on saw on the screen now, as you can see, is the floor plan of the main clubhouse, which just shows the extent of the decking and the retrospective decking and pergola, which is seats just here, where my cursor is

at the pagodas just to cite at that.

and he can see the elevations for that, so the bottom emerged looking directly back at the clubhouse, so you see the two storey clubhouse in the background of pergola. and the extent of the Beck decking and then the side views of it.

I do it, as I said, this is as its retrospective theories, some immortal images of it complete taken from the applicant's Design and access statement.

and he can see the proposed 3G pitch looking in a north and south direction, so topping images looking to the south, so you can just see here the proposed single storey single storey storage, building

3 metre high perimeter fencing, which is proposed around the

all weather pitch, along with the floodlighting.

and then this is looking back towards the north,

and then you can see the east and west side elevations of that building again you can see the storage building located one end.

and he could see the proposed storage building elevations.

and the floor plan of the other ground floor plan of the storage building, so this left-side you can see is supposed to be mainly sort of

kit and general equipment, and then the right side being perhaps heavy machinery or when they go out to manage the rest of the grounds and the the 3G all-weather pitch.

and he can see the the extent of the proposed parking area, so we're looking at this grey here, which is provides additional 76 parking spaces at the site, so the white you can just see there is is the car, the existing car parking area gravel surface parking area, the access point which is here the secondary access point located further as thousands of vehicles would come in. carry on through that existing field gate and then it's effectively formalising that informal track that's present there, some additional parking spaces here and carrying on no new access is proposed and then a turning head right at the bottom to allow vehicles to safely turn in and out and exit the site in a forward gear.

and then he can see the proposed cricket pavilion, so the cricket pavilion would be sited within within Wilson Wealden district in the south-west of the site, new seats, a single storey timber structure.

and then they floor plans for.

for the proposed William

and then you can see the proposed new cricket pitch or replacement

cricket pitch in the parcel of agricultural land in

to the south of the grounds.

and then a is proposed to include, so in the corner, just here.

just in this corner of this agricultural parcel of land,

a field shelter which is proposed to be provided to support this cricket pitch to effectively provide spectators plays in adverse conditions, a form of shelter

slightly closer to the pitch, then the pavilion proposed over here the cricket players and club will maintain the use of the main clubhouse as they do now.

and this is the timber shelter that's just proposed in the corner, so as a small, a small section of it is proposed to be provide storage for equipment, and the rest of it is just an open but covered shelter.

and he can see perspective

view of the proposed 3G pitch and storage building.

and he can see the proposed site plan once more, but without the borough boundary cutting across the site.

in terms of updates, there is one update condition, 15 is proposed to be amended at

following, and this is just to reflect the wording that it previously said.

where it says 14, it previously said 15, so it's just the two chains out, so no external lighting should be installed on the site other than that shown on the hereby approved plans or, as approved under condition 14 without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority and condition 14 relates to the floodlighting post

and there are no other updates to report

in terms of the conclusion. There is no objection to the principle of POS development

and the development would provide significant improvements to the SPA sporting facilities. At the grounds the development would bring about significant community benefits.

The proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon highway safety and would seek to alleviate

an existing parking issue,

particularly during

peak times.

The proposal would have a limited landscape impact that would

be outweighed by the

benefits of the proposal. The proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon residential amenity. The proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon tree or ecology matters. the development would not have a detrimental impact upon heritage assets proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon drainage or flood

risk in the area.

and there are no other material considerations which would warrant

refusal of planning permission.

and the recommendation is to grant the application subject to conditions and the majority of the conditions

recommended are, as requested by external consultees and and bodies thank you.

thank you, Mr. Morsi.

we now have eight speakers on this item.

we're lying call your name, please come to the microphone,

insurance activated.

when you speak, you will have three minutes to make your statement,

and we will be quite firm about overrunning that allowance.

our first speaker this evening in objection to the application is Kenneth Outwell, a local resident.

on Bill.

Good evening, this development would have an overbearing visual impact with harm to the local amenity and setting which cannot be limited and have a significant impact on residents emergency amenities. Please look at page 5 it showed this prominent site is one of the highest in Tunbridge Wells at 100 and 47 metres above sea level, visible to many surrounding vantage point. lightning experts states that the 15 metre high flood mast would be visible up to a kilometre away on page 6 is a picture of judge treaty pitch in Tunbridge taking 800 metres away, imagine this on high land.

Turning to page 8, The site is around 5 metres higher than neighbouring roads, Forest Road sits at around 100 and 42 metres above sea level the proposed treaty pitch 147

the 15 metre floodlights would reach a staggering 162 metres above sea level.

Page 9 shows the street scene, the development is not unobtrusive, all sides or screened

a requirement under Policy E 8 of the Local Plan

using Forest Road 2 3 9, a three-storey apartment block you can see the floodlights would tower over the roofline by 5 metres by 9 metres for two storey homes imagine what that would look like at night.

on page 11 12 and a few other few vantage points where screening will not be limited, the overbearing impact, even though with three giant full leave

there is no lightning report declaring the impact on residential amenities and settings, as outlined on page 13, the light report is no more than a product specification from Philips it does not deliver information to support policy E and 8,

relying on the lighting condition is not enough. It would be almost impossible to find mitigation solutions for these floodlights. On page 15, you will see how close to 5 metre elevated pitch is to homes.

It has been implied that the impact of noise and light on around 50 identified neighbours would be limited due to separation of distance. Four and a half metres to the gardens 39 metres from home is not separation, cyst distance. Turning now to noise noise on page 17, no money, so I was put on the proposed site for the 3G pitch. Why, because the first team played, this location would have recorded higher levels than 59 decibel recorded at the ISP 1, the monitor at the other side of the site all because, as reported by Sport, England closeness to buildings and elevation can increase noise level, even a rugby training session with no competitive thieves or spectators delivered 59 part 5 days ago, at AZ P 1

who an applicant is how long the applicants has been around, how many supporting letters you have received is not planning politics, regrettably, by overbearing visual impact and impact to residential amenities cannot be limited, harm is harm planning policies, planning policy, the applicants should not be accepted.

thank you.

a second speaker this evening to the objection in objection to the application.

is Kirsty Souter, a local resident.

good evening, everyone, the application should not be granted because it goes against planning policy aimed at protecting the High Weald Air and B and the dark skies.

the officers' report acknowledges that the floodlights would harm the landscape and they are in B but says, as we've heard, this is acceptable because the works would not be out of character for a sports or recreation ground and the benefits outweigh the harm.

however, what this doesn't take into account is too explicit policy presumption against the development.

the first relates to the NB.

policy E 19 of the submission plan reflecting national policy says that planning permission will be refused for major development within or affecting the setting of the High Weald Air in air or in the other than in exceptional circumstances.

the second presumption concerns lighting

policy E and 8 says that in rural areas outside the development boundary, which is what we have here, there is a presumption against outdoor lighting, except where it's for a reasonable level of safety or security or exceptional circumstances exist.

These aren't security lights. These are 8 15 metre high floodlights which will be at the highest point in Tunbridge Wells and within an A and B

the light will be seen for miles, it will harm the air in be setting and the bats and other wildlife that lives there.

we therefore have two presumptions against this development unless exceptional circumstances exist, and yet neither the applicant nor the planning officer has attempted to demonstrate that we do have exceptional circumstances, why because they don't exist, the expansion of the club is a nice to have. It's not a necessity in this location.

The council's own Local Plan states that the tunnels already well provided for in terms of sport and recreation,

and what's more, the applicant has identified an alternative site, which describes them, as I, I quote, from the website a much larger site, offering the club the opportunity to design the layout of the site and the capacity and specification, along with a logic custom-built club house, we could have parking for several hundred because.

how can we justify home to an A and B

with an alternative site that meets the requirements, how can this policy presumption be rebutted

in the circumstances and the answers that he can't?

strong palette planning policy like this is pointless if it's simply ignored

doing so, puts at risk what the policy is there to protect,

there are no exceptional circumstances, so granting this application would be against planning policy and would set a dangerous precedent as well, paving the way for future development that will harm. a really beautiful landscape that Tunbridge Wells is fortunate enough to sit within has three minutes to the application should be rejected for those reasons thank you.

our third speaker, the cheapening in objection to the application is Mark Brown, a local resident.

thank you good evening.

I will address the hazards in relation to parking in the surrounding area,

the report to the Planning Committee in its conclusion acknowledges the existing situation where uses of the rugby club or parking in the surrounding residential streets.

the proposal submits that the increase in the number of parking spaces would meet the growth in demand,

this is unlikely to be correct.

the addition of 76 spaces from the present 53 is about half of what is required.

presently, there are more than

120 cars parked in surrounding streets during matches,

the provision of coach parking will further more reduce the number of available parking spaces.

the report states

inconvenience to road users is not material to deciding on the proposal, but the road that road safety issues are now of provided a sheet or with poor photographs which are referred to, please look at photograph 1, which shows parking on Forest Road and St Marks Road during match day

normally these roads would be largely free of parked cars.

I wish to make the committee aware of how hazardous hazardous it is when getting in and out of parked cars on both sides of Forest Road,

please look at photograph 2, which shows the curbside bank between the edge of the road and the pedestrian pavement.

getting out on the left hand side of pot causing for a stride is really difficult, and Hazard is

the height of the bank means that corridors cannot be opened adequately, some people are tempted to get out on the right hand side into the traffic which can be moving at the speed limit of 40 miles an hour clearly very dangerous.

the parking in the surrounding streets is largely uncontrolled. Only a few double yellow lines nearest the club prohibits stopping and parking elsewhere within about 500 metres in the surrounding streets POCD because restrict the safe egress and ingress of driveways and the adjoining side roads. Photograph 3 shows the parking congestion in Bayham Road on a match day

and finally photograph for shows parking on the pavement right on the junction of Forest, Road and Bayham Road. This is clearly a hazard for vehicles moving in the junction and for pedestrians on the pavement and particularly those crossing the road. Needless to say, this is very hazardous to those with pushchairs and children and for people using mobility aids, thank you, Mr. Rowan,

thank you very much.

our faults

our full Speaker this evening.

in support of the application is Mike Rigby, chairman of Tunbridge Wells Rugby Football Club.

Mr. Rigby, would you come

for Mike?

grating my name, I repeat, Chairman of Tommy Jones rugby club, I'm here representing both the rugby club and the cricket club this evening I mean first of all introduce you to the club from our social aspects, we are 700 93 youth boys and girls playing rugby on a Sunday. 174 adult players playing rugby men and women and were 155 social members of the rugby club, in addition to that, we have 70 youth cricket members, 40 senior cricket members, and so you see us, pick out seven senior sides

for cricket and rugby, including female rugby. adult level.

we operate 17 youth teams from St Mark's, it is safe to assume we are a big,

vibrant, successful and important part of our community.

and we look to maintain our position there at St Mark's

in total over 1,200 members,

we are, of course, the only rugby club in some of the droves and draw our support from a wide range across the whole parish.

we have two cricket squares which we use regularly and look after not only borders but other cricket clubs locally, but in addition to that we are a site for the air ambulance, we are a dog training class we operate schools running cross country

sports days additional classrooms we are a vibrant part of our community

beginning 2019 when we set about trying to secure our future, we looked at 3.00 things that were important to us number one was our pictures. they are boggy, they are wet, they prevent us playing rugby and cricket

or parking is not sufficient, we must extend our parking to be less of a burden on neighbours, our clubhouse is a social space needs investment

so simply we went about progressing what we thought was important. we need an alternative grass pitch to ensure we continue to train

and we need additional parking spaces, and that is the planning permission you have before you today.

it has been well consulted with our members, with our neighbours, with professional advisers

and with our local schools.

simply put, the benefits for this to our town to our community is that youth rugby and youth cricket is not cancelled on a regular basis

that our matches are played, not cancelled, our youth enjoy playing matches and they had them. there are schools and clubs in our local community can use this facility and hire it and use it to their benefit.

he does, of course, but gives drivers some financial security to the rugby club as we look to secure a future for the next hundred years,

but simply the planning permission placed before you today looks to keep our Cup in Tunbridge Wells

in our one place, providing that valuable access, thank you Mr. Rework community.

that's why we should be approving this planning permission today.

pith speak of this evening in support of the application is Paul Connell, a local resident.

Good evening, thank you, Mr. Chairman. my name is Paul O'Connell. I am Sutton Park and I'm actually the applicant's planning consultant for the project.

the application before you this evening is the combination of approximately two years' work, this includes a consultation event with local residents pre-application, engagement with your officers and Sport, England and time spent over the course of a previously withdrawn application to develop these proposals, which will significantly upgrade the existing sports facilities in an appropriate way taking into account the neighbouring A and B.

importantly, it will also deliver benefits to both local residents and the wider community,

the delivery of an all-weather pitch at St Marks has been an aspiration for the rugby club for a number of years to address longstanding drainage issues and provide high quality modern facilities for its members,

this objective is also recorded in the Council's Playing Pitch Strategy which identifies a borough wide need for an additional weather pitch and notes and marx's allocation for its provision.

the application also delivers significant upgrades in the quality of cricket facilities, with a new dedicated pitch delivered to ECB standard, together with a new cricket pavilion and shelter.

in addition to the creation of this new cricket hub, the board was members will retain access to the main clubhouse and facilities, and this represents a clear betterment in terms of cricket provision at the site,

the new all-weather pitch will also be made available to the wider community, this will increase access in the borough to high quality sports facilities affording existing and future residents alike opportunities to be active and engaged in sports and recreation in accordance with the Council's sports strategy.

delivery of the new facilities has Sport England support that complies with NPP policies on sports and recreation and the council's own existing and emerging policies.

the applicant is also using this application to address longstanding issues with parking on nearby roads during busy match days.

as you've heard, the proposal includes provision on site increased parking provision on site from 55 to 131 spaces, overall, seeking to alleviate the parking issues experienced on neighbouring roads to a significant extent.

the level of parking would also comfortably accommodate demand generated by the proposed community is

in this way the court has policies TP 5 and 9 of the Local Plan TP 3 of the submission plan and the NPP F

we've had matters raised about light and noise.

the new floodlights to be installed are modern NEDs which are much more efficient, directing light to where it is needed, compared with the existing lights at the site,

and as no objection has been raised to the lighting, or indeed the wider application by A and B in it

noise and activity levels on match and training days will not change as a result of the development but the local impact would be reduced given the increased parking provision.

the noise impact assessment which is being considered by Council officers demonstrates that the development will not result in an unacceptable level of noise compared to existing,

but in any case, the use of the facilities by the community will still be subject to Community Use Agreement and noise management plan.

for the avoidance of doubt, I would also point out that there was no roof viewing platform on the proposed store building.

Minister Connell, thank you very much, thank you very much.

a sixth speaker, the shaving is Rory, Joyce,

thank you Chair,

the need for these improved facilities is due to the success of and popularity of the rugby club and the cricket club.

these enjoy fantastic local community support at grassroots level.

there is a very strong junior section, my own son and daughters, some of whom are here played when they were younger. and more families can take advantage of the new facilities proposed, the facilities will also be used by local schools and should encourage a larger number of people to get involved at various sports, we can all enjoy the significant health benefits that participation in sport brings, promotes mental and physical health and wellbeing and also teaches our youth the important values of respect, discipline and friendship

the benefits will be huge for the existing community and for future generations.

we agree that the proposed improvements appear to have been carefully designed to ensure there is no significant impact on the local area, it appears to us to be respectful of the location at the edge of the built-up area and stretching into the High Weald and be

the cricket pavilion is located where it will have minimal visual impact when viewed from outside the Rec Ground

it will be able to serve the two cricket pitches well.

the proposed modern 200 lux lighting for the artificial grass pitch will enable it to be used in gloomy light, but it will also restrict the light spill outside the immediate playing area we've looked carefully at the analysis which accompanies the application, and we note that while the playing area will be well lit, the modern design of the directed lighting will ensure that the lux level for the lights on the western side of the recreation ground or front road will be 0.

and to the north, the Lux level at the northern boundaries would be predominantly 0 with the occasional, hardly noticeable level of between one and three in a small area, as you saw in the photo, which is wooded.

parking currently, the success of the rugby and cricket clubs means that some of the community from the surrounding area are forced to park on the road outside the ground, we are frequent travellers on the front road, and it's obvious to all that the sports ground needs dedicated off road parking

and that provision needs to be made on the site it will only not only improve the provision for the users but also alleviate the pressure of the surrounding streets. so we strongly urge you, members of the Planning Committee, to support these proposed improvements. thank you Chair,

thank you, Mr. Dot.

all seven speakers this evening is borough councillor Gavin Barrett.

member put palmed halls and front locks.

thank you Chair, thank you officers and and colleagues,

I'm here as a representative of the local residents and trying best I can to represent the views that they passed to me over the last weeks, which I'm sure you've heard already

very clearly but you can obviously see by the level of the turnout that it was a very controversial application and the views I've received were.

in the predominantly

concerned, one and worried about the application.

I've got three points to make. The first one is about the balance of the

the correspondence and the and the

controversy that I've received. Second, one is about the planet, about the parking and road implications, and the third one is about the potential visual impact which has been raised

in terms of the first point. The controversy related to the site obviously draws a great deal of attention, say, and but it's important to note, and I say, make sure we represented approximately a third of the people that contacted me about this. Application were in favour and there was there was. There is a body of people that support the poet, but I don't think I can add more than the in terms of representing their views than the people that have already spoken

in terms of the profanity of the objections or challenges I should say to the application. The first one is obviously over to be made about the planning of road infrastructure. Now, of course, it's for you to assess whether the net impact of the road and the parking will have a detrimental impact,

but the the the majority of the views that I expressed expressed a anxiety over it and a fear that it would get worse

part of the worry, I think is seems to be related to the expected use of the site and what's been perceived by residents and argued by residents and an expectation of an increase in use

if there is some way that residents can be reassured on that point, I'm sure they would be grateful that the use would not become a the challenge or difficulty for them, one of the things I've mentioned before they are curfew maintaining it. Nine o'clock a further point on to that, I say as a form of guardrail.

the final part is of being aware, I think, of conscious of the

visual impact which has been raised by a number of concerned residents is to control and to be aware of the visual impact of particularly a storage unit. the concerns and the understandable reflections of residents, how can we make that a

minimise the impact of anything that is built for the by screening it?

it's important, I think, in terms of trying to think of the loss of amenity for people who are living in those sites, the obviously the visual impact of the

the north, the towards the south of a Royal Sussex is of particular significance, so on that note Chair, thank you very much for your time and thank you very much for the Committee

commend your timing.

a r a speaker this evening is a Borough Councillor, Peter Lidstone.

councillor for St Johns,

Chair Councillor Ledston, has provided a statement, which I'll be reading out this evening.

right.

dear there's a half Councillor Peter Lidstone borough councillor for St John's Day, member sorry that I cannot be with you in person, but I would like to express my support for this application. We cannot overstate the importance of sport and recreation on the physical and mental wellbeing and social cohesion of our communities, as well as providing young people with a positive outlet for their energy.

This is reinforced by the large membership of the rugby club in particular, and the number of my own constituents who have been in touch with me about this proposal

3 deep pitches are without their it, not without their issues, both from an environmental and health perspective. Grass is preferable, but where this does not drain adequately, 3G allows for year round use. This three deep pitch would be key to allowing the Rugby Club to train throughout the year. A word of caution from my own experience do not train on these with exposed knees or elbows

I recognise that there is an impact on neighbouring residents from the lighting of the 3G pitch in particular, but I do not believe that this is significant enough to outweigh the positives of the proposal, and I hope members of the committees are able to address the worst fears of those residents living nearby.

Finally, noting that this application is unlikely to completely alleviate parking issues in the area, I hope that we will do all we can to encourage the use of active travel and and public transport by players and spectators. I noticed that Kent police recommend in point 11 that cycle storage is covered and well lit for security reasons. However, the plan submitted by the applicant appear to show bike stands out in the open. Perhaps officers can clarify the situation and, if any conditions can be applied relating to this. Thank you check

thank you.

opposite?

you wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from the statements made by speakers.

I could yet add before I try and comment on some below speak. The points raised by speakers are these worth running members what dear B P F says at paragraph 92, A, which sets out that planning decisions should promote social interaction, including opportunities for meeting meetings between people who might not otherwise come into contact with each other and 93, A, which sets out that decisions should plan positively for the provision and use of shared spaces and community fillers for community facilities and other local services services. In terms of the points raised, I think I start with some visual impact so

I think you just clarify that, whilst the Wealden half of the cycle, the southern section, which falls obviously outside of Tommy Jones borrower, is within the A and B. The northern section which is in the Tommy Jones borrower is not in the Homebuy, albeit albeit it is acknowledged that it does form part of the setting of the A and B. The council's landscape and biodiversity officer has commented on the application from a landscape perspective and impact on the Owen V and A they conclude that, having regard to the NPP F and the great weight afforded to the A and B in decision making, my view is that this level of harm, when taking into account the limited nature and extent of that harm, the site context and the nature of the proposal is likely to be acceptable. Consequently, provided then that the mitigation enhancements were properly secured. I do not object to this application on landscape grounds

to add on that, in terms of conditions,

conditions 5 and 6 largely relate to tree protection. To preserve the existing boundary planting that exists condition 7 requires a landscaping details to be submitted to the council for approval condition 8 requires the landscaping approved, the approved landscape scheme to be fully implemented and condition 9 relates to a landscape and ecological management plan, so the management of that landscaping that sport the into

into play. Also the number of points raised in regards to levels and the visual impact and residential impact amenity impacts of that

condition, 27, which are weighed for Members' benefit and relates to worth works and levels, requires the following prior to the commencement of hereby approved 3 G slash all-weather pitch details of the proposed earthworks shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority these details to include the proposed grading and mounding of land areas, including the levels and contours to be formed, showing the relationship a proposed mounding to existing vegetation and surrounding land form, the development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless agreed in writing with the local plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

and that's in the interest of the amenity of the area, both in terms of residential amenity and visual amenity

I think the next point is probably the floodlighting that's worth discussing, so as mentioned and as referenced poor, the site has the benefit already has existing floodlighting in the form of four floodlights serving the training pitch, which I'll just try and,

the screen, and these are nine to 10 metres in height, depending on way you take a measurement from souk just see those there, and these basically sit adjacent to a to

get my map up again.

yeah, so this is the existing site plan, so these effectively sit at the corners of this. thank you and the corners of this training pitches, so pretty close to the

boundary.

we have the shared boundary with the residents of Forest Road. also that floodlighting was last upgraded in the early 2000, so it took the best part of 15 to 20 years and in that time, the development of technology and

the amount of overspill you get from certain such floodlighting to serve all weather pitches and similar all-weather facilities, the amount of overspill you get from that lighting is is notably reduced and we have consulted the Council's Environmental Protection Team, who have raised no objection subject to conditions and in terms of lighting there are several conditions which are will

run through the

conditions 14, which relates to floodlighting, which requires which I'll read out again prior to the first use hereby approved 3 G slash all-weather pitch. As shown on the approved plans, a detailed scheme of lighting should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority scheme, shall take note of and refer to, the Institute of lighting engineers, Guidance notes and the reduction of obtrusive lighting G N 0 1 dated 2005 and any subsequent revision, and shall include a layout plan with beam orientation and a schedule of light equipment proposed luminaire type mounting height,

aiming angles, illuminate profiles and and I are so lax plan showing light spill details of operating hours shall be submitted. The scheme of lighting should be installed, maintained and operated in accordance with the approved scheme, unless the LPA's gives its written consent to vary. So the Environmental Protection Team who would ultimately deal with noise, a lighting complaints and blighting pollution, complaints from residents and noise complaints are satisfied with the proposed lighting subject to that condition condition 15 also sets out that no other external lighting shall be implemented without the Council's permission, and count and condition 16 requires that the floodlights are fitted with automatic shutoff controls. So I used to when they're not in use, they'll just turn themselves off.

another comment was raised in regards to the the floodlights in terms of their impact upon bats and again, an ecological impact assessment has been submitted as part of the application that's been considered by the Council's landscape and biodiversity officer, so the Council's ecologist effectively an ecological expert and they are satisfied with findings that concluded that it would have a negligible impact upon bats the proposal was a whole subject to enhancements and things like that which have been conditioned, it's also noted that,

at the time at the time of year, when the floodlighting is most likely to be most active, I in the winter months that's during the time, where bats are most likely to be in a state of hibernation and less active than they are in the summer months,

I think a point was raised about the the potential sort of expansion of the club as a result of the development, and I think

my understanding is a lot of these developments come forward to try and address the club's current and particularly the rugby club's current issues it faces in terms of waterlogged pitches having to cancel games and training sessions about also to address the parking, the existing parking situation which everyone everyone is aware of, particularly during peak times, and I think that's primarily Sunday mornings when the junior training takes place

and occasionally Saturday afternoon when when the first team are at home, so the addition with the 55 parking spaces at the site at present and there would be an additional 76 parking spaces

at the site, so whilst it not might not completely eradicate the current issue in the with parking or the existing situation in the area, it will certainly in the view of

officers help to aid or alleviate that, and I think that's also commented on in the comments received by KCC Highways that are set out within the the within the report.

in terms of residential amenity, avoid does go to the site location or go back through my plans,

I think, as set out in the report, the main impact upon residencies is largely as noted to be the residents along Forest Road who, back onto the application site,

and just for sort of context.

what's 2 3 9, which is referred to that, which is this big one here.

that sits approximately 25 to 30 metres from the shared boundary. The adjacent property, the next night, next-door properties, so so it's 2 3 7 2 3 5 sit between two, the 40 and 50 metres from the boundary plus. Then there would be a few more metres before the the actual three all-weather pitches is put in place that that separation distance, along with the existing boundary treatments and additional landscaping along that along that boundary, so we see the

exist which is to be retained, these listing landscaping and trees in place, which is to be retained it's not considered on balance that the proposal would have such a detrimental impact upon

residential amenity to warrant refusal, and it also noted that there are significant benefits and community benefits to the addition of such a provision to this sport, the ultimate sporting facility.

I think the comic a comment was made in regard to policy within the Council's submission Local Plan and Members will see in the in the report that

officers had considered the policy within the are within the submission local plan by which to say that

the policy in this mission Plan Local Plan is obviously not an adopted plan and not adopted policy and whilst weight could be attributed to it for weight must be attached to the existing local plan, and I think that's set out in the report.

in terms of the sort of intensified use the mild to my knowledge, the club at the minute on Saturday will have adult matches, primarily in the afternoon,

I think they presently run three adult teams, plus a veterans team,

I don't think all teams play at home on the same day I think it's like a lot of sporting teams where you might have the first team at home one week and on that same week the second team might be away.

and on Sundays you have the in the morning, you have the junior sections, which is run over so two time periods, so you don't just have them all there, between say 10 and 11, it's a staggered period to have nine to say half 11 and then a 11 30 to one, or what have you and then in the afternoon, I believe, is when the the ladies' team primarily playing the veterans teams play, so each already gets quite an intensive use during the weekend is their minds than in during the week and to a minimum. Two nights of the week the rugby club will train at the site weather permitting,

so the intensified use will primarily come during the working day

and the evenings where rugby training isn't taking place.

in terms of, I think Councillor Lidstone made a point on cycle parking, a of I refer to condition 20.

condition 12 requires further details of cycle parking that is covered by condition.

I think that's all I've got to add, I would just defer to Mr. Hockney in case I've missed anything for further comment.

nothing for the children.

thank you.

ward members.

like jewels, questions will be opposite Councillor his silence.

thank you, Chair and I'm just a just.

a little confused

is the is the floodlighting permitted until 22 121 hundred,

because I think this.

things both been.

so the current floodlighting, which was approved under the 2002 application, is full as a condition attached to it, which restricts its use to from between Monday to Friday, up until 9 45,

upon empty property shall be agreed to condition for floodlighting, shall be used only for amputating purposes and shall only be operated within the hours of 7 15 and 9 45 Mondays to Friday.

so, whilst they may only be used one or two nights of the week at the moment,

they could lawfully be used. Monday Friday, up to 9 45.

thank you.

are you satisfied with that answer and

I am thank you very much.

Councillor Pattison, this is very

similar question, really so the conditions on the previous application up to 9 45 are going to apply under this application.

for the all weather pitch or began to settle conditions, I noticed in in the condition 14, it says that the details of offering AC operating out should be submitted.

I wonder whether it would be better if this committee laid down what the operating hours were, rather than actually left it to.

the actions submit them, or at least give the act as an idea of what the committee thought.

so the proposed floodlighting is to replace the existing training lighting that's on site at the moment, so

there are four floodlights presently at the site, Monday to Friday, use 7 15 9 45 0 0 would be for 8 around the all-weather pitch, it's now proposed the Sport England have suggested that a range of conditions and I think the the most purpose and one to your question is condition 23. which sets out the hours of use, and that condition says hereby approved all weather 3G pitch, along with its associated lighting, should not be used outside the hours of 8 o'clock 0 8 100 to 22 100 Monday to Saturday, and 100 2 o'clock Sundays, and public holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority so that's from Sport England that that condition,

and that's actually restrictions that we would be enforcing against.

conducts it, how does it lie with condition 14, that's the question why condition 14 requires them to submit operating at hours

to build their actually macchiato

or I think, yeah, I think the

the simple answer is that, when the submission for 14 comes in, it will match the the conditions of of 22.

if Members wish to

amend 14

either specify.

the the the hours of operation.

or reference details of operating hours shall be in accordance with condition 23

that that that would be

be fined for them for Members to talk to that,

that would make logical sense to me, is

that a condition, Councillor Patterson, that you would like,

I would happy, propose

that as a addition to contain 40 yeah,

it will spend a little time considering your wording on that and will go to other questions, Councillor Fitzhenry,

thank you Chair, so

when it's 22 100 at 22 100, the lights would go off so they would have to start walking back to the clubhouse like 15 minutes before.

that?

yes, that's not correct the lights will we would enforce that the lights are off by 10 o'clock, there's also a condition that 16, which sets out that the floodlights are fitted with sort of ofcontrols, so when the pitches and in use the floodlights will after a period of time turn themselves off or consent to light wood,

could I just ask one more question about the floodlights, the the new proposed floodlights are about six metres taller than the existing ones on the training ground

is that absolutely necessary?

so yeah, so the existing floodlights and nine to 10 metres in height, the proposed floodlights of 15 metres in height, they are relatively standard for all weather pitches lights of that height.

I don't know the exact science reasoning behind that increase in height, but all I would say is

lie, there is a condition, obviously we've conditioned the lighting for the floodlighting we're obviously looking to limit overspill where possible and focus that lighting on on the pitch and that's obviously the intention of such little the purpose of such lighting is not to light light the surroundings, it's to provide a a lit pitch.

so I'd be right in saying that the overspill on modern lighting

is going to be less than the

current

for lights on the training pitch.

I'm not a lighting expert, but that is my assumption, and all I would comment is that the Environmental Protection Team who are

much more to the experts in that field, or much better knowledge in enlightening en-suite consulted them on it, have not objected to the lighting proposed just one a little bit more detail, hence the condition.

Councillor White and then Councillor Moon.

thank you and I just got one more question about the lighting, so

I was also what about the height, but also it says it is gonna be increased from 4 until 8, I just kind of wondered why that was and again that is definitely not going to have an impact that it's gonna create more lighting.

I think one of the main reasons for that, so if we look on the screen now, you'll see this is the existing site plan and this is the size of the training area which those for light serve and in new go to propose this is the size of the proposed 3G page so it's obviously a significantly greater area to delight up for top-up benefit or training facilities with light.

Councillor White, you are happy with that answer.

thank you, Councillor Moon.

thank you Chair

two questions.

one really is a process, the just sticks.

obviously I've noticed there's an application with Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and from Wealden District,

does that mean that both

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and Wealden District have to approve the application because we're seeing the full application here?

4 to be approved,

in short, yes, so where the where the the site or Planning Unit as a whole form falls across to borrowers, they required to apply for permission from both authorities so and at the same application is submitted to Wealden as us, and both authorities

consider it an effective income to their own own view during the application process. We've worked alongside Wealden so that were there's a level of consistency there between both authorities,

we we've obviously determining or making a recommendation on this application this evening we would, and I think is scheduled to go to Committee in June, so their committee will have the benefit of our knowing what our decision is, but ultimately, yes towards regression to implement the scheme in full, they would need permission from both, as does Tom Jones Borough Council and Wealden District Council.

thank you, can you just confirm then that Wealden District are recommended?

they haven't formally published any committee papers or although there's no formal recommendation from them informally, they've indicated that they are likely to recommend approval,

however note there's no, there's nothing formally,

there's no formal documentation or report that sets out that Wealden are supporting this application.

thank you, but that does surprise me,

I would have thought they were that appalling for or against, or whatever

second question so sorry Gazzara Moon, I think they the issue is obviously one authority needs to determine the application first, so in this case it's it's our committee meeting which,

happens to fall earlier than the Wealden's, which I understand is in a few weeks' time, isn't it, and that's yes, that's just, unfortunately, we don't align planning committees across across boundaries

that the crux of it is

both had to agree,

thank you.

the second question

relates to conditions

I read through it.

didn't know there was a condition for coach parking

on the application, can you confirm that as well, thank you.

yes, thank you, let me just find it so condition.

13 coach access and parking so that services condition has come from KCC Highways and sets out that, prior to the first use hereby approved development details of coach access and parking arrangements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority the scheme shall thereafter scheme this scheme thereafter shall be fully implemented in strict accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

yeah microphone Councillor sorry,

I did note that on 13 so there is a condition on coke parking and that will be implemented.

along with the application which carried out, thank you.

Councillor Pope.

thank you Chair.

and

looking at the this application, though, there will be an intensification of use of this, the facilities here.

and then there's currently. The condition is that they can be used until 10 pm on six nights a week, and I think it was 9 pm, one night a week on Sundays and Bank holidays.

Is there it I don't and I believe currently. It's that was a. The training only takes to takes place on two evenings a week, I think, from the point of view of a residential amenity, it could end up that there's six or seven nights a week with training. Is there any thing that we could put in the conditions to

to to to to balance the that that the greater use again against the residential amenity so that there's actually some peace in some evenings.

to my mind, it would be difficult to do given that the existing conditions at the sides, whilst they may only be used two nights a week presently by the rugby club there is nothing to restrict them.

up to 9 45, using the site Monday to Friday for training purposes. So at the moment they may have the senior maintain train one night, the ladies train another. They could extend that if they wanted and have the under 15 s train Wednesday night, the under 14 s train Thursday night, except you know the academy train on one night

or disorder in terms of likely intensified to club use in element, all I would would comment is obviously this isn't the only club rugby club in the immediate area and particularly if GPs are of junior level, there are other clubs, is Cranbrook in the borough, but even closer to this, you have Tumbridge study, into which are a big club, seven out two to a big club, the Crowborough, which have a decent sort of a bear sized club so that the sort of pool or catchment area of the club doesn't really, whilst they've got improved facilities, I think particularly at junior level it doesn't necessarily change

the increase their catchment areas significantly. That directly. I think when you compare Tunbridge Wells Rugby Club to other rugby clubs, Tunbridge. Dublin's, have a very successful academy level, and junior set-up,

and both Tunbridge and Sevenoaks adult level play in a highly gonna sort of regional south-east south. Three South regions would have level Lee, whereas I think to rejoice by more south-east region league, so

I've altered my

opinion by having improved facilities whilst it will obviously help the club's current condition and assist in your growth it doesn't necessarily increase your pool of players or your catchment area.

thank you, I think yeah, there may be some, but probably not much.

if that concludes questions to the officers

and can I suggest that we move into debate?

it seems to me from listening to your questions.

the officers' answers and

but comments from members of the public.

but the two main issues of lighting and parking.

and I would expect

that we will

want to focus, at least on those in

debating whether we accept this application or not,

with anybody like to

kick the debate off.

punishment in attempted.

Councillor Pope.

thank you I, I think there are probably three issues, lighting parking and

possibly noise,

I think they're that those are probably the three things, but from my point of view, I think.

the additional parking spaces I would sink in general is actually going to reduce the problems with parking on the roads

and, in most cases, when it's when it's in use, I've I've seen I've often seen the parking and it is pretty terrible that the situation when you're driving through and potentially dangerous but I think if there's another, another 70 76 because I think it is off the roads, I think generally there will be a few less cars, so I think that will provide a slight improvement on parking side.

from my point of view, I think the bigger concerns are about.

the lighting and.

and the noise from a or 3G pitch which can be used, probably, on what were more evenings in more weather conditions than currently.

concept is similar.

and thank you, Chair and the parking, and I do know the parking problems. very well.

it's always been that we live used to live at the top of Frant Road, and so I was very well

aware of it,

we've costed and have to take my son to the rugby club, we didn't have to get in a car, I was just wondering if we could encourage the rugby club to encourage car sharing

on a Sunday morning when the juniors can I know I've watched my current neighbours go up.

with one little boy

in the car, and I just can't help thinking that it would be good if a number

of.

parents could get together and kasha and then made me the extra 76.

parking spaces would be would go a long, long way

to mediate the local parking

problems.

thank you, Councillor Simmons, I think that

is clearly not something we can.

require in.

conditions, but because it's the actions of the rugby and cricket clubs that would be involved, but.

would it be possible to make that an advisory?

heavy bold.

yes, any officers' recommendation would be to

add an informative to that and to them to that to that fate, to promote that.

Councillor Moon.

thank you Chair.

closely looked at this application and up make the point now that my comments are purely within the application,

whether I have any particular view on the rugby club or the pavilion or the cricket club is immaterial, the comments we're gonna make are based on the report from the officers

now as regard the parking,

I wholly recommend and welcome that.

and the conditions put forward with the coach parking.

because when I read the report and the aspirations of the rugby club and I'm assuming the cricket club for the future.

you're gonna go higher than what you may be are

present with a new facility, if it's approved

coaches you as you go higher up in the leisure gonna probably need that, hence why mentioned a condition and I welcome that and that must be in place because in the meantime before that happens there's still car parking places anyway, but you have to actually consider,

access by a coach into the site. which might mean a and a menu from today.

the second issue that I I looked at and causes me actually quite concern

is the contributions by Sport England. in relation to the application,

to civically to the pavilion in relation to their concerns within the application.

they make it quite clear.

between 7 2 1 to 7 30.

they do not support the application.

and

I feel I need to can look at that because they are informative.

that far more expertise and what I have as a as a planning member,

and I think they should carry some weight in relation to approve or disapproval.

and I couldn't really ask the question when the contributions made

why that hasn't happened from the previous submission when it was withdrawn, knowing the concerns of Sport England into his application, because every other aspect of it

fits for the benefit, as you mention the wellbeing. the other social benefits, the conditions address concerns of residents that live in the immediate area.

I think it will be Councillor Moon so lying interrupt too for a second yet because I think you have

raised a question about Sport England's view on the application which the officers should be able to comment on,

would you mind a plea I interrupt you press I don't

mind that because this is what you say it wasn't a direct question, it's between those condition items on the agenda

I wish to comment on that I welcome it because I have grave concerns of their contribution.

Mr. Morsi or

in the

for anybody else, I thank you Chair.

yeah, I think, just just for clarification really I think the the points that.

Councillor Moonwalk was was concerned about in terms of the Sport England view, I think, was looking at

paragraph 7.2 1 to 7.2 for

those were sort of earlier comments of sporting learned

there, dated the 14th of of November, which is 7.0 7.

the most recent comments start 7.0 2,

and I think the the pertinent point within within those comments is 7.0 3, where Sport England say.

the additional information submitted by the applicant to address on maintained objection

and supplemented by further amended drawings for the proposed cricket pavilion.

an extended parking plan, and then they go on to say I, in some point out, for for the avoidance of doubt, Sport England can confirm that Sport England is able to withdraw its objection to the application, so

Councillor Moon was correct to point that out as a as a as a key point of the application.

and there's a sign that that has been addressed and Sport England are now satisfied,

I accept that.

quite categorically

carry on quietly,

but it might have been helpful.

the other bit

7 21 is confusing, thank you.

thank you Chair, one thing I wanted to

want people to consider is the mixed use of the rugby and cricket pitches, as has been pointed out, that the the ground tends to be boggy and during the winter, when rugby is played.

the grounds churned up and then in the summer has turned into a cricket pitch, and it's actually very poor outfield because it's been dug up by referee goods during the winter, so having separated at least one cricket ground away from the rugby players know the fates to rugby players, I think that will actually be

a great help and a safety issue for the young people and the older people who play cricket

because the outfield will be will be well maintained, so that's one thing that I think has been mentioned and I think it's positive on the on the application, the other thing I was going to mention is that you can somebody can correct me if I'm wrong in that there's obviously a plan for additional use, but the additional use is going to be in the in the gaps in between

existing use, because the main thing this is going to be can be used for more hours in the day and more hours when the ground is unsuitable, so it's not necessarily going to be an extra 500 people at the same time as the already people is going to be able to have some info in the gaps. So I think

from from everything I've heard of being concerned to listen to the residents' objections which are always do and I met them against the plan, so some of them, as you pointed out, some of the main objections, one was lighting and no doubt looking at the lighting. Overspill documents and

compared with the current lighting, the lighting will be, they will be less overspill into the nearby properties, because the new modern lighting is very, very contained in a small area, so decreases very quickly. the last would be visible from far away, but they won't impact on the people living nearby, it's one thing, the other one is the noise.

the noise levels.

have been mapped and there's one big house that's very near to the boundary, and that's just in the 45 to 50 decibel

area, which is about the same as moderate rainfall

and all the others, have got less than that,

so I think that the noise issues not as bad as people,

for worried about.

my if I could contribute something to your.

question about the critic pictured,

what seems to happen in these circumstances is the square itself is protected

from aggressive rudman there's my bit.

mostly,

and I think you can see the but two squares

in the draft plan which are intended to be fenced off.

if that helps your concern and concern was on.

my concern was on the outfield

when fielding as a running around catching balls, they I mean

I have to declare an interest my son twisted his ankle and it devoured on that ground, so I'm sorry

but it is a general drop in class that interests.

thank God, some of the pitch.

Councillor Bridget Carroll and

thank you, Chair yeah, I was going to I mean, I think I agree, a lot with Councillor Whiplash was the saying that

I do think the importance of introducing three 3G pitches to enable more,

external sports activities is really important. Actually, as such, particularly with our weather, particularly with the changing or weather situations, when the ground is very hard or incredibly wet, and it's not able to be

utilise, we played onto its full ability the to incorporate that is really important and hopefully will increase the use for it. I was very concerned about the issue, with the lighting being heightened so much but feel a little bit more assured now with that increase in the development in in luxury nation that it's a more directed light that it won't, and I don't think

environmentally would have been impro approved if there was going to be, we know that the Giants would be if there's gonna be massive, more spill coming out of it.

and

yes, I appreciate that noise and only know Russ until we get the guys playing on the football pitches and you can hear it, but it's tends to be

dispersed with those levels being taken.

I think it is within reasonable

with a run within reasonable levels, so those main issues that I have, I do feel have been addressed, and I do feel fairly confident supporting this application.

supporting it to the extent of

proposing that we accept the officer's recommendation. subject to any

advisory or additional conditions.

yes.

it's yes, that's fine.

Councillor

OK.

Councillor White.

I was going to add a few points, but it may be too late now.

and I think what I was gonna, I was, I agree with the. I think this needs to be viewed as an improvement to the club rather than an extension of the club. I think there's been a bit of confusion around that and I think it's about improving it more than anything else. I too was reassured on lighting and I just wanted to make one point about the noise. I think a lot of this noise will be is in the winter evenings, people have to be inside, it's not, and it's not really necessarily gonna be some summer afternoon, so I think that's why people should probably put it within that. Quite exactly if anything like last winter will be inside, we haven't window shut or put in curtains drawn. So I think that we probably need to put that as a as a context around the noise level

and I just think, yeah, the community benefits are really positive for this, so I'm very sort of minded to

support

should Basildon council better, so you have had him

as Chairman yeah I'd like to support their recommendation as well.

I understand the concerns of local residents, but there are 32 conditions here, and I think the details are in the conditions which protect, particularly on the floodlighting issue in which connection,

if I may, on condition 14,

where it says details what quoting hours shall also be submitted, could we replace that with details of operating hours should be in line with condition 23,

in line with condition 23

thank you, I think officers would probably recommend the on condition 14, relating to floodlighting the line would you just said details of operating hours shall also be submitted, East is deleted in its entirety in the rest of the condition remains, as is condition 15 is altered so that it says refers to condition 14 rather than presently condition 15.

the hours of off of uses is kept as ease for 23 to cover, so it's clear what hours of operation there is, along with the informative that would suggest something along the lines of to promote and encourage car sharing for both players and inspecting spectators, car sharing should be encouraged, that sort of thing,

council that low pay.

thank you Chair, but one

quick thing,

and that is about the level of the of the pitch.

above ground or above sea level, if you like, because it's on a big mound and presumably they'll be some cut and fill, but the level of that pitch.

compared with its surroundings, makes a big impact on the lighting and the sound, and I don't think it's decided, I think there is a condition of it has to be agreed. so I wonder if I can put that as a positive.

Point of

no information or to say that that's not something that I would like to

add or to encourage that people think about that one aspect when it comes to deciding the actual level of the picture, and if there's anything you can do of made my

I mean, we

members could

seek to attach a further informative,

the recommends that the details to be submitted

under condition.

seeks to

creator a pitch as as low as possible in order to secure or no other, to limit the impact beyond the site,

and one that directs then.

the the applicant into thinking about that as part of the

final detail of the Pichon and submission of that condition.

I would very much like that

information to be put in place.

would current flows

also be interested in attaching as

an advisory?

canceled Stones recommendation will cycle, baby covered seems to me that is much more likely to encourage

that.

for the proposer and seconder is that agreeable and?

Councillor Pope.

yes, I just thought that I'd also suggested informative about car sharing should include and

cycling.

encouraging car sharing and cycling to the facilities.

you've got all that that's fine, yeah yeah, we've got all that I think we could probably add in

adding methods of sustainable transport to not preclude use as a bus Councillor

Murray,

can I just confirm then, if they're informative, so not actually part of the planning

conditions or the approval of the planning application, it's just a matter of

passing a common, it's not enforceable or anything.

it's not enforceable, so it's not like a condition, but it does form part of the decision notice, so the decision notice that the applicant receives will set out the development hereby approved subject to the following conditions X Y and Z and then plus informative which are yeah as you say so are guidance notes advisories and a lot of the informative we we've added tonight are largely to strengthen or steer the applicant when submitting details for the conditions.

thank you

all my whole Councillor move, my way it works is that the applicant should look very hard

at the advisories.

if he or she wishes the application proceeds smoothly and without argument,

I accept your comment, but unfortunately not every developer sees it that way.

we have to enforce

conditions, I'll take the point.

do any committee members wish to add further to what we have in front of us, because it seems, if not, that we should proceed to about

and Councillor Rowell

seconded by Councillor FitzSimons has proposed that we accept the officer's recommendations?

with the

various advisory it and the amendment to that condition,

so could you were yet

to say you won't read the site's conditional amendment, the amendment

is to condition 14 in regard to the floodlighting and the deletion of

where it sets out details of operating hours should be submitted. the amendment to condition 15, so it says hereby approved plans or, as approved under condition 14 rather than 15, as shown in the agenda, plus the addition or informative for the promotion of car sharing, cycling and

use of public transport. and they are not an informative that the relates to condition 27 to create a pitch as low as possible in the interests of amenity and an informative in regard to cycle storage, being a covered storage.

proposer and seconder is that

in line with what you wish, I think we should then proceed to a vote.

all those in favour, please raise your hands.

unanimous Chair.

that is unanimous and they.

officer's recommendation is accepted, thank you very much.

I was just going to take it a 5 minute, comfort break and members of the public leave.

item 7 be

22 0 3 4 0 6 FULL Grosvenor garage 123 to 125, St James Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent

pages 75 off and on from the main agenda and page 6 of the supplementary pack.

Ms Obam, your presentation, please.

thank you Chair.

so this is a proposal to them. develop the site and Grove nickname is Go Grove garage by removing the existing buildings on site and replace them with a stores 4 storey block of 24 flats. which includes 25 parking spaces.

the application relates to a garage and workshop and showroom located on a corner plot.

so between Quarry Road, which runs along here, St James's Road just here. and Stratford Street, which is the road here, the site is within the limits of built development of Tunbridge Wells

and, as outside any designated area for such as a conservation area.

this is in our area, image, showing the shop site, so just point out a few NAMA, so this is Grosvenor Bridge that goes over the railway,

we've got a few blocks of

flats in the area so.

here and here on, for more Dépôt and I think on the railway depot

a few years ago, we've also got a site here, which is for a a block of flats which is known as the former chocolate factory which is currently being developed

and just to note that the surrounding areas predominantly residential of a number of residential streets, and here

are just some photos of the site, now this is one that's on Quarry Road baking to the the site is just shows the relationship here of the neighbouring residential property.

and this is a terrace running along Quarry Road.

this is a site on from St James's Road towards the chocolate factory, so you can see the development going on in the background there just shows the forecourt the current forecourt there as well.

this is a new east heading up St James's Road, just showing you whether the garage was where

car repairs and workshop was.

this is from Stratford Street, looking at the corner of the site towards terraced properties on St James's Road.

and again another one Stratford Street.

looking towards the residential properties here

just to point out, there is an access through here on to a kind of roof parking area on the current buildings.

this just shows that access, I just wanted to show the relationship of the neighbouring property at number 19.

that's 19 Stratford Street.

7 a) Application for Consideration - 22/01866/FULL St Marks Recreation Ground, Frant Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

this is a block plan of the site, showing the outline of where the new building will be located.

this elevation is a facing St James's Road,

it just shows the

full story

right, there were the fourth storey being set back.

the building

kind of rises up from the entrances here, and it's got some cutbacks for where the balconies are located,

it also shows them some small front gardens for the ground floor floor properties.

this is also where the access to the parking area will be from here.

this elevation is the one that's facing onto Stratford Street as a dust note, the

with properties here, but also kind of shows the corner plot, so these are the properties that are on St James's Road facing the site, this is kind of just shows the changes in elevations on the site, so from here you can see it kind of has the appearance of a free story.

and this is an image which is

kind of show in the corner of the building, so we've got the elevation facing onto St James's Road here and the elevation facing onto Quarry

Road here as well.

this is a sectional drawing through the site I just wanted to show it to show level changes, but also.

it gives you a good idea of where the parking is going to go.

so just some of the floor plans now, so this is the ground floor plan showing parking

for the access here, so we've got some parking here and around the corner here.

there are these ones here are proposed to be stacked parking system, we've also got a cycle parking in the corner here, which is also proposed to be a stacked system there, some flats to the front

here that will have the ground-floor

access onto the road.

this is the first floor plan.

so you can see more of the flats here facing onto

corroded, St James's Road and onto Stratford Street,

this element here is nine of Leica suspended cable structure which were Han plants can grow over, so it's just to help create a green covering so covering up the car parking area.

this is the second floor.

and then we have the third floor, which you can see the set back.

just some updates, so since the agenda was published, 11, additional representations from residents have been received, 10 against and one for the raised, the following points, so parking concerns in the increase in traffic and congestion in the area, loss of light and sunlight overlooking there's been a bit of a question about borough contributions for park for the parks go into Hawkenbury recreation ground.

and also about design and how and out of keeping with the area the one for support, just kind of nodded, towards the need for high quality homes in the area and in Tunbridge Wells.

so the conclusion

we it's considered that the sites were the sites located in the limits support development, it's a previously developed land and the loss of the existing employment use and the construction of a residential development on this site are considered acceptable in principle, the proposal would result in the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the development plan policies,

the scale, location and design of the development would respect the context of the site and preserve the visual amenity of the street scenes

there would not be any significant adverse impact upon occupants of neighbouring properties. the traffic movements generated by the development can be accommodated, without detriment to highway safety or the proposed parking layout would make adequate independent parking provision for each resulting property and would facilitate safe access to the highway, and any other issues raised have been assessed and there are not any which would warrant refusal of the application or which cannot be satisfactorily controlled by condition or the legal agreement.

therefore, the

proposal will be acceptable, having regard to the policies in the Core Strategy Site allocation Plan, the saved policies of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Local Plan and policies of the submission plan as detailed in the agenda report, so the offer recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a section 1 6 legal agreement and the conditions as set out in the agenda, thank you.

thank you.

we have four speakers on this item.

where I'd call your name, please come to the microphone and ensure it is activated when we speak

use-by, you have three minutes to make your statement.

our first speaker

in objection to the application is George Lilley, a local resident.

I apologise if I pronounced your surname incorrectly.

thank you, George Lailey, thanks.

my name Stuart Lawley. Thank you for your time. I live in Stratford Street. I and many other ready residents who live near this proposed development feel very strongly that our very valid concerns have not been adequately addressed. Given the size of the plot 24 apartments is clearly excessive. The impact of such a large number of people moving into the area will be enormous. The four-storey building will tower over the properties nearby for the developers to save the existing flats nearby have established a new scale, distort the reality, the existing flats near Grosvenor Park on a lower gradient and additionally both this and the new development on Quarry Road are set well back from the road away from existing housing. This proposed development will be right next to existing two-storey houses right up against the roads nearby, and this will have a huge impact on both the privacy of neighbouring properties and for many their right to light. Despite the jargon used, I think by Rapley's to try and justify this design from the visuals that we've seen it's plain to see that it will be big, it will be imposing, and it will be completely out of kilter against the style of the Victorian houses nearby.

In short, it will ruin the feel of our neighborhood. I submit the committee that building a four storey block of flats of this size and design immediately next to two storey Victorian houses, contravenes the boroughs Core Strategy Development Plan, where it states under Core Policy 6 paragraph 3 that housing would be developed at a density appropriate to the specific character of the locality,

the impact of 24 apartments will be significant on local transport infrastructure parking, in particular will be a huge problem, one parking space per flat won't be enough to accommodate the residents alone, let alone their visitors, working, visiting workers, tradesmen and delivery drivers.

I note that the highway response now uses car ownership data from the 2011 census, which is 12 years out of date, and if indeed this is the most up-to-date statistical data available. I would submit that the experience and testimony of the current residents is a far better reflection of the current parking. Pressures on the roads nearby

in Stratford Street were often unable to park outside our house due to the amount of vehicles in the evenings. The street is almost entirely for when you have to try and park on streets nearby, often unsuccessfully and often in the evenings. We have to park many streets away. The parking situation is already at breaking point and we're yet to really feel the impact of the Quarry Road development, which is still ongoing.

This development, I think, is an example of a developer attempting to squeeze in as many properties as possible, and it's telling that the developers have been unable to fit 24 normal car parking spaces, the property only achieving this by using double stack parking. What is also telling is that in the response to the neighbour representations in February, there was a failure entirely to provide any response to the issue of parking, and I think this submission speaks volumes.

We are not opposed to the unit becoming residential, but what we do opposes the excessive number of apartments and the sheer size of the development. Reducing the number of apartments down would ensure the building is of a reasonable height and size, and would ensure that there can be adequate parking provision on the site. The development would then be at a density appropriate to the specific character of the locality in line with the boroughs Core Strategy, and this would make an enormous difference to all of us who live nearby, and for that reason, I recommend the proposal was rejected thank you.

thank you, Mr. Liley.

a second speaker this evening, in objection to the application, is Chris Williams a local resident.

thank you very much just like to thank George for his comments, I think he said everything that we all want to say probably better than I could, I think there's one extra point that I'd like to raise, and that is to do with privacy, so if I can direct direct questions to Charlotte is that OK,

I mean, you know purely in the sense, I understand this Minister developments that may not have been covered.

He won't answer you, I have away work

over, I can of course use, so I understand through Councillor Wilmington that there had been some recent amendments to the proposed windows that were facing onto my property at number 19, which is the immediate property next to it,

within the Planning

Committee report, there is no reference to a bedroom which is grand 4 bedroom, which is completely an overlooked from any sites as it currently stands. Within these plans it will be overlooked and that is completely ignored. So minders selling there's a worse and window changes that we're going to have oriel windows, and it would just be valuable to understand what those plans are because, as I understand it, we don't know what they look like. So on that basis it would be good to know away from that. As George said, all these points are in parking points around

density. Points around

the the region is is all relevant and on that basis, I encourage you, please to support our community and vote against this.

thank you for this review.

the third speaker this evening, in support of the application is Duncan Pa, on behalf of the applicant.

thank you, Chair and Members give me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the application.

I'm obviously not going to deal with the points that covered in great detail by the officers and really just want to pick up on

some of the points of objection.

The site has been very carefully looked at throughout with officers, both at the pre-app stage and at the application stage, and the report notes that your your Design Officer thinks the analysis of the area and the assessment is exemplary in making sure that the impact on adjacent properties in relationship to lotion properties can be kept to the minimum. It emphasises the sunlight and daylight studies which have been undertaken to ensure the impact is minimal. To focus on saying it's a four storey development, it is wrong. The slides that were put out were very clear that at the boundaries, the building drops down to two storeys when it's adjacent to two storey houses. It set back from the boundary at the upper levels and at the rear, so this is not a development of feels the site from back to front from side to side it does reflect, and it has been designed to to fit in as well as it can.

being a corner site with the properties around it in terms of the parking, the parking does meet standards. As the report makes clear, the residents of this development won't be entitled to apply for car parking permits, so in that regard they won't be able to put additional pressure on the side streets, it is was a busy car showroom with lots of cars coming and going and lots of activity that's going to be removed from last locality and therefore provide amenity benefits in that regard to residents which has to be balanced against new residents living in in in the locale.

it will provide 8 affordable units as part of proposal helping to to meet the stock, and we would say overall that the balance means that this is is a good development fits in with the locality and might adversely affect residents, thank you very much.

thank you.

our fourth speaker this evening is borough councillor Rob Wormington

from games.

thank you, Chair, and that's a Borough Councillor, Rob Waddington, and also local resident, Robert Hemington, I know

maybe 50 metres 100 metres away from the proposed development.

I am aware that my time is limited to three minutes, so I'm going to focus on the two key reasons for rejecting this proposal, which are parking provision and right to light.

the first key problem with the Committee to consider is the inadequate parking provision for the number and size of flats in the development

this will lead to residents parking in the surrounding streets, not all of which are permanent pot, my my road isn't permit permitted.

which will already have a serious problem with lack of parking space. the development is made up of 24 flats, half of which have either three or four bedrooms the proposal includes, I believe, 25 parking spaces, 21 21 of which are allocated, four of which are for visitors.

the primary justification for the number of parking spaces as 2006 Local Plan,

which says that a maximum allocation of parking in this area is 1 space per household,

the 2006 Local Plan allocation is rooted in the idea that we should discourage parking or car ownership. by making more inconvenient to own multiple cars.

this is fine in principle, especially for smaller units, but in practice many families, exactly the sort of people who buy three or four-bedroom flats, of which half of this development is comprised, of,

need, multiple cars to carry out their daily lives,

the district is reflected in the draft Local Plan which requires that any developments in area beat which is where the site is,

have a minimum space of one space per 1 or 2 bedroom flat and 1.5 spaces for three or four-bedroom flats that would bring the required number of spaces for this development up to 30 spaces rather than 25 that have been provision.

so it's 17% more than what they currently have in place.

again, this lack of parking space will lead to residents using the surrounding streets, nor Fletcher permitted minors

where there is a serious lack

of parking provision at the moment.

second, key problem is natural light. The proposed developments due south of houses at the end of St James's Road.

This means there is clearly a risk that a tall building will overshadow its shadow is opposite neighbours. The outcome has provided some modelling of whether it would fall in the morning and the afternoon during the spring, summer and autumn. However, they have provided no modelling for whether shadow would fall in the winter. Of course, when shadows are at their longest, I spoke to a structural engineer from the London based firm Webb Yates, and they helped me with some basic criminal trick, but worry, I'm not gonna get you to do any maths

to work out how the sun would fall at 12.00 at the winter. Solstice they calculated that the shadow would rise 9 metres on the buildings opposite 9 metres that is clearly putting at least the ground floor windows in deep shadow. they went on to explain that

the window, obscuring shadow, was likely to last for about four months, which matches the forecasting actually carried out by the applicant. It is unreasonable to condemn the neighbours opposite this development into darkness and misery for a third of the year, particularly when another option is available.

The people of St James and Williams would you wind up, I will wind up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Chair are not nimbies. Almost everyone recognises that the site is suitable for development of some kind. However, the two glaring issues, Parton writes like me, in that we smaller development is required. So on that basis I'm asking you to reject this proposal so that there are more reasonable. One could be brought forward. Thank you

officers do wish to make any points of clarification or correction or budging from the statements made by speakers.

yes, thank you Chair, so I know there was a few points raised there, so one of them

was about the character.

it not being in keeping. We did have our urban design officer involved in the in the pre-op and this application, and just wanted to point out her comments in the agenda

7 b) Application for Consideration - 22/03406/FULL Grosvenor Garage, 123 - 125 St James Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

7.12 so she had no objections and recognise that the submitted design and access statement was exemplary in demonstrating an understanding of what to recognise in contexts such as larger scale buildings that was on the site

and took into account. You know 19th century maps and photos, etc and

she considered the it was an a suitable design for their

regarding the parking, so it's.

we have received comments from Kent County Council on the parking standards,

so it's correct in saying that it's one space per unit, but that's I didn't want it, that's for a maximum.

provision

and

regard to linked into parking about the congestion in the area I think was raised as well, they also said that the trips, the additional trips generated from the change in use was

not likely to lead to any significant impact on the highway safety or congestion.

I know there was a comment about the submitted details can have, using out of date, parking ownership levels, I understand that there has been recent ones released from the 2021 census, but they have only very recently been released, so I think they were probably available after the application was submitted.

and regarding the the overlooking and the windows,

I have included a condition on the

application, I'm just going to condition 9, so

it was kind of recognised that the there was the potential for overlooking, from some of the windows to the rear, so it was discussed with the agent about the possibility of having changing the windows so they can be orientated, so the view is facing a a different way, so conditionality, says, prior to the commencement of above ground construction on the individual buildings.

a scheme to reduce overlooking to neighbouring dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and it relates to

the rear bedroom window units of units 14 15 20 and 21.

it's helpful for me to.

so this is the

second floor plan, so unit 14 there and 15 glares, so you can see the windows along this elevation and then again at the

third floor, it's it's again these these windows here, two units 20 and 21.

I think that's everything can this Peter had anything to add.

no, not at this juncture.

members, do you have any questions for the officers?

it sounds.

thank you Chair, it's always me.

I am just 24 units and, as

far as

I was aware, that the amount of affordable housing should be 40% of that, which I'd make, actually 9.6 units not 8.

and then 40% of that

should be.

housing, social rent, am I correct?

in terms of the the emerging policies, 40% is the is the requirement for greenfield sites.

this being a brownfield site, the requirement for affordable housing is 30% year on the emerging policies, which is why the calculations come out as, as they say, Do, thank you.

and is there no social rent

provision?

there is no social rent provision on site,

the applicant

sought to engage with registered providers to provide some on-site affordable units,

the it's notoriously difficult to get registered providers to take on units when they are part of a single block.

because they they don't have control on the the circulation areas.

our Housing Office are also engaged with

a couple of other registered providers

and again they

they didn't they, they weren't willing to eat to engage with the the proposal and take it forward so.

with that in mind, the fact that it can't be delivered on site

is the there is no provider that would provide them.

which is why we've got the

off-site contribution.

as an alternative,

Councillor Moon,

thank you Chair.

My question does relate to the affordable housing social housing element

in regard to

one or all three of the registered providers, and is noted in the report were re, indicated, new units were too small.

so surely if you're having pre pre-K submission on the application, bearing that in mind that maybe there could have been an allocation for units that were not too small, there's no actual clarification in the report, what was meant by units too small,

as relating to 10 45, I think,

thank you.

thank you, yeah, so

paragraph 10 45 it doesn't relate to the

size of the individual units, it's the size of the

units that would be provided on-site, so sorry, let me just find the actual wording here, so it's to do with the number of units on the site yeah, thank you, and the number of units on the site would be considered small because there's only

eight units being provided it's quite a small number for social, a registered landlord to take on

on board.

with respect to that, then the actual allocation for brownfield is 30%. so if you took that as that calculation, it's eight units, so it's very material to the provider to a point, isn't it? the being asked to provide within the application would be a certain amount of social unit

within that 24

apartment.

that's all I'm suggesting,

why did there are six free registered and two others were saying no?

I think we say the difficulty is that in order to deliver them on site, you need a registered provider to to provide them and run them.

if there is no risk registered provider who is willing to take those on because the number of units is too small.

and they are therefore unable to.

provide that then

it becomes impossible to provide on site,

and that's why when we're looking at.

so a lot of a lot of the developments in terms of,

and I think it was in the

sort Councillor Fitzsimons was alluding to with the higher percentage of affordable housing on greenfield sites

with typically a higher

number of units, it's then easier to get a registered provider to to come on board and and engage with that on a smaller site such as this

where the numbers of units are smaller and the percentage is smaller because it's a brownfield site as opposed to a greenfield site it then makes the the on-site provision. a much more problematic and, in this case, impossible to deliver because there is no registered provider,

that's why our housing officer did.

Turkey turned to explore it in more detail himself.

just to essentially double and triple check that there was no one that was that was able to engage and

and was met with the same answer, so it's it's unfortunately.

the year, the situation where you're looking at a site

or a site of a single block for 24

on a brownfield site, and all that comes together in that.

yes, there's just no one to provide it.

thank you for that, but I still come back on the point that if you take the reduction from eight to now free, affordable properties, because that provision is that you're less light lie to get a registered provider to take on those free or one of them the point I'm you know with the brownfield if we elected at 8 a.m. Rather dark I see the conditions more you suggesting

3 because of the commercial economic viability we didn't a brownfield site,

you know, you could argue it's over intensive.

any way and wouldn't have that requirement

for the affordable housing, I just concerned that the developers are

creating or we may be creating a situation when it's so small

the Nazis, I accept the point, it's too small, no one's gonna take it on.

I think I think, with the three units that are being proposed now.

those are shared ownership issues

units. so in that regard they will be delivered because they they can be done sort of outside of the

this a registered social Landlord aspect

so that there were three shared ownership on site

now shared ownership my

it might result in someone coming off the housing list, but

it's not a guarantee and as Members know, it's the social Rent that has greatest effect on the housing housing list

but but it might have an impact, and that's that's still a in terms of the NPP F and the definition of affordable housing it is still a form of affordable housing

and in then instead of the five social,

rental properties because they cannot be delivered on site because I think as you as you accept this, the there isn't anyone to take them on and run a instead of that, we we are seeking the off-site contribution

so that our housing team can use that money

to invest in in affordable housing.

within the within that the sort of town and the borough

thank you for that, you've led on to my question, and the contribution of 5,000 520,975 would go to affordable housing, where does that those 1 0 6 type monies go, does it go to a borough poll to provide social housing in the future or is it for other

initiatives?

it would it will go to a pall, or that sell by the Borough Council, and the the housing team will allocate those moneys to projects that they have coming forward.

now whether that's something that they're delivering themselves, whether it's something they are delivering in partnership

with with another another body, that's that's where the money goes to,

thank you sorry for going to Poland, Giza, but we know in relation to that our light-rail matches actually held

in the future

Councillor bitterns and thank you Chair so we've got like half a million

for five social.

houses for social rent.

I'm very interested to

find a house and thousand pounds round here.

I think we, we obviously we're working with our our housing colleagues, they've got the the calculations and the and the software and the came up with the amount.

so here we are in the same way that

KCC come forward with X number of thousand for.

schools, it's

it's not not our role to interrogate, necessarily whether that level is pitched at the right level, and that's that's for the consultee themselves, it's our role to then.

negotiate with the applicant and secure that through the section 1 0 6, which, obviously, in this case,

though, they have agreed to.

thank you, sir, so it's the housing department that have have suggested that some

yeah, that's the that's the request that we've had from.

our housing team.

konta passes.

yeah just. and go on to the issue of parking, which I think is one that

worries the local residents the most from what I gather,

if we look at paragraph 10 31.

it basically suggests that if my interpretation is wrong, I'm sure you correctly, but both the Borough Council existing policy

says that you can't provide ation by more than a maximum of 1 space per apartment, and KCC basically agree with that, so.

if we, if we were minded to refuse, we basically can't refuse this on parking grounds, I would suggest, is that

it is to turn or get confirmation of that because they seem to have been providing as many parking spaces as they would be able to

and the

legislation will correct.

yeah, in in terms of the parking standards they are, they are meeting the standards KCC, Highways, don't object,

it I think it is, as Simon said, it's 25 spaces for the 24 flats

the

the development opposite on the chocolate factory, which came before members

relatively recently, was

36 spaces for 35 flats so again, broadly broadly, similar level of provision.

and I think the

this, the site on the old Dépôt

provided 150 new

dwellings with 148 car parking spaces, so they're all within the realms of a one for one provision,

and this is consistent with with. previous decisions and the Parking Standards thank you

just on that issue, I mean it they, the advice was that

obviously residents wouldn't qualify for a.

a parking permit.

by Monday, how far away the parking the areas covered by parking permits cover. I mean, could you possibly?

have a car that wouldn't fit in there and you could go and park it half a mile away, I'd know I was wondering how the parking zones work.

I think we heard from Councillor Wymington that history wasn't within the parking zones.

with interest I have the mat open,

maybe I should defer to Councillor Pope.

the the the zones, it's the actual block of flats, is in a parking zone, but only within a probably 100 metres away or less you then, in a not on in, is in an area that doesn't have resident parking zones.

thank you Chair, I think one of the points is that this does meet the standards as set out in the in the report, and that's obviously pertinent the other point is of a very sustainable location, so we should be encouraging active travel, use of buses walking to the station which isn't too far away

and it's well within walking distance of a lot of services as well, so it is something that we should be promoting.

Councillor White.

I just wondered if you could spend a little bit more about the right to light and how much that is something that we can confuse or not refuse an application on my understanding was that we couldn't.

right to light in itself

isn't isn't a planning consideration, it's a separate, separate or element of legislation, members will be considering

impact on light

in the in the realms of residential amenity and whether

whether the impact causes significant harm, which is the or the term within

policy and one of the local plan.

in this regard, the weave we have regard to the shadow studies we have considered those and we've considered the impact on the residential amenity of of nearby occupiers

and do not consider that

the threshold of significant harm is reached.

and therefore it is acceptable in terms of the impact on residential amenity.

Councillor Pope.

I'm gonna go back, but related to parking, actually, but

I did and the car clubs.

I know that I think the Car Club is gonna be mentioned in info packs information packs for people who purchase or

a properties, but there's no no actual section 1 0 6 money to support.

expanding the car club to.

at an additional cost, I think there's only actually five currently in in the town, and every time we build another block of flats with limited number of parking spaces.

we are not expanding the car club to to enable people to use it, and now my experience of the car club and I used it for three years and didn't own a car is that sometimes it was actually quite hard to to get access to a car because they'd all be booked up.

should, or could I think there be some section 1 8 6 money?

that allocated to help expand the car club, I guess this is a question.

I think that's that's probably the question.

Mr. Hockney.

income

in terms of the the location of the,

I think there is an existing car club Spice

on Quarry Road Quarry Road, so the

the facility is already there.

so typically when we secure

car club contributions,

it's

for one of two reasons either we are looking to expand the club and

provide an additional car or spice.

and

deliver that either on site or nearby.

or the contribution is, is there?

in in light of an underprovision of car parking,

to my mind, neither of those scenarios fit fit here we've demonstrated it is it is

a provision of parking which is.

that makes the standards.

and in terms of additional provision, because of the the location on Quarry Road, it wouldn't be appropriate to then

secure an additional an additional spice or vehicle

we are looking obviously at at enhancing that through other developments.

members will recall that the cinema site had this substantial contribution to widen the offer of the of the car club,

and I think it's.

I think the key thing for this would be the

promotion of the car club and

the the encouragement of offers of future residents to use that.

because, obviously, if it's a, if it's a profitable car club, then.

logic would dictate, it would expand

in any case, so it's

eat it again for for a development of 24 units, I think you, you probably struggle to to argue that the

that a significant enhancement is justified in in terms of the decision 1 0 6 tests set out in the CIL regs.

so that's why society, in this case it's it's it hasn't been hasn't been secured through that.

councillor Lippi,

thank you, Chair parking again.

I've just been looking this up because the 2011 census which somebody referred to.

said that for 27 residential. units and the demand would be approximately 14.

and in the 20

they're going to be 24 and 14 and 2021 cents and shows that car parking, nobody's more complicated, car parking, has gone up by 50% in some areas in the north, it's gone down in London and I think it's probably four or 5% in Tunbridge Wells looking at similar places, so it seems to me that that's not a problem, but the question is,

I walked up and down Stratford Road today, there's very, very little permit parking, even though that's a permit area, so the question is in future, how

how does Parking Services manage that issue, because the last thing we want to do is to have the residents inconvenienced even though I don't think it will happen.

so has that done?

in my sorrow.

the

I think in terms of how parking services. look at the surrounding roads for existing residents, that's not a matter for this sort of consideration under this application, I'm afraid, and we can certainly come back to you with some further information at a later date about parking services and what the plans are for

residents parking in the area but certainly with regards to this site

as has been set out that the County Council and the Highways Authority are satisfied with the amount of parking on site as part of this, and I feel that it's adequate to prevent there being displacement from this site elsewhere.

thank you.

so hot may you wish to add to that, thank you change it, just to add to the points made by Mr. Hone, I think, the the existing

access to the the roof level car park park for the existing site is on.

on a Stratford street, so

obviously that would be closed and would no longer

require a dropped, kerb

so will essentially increase on-street parking capacity there,

because you've because you've lost the dropped kerb, and I think that's

the those aspects were within the papers on KCC Highways and their their comments on that.

I think that's right, outside number 19, which is one of the one of the properties that's at risk of losing a parking space.

I'm sorry, was that a question?

sorry, Chair, as it was a remark,

thank you.

any other question, any other questions.

from councillors to the officers.

Councillor Page

got a quick one as wise.

I noticed stinkers being used in one of the development across the other side of Quarry Road.

think is going to be used in this development, and I just wondered what the what the purposes of using zinc is for the cladding on the third between the gables, on the third floor and on the fourth floor

is this.

is there some preference for that material?

yeah, so it's often used at the top floor that's set back, because it's them the colour helps it, look less,

what's the word I'm looking for less,

it kind of helps reduce its scale and bulk the colour.

let me just I've got some comments from their urban design officer hold on a moment we just find them.

sorry yeah, the top floor

would have a zinc cladding to the elevations which has been selected to reduce the visual impact

of the additional floor,

and it was noted that was also used on the flats along Medway Drive and also on the, as you said,

on the chocolate, a former chocolate factory

site as well.

thank you.

councillors, shall we move to debate?

Councillor Pattison

thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think obviously the principle of development or housing development on this site is a good one.

I think I'm I, I have some reluctance for this development because of the issue of parking, but I realise we, we are just applying the same standards, we've done to the adjoining developments and therefore we clearly can't be inconsistent on that issue.

I appreciate the reserved concern about parking around the site, but

I think essentially,

although the development is less than ideal, I think we have to support the officers' recommendation.

I am happy to oppose this, who asked the question

and do therefore propose yet to accept the officer's recommendation.

Councillor White.

thank you, and I just want to make the point that it is quite central to tell this this site on, and I think we need to take that in in account with parking as well. There isn't necessarily, I don't believe that everybody that buys there would have a car. I don't think there are more people that would use

active transport and things I think we just need to, so I I understand I living in central terms as myself, that parking is an issue, but I think in this instance you know that we don't have to have a car to live there and I think we should we should take that into account and the parking problems is OK, as is

Councillor Mowat,

thank you, Mr. J.

if you look at the development, the proposed development is predominantly three to four storey

building,

if you take that into account the existing residential properties that equates, in my opinion, to massive overlooking and definitely out of keeping with existing residential properties now, if you take into account to counter that you could look at the two

existing and ongoing,

flat developments apartment, developments on either side of Grosvenor Bridge,

but if you look at their location,

their impact was fairly limited within the residual property residential properties at that time when they were built, this development does know it predestined dominantly does cover those rip residential properties, there are one to two storey,

if you take that into account, it's out of keeping with the existing properties the existing

residents that live there, coupled with that, if you take that into account, then you could argue it's over-intensive, with the free free to four storey, it would be marked far more appropriate to them just the free to matching with those existing properties so I I buy.

minded, I think it's it is overlooking to the residents and it is over intensive with in that location, even though it's a brownfield site

and finally, if the developer can make a contribution of 520,000 pounds above to affordable housing, then why wasn't more?

time and effort made to try and get a registered provider on board, because

if you're building a property they make profit out of building, it is cheaper.

and the naked sale demo of an agreement, a shared agreement with a registered provider, for those reasons

I am minded to vote against the application.

do we have a seconder for

the first proposal that was made by Councillor Pattison to accept the officer's recommendation?

is there a seconder for that?

Councillor Neville seconds that

are.

strictly speaking and Councillor Moon, we should be working on one proposal at a time

and

deal with the the one that got in on the was first,

which is the proposal to accept,

should that fail, we can, then

I don't propose to

make a separate proposal Aguecheek I just felt against all four.

councillor Fitzsimmons.

thank you Chair.

personally, I can't help thinking it slightly, but

in fact it is overpowering for the area it, it feels like the other blocks of flats around them are separate, they're not that attached to a row of terraced houses, but I do accept that we need housing

and,

we are struggling.

for accommodation,

so I think it would be foolhardy

to.

to reject this.

but I do accept.

councillor Warmington.

argument that it is,

it's overpowering is perhaps over development, but we do have to have housing so.

and it's in a very sustainable area, I think that is actually a real saving grace, you can walk into town more to

my Broome station,

you've got the park on your doorstep.

buses.

if I may add a comment.

to cover at first, but I think we should not exercise ourselves any more on

low parking issue.

because the policy is.

the story of the motorist.

to drive him or her onto a bike or foot,

or whatever other means of like a motion by

in these central zones.

really

under supplying.

now anybody who.

looks at whether these flats

we'll know.

but they get one parking space.

and if they can be bothered to look round the neighborhood, it will realise that it probably all there ever going to be able to get.

so does I think it is the sink, the single space per flat is is policy rather than choice.

a second observation I'd make is that there are, in fact,

almost two neighborhoods we're talking about

across the road. there is the old Shabalala walkout factory, which is substantial.

and the developing.

they are the odd, isn't it, which is being built, those are of equivalent bulk. with what we have here,

but this pitch on two nice Victorian terraces of two storeys also.

so that it is.

it depends which neighborhood you're looking at.

or which area you're looking at to see whether to say whether it fits or not.

on one side, yeah, it's much bigger than two storey Victorian buildings on the other side.

two big lumps of flat.

that's OK, I would say as well, I think they have made an effort and related to Michael from.

sorry, they have made an effort to step down the sides of the development.

any other.

contributions Castlebeck.

I was just going to

just move on from that, I think they've done a good job at trying to reduce the mat, even though it's a very big building and across the road across St James's Road the two enormous blocks of flats that look around us that big Lygo slabs and one of them was for stories are, I think this is a much preferable development to the ones across the road which got through so I'll be supporting it.

and yeah.

yes, they have the parking, I don't drive, you can get on with life without driving is possible, we do have buses.

but frustratingly, if you are someone with a Maltese car ownership,

they have made it, but I do,

I just think it is,

if you are looking at that Victorian side of it, it is quite overpowering as a building it,

there, isn't anything really I'm bit miffed about the provision of affordable or more. that said, the social housing side of it,

I realised there's not really anything.

to vote against for it under planning as such is down, I think, the right to light, I think it is going to have a big impact, but I know that such a kind of nuanced when you get into it the extent so

and I have made an effort to make it less impactful but it's not.

I don't think there's anything, I can vote against it for, however, I'm not really overly pleased to say it making sense, thank you.

I think Councillors were in opposition to move for a boat.

the

the proposal is

cancelled, passes from proposed and seconded by Councillor Neville that we accept the officer's recommendation were approved,

the development.

or is

this is this is not a

an allocated place.

your

remarks will be stricken from the record and I will ask Councillors to ignore your remarks.

do you understand

thank you?

councillors, shall we move to a vote?

the proposal is to accept the of the except the wreck recommendation, the officers, to approve the development

all those in favour, please raise your hands.

that's 8 40

always against.

one against her.

any abstentions.

no check.

I declare them what they are.

officer's recommendation is accepted

and the application is approved.

OK just to confirm we're going to take a short break, another 4 5 minutes it's 9 43, we're back at 9.48.

Even better item 7 D

23 slash double 0 5 6 2 4 Ashdown, House,

11 Hungershall Park Royal Park Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent

page 110 on of the main agenda and page 12 of the supplementary back

the shillingford go presentation, please, thank you.

so this application is for a two storey side extension and it also includes alterations to fenestration and the addition of PV panels to the roof,

it's a resubmission of an application we previously refused.

and the application that we refused also included a porch to the front with a balcony area above it

the previous application was refused for two reasons, the first of which was from a one of conservation area non designated heritage asset. and this was largely due to the changes to the front elevation, and the second reason for refusal was because there was instant insufficient information

submitted regarding trees for us to be able to assess if there would be any harm caused.

so on this slide you can see there's a close up and a further out view of the site.

the site is located.

official park, where the road bends round to the south.

this slide shows the site in relation to the conservation area here, the Green Belt here

and the limits of development here, so the site itself is outside the limits, devote development, but, as you can see, it is within an established ribbon of development

and it is close to the town centre.

he we've got an aerial view of the site.

and you're kind of able to more clearly see

the relationship

between the properties where this road bends around.

I can also see the size of the rear gardens and amenity areas.

this is showing the front elevation of the house as it stands.

and this slide is showing the rear of the property.

I have also got a view of the rear kind of looking towards the north-east, pointing towards 10 and 10 A from the rear.

misses a photo looking towards the application site from the neighbouring property at 10.00 and 10 A

so and as you can see, the proposed extension is in this area here.

this is also looking from that adjacent property, kind of down the boundary line,

and you can see the existing single storey extension that was approved in 2004.

here's some more views from the adjacent number 10 and 10 A.

7 d) Application for consideration - 23/00562/FULL Ashdown House, 11 Hungershall Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

so number we view one sorry is, from the terrace of 10 A and picture 2 is from the garden amenity area of number 10, looking towards the application site.

this is re proposed block plan, as you can see, the proposed extension would be located here, so you can see the relationship with the boundary as well as the adjacent property.

what the existing and proposed basement floor plans, most of the changes here are internal,

you'll know that here it does say flat, and there is a condition proposed, to be added, to ensure that this area remains incidental to incidental use to the main dwelling.

he is the existing and proposed ground floor, so here is the extension that is the subject of the application.

and again at first floor, you can see here.

this is the second floor view, so you can see there's no means of access proposed on to the roof area. of the extension,

and here is the reef plan you can just see the PV panels.

so this is the existing and proposed front elevations, I've also included a any major of the previously refused application, so you'll see here that the previous one was much larger in than it was in line with the existing ridge, the new one is proposed to be set down

and would have the same and balustrade detailing that is currently on the single storey extension you'll also see here they had more alterations proposed to the front elevation with this porch and balcony area

and now you know the main entrance and everything is proposed to be largely similar to what's there.

this is the side elevation the East, which would face towards the adjacent number 10 and 10 am, so he can see again the extension set down.

with false windows proposed here

and again, you can see what was previously proposed.

since the rear elevation and again, you'll see here, the existing single storey element that was previously approved on the clay set down from the main main roof.

and then this is the other side.

so here you can see where they previously proposed, this kind of you know,

porch, area, that's no longer part of this, and then he is the PV panels on the roof.

so the conclusion really is that the two previous reasons for refusal have been overcome with this application.

the conservation officer is happy with the new plans and the tree information submitted is considered to be sufficient, so on that basis, the development would comply with the local plan policy and which is not considered to cause any harm to the conservation area or non-designated heritage assets, and does not consider to be any significantly harmful impact to residential amenity or the openness of the Green Belt. And there are no other issues raised which would warrant refusal of the application which cannot be controlled by condition. So the recommendation is to grant, subject to the conditions, on page 1 to 4 of the agenda and keep

thank you,

we have six speakers on this item.

our first speaker in objection to the application is Melanie Taylor, a local resident.

however, Iran, thanks for seeing us

with the owners of number 10 and number tens, divided into two, so we live in the ground and basement and our neighbours live upstairs where the terrorist was.

what I want to say is that a lot of the

issues overlap here, so planning, heritage and conservation grounds.

so what I'm going to talk about mainly is the density because even though there's been a reduction, which we're very pleased about?

this is still a really enormous extension, and the effect of it is that we will have at the end of our terrace of 4.5 metre wall, basically because there's a.

lack of screening,

and in the planning officers report she did a big thing about gaping on all the houses along the road,

but I think it's a little bit misleading because

this proposal is the only two storey extension, the rest are one storey extensions, or they're away from the boundary or their well screened, or they've been built before the arcadian rules came into force and, for example,

East Wing was also mentioned, which is

an annexe that has been built or previously

to the east.

but that cannot actually be seen by our other neighbours number 9, because it's at a much lower level, so when number line looks out they can only see the main house of number 10, they can't see east wing, so basically what I'm saying is that the new extension, albeit a storey, lower, which we're thankful for, is still enormous.

and because we're in a conservation and heritage area.

I think we're all entitled to have a greater consideration, given because the were all non-designated heritage assets,

I'd also mention overdevelopment them in the old days number 11 had. a lot of land and it's already developed and sold off to other houses that are known as 11 West and number 12, so I think it's a bit unfair that they'd want to be

developing over to our side because they won't see us, but we'll see them,

and as finally and my husband will talk a bit more about this, it's consistency of planning history, because in 2004 there was a back extension with various conditions,

and in 2018 there was a log store allowed and mass and volume were mentioned there and but they've been kind of overturned now so I would just ask you or if you could kindly refuse this or consider something a bit less, thank you.

thank you.

a second speaker in objection to the application is Mark Taylor,

a local resident.

thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you,

yes, I'm Melanie's husband, she might have gathered.

consistency of decision making is a fundamental principle of planning law.

I must draw attention to the following inconsistencies in planning approach and where planning history has been ignored, in this case in 2004, as my wife said, planning consent was given for a modest single storey, rear extension the approval was granted on the following basis that it was a single storey. It was at the rear of the house and with a condition that facing materials should match the existing building. That's something that's now been ignored in this recent application it was approved because of development, and this is a quote would not be harmful to the residential amenities of the nearby dwellings.

the extension was seen as modest, subservient and met the volume criteria

it does not, it did not cause harm to the conserve or conservation area and the Green Belt, the 2004 permission therefore creates a precedent in in size in style and the reasons for its approval. On this basis, a reasonable conclusion would be that no further extension approvals would be possible based on the fundamental Prisk principle of consistency.

In 2018 permission for a garage and a log store was granted and at that time the Planning Officer stated that the maximum volume under the Local Plan would be 250 cubic metres, however, by contrast, in 2022 the refused application, the same planning officer approved an aggregate increase of 567 cubic metres

and for the current application that's been reduced to 465 cubic metres so considerably more than 250 quoted in 2018. This is clearly in contravention of the precedent she set in 2018 and contrary to planning history and consistency.

I will now go on to deal with the conservation and heritage issues there again. Heritage and conservation grounds have not been consistently applied and set out by the conservation officer grounds to refuse the permission in 2022 were, it will greatly increase the status of the house and changed the original architectural intent.

number two, the three storey extension would crowd the neighbouring property and it is unclear what the implications are for the boundary treatments

she also went on to say I do have concerns that the spaciousness of the properties in their grounds and the contribution of this towards the significance of the conservation area will be harmed by the side extension.

She also went on to say, I have concerns re the changes in architectural style, as it can be attributed to an important architect.

thank you OK, I would submit that the committee should reject the proposal, thank you very much indeed, thank you, thank you.

our third speaker, objecting to the application is Daniel Fraser,

a local resident.

thank you, Mr. Chairman, we, the owners of 10 A Hungershall Park, wish to object to this 9 bedroom properties application. our objection is rooted in three local planning policies, even in one loss of amenity E and 24 are key in area E, and 5 heritage impact and in the new policy impact conservation area

and the loss of amenity in one policy specifies that development is only permitted when the proposal would not cause significant harm to residents' amenities to adjoining occupiers, this condition is not satisfied in the Planning Committee report in front of you it states that in 10 29 29 that no new facing windows are overlooking this is factually incorrect, as you saw on the slides, there's two new north facing windows on the first floor that will be overlooking our only outdoor amenity area. furthermore, the proposal itself recognises the loss of privacy with respect to the number 10 our neighbours don't stairs with false windows facing east, but no such consideration has been made for those facing north overlooking 10 8 only outdoor amenity area

with regards to overbearing the proposal 3 3 9 cubic metres is well over the mat to the recommended 2 50 cubic metres in the H 11 but granting permission to this is akin to granting an exception to this guidance an exception that comes to the detriment of 10 and 10 A, this is a 15% increase in volume to one of the largest private residential homes in the borough.

in accordance with the Arcadian area policy, it was designed to prevent infilling the loss of low-density neighbourhoods and maintaining distances between site boundaries. we wish to point out that, in the recommendation to grant, this proposal is based on their kadian impact, from the perception of Neville Park that spawned a 10 19 of your reports and this is immaterial since Hungershall Park is named as an Arcadian area in its own right in the Local Planning

further, it's worth noting the example of the properties that have been infilled previously. The Melanie discussed in seven a number 12 if your report is granted that these some of these were granted before E 24 was implemented or one storey development where none are overlooking their neighbours only. Admittedly spears. Finally, onion PFI Heritage impact in the conservation area. This proposal will have a significant permanent impact upon a non designated heritage asset, one that was designed by a renowned local architect called Henry Hickman, Crook.

The scale and the massing and infill of the gap between the properties will change the character of the property and the area, something that heritage and conservation policy seeks to prevent this is especially the case given the lack of alternative solutions have been considered, such as the use of the pre-existing self-contained flat noted in the basement, or the or other users actually asked the Committee to visit themselves to see the negative impact this proposal would have on 10 10 and the surrounding area. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

our fourth statement is from the applicant Simon Walker, and will be read out by our clock.

thank you, Chair, as this is a statement on behalf of Mr. Simon Walker applicant and owner of Ashdown House, I would like to express my sincere apologies for not being able to be present today, I am overseas for work and therefore unable to be there I would very much appreciate if you would read the statement on my behalf my wife Lyn is in attendance. we were thrilled when we found Ashdown House and immediately realised its potential to answer the needs of my family's changing lifestyle, the key reason for the application was to care for her parents, who are in their 80 s with health and poor mobility issues, we want to multi, generational home where we can provide care and not place or parents into assisted living or a care facility.

I assembled a team to ensure that we were able to produce a design which incorporated our needs while extensively improving the homes environmental credentials. We ensure that these improvements and adaptations have an appreciation and of good design and are in keeping with the area which led to the proposal being complemented by the Civic Society,

as this will be our forever home. It was important to us to maintain relations with our neighbours. In that vein from the beginning, we shared our aspirations and listened to their feedback. We completely understand, change can be disruptive and however necessary those changes are. It can be stressful. However, with this in mind, we went through two separate pre-application processes to ensure we took on board both planning and conservation rules and guidelines.

through the pre-application process, the conservation and planning officer accept exceptionally professional, prompt reply and provided valuable detail feedback the feedback my team received, we duly acted upon and ensured the design was changed in line with the officer advice, excuse me, officers, advice. I am confident that not only does our proposal abide by all the planning and conservation regulations we have also ensured it does not impact our neighbours. Unfortunately, number 10 A and P represent which are two or three dwellings. Now occupying 10 Hungershall Park have objected to my plans we have listened to these objections and the design has been significantly changed and reduced because of this, the building of number 10 said substantially forward at a higher elevation to Ashton House, it has been subject to considerable alterations over recent years and is now divided within into three dwellings, with 10 it occupying the top floor with its front door entrance and roof terrace looking up looking down upon the front of Aston House,

please understand that we have gone to great lengths, with both of these submissions, to not only try and present a well designed extension but to be sympathetic to our neighbours and their amenities, whilst at the same time being respectful to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling the light study and modelling demonstrate that due to the position and height of the existing building the proposed extension would not

pin unlit and from a privacy perspective we even renowned removed windows on the east side of the property to enhance both their and our privacy.

am I my wife, my wife and I plus our parents have come to the conclusion that the design before you know is the appropriate response to all of the issues raised will meet the EU, our needs and, most importantly, in architecturally pleasing or is architecturally pleasing and finally we ask you to support the officers' recommendation to approve thank you.

thank you Chair.

our fifth speaker,

in support of the application is from Eimear Murphy.

I beg your Bob Marley.

passes?

thank you, Chair and chairperson, I am indeed Imran Murphy.

can I just clarify that I'm not only a planner, I'm also an urban designer and a heritage consultant. and although my role related to heritage, I also considered design appearance scale and mass, as well as other planning issues being intertwined with many of the points that have been raised as a team, we sought to ensure that the level of information provided accorded with paragraph 1. He had for the MP P F and this entails that we demonstrate a sufficient heritage understanding and that the proposal is informed by significance. We followed historic England's good practice and advice guidance on managing heritage assets and setting, and we also took account of the planning balance, as contained in paragraphs 2 2 and 2 3 of the NPP f, in step with the statutory duty, and also with which your own policies accord. Please note that any manner errors in heritage statement were addressed in an orator and an updated statement issued for clarity and, after all, heritage is a shared experience where we felt and recognised. We were incorrect. We did correct that with Mr. Richardson's architectural exit, expertise and skill. He will be coming next. Views expressed by both conservation and planning officers, other comments received and the applicant's requirements. This culminated in what is now, before you, a policy compliant scheme,

a well designed two storey extension to this dwelling that does not cause harm. This is to the conclude. This is, as per the conclusion of the planning and conservation officers, and not the recommendation to approve that you have in the report.

The Royal Tunbridge Wells, Civic Society supported the scheme and the previous scheme. Unfortunately, their comments didn't come through on this one. Nevertheless, they drew attention to the position of number 11, set further back than number 10 and at a fall in ground levels of 2 2 metres, lessening the impact on number 10. And when I say number 10, I say Tell me down, attend.

These points will also be made by Mr. Richardson, the sorry were made by Mr. Richardson, the conservation officer and the planning officer as per para 10.2 6 of the committee report, the content of that, the content of that report is clear and synced in its assessment on many matters, including heritage, the relationship with the street scene design, spacing between buildings, residential amenities, privacy, outlook, sunlight and I would also add daylight because even on a gloomy day you can have sky luminance and the still daylight. these points sorry, it is clear that number 11 can accommodate change without causing harm to the residential amenities of number 10 and 10, As noted in para 10.3 2, of the report is clear that no harm would arise to the host dwelling or this part of the conservation area. 10.2 2 of the report and overall, the benefits are very clear and the comments that have come forward from your own officers, you qualified conservation officer and the content of the officers' report are such that we do concur with those views and would implore that you support the scheme

thank you.

us a six speaker this evening in support of the application is Jim Richardson.

thank you very much Chair, and thank you and good evening councillors and the architect for this application and I was employed by Mr. And Mrs. Walker to design an attractive and practical extension to their new home.

a practice we specialise in residential architecture, a great deal of which relates to heritage work,

it was clear from the outset that whilst Ashdown House is not a listed property, it's nonetheless a heritage building an attractive piece of architecture in its own right. The application before you this evening is the second application made for this property and we've adjusted the scheme to take account of comments made by consultees and neighbours.

design approach was intentionally collaborative, and a pre-application meeting was held on site, with both planning and conservation officers, with two stages of post-application design review.

during this design process, we closely followed guidance made by both planning and heritage departments, and the proposal has been carefully scaled and detailed to take account of these comments and to respect existing dwelling, the result of this work is that both the planning officer and the conservation officer support the scheme,

the setting of the property is also very important and in this regard we suggested to the client that they employ the services of Emma Murphy. a specialist in planning and conservation settings. in addition to the architectural design, it was important that the neighbouring amenity of the adjacent properties was also given due consideration. A right to light study was commissioned on the original taller application that study passed, so this lower proposal before you today would clearly be a betterment upon that scheme.

We do appreciate that there are neighbourly concerns over the proposal, but at each stage our client has tried to do the right thing and discuss with neighbours obtain reports to confirm that the design works and listen to Council advice on design, detail and scale. The resulting design is entirely in keeping with the original house and shares the same architectural, detailing and materials. It's subservient in scale and allows for the original house to be visually legible, whilst at the same time merging neatly and unobtrusively into the site and setting we feel that the application has been thoroughly worked through with expert guidance from both the applicant's consultants and Council officers would therefore respectfully request that councillors consider granting approval. Thank you very much

thank you.

officers.

you wish to make any points of clarification or correction. arising from the statements made by speakers,

I just wanted to say that

paragraph 10 0 8 sets out the size of the extension in relation to Policy H 11.

and at paragraph 10 14, it is acknowledged that the extension is large in terms of its size, but that it wouldn't be considered excessive in relation to the main dwelling.

it's an 50% increase

paragraph 10 11 sets out that a volumetric increase is not the sole criterion on which applications are to be judged, and if the volumetric limits are breached, then it's necessary to judge if the proposal causes visual harm.

the conservation officer confirmed and further reaffirmed that any previous heritage concerns had been addressed and also that there would not be

any harm to the Orcadian area I don't know if you've anything to add.

thank you, John, it's just on that last point, in terms of the conservation officer's comments, life.

comments are

set out in paragraphs 7 point I 1.

through to a 7.1 2

and it is essentially the first, the first

set of paragraphs. the comments and then from paragraph 7.0 item Woods 8 s for the comments.

the conservation officer made following

reading and assessment and consideration of the comments that were raised by my neighbours to the property.

members, do you have any questions for the officers?

sorry, I was confused, listening to some of the speakers and reading the report around.

10.3 0 and 10.3 1 about the doors to the windows in the side elevation.

I've heard that they were to be

windows on the second floor and then not windows on the second floor and a window on the ground floor, can you just clarify exactly which windows are the eastern elevation of sorry on the side elevation because that material to the whole thing?

thank you, so there's that's the the side elevation, there were

the received, the existing.

elevation, you shall know,

and has has has windows in the in the flank elevation.

the proposed elevation

on the the right-hand side that slide

has essentially two two dummy windows at ground first.

and then a

the again, the the window in the in the what is the existing flank wall of of the property,

I think the the speaker

was mentioning windows in the front elevation

that

we're in on ground, and first floor there, that you can see on the left-hand side of that proposed elevation and raised concerns regarding those the the overlooking, from those windows to, I think they were mainly considered concerned with the views from that to the raised terrace area of of next door property.

from from our point of view, we we do not consider that that relationship amounts to significant overlooking,

looking at the again the floor, plans of the

of the proposal, the the window in question

at the first floor. is

the essentially the run, that's just below the Tunbridge Wells Bar Council crest,

which serves a dressing room.

which is accessed from the from the mine master bedroom, so

we don't consider that there will be

overlooking from that that would.

result in a significant impact on privacy, thank you,

thank solicitor.

any other questions of officers.

that being so, shall we

debate?

the proposal before it.

short-head Councillor White,

thought you were looking at the anthologies and

just I just wanted to make a call, and I think this is a vastly improved scheme, I can see why the first one was refused because it really did change the the outlook of the house may work as a different building but I think this just sort of elevates a little bit to the left but it still looks like the same type of property and they have dwelling hasn't made an awful lot of difference to it so yeah, I can feel that this is a much better, much better scheme than was before anything.

minded to accept them, etc

it was that of the major Scottish

proposal.

yes.

thank you, Councillor Pattison,

I was going to make exactly the same point, Mr. Chairman.

I can see why the first

application was refused, it seemed to make the thing symmetrical when it was designed not to be, this is, I think, in keeping obviously they wanted an extension,

I mean,

obviously I suspect in this case is a matter of opinion and whether you like it or don't

but I don't think it really detracts from the original design, it's certainly subservient in design

and not persuaded it is

harming the residential amenity of the neighbours, so I'm happy to second

Councillor White on this one

let me know, secondly, this yes, I'm certainly.

any other contributions

Members wish to make.

I think I would add one comment,

which is that.

we, the committee, turn dog.

the

earlier application.

I remember what we thought a good and sufficient grants.

it does appear to me that the applicant has listened.

to the objections of the committee on that occasion.

and has?

adapted

his plans that it plans to meet our objections,

the conservation officer.

who objected, as I recall, to the first application? now does not object.

to this one,

which I think

I would personally attach a great deal of importance.

anything else.

let us proceed to attack.

proposal and amended,

or by proposed by Councillor White seconded by Councillor Pattison is to accept.

the officers' recommendation to approve the application,

all those in favour,

unanimous Chair.

that application is therefore accepted, thank you very much.

yeah

cancelled with cancels we've been going on a long time.

and we don't have to think about whether to proceed to the

next and final application.

or whether we should suspend operations and have another meeting at another time,

all those in favour of continuing.

go out victorious.

that's unanimous.

but.

item 7 C.

23 slash double 0 3 6 8 FULL 38 All Saints Road Hawkhurst, Cranbrook, Kent Page 105 of the main agenda, page 9 of the supplementary pack

Mr. McLoughlin nuance,

your presentation, please, thank you Chair.

so can he be speaking today, as you say, about 38 or St Road, which is situated within Hawkhurst,

just to bring some attention of where we're talking about you've got the main residential centre of Hawkhurst, up on the top left, and AusAid Road is situated out to the east of the pop eastern setting.

All think mode itself is a cul-de-sac, with the entrance gained from opposite. The Tesco's which anyone familiar with orcas don't know where that is now. Just to clarify a point for the reason for the application being in committee, I believe the application, the development of the housing estate itself was historically owned by the Council. At some point, the state has been sold off, but ownership of the road itself remains under the council, so because the council, Takeley, owns land off the application site. That is why the application before us today, the main dwelling itself, is not owned by the Council

just to move on, to have a look at the property here.

have you noticed that the front lawn is a different area, the property is currently laid to lawn, I say that, but there is ongoing building work going on within the house, that ongoing building work is currently what you see to the front of the property.

now, if you have a look at the wider street scene, you'll notice that the

property dies downhill of the property in question has a paved driveway, and the property uphill of it has a paved driveway as well.

I am moving on, this is just a basic plan showing what the Cundy in the pop, what the current property has at the moment, I say it is essentially an open space.

and they are proposing to turn this open space into permeable paving, with the addition of a drop kerb to allow and creation of an off-road parking space for the property. there's been no comments raised by neighbours, and Hawker's Parish Council have recommended the application for approval, and, just to clarify, there were no changes sought to the main dwelling. The only changes in question is the additional hardstanding and for the dropped kerb

to summarise, the different proposal would give the property the benefit of off-road parking, it would be in keeping with the residential context and there was no wider impact on western German residential amenity or the surrounding landscape, and therefore I recommended the application for approval.

thank you.

do Members have any questions of the officer?

until Speaker,

figure.

7 c) Application for Consideration - 23/00368/FULL 38 All Saints Road, Hawkhurst, Cranbrook, Kent.

we have a sleeping problem,

Claire Askham chair,

ex-chair of ParishCouncil, which will be read out by the clock.

thank you, Chair

yeah, Clare's asked for the brief statement to be read out, Hawker's Parish Council is pleased to see that the Committee report recommends that permission is granted for this application, the recommendation is fully supported by the Parish Council, many thanks, Claire Eskom,

although

now, although any questions will be officer.

she

shall we move into the debate.

councillor virtual,

I think sounds wonderful and I'm glad Parish Councillors, put it, let's get the cars off the roads and propose that we accept the recommendation, unlike second it

right.

Alan

Councillor but.

I just thought I'd make a comment and I'm not a big fan of drop pavements and parking on front gardens, but as as neighbours on either side have done the same, it's difficult to say no.

council novel.

just quickly add I know this road well and getting another car off that road is can only be a good thing.

and

certainly

permeable paving.

would, I think, be a?

a gritty improvement level while we can see at the Aviva because the chance of

rainwater getting through that clay,

pretty remote

councils, I suggest we move to about, we have a proposal from Councillor betrayal seconded by Councillor out,

I'll second it yes.

Councillor Taggart said

sorry.

County Council Councillor out on this occasion.

the proposal is to accept the officer's recommendation to approve all those in favour.

that's the unanimous Chair.

as approved.

item 8 on the agenda appeal decisions, but noting that April 2023 July 9th May 2023 set out on page 126 of the agenda, and if we want to know anything more about it, ask the officers.

urgent business,

I can confirm that there is no such urgent business.

the date of the next meeting is on Wednesday, the 21 of June 2023,

while meeting is now closed, thank you all for your attempt,

thank you Chair.

Planning Committee - Wednesday 17 May 2023, 6:30pm - Feedback Tab - Start video at 0:01:35 - Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Webcasting